Yikes, I don't live in the EU, but I absolutely don't want this. Maybe I'm mistaken and they could have achieved the same with removable batteries, but my phone is completely waterproof, dustproof, and has survived more than a few hard drops with no case. I would definitely take that over a replaceable battery. Again, I acknowledge they might not be mutually exclusive.

▲

wklauss 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As the law is written, the latest iPhones, for example, would be compliant (battery is replaceable with commercially available tools under the self-repair program), and they are completely waterproof and dustproof. Some manufacturers now use glued seals for their phones and would probably need to change their approach in design, but I think the majority would be okay with minimal changes.

Like others have pointed out, if phones can certify using batteries with 1000 cycles of charge above 80%, they'll also be exempt, so this will likely only affect very cheap models.

▲

w4yai 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't have the same experience at all. For me, battery life is the #1 reason of obsolescence of my smartphones.

▲

Someone1234 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With respect, maybe read the article? You're against it, because you didn't read what is being mandated and instead just invented worst-case scenarios instead. You're against your own Strawman.

The proposal is: batteries must be removable using commercially available tools, if the manufacturer requires specialist tools then they must provide them for free.

Essentially they're banning specialized tools, and mandating that repair shops and consumers must be able to purchase replacement batteries for "at least five years."

For context the iPhone was already altered to be compliant with this law and none of the issues you raised were notably worse in the iPhone Air, or 17.

This likely will eliminate specialist software to "sync" batteries, and non-standard screws/attachment mechanisms.

▲

Noumenon72 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> You're against your own Strawman.

> The proposal is: batteries must be removable using commercially available tools

That's exactly what he's against, plus the premise "Making batteries removable prevents them from being waterproof, dustproof, and collision resistant". Which may be true or false, but not a straw man.

▲

gcanyon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Thanks, and yes, exactly this. As I acknowledged in my comment, maybe phones can be made waterproof, dustproof, and dropproof while also being user serviceable. If there is a tradeoff, I'll take waterproof over user-battery-replaceable. Apparently conditionals make me a strawman...

▲

Someone1234 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It absolutely is a Strawman. There's no basis in fact for why using commercial tools instead of specialist tools would result in worse "waterproof, dustproof, or collision resistance." It is completely fictional claim invented whole cloth.

Again, multiple phones have already become compliant with this law and didn't lose or compromise any of those things.

So you OR they, will need to explain the basis for the claim, otherwise it is just a Strawman you're poking baselessly.

	▲	Noumenon72 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I guess the headline is what sets up the straw man -- I didn't think we were arguing about the narrower claim "all phones with replaceable batteries should be removable using commercial tools", just whether they should be replaceable at all. I still think it's reasonable to expect that mandating phones be openable would have tradeoffs in waterproofing, so your disagreement should be factual/historical, not about good faith.

▲

8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]