Will this affect the water-resistance of current iPhones? I thought that was why the batteries are not easily replaceable by users, because of the seals/gaskets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dyL6hMZvWQ

▲

kristjank 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most wristwatches provide much stronger water resistance while still being very user serviceable with a $20 watch tool kit. Whatever the phone makers are peddling are mostly excuses.

	▲	prism56 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Also the latest pixel watch has a new mechanism without glue that has a rubber gasket and screws.

▲

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

There are multiple watches, cameras, etc., with a lot of physical buttons even, all with replaceable batteries and weather-resistant (or even better, water proof). This is a bad excuse.

▲

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

water resistance + easily battery exchange for repairs is very viable (AFIK always had been, too.)

like this law isn't about users causally replacing batteries like on very old phones

but about an repair shop easily and without risk of breaking your phone being able to replace it without only holding on your phone for idk. 10 minutes

So that you can just drop by (once they have the replacement parts) wait a moment and have a new battery.

This means in the worst case something like needing to a add a bit of additional seal/wax/glue or similar to improve sealing is very much fully viable (Id the sealing agent is generally buy able.)

It just is something you have to design in from the get to go. And it's easier to not do so at all. And maybe if you obsess if your phone is 1/10mm smaller or not that gets in your way too. And not doing so is more profitable as people will buy successor products more likely, even if just very slightly more likely.

But in general? That really isn't the problem.

Also even if it where the problem. What is better? Having a less waterproof phone, but not needing to buy a new one for another one or two years or having to buy one now?

▲

tencentshill 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Galaxy S5 worked quite well. IP67 and a removable battery.

▲

giobox 9 hours ago | parent [-]

While I'd be perfectly content with an IP67 iPhone with interchangeable battery, the current iPhones are IP68 which is a significant step up in dust/water ingress protection. IP68 devices generally require a sealant, IP67 normally doesn't, making it easier to do a battery hatch etc.

▲

cybrox 8 hours ago | parent [-]

IP68 doesn't require a sealant if you just use enough pressure. Phones are just too thin to screw on the back plate and use a proper gasket. Which is stupid in the first place because most people then go and put a bulky cover on them.

	▲	dathinab 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		and applying a sealant isn't per-see the problem either iff - it's generally commercially available - and re-applicable after replacement with just generic tools - and removing the battery doesn't risk breaking your phone due to physical strong binding glue being used as sealant etc. As a dump example you can design the phone as a sealed unit with the battery department being "outside" the seal. Then have the battery also sealed and apply a bit of "sealant" (wax?, glue?) on the electrical contacts braking the seal on both sides. As the battery and battery compartment back have to only be waterproof and not "rigid" this probably fits "just fine" into most phones (except the most over the top slim ones). Which is probably more the actual problem. Thinks like phone makers over-obsessing with making phones slimmer on a sub 1mm standard ... and then people anyway putting "thick" cases on the phone to protect it...
	▲	8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]