This is a waste of money. All flagship phones have hit the requirements so do not need to make them removable. It might impact some of the budget garbage but not yet clear. All this will do is increase compliance costs.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> All flagship phones have hit the requirements

Lots of non-flagship phones making e-waste. This is a sensibly-tailored regulation, targeting the problem instead of specifying a solution because some bureaucrat likes replaceable batteries.

	▲	infecto 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nobody has quantified what lots means. Which is my issue. The article just says many. Lots and many do not make great legislation.

▲

InfinityByTen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not sure I have a way to fact-check this, but the link claims

> That is significantly more than many batteries on the market today can achieve (often around 500–800 cycles).

	▲	infecto 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which is really my issue with this type of legislation. If they had it clearly estimated it would be incredible because you can measure the impact but as it stands it could go either way.

▲

danaw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate.

for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles

▲

infecto 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What makes it not accurate? With the 15, apple was already making claims about 80% at 1000 cycles. Battery degradation has too many variables for you to make your claim and even in perfect situation, it’s not a linear degradation by cycle. My 17 is at 100 cycles with 100% health.

Back to my original claim. Most manufacturers already meet the exception. Some of the low end garbage phones may not but it’s unclear how meaningful of the market share that will be.

▲

danaw an hour ago | parent [-]

making claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators

	▲	infecto 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Which will align with how manufacturers have been measuring it. The EU years ago already set battery standards for energy ratings. This won’t come as a surprise.

▲

drstewart 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.

▲

danaw an hour ago | parent [-]

many others in the comments have this same issue (and the internet at large). my point is just that it's not obvious that apple has met this claim with real world devices.

it will be seen how the actual requirements will be validated, likely in a way that favors the "best case" scenario for apple.

	▲	infecto 21 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Doubtful if only because that would fall under warranty then. There is a financial incentive for that to not happen. I imagine this is a situation where the complaints seem a lot more frequent because it’s a complaint. The mass of phones that don’t have an issue will not show up in public forum data.