There's an exception for batteries that "retain at least 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles." Coincidentally, iPhones and probably other flagships already qualify for this exception.
Last time this was discussed, it was stated that the text exempting based on cycle counts was removed from the final, adopted version. Is that incorrect?
The batteries regulation[1] doesn't contain such an exemption. The legal argument that iPhones may be exempt goes like this:
- The batteries regulation is a general regulation and article 11 specifically says the following:
> This paragraph shall be without prejudice to any specific provisions ensuring a higher level of protection of the environment and human health relating to the removability and replaceability of portable batteries by end-users laid down in any Union law on electrical and electronic equipment as defined in Article 3(1), point (a), of Directive 2012/19/EU.
- There is a different regulation, the ecodesign regulation for smartphones and tablets[2], that is more specific and therefore might supersede the batteries regulation on this front, which says:
> (ii) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may provide the battery or batteries referred to in point (i)(a) only to professional repairers if manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives ensure that the following requirements are met:
> (a) after 500 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 83 % of the rated capacity;
> (b) the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1 000 full charge cycles and after 1 000 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 % of the rated capacity;
On the page linked to it mentions the two exceptions that exempt iPhone and other flagship phones - long lifespan (80% after 1000 charges) and waterproof (IP67).
The other exemption criteria is for specialized (medical) devices and devices where a removable battery would be unsafe.
It does, but, in the previous HN discussion, there was a link to the what was reportedly the adopted version of the bill, and those exemptions were gone from the text.
Yeah I found the exception for waterproof devices (which isn't any waterproof devices; arguably phones wouldn't count). But there doesn't appear to be anything about cycle counts:
> To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
Unfortunately it is from 2022, meaning no OS upgrades.
I think the next mandatory laws EU should pass is that manufacturers should either allow people to upgrade/replace the OS by themselves or provide mandatory upgrades for the next decade (i don't care how the manufacturers handle it, that's up to them, but the easiest way out of such a law is to allow people upgrade/replace the OS by themselves).
The regulation already mandates an OS upgrade period, but the period depends on how long the manufacturer keeps selling the model: software updates must be provided for five years from the day when the manufacturer stops selling the product. From Annex II B, section 1.2:
> (6) Operating system updates:
> (a) from the date of end of placement on the market to at least 5 years after that date, manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall, if they provide security updates, corrective updates or functionality updates to an operating system, make such updates available at no cost for all units of a product model with the same operating system;
Why only one decade? I’m still running a 2012 Mac mini. Apple stopped updating Mac OS some time ago, but there are plenty of alternatives that can run on the bare metal. Hardware makers should be required to provide support for the life of the device (defined by customers still using the device), or provide a reasonable way to install 3rd party OS.
At least on Android, when my Samsung Galaxy Note (I loved that phone - replaceable battery, pressure sensitive stylus, IR blaster, OLED, audio jack, water resistant - they went downhill from there IMO) finally end of lifed, I just used the official Samsung tool to upload a community image on it. The process wasn't horrendously difficult. I don't know if people would do it, but it was a clear set of steps that even a tech novice could accomplish if following carefully.
Indeed! The law needs to include firmware in some way. I'm not smart enough to come up with how exactly it should be dealt with, but it does need to be dealt with.
Currently Qualcomm decides when your phone stops getting updates, pretty much regardless to who actually made your phone.
Shoutout to fairphone who actually updated the firmware themselves, surely a loss leading project, but a very respectable dedication to end users.
Phones should be like PCs - they give you the hardware, and you figure out what to install on it. Unfortunately Linux imo is partially to blame here - if they decided to do a stable driver ABI (don't hate me, this was the norm outside Linux and open source OSes), you could easily separate the OS and drivers and update the m separately.
The missing link here is ACPI, unlike on PC, the hardware doesn't describe what it has to the OS, making the task much harder.
The lack of standardization of handled devices is also another factor, they might look similar or even identical but they often are different per region and have some hardware revisions.
Android does have a separate driver partition nowadays but that doesn't help too much.
Who is "they"? Linux isn't a person or an organization. The people (and organizations) contributing to Linux are all doing it for their own motivations to solve their own problems. You are asking them to make their lives harder, for free, in service of fixing an issue that they don't care about.
Samsung committed to 5 years of OS upgrades on that one, so it’s theoretically getting one more upgrade next year at best. (Or maybe 2, if they release one this year). It’s nearly end of life for a software perspective.
So, they have an XCover 7 now - with similar specs.
Also, they committed to a rather long support cycle for the xcover6 (5 years I think?) - I have one and it is still going strong. I've replaced the battery twice - not because I desperately needed to, but... why not. They are cheap, and I use the older ones still as backup battery packs since they are fast to swap in.
And all of the commenters complaining they would never buy this phone is great proof that the removable battery movement is DOA.
These phones exist. Companies have been producing them intermittently. When they do, few people buy them and there are always complaints that it's too big, too ugly, not fast enough, or something else.
The vocal minority demanding this feature but refusing to buy phones with the feature believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They want phones with all the benefits of built-in batteries and none of the downsides of removable batteries.
I always felt the issue with removable batteries was they had a smaller capacity and would run out of life faster - so the need to be able to replace a battery if you wanted your phone to last more than a few years was important.
Now, with much higher capacity batteries that work better and are more efficient at handling all the demanding displays, high end gpu's and now AI tasks running the background? There's really no need to have removable batteries any more.
Sure, you're going to get a few lemons here and there, but for the most part, batteries these days have no problem lasting the 4-5 years that you need them. You still see three or four year old iphones on ebay with 80-85% battery being sold like hot cakes.
> And all of the commenters complaining they would never buy this phone is great proof that the removable battery movement is DOA.
I had to reflect on that statement for a bit. I've always bought a new phone when there are battery problems or something else. BUT, that's because I can easily afford it.
There are plenty of people in this world who just can't go out and buy a new phone because one part wore out.
Or, to put it differently: I'd really like to replace the battery in my spare phone that I bring into my hot tub.
It is also a rugged phone. So if you want to make a fair comparison with an iPhone, you have to put the iPhone in a case, resulting in a similar weight and thickness.
Yeah the first thing everyone does with their new iPhones is put them in a case - at that point thinness doesn't matter, Id argue Apple counts on it, as their phones are awkward to hold otherwise.
Replaceable covers used to serve the same purpose.
Indeed. I've had my XCover 6 for 3½ years now. I've dropped it many times, on hard surfaces (like outdoor concrete/brick). I've undoubtedly been fortunate. the plastic has gouges in it. there's (small) scratches on the screen (some from my keys), but the screen is not cracked. When it is dropped the back and battery pop off, which I think helps dissipate the forces. BTW, for anyone trying to extend their phone life, I strongly recommend those magnetic USB connectors. Reduces wear and tear on the USB port, and is also kinda convenient for quick disconnect.
> I strongly recommend those magnetic USB connectors
Note that these connectors are in violation of USB standard and potentially harmful as they expose the pins in an unintended way. For instance, notice that all the connection on the USB port are not all the same length, it is a form of protection, to make sure the power lines are well connected before the data lines make contact. With magnetic USB connectors, you lose that feature, in addition to potential issues with ESD, short circuits, etc...
I have a friend who swears by them and never had a problem, but still, that's good to know.
Oh yeah so it's utter trash and not worthy of our attention. Imagine carrying a whole 58 grams more, during a whole day, impossible for the average tech worker's atrophied muscles
The point is that people have different preferences, so the EU should not force people to buy phones with removable batteries. People who want such features can buy those phones, and people who want smaller, thinner phones can buy ones with integrated batteries.
At most the EU should tax externalities like electronic waste, though that would be a rounding error compared to the cost of the phone itself.
> The point is that people have different preferences, so the EU should not force people to buy phones with removable batteries.
There are many food additives with very useful properties, but health effects. There are many perfumes too where the original formulation had a particular compound layer found to be carcinogenic.
Regardless of whether an individual prefers to use such compounds at their own risk or not, large companies will use whatever is the cheapest ingredient for their product.
In some cases, that's better for the consumer - who, often, has almost zero choice.
(And if you think you truly have choice as a consumer, I challenge you to use a phone that isn't running either Apple or Google's code.)
I not sure how much we’re disagreeing here. Applying my argument of taxing externalities to certain food additives would result in taxes so high that it would effectively be a ban.
The externalities of integrated batteries are that people probably replace their phones sooner than otherwise, resulting in more electronic waste. But phones are only a tiny fraction of e-waste. Most e-waste is from household appliances, displays, & HVAC equipment. Phones are less 10%. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Phones are small and people use them for years before upgrading.
I’m not sure what the Android/iOS duopoly has to do with removable batteries. Mandating removable batteries would not change the operating systems available. And while there isn’t much choice in which OS you can run on a phone, there is enough choice that you can buy phones with removable batteries. If anything, this is an argument against mandating removable batteries, as governments are not mandating/subsidizing another phone OS despite far less choice in that area.
Lastly, I don’t see how banning people from having phones with integrated batteries gives them more choice. Most people (such as myself) don’t really care about removable batteries, and would rather have a phone that is smaller, cheaper, and/or more resistant to the elements. The way to give people the most choice is to tax externalities commensurate to the harm they cause, and let the market figure out what people actually value.
What do you mean by "rare"? You just click "order". It's not like you have to go on the quest for the lost arc or anything like that. They are uncommon in the sense that people don't actually get them, but that's not because of a lack of availability. People do not want them.
They mean the models are rare, not the devices. The claim is if you want feature X + removable battery, it's unlikely that you will find it. People's willingness to forgo the battery for feature X therefore doesn't tell you if people care about removable batteries in an absolute sense, just that they care relatively less than they do about feature X.
You could argue that the market already reflects people's desires via, eg., Apple's market research. They could argue that democracy in the EU also reflects people's desires.
Phones with removable batteries are rare because only a small fraction of people want phones with removable batteries. Phone manufacturers also dislike removable batteries because customers buy cheap 3rd party batteries and complain when these batteries perform poorly or malfunction, sometimes by exploding. And then the headline is, “Phone made by company X explodes.” not, “Cheap battery explodes.” Removable batteries also introduce new failure modes like contacts degrading, causing phones to power off unexpectedly when jostled or flexed in certain ways. That increases the risk of a recall and bad PR.
I and millions of others want a phone that is smaller than the current offerings. Heck, my 13 mini is too big for my tastes. But I don’t think that means the government should force phone manufacturers to make smaller phones. So too for features like removable batteries, physical keyboards, or headphone jacks.
That assumes that the market itself is actually "free" and consistent and that there are no bad actors in the mix, and upstarts are allowed to freely start and compete. Given the regulations in the space that is emphatically not so.
Incumbents will remove and enshitify a number of features in order to maximize returns... Your new clothes dryer has a 10 year mechanical warranty.. but the control board isn't covered, will die in 12-24 months and won't be produced again. Oh and there's some clunky DRM in the mix on top. Guess you get to buy a new dryer, but this time you'll go with $OtherShittyBrandThatDoesTheSameThing.
Aren’t newer washers/dryers full of electronics because of laws mandating higher efficiency? My parents have an old Maytag washer that uses around 30 gallons per load while my washer uses less than 8. I know Speed Queen makes dumb laundry machines, but at least one of their models was banned for residential sale by the Department of Energy. They ended up figuring out a workaround by gimping the default cleaning mode and encouraging users to not use that mode.[1]
But I don’t see how mandating removable batteries helps this situation with phones. I don’t replace my phone when the battery degrades, as it’s pretty cheap & painless to replace the battery after a few years. I upgrade when my phone stops getting security updates, or when a new phone comes along with some feature I want.
This has been repeated so so many times... How can you be sure that throwaway glued-together phones are thinner and lighter than repairable phones.. If there is any source of this information, it's vendors who have interest in phones being non-repairable so they can ship more units...
How about vendors get on their asses and design thinner and lighter phones that are not e-waste from the moment they leave the factory?
I bet you when forced to make the right decision they can go even thinner and lighter than the current flagships...
For that matter, I put a chonky case on my phone anyway... would rather have a sturdier phone that doesn't need an additional case that has the features I'd like, including an easily replaced/swapped battery.
Beyond this, hell, make the "internal" battery solid-state with minimal capacity and have an external power pack from the get-go as part of case designs. Get the size of battery you want... if you want a big booty phone with battery for days, you can get it.
E-waste is a minuscule rounding error compared to all the other forms of environmental destruction modern industrial civilization causes. European countries are massive polluters and net carbon producers (though not quite as bad as the US); e-waste shouldn't even be on their radar since it is a distraction from almost infinitely more important environmental concerns. People complaining about this don't actually care about e-waste, they just talk about it because it's convenient for their argument.
Earth's resources are finite, both in terms of raw materials and ability to absorb pollution. Stewardship of our resources entails the regulation of the things we create with those resources such that our collective consumption is conserved. Such oversight is both prudent, and as history and global outcomes teach, quite necessary.
I don't disagree with your statement, but an increase in design durability also does those things. A phone that you can drop and it doesn't break creates less pollution than a phone that you can drop and replace the screen.
I feel like the fact that the phone-with-removal-battery option already exists and is not popular in the market should be a signal to EU politicians about how much the public actually values this capability.
That's fine, but even among Android users, nobody buys these removable battery phones. It's possible there's a disproportionate reservoir of iPhone&removable battery-only consumers, but it would surprise me if the desire for a reusable battery were strongly correlated with being locked into the Apple ecosystem. If anything, I would expect the propensity to desire removable batteries is more strongly correlated with Android use.
There are a plethora of reasons to prefer one phone to another and while removable battery phones exist if that's a strict criteria for you the market of available devices is extremely limited. Consumers don't have a real choice here.
I would expect that one of the main reasons that people prefer non-removable battery phones are the engineering tradeoffs inherent in making a phone with a removable battery. They will have strictly less choice on this axis when they no longer have the option to buy a non-removal battery phone.
I think you are vastly overvaluing how much consumers actually value phone thinness. The majority of consumers use phone cases (most modern phones have a camera popup specifically to be better compatible with a case to this end) so I think what customers value the most is lighter weight - not smaller form factor. A replaceable battery does come with a slight compromise to weight but stopping the endless chase of thinness has several engineering advantages when it comes to ports and cooling.
I don't think your speculation is completely unreasonable, but I just want to point out that consumer preference as revealed by current, actual reality only provides evidence in favor of my side of the argument. It's totally possible that the manufacturers are completely wrong about consumer preference and they are acting against their own interests by making the batteries non-replaceable, and somehow none of the manufacturers noticed this or were able to successfully take advantage of it to gain market share. But, I think that would be a pretty surprising thing if it turned out to be true.
Usually, in consumer electronics, the unencumbered market tends to gravitate toward what people actually want to buy. Totally possible this could be an exception to the rule, but I doubt it.
Better than average phone sold today. The only problem might be lack of android upgrades otherwise it is straight upgrade for most people. This is reason why replaceable battery is important. If you leave IT bubble people happily use ancient phones and do not need upgrades if battery is ok and there is space to save new photos.
The comment is not meant to give you something to buy, it's just proof that it can technically be done, they just don't want to do it for modern flagships.
At what cost though?! And no, I am not talking about money. Any device (and any product really) is a set of tradeoffs.
I like it when different producers select a different subset of priorities for their offer. Competition at work. One of the reasons we witnessed such an awesome evolution in the smartphone market.
I hate it when a bureaucrat dictates a set of demands with absolutely zero regard to the cost or the tradeoffs involved in product decisions and market competition.
> At what cost though?! And no, I am not talking about money. Any device (and any product really) is a set of tradeoffs.
My $200 Moto G3 in 2016 had a removable back cover (admittedly not battery). It was also waterproof (and had a headphone jack.)
The engineering of making things waterproof is in the realm of "A bit more annoying but easily doable if anyone's interested in doing it", not "Doable at the cost of everything else".
> I like it when different producers select a different subset of priorities for their offer. Competition at work. One of the reasons we witnessed such an awesome evolution in the smartphone market.
>
> I hate it when a bureaucrat dictates a set of demands with absolutely zero regard to the cost or the tradeoffs involved in product decisions and market competition.
I generally agree with that sentiment, except we don't have a vibrant market of many options with many different trade offs. Finding headphone jack, solid reparability, user swappable battery, easily replaceable USB port, and all the other things that one might want is basically impossible. The vast majority of phones are highly unrepairable, have no headphone jack, have everything soldered to a tiny number of internal boards, and are full of anti repair dark patterns.
It really depends on the model, manufacturer, & luck. I’ve never had a phone lose its water resistance. The phone I use today (a 13 mini) is almost five years old and I clean it by running it under the faucet.
I'd return it if a brand new device that advertised IP67 died almost immediately under a normal sink water flow. Clearly it wasn't built to spec and one can't trust the rest of their manufacturing.
But I mean that's just similarly true of Samsung products. I avoid them like the plague. I haven't had a good Samsung device in almost 20 years, and used to be a Samsung fan
I had a Pixel 6a last year bought not too long after it came out. I left it on a patio table. I was hosing things off and there was a significant amount of over spray on to the table. The screen died over the course of a couple of hours due to water ingreess.
I'm kinda surprised with esim, wireless charging and Bluetooth noones just made a phone with a solid layer of glass completely surrounding it for 100% waterproofing
A lack of physical port makes troubleshooting more difficult. Apple didn’t remove the diagnostic port from their watches until the series 7. Also I think certain governments require that phones have a USB-C port.
My low-cost plastic Casio watch based on a very old design is waterproof and battery can be swapped out by undoing 4 philips screws, no glue. Its buttons can also be operated under water while staying waterproof.
I normally much prefer screws over glue but Apple has at least been using repair-friendly glue like the electrically debonding adhesive in use for iPhone 16e/17e.
Making these devices repairable is not just about taking it apart, it's also about getting it back together. If I need to electrically debond the adhesive, then I'd also need to new strips of this special adhesive to hold the new battery in place. All of this is after needing a heat gun to weaken the adhesive just to get into it, which I assume also needs to be reapplied on reassembly to retain the same level of water and dust resistance.
It's not just a matter of buying a battery and using some tools the average person has on hand. A whole kit of specialty tools and parts needs to be ordered to facilitate the repair. Apple's own repair kit is the most extreme form of this, where they ship 70lbs of tools, which would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
Yes. Dont assume that everybody is technically minded such as yourself.
I know plenty of people that would never even consider jump starting thei car. However are also quite happy with poppping open a battery cover and doing a simple swap like any other battery powered device.
You don't have to be "technically minded" to figure this out. It's not spinning up a Kubernetes cluster, it's a picture with an arrow that says "Clip red wire here". Simply driving a car is a thousand times more complicated, and we expect most everybody to be capable of that.
There's also a difference between not wanting to do something, and not being capable of it.
It's ridiculous to baby proof the world to that level. For a significant portion of that group, taking a screwdriver to their phone is also beyond comfort — those people can take their phone to a mall kiosk just like they do now.
It is probably a good idea to review some instructions before jump starting a car because even though it is simple, if you do it wrong (connect the battery terminal last) you can blow up your battery from the ignition of hydrogen gas.
Well yeah any glue is worse than screws: this I agree with you. But attaching a 9V battery to the glue is around the same difficulty as applying torque with a screwdriver.
There's little metal tabs you can alligator-clip a 9-volt battery onto, which will release the adhesive. Way better than the stupid pull tabs you had to pull and roll in a very particular way in order to not tear them and render the battery unsafe to remove.
At first it looks like a normal torx head, but then you realize it has 5 lobes instead of 6. Apple used these on early iPhone models when you actually could open them with this proprietary screwdriver.
I get it for watches, but I've never understood the mass-market need for a waterproof phone, outside of a few niche hobbies. Are people showering and swimming with their phones or something? Or dropping them in their toilets? The wettest my phone has ever been in 8 years is in my pocket while it's raining.
People in humid climates and cold climates were regularly having their phones get denied warranty service because the water ingress stickers turned red due to condensation, without ever exposing their phone to water immersion. This was understandably upsetting for a lot of people who just wanted their phone to be fixed under warranty.
Thus, companies put in a big effort to seal their phones against dust and water, which ought to have dramatically reduced these service issues and led to a better customer experience overall!
There is waterproof specification levels. I haven't met one consumer product which doesn't let moisture in. I live in a hot country (not over 40ºC mind you)
If I not being precise, keeping your phone in your jeans deep tight pocket when you are sweating or raining will cause you problems. It might seem too many coincidences for you, but it is common enough that some of us avoid keeping the phone in the pocket.
It is not that long ago that smartphones would die from moisture exposure if you left them in the bathroom while taking a shower. I had a girlfriend around 2001 who spent all her savings on a shiny new Nokia 8250, got drunk and barfed on her jacket. The phone was in the pocket, and the moisture from the wet jacket completely killed it, she cried about it for weeks. I also remember my mother dropping her iPhone 6 in the harbor while getting off a boat, it got picked up but was dead. Last year I was out hiking in the rain, and my aging (5+ years old) iPhone 11 got water inside it and started dying soon after (I'd been sailing/swimming with the phone and had exposed it to salt water, apparently that will wear down the seals if you do it enough.)
In other words, I absolutely see the need for waterproof phones, even for ordinary people doing ordinary things, and am never going to buy one that isn't.
I like to wash my phone under the tap, not getting paranoid of having it in a table close to the pool while drinking a few beers with my wife and friends, it is a really nice to have feature if you live in a warmer climate.
Kayaking, fishing, river floating, surfing, diving, snorkeling, etc. "No one I know takes their phone snorkeling" <- that's because they're not presently waterproof, but I imagine a lot of people would like to take a high quality camera under water.
Tens of millions of people have outdoor hobbies that puts them in direct or incidental contact with water. Hundreds of millions live in places where rain happens. Billions live in situations where a spill of drinking water (or water based liquids) are a real risk for thier phones.
I don't want to take extra care and caution just to have a life and a fone. Theoretically this thing makes my life easier and I want it to act like it damnit.
I think it's mostly marketing. When all phones are identical glass rectangles, the only meaningful way to distinguish your product is by being the biggest, thinnest, highest IP-rating.
Most of these metrics are entirely orthogonal to what any real person wants from a phone, but that's an irrelevant detail to marketing types
I actually never did. I think you're only supposed to replace it on those scuba-style watches with screw-on casebacks that shred the gasket when fully tightened to ensure a tight seal.
But on those watches with 4 screws on the case, the gasket seemed fine to me to keep reusing.
I think a lot of sealing rings / gaskets are meant to be single use. I had to swap the heater on my hot tub a while back and the store told me to change the o-rings on the inlet and outlet as it was unlikely the prior ones would re-seal after being loosened.
It seems like the same can be true for the glue used on the iPhone.
> Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, but you might have rights under consumer law.[0]
If a gasket has a predictable life, there could be a warning after that period that the water resistance may be compromised and to replace the gasket if this is a concern for how the user use's the phone. With glue, it seems less certain and Apple goes so far as to say even dropping your phone can compromise the seal enough to risk liquid damage.
Meanwhile, a G-Shock was designed to have a battery life of 10 years, have a water resistance of 10 bar, and survive a fall of 10 meters. Dropping the watch doesn't nullify the water resistance claims, the goal was to be able to do all of those things at once.
Timex has been making iron-man watches held together with Philips-head screws that can withstand 100 meters of water pressure since the mid-1980s. Waterproofing is no excuse for this nonsense.
Watch cases are relatively huge for what needs to be inside them. You can see the difference between an entire smartphone and a simple time keeping device, right?
They also don’t have the long aspect ratio of phones (bending moment).
This doesn’t compare to phones at all. It’s like trying to compare your TI-83 calculator to a MacBook Pro
Now go look up why they stopped riveting ships in the 40's and went to welding, there are no modern riveted ships. Even with the rivets they were forged not pressed, nothing like a screw.
Cheap aluminum boats are still riveted, welding preferred for obvious reasons. I have an old riveted aluminum John boat and is leaks through the rivets and seams...
I think you may need to think out your entire post before typing such contradictions.
Riveted hulls worked for hundreds of years and well maintained they can last forever. Just bacause welding makes it cheaper to maintain in the long run does not detract from the fact that riveted hulls are very performant, which is why they were used everywhere that needed not only waterproofing but pressure containment too.
I once had a cheap Timex watch die from water ingress after running a track workout during a torrential downpour. At the time I joked that it only failed because we ran farther than the 100m rating
I think the USB & speaker are the weak links for water ingress. Also, a removable battery would (probably?) significantly weaken the phone. So, if you dropped it, it'd be more likely to sustain real damage.
I don't see them as very big weak points. USB doesn't have enough voltage to do jack in water even if you don't detect the water and turn it off. And the speaker can be made entirely out of waterproof materials, there are literally waterproof floating pool speakers you can buy for dirt cheap. The weak link is the main oring/glue as always.
- Having a manufacturer promise that the battery will last with little oversight on how testing is done and no specific warranty.
- A lifetime warranty where any battery that gives less than 80% of its rating for 1000 cycles has to be replaced free of charge. With the added obligation that measurements should be user-readable and accurate (no cheating the cycle counter and battery gauge).
I assume you mean the battery would have to be replaced free of charge. But what if I don't want to hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation with no oversight of how it will be handled? What if I can't afford to part with that computer?
I would be stuck with having to replace that battery on my own since I don't want to risk giving physical access to my computer to untrusted parties.
There needs to be a different way to handle this. For example, send me a new battery and the tools needed to replace it, with monetary compensation if certain features would be lost, like waterproofing. Or something else - not sure. But I don't believe in the honor of the people who would service my computer.
> hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation
I'm equally paranoid, so I back up and wipe any device I hand in for repair.
> What if I can't afford to part with that computer?
No perfect answer for this, but I've always kept my last phone in a drawer in case my current phone breaks. It's saved me a couple of times. Maybe not everything works, but basic calls and texts always have, and I can use a browser for banking and other "complicated" stuff for a few days.
I'm OK if the perfect doesn't get in the way of the good - both personally, and in this sort of legislation.
Without sufficient technical information on how the computer works and without root access, we can't be certain a "wipe" will actually wipe everything.
For malware that could be inserted in a targeted manner, even with desktop computers we don't have access the every firmware of every part.
When we're talking about mobile "phones", we usually have an interface that tells us "sure, it's wiped", but is it? Without full root to every part of it, can you be certain that it is? When you press "wipe" on an iPhone or a closed Android flagship (or whatever the UI is), what happens exactly on the filesystem that you can't even access fully?
Telling people to hand over their devices willy-nilly is far from "good". We shouldn't settle for this. The hardware companies can ship us the tools to replace the battery ourselves. Maybe not "ourselves" - my aunt can ask me to do it for her if she can't do it on her own. But she trusts me more than she does people she's never seen ever. If the tools are expensive, we can ship them back. There are many options so we should discuss them.
"Remember the time Apple fixed iOS so the iPhone would run instead of crashing under low voltage conditions" remains, to me, the most inexplicable of HN's mass psychoses.
Remember that they did it secretly and denied it for ages, only to backtrack and use this excuse when it was actually proven they were slowing the devices.
Dont let the marketing spin white-wash your long term memory of an event.
Watch apple secretly defining 1000 charge cycles as 1500 10%-80% "normal use" days.
(Remember the "full charge in 8 minutes fiasco? Well, I searched a reference but I didn't find any :/)
That had me thinking as well. What if the manufacturer says that to get to that number you are only allowed to charge it to 80% ever? My iPhone pro battery is at 92% at 417 cycles over 20 months.
The problem is that consumers want to buy a phone with 24 hours of runtime and an EV with 200 miles of range, and they want the phone to be thin and light and the car to be fast and light, and manufacturers want to achieve those capacities with as little electrochemistry as possible. The number of charge cycles at full capacity will be a big deal a year or two in, but on the sales floor it's a secondary concern for typical buyers and sellers.
Playing fast and loose with the numbers, I'm sure that if 100% on the display was 80% in the battery and 0% was 20%, you'd have an amazing number of charge cycles. You could program that 40% of unused capacity to be reduced as the battery ages very slowly, and by the time the used capacity is only at 80% of its original revealed capacity you're at many thousands of cycles. But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1.
Absent breakthroughs in battery chemistry, this basically regulates the amount of buffer capacity that manufacturers are required to include in their ~~lies~~ marketing materials.
Reminds me when I tried to warranty a macbook air battery a couple years ago. I was already under 80% within the warranty period per System Profiler. They hook up their diagnostics and turns out, System Profiler is wrong, I was at 81% capacity after 1 year. No repair for me.
1,000 charge cycles is hardly even 4 years. I’m not sure what this regulation is trying to fix. That ultimately means landfills will be filled with more iPhone Ns.
Yeah, and it's BS because in real usage iPhone batteries almost never reach this lifespan. Apple's lobby made this law ineffective, I hope customers start suing.
You can also just redefine the battery capacity so that 100% = former 80% and then add a paid subscription feature to "occasionally overcharge it by 25%"
Doesn't seem like a problem. Assuming the phone needs recharging every 3 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~8.2 years; longer than the OS is likely to be supported. Assuming a recharge every 2 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~5.5 years.
I'm guessing they use very conservative usage in their math. I'm on my pixel all day long but I barely use my iPhone 13 more than maybe an hour a day. I can leave it unplugged all weekend and come back Monday with enough charge to get me through the day.
As others have mentioned this is for phones with batteries that can’t survive a reasonable number of cycles.
That’s a reasonable exemption, in my opinion. I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
I do wish one manufacturer would make a flagship phone with replaceable battery so all of the uncompromising replaceable battery fans could have a phone that fits their niche demands rather than trying to force everyone else to pay the extra costs (price, size, water intrusion, structural rigidity) that would come with laws forcing all phones to have removable batteries.
> a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote. After a day of taking photos in the wild its nice to be able to just chuck in a fresh batttery and off you go.
I feel like this feature of phones was not only lost, but pretty much forgotten about after smartphones stopped including user replaceable batteries.
External battery banks are a far superior solution now that almost everything has standardized on USB and we have power banks supporting high speed charging.
They can be charged with the same power adapter you use to charge your phone, without the need of an extra docking thing.
They can be used to charge any USB-chargeable device.
They are not tied to your specific model, and thus you're not vendor locked with them, making them cheaper and easier to find anywhere in the world.
They come in multiple capacities, allowing you to plan in advance your energy needs and choose the right size bank for your situation.
They are far more sturdier than any modern battery, which makes them more resistant to puncture and bending.
They don't have external contacts that could potentially short in contact with conductive surfaces.
The people who need this feature should go buy one of the phone models with replaceable batteries.
Reading the comments here, it's obvious that the replaceable battery fans can't even agree on what they want. One commenter wants the back covered in tens of screws for waterproofing. Other commenters want the battery quickly replaceable so they can do hot swaps without missing a beat. Some people are sharing links to phones that have replaceable batteries and getting responses from people saying they'd never buy that phone because it's too big, too ugly, or other reasons.
This is an impossible debate because one side has convinced themselves that it's possible to have their cake and eat it, too: They believe that removable batteries can be implemented without any tradeoffs and the only reason they're not removable is so the phones are forced to become e-waste, which requires you to ignore all of the low cost battery replacement services available.
I use a lot of rechargeable AAA and AA batteries. They have lower voltage than alkaline batteries (by design apparently), which is not normally an issue, but sometimes is a deal breaker. E.g. my thermostat did not like lower voltage AA batteries and shut down prematurely a number of times.
There's challenges adopting standardized rechargeable batteries, e.g. trying to recharge alkaline batteries risks fire/explosion (and you know that will happen far too often given the number of people out there), but if we have had standard battery sizes, voltages, and capacities for rechargeable batteries, things would be so much better.
> This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote.
There are several high end phones with removable batteries. You should buy one of them if this feature is important to you.
This movement to force everyone's phones to pay the costs of removable batteries to address these really niche use cases is not great.
> he costs of removable batteries to address these really niche use cases
You seem to have completely missed the primary point of all this, which is to reducew ewaste. That fact that it also satisfies some niche uses cases is a great bonus!
> You seem to have completely missed the primary point of all this, which is to reducew ewaste.
Everyone acting like iPhones and mainstream Android phones become e-waste after 3 years is just making specious arguments.
Why does the average phone user know more about phone batteries and replacing them than all of these commenters acting like iPhones are becoming e-waste after a couple years?
I think I know more people with 4-6 year old iPhones than with an iPhone 17.
Apple stores will replace the battery for you for a very reasonable fee and the phone will carry on for many years more. This is a common thing to do and you can find battery replacement services for popular Android phones too.
Replaceable batteries are one thing, but truly hot swappable batteries like you're asking for will absolutely effect the waterproofing and add a lot of weight/size. Is there a reason you can't just bring a battery pack in your rucksack? They make magnetic ones you can slap on the back and be on your way.
Continuing to take photos with a battery pack hanging off a device is no where near as simple as popping in a fresh 100% battery and coninuing as normal.
just to note, wireless charging is very inefficient. From the page you linked:
"Due to a 30% to 45% energy loss in battery cells and conversion circuitry, a fully charged 5,000 mAh power bank typically offers an estimated 2,750 to 3,500mAh to power devices"
yes exactly my point, I dont want to wait to charge up my device with another device. I just want to pop in a fresh 100% battery. It used to be so simple.
My powerbrick connects to the back of my phone. Form factor wise it's pretty close to my extra large StarTac removable battery that I would carry around.
Apologies, my coment came off a bit unecessarily aggressive.
It is my preference to have user replaceable batteries, and my belief is that they were only removed to make phones become obselete quicker and cause higher turnover of purchased phones.
> It is my preference to have user replaceable batteries, and my belief is that they were only removed to make phones become obselete quicker and cause higher turnover of purchased phones.
My iPhone 12 is six years old. I replaced the battery last year. While it probably won't be workable on cellular networks in six years, outside of physical damage there's little reason it'll stop working. My original iPhone from 2007 still boots up and runs. There's no GSM service for it to talk to but it runs as a WiFi only iPod just fine if I really wanted.
The idea that non-replaceable batteries is a conspiracy to lower the lifetime of devices is sort of silly. Flagship phones are made of incredibly sturdy materials. If they were designed to be disposable they'd have a bunch of sacrificial structural elements to limit their lifetime. Instead they're built as well as they can possibly be built.
A flagship phone will be left behind in CPU power running bloated JavaScript blogs or cellular service long before any internal component fails. Non-replaceable batteries are about hitting a capacity/size target more than anything else. Replaceable batteries enforce constraints on a phone's design that non-replaceable ones do not have.
There's tons of MagSafe battery packs for iPhones. They charge the phone continuously. There's no need to let the phone drop to zero before attaching the battery pack. There's also cases with integral batteries. I assume there's Android equivalents for various phones.
I'd say these are more convenient than extra swappable batteries. They have integral charge controllers and charge via USB. There's no need to charge them in the phone or have to buy some extra external battery charger.
Many flagship phones promise 7 years of security updates now. 3-4 years means the battery will only last for half that time, and heavy users (1 cycle per day) will hit that quota in under 2.75 years.
The battery doesn't cease functioning after 3-4 years. The benchmark says it should have 80% capacity.
It's also not really that expensive to have phone batteries replaced. Apple will do it for $120 including the battery for their flagship models that cost over $1000. Cheaper for lower end models.
I can't take any arguments seriously that claim these phones are becoming e-waste after 2.75 years. Battery replacement is a common process.
Then the law should just make sure that there's a second source at least for the batteries, that technicians have free access to disassembly instructions, and that it can be done without undue effort or risk.
Requiring common tools or technical skills for replacing something that last 4 years is not a hassle to justify enshitiffying phones design as long as you're not vendor locked for such replacement, and a technician can do it in a reasonable amount of time, with reasonable tool and without the risk of degrading the functionality of the device doing so.
I'm old enough to remember the old Nokia phones that had removable cases, removable batteries, and you would have upgrade envy for the last year of your 36 month cell service contract. Then we had wince and early android devices and BlackBerries which were pretty much the same.
This regulation isn't primarily for fans of replaceable batteries, it's driven by general concerns about e-waste. It's unclear how much it might actually reduce e-waste in practice but it will certainly increase compliance costs.
At least it's a performance standard. If the Government is going to regulate consumer products I would rather it be performance standards than implementation details. If a device doesn't meet performance standards it can trigger warranty requirements.
> I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
What are you doing to your phone that needs all that? Using it as a hammer? Temporary support while building a tunnel?
The big question is, what happens when the manufacturer claims it can survive a reasonable number of cycles, then it turns out it can't. By the time this becomes obvious, the phones will be out of warranty.
Will the manufacturer simply be prohibited from selling those phones (which are probably no longer sold by that time anyways), will they be fined a "cost of doing business" level fine, or will customers have an actual remedy (e.g. full refund even after the 2 year warranty period)?
> Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.
And this is a BS rebuttal. None of them achieve the same miniaturization and water tightness as iPhone.
This law is basically government being co-opted by a tiny vocal minority to force their unpopular opinions onto the rest of the public.
If any modest percentage of the market cared about replaceable batteries above all else in their phones, the market would already be packed with removable battery phone options.
Should we not expect phones to last more than 3-4 years? We aren't in the exponential performance growth and requirements part of the smartphone world anymore, a 5-7 year old phone can be a perfectly functional device. Isn't it unfortunate that a perfectly good phone gets turned to e-waste years before it has to, just because a consumable part of it happens to be non-replaceable?
I think it may help to clarify that there are two Regulations which seem to have been muddled in the comments:
* Regulation 2023/1670 provides, inter alia, that smartphone manufacturers must make replacement batteries available to consumers, except where the 80%/1000 cycle criteria is met, in which case replacement batteries can be made only available to professional repairers. There is also a requirement for it being able to replace the battery but this does permit use of non-trivial tools under certain circumstances.
* Regulation 2023/1542 provides that portable batteries (not limited to smartphones) must be readily end-user replaceable if they meet certain criteria unless the strict waterproofing/medical industry criteria are met.
There is almost zero chance that the Motorola phones will come with a replaceable battery and likely fall under the exemption anyways. The GOS supported phones will all be flagship level devices (i.e. Signature/RAZR).
I just called the shop to replace the perfectly fine e-Call battery in my soon four year old Hyundai car. 250€ to change a battery that has a ten year lifespan. I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer (not the one by law). Why is this stuff not considered as well?
Also curious whether the "specialized devices" exemptions are AND requirements. Even if those are AND, wouldn’t smartphone manufacturers try to satisfy all three of them?
> I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer. Why is this stuff not considered as well?
They're the ones paying for repairs, so it doesn't seem that unreasonable? That said: If you can prove the car is being maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications they can't require you to go to a brand dealership. That's just not necessarily easy to prove.
I like the idea in principle, but I hope the implementation does not just result in thicker phones with worse water resistance and higher prices.
The real win would be if batteries are replaceable without specialized tools, parts are available for several years, and manufacturers are not allowed to use software pairing to block third-party repair.
Otherwise we may technically get “replaceable batteries”, but not the practical right to keep a phone alive longer.
In principle, this is the kind of right sentiment but for the wrong things.
I can't remember a phone that died because of the battery since the era of Ni-Cd cells in early cell phones. I don't think I've never discarded a phone with a li-ion battery because of the battery. It's always physical breakage or getting too slow to be usable, because of age.
Sure, I don't spend a cycle per day. Not even every other day. That's probably rare, I get that. But much rather than because of dying batteries I'd like EU to mandate
- the phone should come with full keys so that I can own the machine if I want to
- or at the very least the hardware must become unlockable once the support period ends
- individual components should be made available for independent repairs
- repairs must not need software pairing of hardware components on unlocked devices
because of right to own and right to repair which shouldn't be "rights" but nonnegotiable traits of physical properties like they used to be.
Not sure what the behavior is like on Android, but iOS will throttle performance if your battery has degraded past a certain state. So I'm sure that there are many iPhone users that are replacing their phone due to what they think is poor performance related to the age of the phone, when it's really due to the age of the battery.
You can bet it will be measured in such a way that the major companies’ devices will qualify. And that it will have little bearing on the retained charge amount you’ll have in real life use. I’m at 82% and 714 cycles. But it’s a joke to suggest that all cycles are equal. Some people never go outside the 20-80 band, others charge to 100% and keep it there all day, then burn it down to 10%. Both of those generate “cycles” but are very far apart.
We have similar phones. I’m now at 82% at 714 cycles. In real life, our devices wouldn’t qualify but I’m sure Apple will be allowed to write the testing methodology in a way that’ll be nice and gentle.
Huh interesting datapoint. I just checked on mine, also August 2023 15PM, and 86% @ 707 cycles here. I’m pretty careless with charging it whenever is convenient/letting it drain to 0% while traveling/etc as well.
It’s more about the calendric aging than number of cycles these days. My own stayed at 99% until ~400 cycles, and then in a few days it dropped to 94%.
Wait, that’s not true: In true regulatory capture fashion, I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.
> I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.
Maybe that would be the case in the US but since that is the EU it will likely be some kind of self-certification where the manufacturer swears that they're not lying, and if enough people complain then maybe one of the national regulators will look into it and ask the manufacturer to do better.
Recently my 2021 macBook gave me an alert that its battery was not charging past 80%. I took it to the Apple Store and because it had only been through 971 charge cycles, the battery was replaced for free.
Looks like saner minds prevailed. Almost nobody needs or wants that. Having to pay a street corner repair shop to replace a battery only after 3 or 4 years of usage is completely worth a price to pay for having thinner batteries.
Would have been even more classic EU to not add the exception and have all Europeans stuck with a slower, bulkier, and more expensive "EU edition" of a phone.
My initial reaction as an EU citizen is “oh hell no” because it gave me flashbacks to removable covers with clips that broke my nails. But after reading the article where it mentions that the battery is also considered removable if standard tools should be used, I’m quite okay with it. I welcome getting more rugged and durable devices.
Serious question: how are you worse off with a cover that breaks your nails vs. the status quo: a cover that’s glued on and a battery that’s glued in? If they did bring that back, couldn’t you just not open the cover and be just as happy?
The covers were typically flimsy and used flimsy hooks in addition to the flimsy push pin. Actually most of my annoyance stems from the hooks breaking easily and the covers not closing flush. I would not want to return to that time where dropping a phone leads to covers flying around.
It is my assumption that any cover that still requires screws that it will be both more sturdy and easier to close flush.
The current status quo of having sleek devices while having batteries relatively easily replaced yourself or even quite cheaply in every phone shop. I’m not so bothered by the status quo.
The number of people worried about a slightly thicker phone are absolutely baffling to me. I honestly think there is no hope for us broadly. Normally I'd say that people cannot deal with minor inconveniences -- but this does not even register as an inconvenience.
From my view, this is a _perceived_ downgrade in luxury status. Not even a real downgrade in luxury status -- and not a downgrade in convenience whatsoever.
A slightly thicker back so that in four years time it will take me 5 minutes versus 60 minutes to change the battery? Yes, that sounds like something I am not interested in.
How tf did phones even become a "luxury" status symbol? They're just portable computers that also happen to be covered in nasty germs. People are freaking weird.
Because the reason for it is not valued by most of us. I do not care about a removable battery. I do not care. I value it at zero. So yes, I do not want to be inconvenienced for something I value at zero.
Well ... I don't have an Apple Store anywhere near me, so ... Or anything else, really.
And having multiple batteries would enable me to swap the battery and charge the expended one in near real time. No cord, no puck, nothing. And if the phone had an internal 100 or so mah battery also, I wouldn't even have to restart the phone!
This is just flat out wrong. Making it removable means making it less effective, meaning using more materials etc.
What is much more concerning is that you seem to be totally fine with the government deciding how something should be designed for not reason what so ever.
All new phones sold in the EU already include information on declared battery life and the number of charge cycles before reaching 80% battery health. The vast majority of phones will meet this requirement.
Not really… the rules were heavily influenced by big tech in a way that basically exempts many devices. For example iPhone 15 onwards already meets the defined standard and thus doesn’t need a user replaceable battery.
So the headline is misleading. Removable batteries aren’t mandatory. They’re only mandatory if the battery fails to meet certain performance standards.
Unless you have giant hands, with modern screen sizes, thinner devices are not merely a luxury. For people that have active outdoor lives, water resistance is also non-negotiable.
The only thing that you should care about if you are being pratical and not just an annoying nagging geek, is that you are not forced to use an authorized reseller to buy a replacement battery, and that batteries can be bought from third party suppliers.
Having to have a corner-shop cheap technician doing it once every 3 years is an acceptable trade-off in exchange to get thinner and water-resistant devices.
Smartwatches should also be on the list. My Apple Watch 8 is at 76% maximum capacity. Apparently it costs $99 to have Apple replace the battery, which is probably not worth it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Controversial I know, but EU regulations are largely reasonable and mostly come down to good practices. For example I was part of a team building a crewing application for container ships and largely I agree with almost all of the conclusions we came to in making the app GDPR compliant.
"Special tool" is not used in the actual regulation; the requirement is that replacement must be possible with basic tools, defined:
> (50) 'basic tools' means a screwdriver for slotted heads, a screwdriver for cross recess screws, a screwdriver for hexalobular recess heads [Torx], a hexagon socket key, a combination wrench, combination pliers, combination pliers for wire stripping and terminal crimping, half round nose pliers, diagonal cutters, multigrip pliers, locking pliers, a prying lever, tweezers, magnifying glass, a spudger and a pick;
(Excepted devices can require "commercially available tools" which is defined exactly as you'd expect.)
> A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge […] to disassemble it.
> Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.
> Easy replacement: Batteries must be replaceable using standard tools (e.g., screwdrivers).
> No barriers: The use of adhesives that can only be removed with heat or solvents is prohibited.
> Tools: If a special tool is required for replacement, the manufacturer must provide it free of charge.
> Spare parts guarantee: Replacement batteries must be available to end users at a reasonable price for at least 5 years.
When it comes to most phones I've seen...
Easy replacement: Currently, special tools are needed to heat the glue holding on the screen, picks to pry it up, and then there are various ways to release the glue holding in the battery.
No barriers: Currently, there are adhesives used for both the screen and battery. Depending on the phone this may require a solvent, heat, or electrical release... maybe a combination of these.
Tools: Currently, tools are not provided with the phone and kits need to be purchased in addition to the battery to complete the repair.
Spare parts guarantee: I think this is very hit and miss based on the manufacturer, but I suspect most replacement batteries people are buying are not coming from the OEM.
The link is not working for me, but I hope they have defined what "removable" means (removable without special tools)
If not, a lot of companies are going to argue that they already make removable batteries
IIRC, screwdrivers and prying tools are not considered special. Removal cannot require solvents or heat, but I believe those pull tab glue pads are allowed.
I wish those prying tools were considered "special". I have a very low success rate at opening up any device that's held together with "clips" without snapping any plastic. It inevitably means "force it just hard-enough to break stuff if you don't do it absolutely perfectly".
Also, removeable by who? Its all very well saying its removeable, but thats useless if only possible by a skilled techinician with tools. I dont see the term 'user-removable' anywhere.
The size and shape of the battery depends on the size and shape of the phone, as well as the internal structure (which is highly variable). At that point you might as well just legislate that everyone build iPhone 17's.
I want a phone with li-ion 18650! Because having a replaceable batteries won’t prevent the manufacturer from increasing those batteries prices so it’s equal to non replaceable ones. It would be great to have 18650 as a standard in all electronics, so you just carry dozens of them when you go out and you are set up for the weekend, no recharging, maybe even add hot swap too.
I'm not a fan of regulation in general but over the last decade it has been extremely frustrating with the removal of replaceable SD cards and batteries from Androids.
I never put my phones in my back pocket nor do I wear butt hugging leggings, so having a thick phone stick out my ass and make it look bad isn't on my list of worries. I end up purchasing thick waterproof cases for these slim phones anyways.
What's most confusing is the premium phones lack replaceable SD cards and batteries - it's like they are trying to take the worst ideas from the Apple ecosystem and simply don't understand why some people use Androids.
Surprisingly, it's the cheaper models that carry replaceable SD cards and batteries - I would have imagined the opposite!
I often go on trips and hikes with poor cellular coverage and having some SD cards with useful information or being able to swap them out as the camera gets full is really helpful. Attaching drives over the USB port isn't really practical.
When I do have cellular coverage, I might have to rapidly download a LOT of data, which overheats the phone and discharges the battery. With a replaceable battery, this isn't even an issue.
The benefits of replaceable batteries cannot be overstated when you're not on the grid or take great care of the phone where they last more than a few years. I can have a few batteries charged, during the day using solar that I can then just swap them in as evening sets in, instead of having to plug the phone into a powerbank and pray it doesn't shut off as I keep using it.
I think in general not being able to replace the battery toolless is quite an acceptable compromise nowadays. The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space which can be used for more capacity instead. You have (sometimes quite insane) fast charging and also powerbanks which support it. Also quality batteries can be quite durable.
The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.
Good points, but from a chemistry perspective, fast charging is detrimental to the battery. It would be more efficient to have two or three batteries standard charged to 70% that you can swap in as you go than have one that you need to repeatedly fast charge.
I argue that easier they make for user to swap batteries themselves, higher the demand for the batteries will be, thus lower their price.
> The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space
This is true
> The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.
I think when a manufacturer isn't designing to allow a regular customer (the owner) to be able to replace the battery themselves, using glue and restricting spare parts is a natural consequence of financial realities: Most people are not going to take a $500 phone that has been used a few years to a shop that will need to charge $100+ in just labor to swap out a battery. So there's no incentive to have a bunch of spare batteries.
I'm a huge fan of user replaceable batteries because in addition of obvious benefits, you can also just remove the battery and power it simply off USB-C when running something heavy on the phone for extended periods of time. A battery used in that scenario wouldn't just overheat itself but stop the phone from cooling off too.
This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.
If I want a thicker, clunkier, less waterproof phone with a user-replaceable battery, I can already buy a Fairphone or a Samsung Galaxy XCover6 Pro, or whatever.
The reason people buy iPhones and flagship Samsung phones is they want the benefits that come from a design that doesn't have to make sacrifices to accomodate a user-replaceable battery.
> This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.
Ohh sweet summer child... We are in an era of obscene consolidation, in pretty much every sector, wealth is being consolidated to degrees unseen before, oligopolies enshrine their dominance via regulatory capture and a plethora of unfair practices. There's just no competition left to suggest that "markets can decide" of anything beneficial for our skinny bottom lines..
I keep hearing this over and over, but it's neglected to add that it sets a minimum durability requirement which applies only for a very small niche of ruggedized waterproof devices
Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries
>Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries
Can you provide your source for this? If nothing else, it's very surprising to me that an EU regulation uses a US standard as the baseline!
Edit: Having done a bit of reading on the standard, it also seems like the regulation needs quite a bit of detail if it really does rely on the MIL-STD, since the standard only defines test procedures, not pass/fail criteria?
Take this with a mountain of salt since I've not at all an expert, but with a little help from AI, it seems like the exemption lives in 2023/1670 [0]. The LLM claims that this and the regulation you link are interconnected, with the recital of 2023/1542 explicitly linking them.
This makes no sense but I still see it mindlessly repeated to exhaustion. That mention is in no way Apple specific, it’s a quality of the battery itself. Any manufacturer is in the same position, not like Apple has a monopoly on batteries that hold 80% charge after 1000 cycles.
I don’t understand how this could be measured fairly though. What kind of cycles? What temperatures was it exposed to? Charged fast or slow? This is an incomplete set of criteria, which seems designed specifically to be meaningless / gameable.
To me this seems like saying you can sell a car with a sealed gas tank as long as it “gets 40 miles per gallon.” And GM gets to decide the test course for measuring MPG, which will be a 2-mile slightly downhill coast with no stopping. Surprise! All our cars get 40-60MPG!
The unspoken implication here is that if your phone still retains 80% after 1000 cycles, then it’s probably so old and obsolete by then that battery replacement would be a silly waste of time, so why burden people with these “onerous rules” in that case.
But in reality, nothing about that metric, even if it’s true, means that customers don’t need to replace their batteries. My iPhone 15 Pro Max is in dire need of a battery replacement, at 82% after only 714 cycles. Aside from the battery, I have literally zero motivation to replace this phone. The phone manufacturers hate the idea that the battery might get replaced, because in this day and age it’s pretty much the only reason a 2 to 3-year-old phone (especially a flagship) isn’t extremely adequate for 99% of the population.
In the US the EPA gets to set the guidelines for mileage testing, which GM has to follow. We've already had a major case in penalties for not following the guidelines via VW and emissions.
It will likely boil down to "typical use" so in the event that someone wants to bring Apple to court over it and demonstrate the issue, it could solidify what's currently a little vague. Laws aren't required to get it perfect out of the gate.
> then it’s probably so old and obsolete by then that battery replacement would be a silly waste of time
obsolescence is a spectrum, if a swappable battery mandate gives a small % of devices a few extra years it would be worth it... I already give old devices to family members and kids on the "free is better than nothing" spectrum and a swappable battery would have extended the life at least a few of said devices, in my personal experience
The supposed aim of this is to reduce e-waste. But when 90% of smartphones sold are iPhones and Samsung Galaxies which are exempt it makes this bill completely pointless, as the ewaste it will save is a small fraction of a percentage of the total.
I think this was discussed recently on HN. It’s not a bad idea. There’s nothing about this that “ruins” anything else. This is not specific for phones even if everyone focuses on them. The usual arguments are waterproofing and thinness but we can still have them with removable batteries.
The introduction of glue into the assembly of consumer electronics is a crime against humanity and the Earth. If Timex could make iron-man watches 100-meter waterproof with Phillips-head jeweler's screws back in the '80s, there's no good reason smartphones and laptops can't. And there's a whole host of bad reasons to eschew screws.
Of course you can build a waterproof smartphone with screws (except the screen has to be bonded to the glass for capacitive touch to work and the glass to the frame so there’s still some glueing involved), but it would probably have 1cm bezels around the screen.
> If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't.
This argument gets thrown about every time companies make anti-consumer changes, and it completely ignores the information asymmetry and other dynamics at play. When I go to the store to buy a new phone, where does it list on the box how repairable the device is? Where does it show how expensive the repair will be? If I'm locked in the apple ecosystem, where do I buy an iPhone with a replaceable battery?
Your assumption that the market is driven by informed consumer choices presupposes that every buyer is an expert.
I don't have the evidence to say either way, but I do know that at least my city has a lot of cellphone repair businesses, including mall kiosks. Presumably they have enough clientele to keep them going which suggests a lot of people are repairing their phones.
So you're suggesting we all just need to buy exclusively flip phones for a few years to send the market a signal that it wants replaceable batteries. Then the free market will do its thing and keep the engine of innovation running
Speaking of which, does anyone want to do a list of "features added to smartphones over the last 10 years" vs "features removed from smartphones over the last 10 years" so we can see just what innovations are at risk?
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm simply offering the reality of the smartphone market. What you are suggesting is a contrived, exaggerated take of how markets function.
People generally like small, thin phones, as evidenced by the billions sold. It really isn't much more complicated than that.
My Kyocera will work in orbit and withstand intense radiation. In fact, this very moment my new Duraforce Pro 3 is having fun in a launch-testing thermal/vac chamber.
Kyocera's 'flagship' is high-reliability phones in absolute garbage environments.
Samsung's 'flagship' overheats and earns them class-action lawsuits.
Motorola's 'flagship' is a hinged throwback to the 90s.
Apple's 'flagship' is an overpriced piece of vendor lock-in.
Meanwhile my phone takes serious abuse and laughs at it. I've dropped it and watched it go more than 700 feet down the side of a mountain (Chambless Skarn) and BARELY chip the screen protector. Waterproofing still intact. Case barely scratched.
What you consider a flagship phone is a brittle piece of junk in my hands.
I want removeable batteries in my phone, largely because it means I don't have to buy them a lot!
I ran my LG G5 with replaceable batteries from 2016 through 2021, at which point there were no affordable replaceable-battery phones left. I bought quite a few replacement batteries, even trying aftermarket batteries with varying levels of success after the OEM LG ones were discontinued.
That is, of course, a problem for manufacturers that want to sell a lot of phones.
> "If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't."
For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about. Furthermore, speaking purely for myself, a removable battery is not a must but a nice-to-have. A lot of slabs that have removable batteries are out of the game for entirely different reasons.
> For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about.
Not really. If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers did a market analysis and decided it’s not even worth it to offer that. So either their analysis is extremely wrong and it actually would sell, or the consumers don’t want to buy it that bad.
> "If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers [...] decided it’s not even worth it to offer that."
You got it surrounded. Why offer devices that you have to support for a longer time (e. g. enterprise models) when there's more money to be made when you enshittify (which obviously goes beyond just batteries)?
Because you’ll be the only manufacturer making the desired product and have 100% of this market? If there are multiple manufacturers competing, surely one of them would do it if it’s profitable?
Yeah, sure, some of them already do. Their market share is practically negligible, enterprise players (e. g. Samsung with their Galaxy Xcover line) notwithstanding. That, on a strictly personal level, still doesn't mean they offer a desirable product.
Yes, but it’s an indicator that the general consumer doesn’t care that much about it.
And I say that as an absolute supporter of the mandatory USB C. But I don’t think the average consumer cares enough about it that apple would have switched without being forced.
If we talk about the same "average consumer" it describes an individual that doesn't care for technical minutiae beyond a couple of specific use cases (telecomms, photo/video shooter, socials). These people are precisely the reason for why a regulator has to jump in if a government wants to implement sustainability efforts.
So really it's not about phones having a removable battery, but a whole host of other features plus a removable battery. Which is just untenable from a regulatory POV.
Well, strictly from a regulatory standpoint, at least given the thread's topic, it's just the batteries. So or so, the loophole is already in the package as well, so as long as you meet the relevant certs the point is moot.
That's not the point. It being done in a local shop for a few bucks with no small letter text saying that "we may break your screen in half because this thing can't be repaired properly". It mentions that it should not use glue, not need solvent and only commercially available tools may be usable (or they have to be provided next to the phone).
Nonsense. It just mandates easier repairability and spare parts availability, not ad-hoc replacement. Also this does not apply if the battery is able to retain 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles so "innovative" manufacturers just need to use high quality batteries.
that isnt how markets really work. you could say that if apple had two otherwise identical iphones except one has removable battery and one doesn't. but the enshittification cycle works via a ratcheting effect. once you achieve a certain level of dominance and lock-in, you can start getting away with all kinds of anti-consumer strategies to make more money and not get punished for it, and your competitors will follow suit. as long as you can ratchet above whatever detrimental thing you want to get away with is you'll probably be fine.
you can look at the lightning connector as an example. if you said "if people wanted usb connectivity they wouldn't buy iphones", nobody would take you seriously. and when apple was forced to switch, it absolutely didnt tank their sales because people just loved the lightning connector so much. the bad thing went away and it was great.
If Apple could make money from removable batteries, meaning there was a market for it and people wanted it over some other alternative, are you suggesting they are not smart enough to do the research and work necessary to accomplish that?
The reality is people don't want it, at all. At least not enough to warrant action. So the story ends there.
Also, the lighting connector is better than USB in every way. Mandating an inferior technology is an odd choice.
False dichotomy. The question isn't whether you can make money with a replaceable battery, but whether you can make more money by selling specialized service (or an entirely new phone) than a battery. What else are people going to do, not buy a phone? Switch operating systems entirely?
This whole thing becomes more obvious in the Android world, where models with various features do exist, but only in certain markets
Even then, this whole line of argument seems moot because if the battery still holds enough charge over time the regulations don't even require it to be replaceable
> If Apple could make money from removable batteries, meaning there was a market for it and people wanted it over some other alternative, are you suggesting they are not smart enough to do the research and work necessary to accomplish that?
sort of missed the point. market dominance and lock-in means they already are the 800-lb gorilla, and removable batteries sit below where it'd move most people to switch
Sourcing a tiny, esoteric, tech-heavy, developer website poll about smartphone batteries is not a fair sample of the billions of people in the world that use smartphones.
There's an exception for batteries that "retain at least 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles." Coincidentally, iPhones and probably other flagships already qualify for this exception.
Last time this was discussed, it was stated that the text exempting based on cycle counts was removed from the final, adopted version. Is that incorrect?
The batteries regulation[1] doesn't contain such an exemption. The legal argument that iPhones may be exempt goes like this:
- The batteries regulation is a general regulation and article 11 specifically says the following:
> This paragraph shall be without prejudice to any specific provisions ensuring a higher level of protection of the environment and human health relating to the removability and replaceability of portable batteries by end-users laid down in any Union law on electrical and electronic equipment as defined in Article 3(1), point (a), of Directive 2012/19/EU.
- There is a different regulation, the ecodesign regulation for smartphones and tablets[2], that is more specific and therefore might supersede the batteries regulation on this front, which says:
> (ii) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may provide the battery or batteries referred to in point (i)(a) only to professional repairers if manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives ensure that the following requirements are met:
> (a) after 500 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 83 % of the rated capacity;
> (b) the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1 000 full charge cycles and after 1 000 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 % of the rated capacity;
> (c) the device meets IP67 rating.
[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
[2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
This is solid. I like it.
I can strongly state that it is 100% possible to do ip67 with removable batteries in the sense people general mean.
That said, I am afraid how one can play with the definition of removable. Everything is removable given enough force.
On the page linked to it mentions the two exceptions that exempt iPhone and other flagship phones - long lifespan (80% after 1000 charges) and waterproof (IP67).
The other exemption criteria is for specialized (medical) devices and devices where a removable battery would be unsafe.
It does, but, in the previous HN discussion, there was a link to the what was reportedly the adopted version of the bill, and those exemptions were gone from the text.
Yeah I found the exception for waterproof devices (which isn't any waterproof devices; arguably phones wouldn't count). But there doesn't appear to be anything about cycle counts:
> To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
i’m ok with this and an $80 battery replacement in exchange for better waterproofing
IP68, replaceable battery, phone jack, 5G: https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover6_pro-11600.php
Unfortunately it is from 2022, meaning no OS upgrades.
I think the next mandatory laws EU should pass is that manufacturers should either allow people to upgrade/replace the OS by themselves or provide mandatory upgrades for the next decade (i don't care how the manufacturers handle it, that's up to them, but the easiest way out of such a law is to allow people upgrade/replace the OS by themselves).
The regulation already mandates an OS upgrade period, but the period depends on how long the manufacturer keeps selling the model: software updates must be provided for five years from the day when the manufacturer stops selling the product. From Annex II B, section 1.2:
> (6) Operating system updates:
> (a) from the date of end of placement on the market to at least 5 years after that date, manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives shall, if they provide security updates, corrective updates or functionality updates to an operating system, make such updates available at no cost for all units of a product model with the same operating system;
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1670/oj
There's some weasel wording there ("if they provide ..."), so I'm curious how the courts are going to interpret that clause.
Why only one decade? I’m still running a 2012 Mac mini. Apple stopped updating Mac OS some time ago, but there are plenty of alternatives that can run on the bare metal. Hardware makers should be required to provide support for the life of the device (defined by customers still using the device), or provide a reasonable way to install 3rd party OS.
At least on Android, when my Samsung Galaxy Note (I loved that phone - replaceable battery, pressure sensitive stylus, IR blaster, OLED, audio jack, water resistant - they went downhill from there IMO) finally end of lifed, I just used the official Samsung tool to upload a community image on it. The process wasn't horrendously difficult. I don't know if people would do it, but it was a clear set of steps that even a tech novice could accomplish if following carefully.
An operating system is only part of the software you might need to update or secure on a phone (as is the case with many other devices).
Indeed! The law needs to include firmware in some way. I'm not smart enough to come up with how exactly it should be dealt with, but it does need to be dealt with.
Currently Qualcomm decides when your phone stops getting updates, pretty much regardless to who actually made your phone.
Shoutout to fairphone who actually updated the firmware themselves, surely a loss leading project, but a very respectable dedication to end users.
The point is it's doable (and it was doable long before that. See the S5.)
I think the idea behind parent comment: it's possible to have these features and have a removable battery.
It's receiving monthly updates: https://security.samsungmobile.com/workScope.smsb
Phones should be like PCs - they give you the hardware, and you figure out what to install on it. Unfortunately Linux imo is partially to blame here - if they decided to do a stable driver ABI (don't hate me, this was the norm outside Linux and open source OSes), you could easily separate the OS and drivers and update the m separately.
The missing link here is ACPI, unlike on PC, the hardware doesn't describe what it has to the OS, making the task much harder.
The lack of standardization of handled devices is also another factor, they might look similar or even identical but they often are different per region and have some hardware revisions.
Android does have a separate driver partition nowadays but that doesn't help too much.
Who is "they"? Linux isn't a person or an organization. The people (and organizations) contributing to Linux are all doing it for their own motivations to solve their own problems. You are asking them to make their lives harder, for free, in service of fixing an issue that they don't care about.
>Unfortunately it is from 2022, meaning no OS upgrades.
I like how you didn't even bother checking if that was true.
Samsung committed to 5 years of OS upgrades on that one, so it’s theoretically getting one more upgrade next year at best. (Or maybe 2, if they release one this year). It’s nearly end of life for a software perspective.
So, they have an XCover 7 now - with similar specs.
Also, they committed to a rather long support cycle for the xcover6 (5 years I think?) - I have one and it is still going strong. I've replaced the battery twice - not because I desperately needed to, but... why not. They are cheap, and I use the older ones still as backup battery packs since they are fast to swap in.
Would be really nice. Seems like even android is getting more and more locked down
>Unfortunately it is from 2022, meaning no OS upgrades.
False. This is my work phone and the last update was less than a month ago. It's still supported.
It's not going to happen, because government need backdoors to the devices. That's why ability to flash own os is severely limited.
And all of the commenters complaining they would never buy this phone is great proof that the removable battery movement is DOA.
These phones exist. Companies have been producing them intermittently. When they do, few people buy them and there are always complaints that it's too big, too ugly, not fast enough, or something else.
The vocal minority demanding this feature but refusing to buy phones with the feature believe they can have their cake and eat it too. They want phones with all the benefits of built-in batteries and none of the downsides of removable batteries.
I always felt the issue with removable batteries was they had a smaller capacity and would run out of life faster - so the need to be able to replace a battery if you wanted your phone to last more than a few years was important.
Now, with much higher capacity batteries that work better and are more efficient at handling all the demanding displays, high end gpu's and now AI tasks running the background? There's really no need to have removable batteries any more.
Sure, you're going to get a few lemons here and there, but for the most part, batteries these days have no problem lasting the 4-5 years that you need them. You still see three or four year old iphones on ebay with 80-85% battery being sold like hot cakes.
> And all of the commenters complaining they would never buy this phone is great proof that the removable battery movement is DOA.
I had to reflect on that statement for a bit. I've always bought a new phone when there are battery problems or something else. BUT, that's because I can easily afford it.
There are plenty of people in this world who just can't go out and buy a new phone because one part wore out.
Or, to put it differently: I'd really like to replace the battery in my spare phone that I bring into my hot tub.
2 mm thicker and 58 grams heavier than the latest iPhone.
It is also a rugged phone. So if you want to make a fair comparison with an iPhone, you have to put the iPhone in a case, resulting in a similar weight and thickness.
Yeah the first thing everyone does with their new iPhones is put them in a case - at that point thinness doesn't matter, Id argue Apple counts on it, as their phones are awkward to hold otherwise.
Replaceable covers used to serve the same purpose.
Indeed. I've had my XCover 6 for 3½ years now. I've dropped it many times, on hard surfaces (like outdoor concrete/brick). I've undoubtedly been fortunate. the plastic has gouges in it. there's (small) scratches on the screen (some from my keys), but the screen is not cracked. When it is dropped the back and battery pop off, which I think helps dissipate the forces. BTW, for anyone trying to extend their phone life, I strongly recommend those magnetic USB connectors. Reduces wear and tear on the USB port, and is also kinda convenient for quick disconnect.
> I strongly recommend those magnetic USB connectors
Note that these connectors are in violation of USB standard and potentially harmful as they expose the pins in an unintended way. For instance, notice that all the connection on the USB port are not all the same length, it is a form of protection, to make sure the power lines are well connected before the data lines make contact. With magnetic USB connectors, you lose that feature, in addition to potential issues with ESD, short circuits, etc...
I have a friend who swears by them and never had a problem, but still, that's good to know.
> Yeah the first thing everyone does with their new iPhones is put them in a case - at that point thinness doesn't matter
Or does that mean thinness matter just that much more?
The horror.
This but unironically. People like thin and light flagship phones.
Hooray! No more camera bump :)
Oh yeah so it's utter trash and not worthy of our attention. Imagine carrying a whole 58 grams more, during a whole day, impossible for the average tech worker's atrophied muscles
The point is that people have different preferences, so the EU should not force people to buy phones with removable batteries. People who want such features can buy those phones, and people who want smaller, thinner phones can buy ones with integrated batteries.
At most the EU should tax externalities like electronic waste, though that would be a rounding error compared to the cost of the phone itself.
> The point is that people have different preferences, so the EU should not force people to buy phones with removable batteries.
There are many food additives with very useful properties, but health effects. There are many perfumes too where the original formulation had a particular compound layer found to be carcinogenic.
Regardless of whether an individual prefers to use such compounds at their own risk or not, large companies will use whatever is the cheapest ingredient for their product.
In some cases, that's better for the consumer - who, often, has almost zero choice.
(And if you think you truly have choice as a consumer, I challenge you to use a phone that isn't running either Apple or Google's code.)
I not sure how much we’re disagreeing here. Applying my argument of taxing externalities to certain food additives would result in taxes so high that it would effectively be a ban.
The externalities of integrated batteries are that people probably replace their phones sooner than otherwise, resulting in more electronic waste. But phones are only a tiny fraction of e-waste. Most e-waste is from household appliances, displays, & HVAC equipment. Phones are less 10%. I mean, how could it be otherwise? Phones are small and people use them for years before upgrading.
I’m not sure what the Android/iOS duopoly has to do with removable batteries. Mandating removable batteries would not change the operating systems available. And while there isn’t much choice in which OS you can run on a phone, there is enough choice that you can buy phones with removable batteries. If anything, this is an argument against mandating removable batteries, as governments are not mandating/subsidizing another phone OS despite far less choice in that area.
Lastly, I don’t see how banning people from having phones with integrated batteries gives them more choice. Most people (such as myself) don’t really care about removable batteries, and would rather have a phone that is smaller, cheaper, and/or more resistant to the elements. The way to give people the most choice is to tax externalities commensurate to the harm they cause, and let the market figure out what people actually value.
> (And if you think you truly have choice as a consumer, I challenge you to use a phone that isn't running either Apple or Google's code.)
Why doesn't this count as a choice? Was it more of a choice when Windows Phone was still around?
Such phones with removable batteries are incredibly rare, such that finding one is quite likely to fail if you have any other concerns at all.
If a truly well made phone was common and made by many people, then there'd be much less argument for this regulation.
What do you mean by "rare"? You just click "order". It's not like you have to go on the quest for the lost arc or anything like that. They are uncommon in the sense that people don't actually get them, but that's not because of a lack of availability. People do not want them.
They mean the models are rare, not the devices. The claim is if you want feature X + removable battery, it's unlikely that you will find it. People's willingness to forgo the battery for feature X therefore doesn't tell you if people care about removable batteries in an absolute sense, just that they care relatively less than they do about feature X.
You could argue that the market already reflects people's desires via, eg., Apple's market research. They could argue that democracy in the EU also reflects people's desires.
Phones with removable batteries are rare because only a small fraction of people want phones with removable batteries. Phone manufacturers also dislike removable batteries because customers buy cheap 3rd party batteries and complain when these batteries perform poorly or malfunction, sometimes by exploding. And then the headline is, “Phone made by company X explodes.” not, “Cheap battery explodes.” Removable batteries also introduce new failure modes like contacts degrading, causing phones to power off unexpectedly when jostled or flexed in certain ways. That increases the risk of a recall and bad PR.
I and millions of others want a phone that is smaller than the current offerings. Heck, my 13 mini is too big for my tastes. But I don’t think that means the government should force phone manufacturers to make smaller phones. So too for features like removable batteries, physical keyboards, or headphone jacks.
They're rare because outside of the tiny minority of people who complain loudly on HN, nobody cares about this feature.
We weren't given a choice in the first place.
That assumes that the market itself is actually "free" and consistent and that there are no bad actors in the mix, and upstarts are allowed to freely start and compete. Given the regulations in the space that is emphatically not so.
Incumbents will remove and enshitify a number of features in order to maximize returns... Your new clothes dryer has a 10 year mechanical warranty.. but the control board isn't covered, will die in 12-24 months and won't be produced again. Oh and there's some clunky DRM in the mix on top. Guess you get to buy a new dryer, but this time you'll go with $OtherShittyBrandThatDoesTheSameThing.
Aren’t newer washers/dryers full of electronics because of laws mandating higher efficiency? My parents have an old Maytag washer that uses around 30 gallons per load while my washer uses less than 8. I know Speed Queen makes dumb laundry machines, but at least one of their models was banned for residential sale by the Department of Energy. They ended up figuring out a workaround by gimping the default cleaning mode and encouraging users to not use that mode.[1]
But I don’t see how mandating removable batteries helps this situation with phones. I don’t replace my phone when the battery degrades, as it’s pretty cheap & painless to replace the battery after a few years. I upgrade when my phone stops getting security updates, or when a new phone comes along with some feature I want.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/speed-queen-revie...
This has been repeated so so many times... How can you be sure that throwaway glued-together phones are thinner and lighter than repairable phones.. If there is any source of this information, it's vendors who have interest in phones being non-repairable so they can ship more units...
How about vendors get on their asses and design thinner and lighter phones that are not e-waste from the moment they leave the factory?
I bet you when forced to make the right decision they can go even thinner and lighter than the current flagships...
For that matter, I put a chonky case on my phone anyway... would rather have a sturdier phone that doesn't need an additional case that has the features I'd like, including an easily replaced/swapped battery.
Beyond this, hell, make the "internal" battery solid-state with minimal capacity and have an external power pack from the get-go as part of case designs. Get the size of battery you want... if you want a big booty phone with battery for days, you can get it.
I get what you're saying but please be friendly here.
FFS. Everything is a compromise. People who want smaller and lighter are not more wrong than those who want battery and physical protection.
Erm, I mean they kind of are given the massive externalities non user serviceable parts causes.
E-waste is a minuscule rounding error compared to all the other forms of environmental destruction modern industrial civilization causes. European countries are massive polluters and net carbon producers (though not quite as bad as the US); e-waste shouldn't even be on their radar since it is a distraction from almost infinitely more important environmental concerns. People complaining about this don't actually care about e-waste, they just talk about it because it's convenient for their argument.
Earth's resources are finite, both in terms of raw materials and ability to absorb pollution. Stewardship of our resources entails the regulation of the things we create with those resources such that our collective consumption is conserved. Such oversight is both prudent, and as history and global outcomes teach, quite necessary.
I don't disagree with your statement, but an increase in design durability also does those things. A phone that you can drop and it doesn't break creates less pollution than a phone that you can drop and replace the screen.
I feel like the fact that the phone-with-removal-battery option already exists and is not popular in the market should be a signal to EU politicians about how much the public actually values this capability.
It's the curb-cut effect. Just because the larger population doesn't demand something doesn't mean they won't benefit from it.
You can't buy an iphone with this functionality, and many people are locked into that walled garden for a lot of different reasons.
That's fine, but even among Android users, nobody buys these removable battery phones. It's possible there's a disproportionate reservoir of iPhone&removable battery-only consumers, but it would surprise me if the desire for a reusable battery were strongly correlated with being locked into the Apple ecosystem. If anything, I would expect the propensity to desire removable batteries is more strongly correlated with Android use.
There are a plethora of reasons to prefer one phone to another and while removable battery phones exist if that's a strict criteria for you the market of available devices is extremely limited. Consumers don't have a real choice here.
I would expect that one of the main reasons that people prefer non-removable battery phones are the engineering tradeoffs inherent in making a phone with a removable battery. They will have strictly less choice on this axis when they no longer have the option to buy a non-removal battery phone.
I think you are vastly overvaluing how much consumers actually value phone thinness. The majority of consumers use phone cases (most modern phones have a camera popup specifically to be better compatible with a case to this end) so I think what customers value the most is lighter weight - not smaller form factor. A replaceable battery does come with a slight compromise to weight but stopping the endless chase of thinness has several engineering advantages when it comes to ports and cooling.
I don't think your speculation is completely unreasonable, but I just want to point out that consumer preference as revealed by current, actual reality only provides evidence in favor of my side of the argument. It's totally possible that the manufacturers are completely wrong about consumer preference and they are acting against their own interests by making the batteries non-replaceable, and somehow none of the manufacturers noticed this or were able to successfully take advantage of it to gain market share. But, I think that would be a pretty surprising thing if it turned out to be true.
Usually, in consumer electronics, the unencumbered market tends to gravitate toward what people actually want to buy. Totally possible this could be an exception to the rule, but I doubt it.
And 4 years old... I wouldn't buy this new
Better than average phone sold today. The only problem might be lack of android upgrades otherwise it is straight upgrade for most people. This is reason why replaceable battery is important. If you leave IT bubble people happily use ancient phones and do not need upgrades if battery is ok and there is space to save new photos.
There's a new model the 7 pro https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover7_pro-13780.php
No 3.5mm jack though :-/
The comment is not meant to give you something to buy, it's just proof that it can technically be done, they just don't want to do it for modern flagships.
> it can technically be done
At what cost though?! And no, I am not talking about money. Any device (and any product really) is a set of tradeoffs.
I like it when different producers select a different subset of priorities for their offer. Competition at work. One of the reasons we witnessed such an awesome evolution in the smartphone market.
I hate it when a bureaucrat dictates a set of demands with absolutely zero regard to the cost or the tradeoffs involved in product decisions and market competition.
> At what cost though?! And no, I am not talking about money. Any device (and any product really) is a set of tradeoffs.
My $200 Moto G3 in 2016 had a removable back cover (admittedly not battery). It was also waterproof (and had a headphone jack.)
The engineering of making things waterproof is in the realm of "A bit more annoying but easily doable if anyone's interested in doing it", not "Doable at the cost of everything else".
The tradeoff was discussed in a sibling thread: it's heavier by 58 grams and thicker by 2mm. That's it. That's the tradeoff. Why go crazy on the guy?
That's with the latest iphone, not the equivalent iphone from when this was released.
So the fun plateau will be less pronounced and fun?
I hate when a technocrat at a multi-billion dollar company makes those decisions, maximizing profit and not giving a fuck about any other criteria.
> At what cost though?!
maybe just a little less margin for apple...
> I like it when different producers select a different subset of priorities for their offer. Competition at work. One of the reasons we witnessed such an awesome evolution in the smartphone market. > > I hate it when a bureaucrat dictates a set of demands with absolutely zero regard to the cost or the tradeoffs involved in product decisions and market competition.
I generally agree with that sentiment, except we don't have a vibrant market of many options with many different trade offs. Finding headphone jack, solid reparability, user swappable battery, easily replaceable USB port, and all the other things that one might want is basically impossible. The vast majority of phones are highly unrepairable, have no headphone jack, have everything soldered to a tiny number of internal boards, and are full of anti repair dark patterns.
There is not waterproofing, on any phone. Yes, when you buy it, no after 3 years when the glue that waterproofs no longer sticks due to ageing.
It really depends on the model, manufacturer, & luck. I’ve never had a phone lose its water resistance. The phone I use today (a 13 mini) is almost five years old and I clean it by running it under the faucet.
I cleaned a Samsung A53 under the faucet about 2 years after purchase brand new, using only a little water.
It failed soon after from water damage. I had to get it dried out and a new screen fitted, and some functions never worked properly since then.
I expected better as the specs claim IP67 ("Submersible in up to 1 meter of fresh water for up to 30 minutes"), and I used only a little water.
I'd return it if a brand new device that advertised IP67 died almost immediately under a normal sink water flow. Clearly it wasn't built to spec and one can't trust the rest of their manufacturing.
But I mean that's just similarly true of Samsung products. I avoid them like the plague. I haven't had a good Samsung device in almost 20 years, and used to be a Samsung fan
I had a Pixel 6a last year bought not too long after it came out. I left it on a patio table. I was hosing things off and there was a significant amount of over spray on to the table. The screen died over the course of a couple of hours due to water ingreess.
I just put my Pixel 10 through the washing machine by accident. To my surprise, it was perfectly fine.
"Yes, when you buy it, no after 3 years when the glue that waterproofs no longer sticks due to ageing."
My 2014 Kyocera Duraforce Pro is STILL waterproof and I use it for underwater photography incessantly.
all that water is keeping the glue moist
No glue, it's all screws and gaskets.
I'm kinda surprised with esim, wireless charging and Bluetooth noones just made a phone with a solid layer of glass completely surrounding it for 100% waterproofing
A lack of physical port makes troubleshooting more difficult. Apple didn’t remove the diagnostic port from their watches until the series 7. Also I think certain governments require that phones have a USB-C port.
The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Also, it's water - resistance.
My low-cost plastic Casio watch based on a very old design is waterproof and battery can be swapped out by undoing 4 philips screws, no glue. Its buttons can also be operated under water while staying waterproof.
What is this whicraft?
I normally much prefer screws over glue but Apple has at least been using repair-friendly glue like the electrically debonding adhesive in use for iPhone 16e/17e.
Making these devices repairable is not just about taking it apart, it's also about getting it back together. If I need to electrically debond the adhesive, then I'd also need to new strips of this special adhesive to hold the new battery in place. All of this is after needing a heat gun to weaken the adhesive just to get into it, which I assume also needs to be reapplied on reassembly to retain the same level of water and dust resistance.
It's not just a matter of buying a battery and using some tools the average person has on hand. A whole kit of specialty tools and parts needs to be ordered to facilitate the repair. Apple's own repair kit is the most extreme form of this, where they ship 70lbs of tools, which would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjsc6UypDOI
Friendly for who? I certainly cant electrically debond chemical compounds, but I sure do know how to undo a screw.
And you can't follow a guide either? All you have to do is clip a 9v battery on.
Do you also consider yourself incapable of jump starting a car because you might have to look up instructions first?
Yes. Dont assume that everybody is technically minded such as yourself.
I know plenty of people that would never even consider jump starting thei car. However are also quite happy with poppping open a battery cover and doing a simple swap like any other battery powered device.
You don't have to be "technically minded" to figure this out. It's not spinning up a Kubernetes cluster, it's a picture with an arrow that says "Clip red wire here". Simply driving a car is a thousand times more complicated, and we expect most everybody to be capable of that.
There's also a difference between not wanting to do something, and not being capable of it.
You seem to judge the world by your own accument and ability, which is very dangerous.
Many milions of people are scared by things such as red and black wires and wont touch them with a barge pole.
It's ridiculous to baby proof the world to that level. For a significant portion of that group, taking a screwdriver to their phone is also beyond comfort — those people can take their phone to a mall kiosk just like they do now.
It is probably a good idea to review some instructions before jump starting a car because even though it is simple, if you do it wrong (connect the battery terminal last) you can blow up your battery from the ignition of hydrogen gas.
Agreed. But having to reference instructions is very different from being incapable of something, which was my point.
Well yeah any glue is worse than screws: this I agree with you. But attaching a 9V battery to the glue is around the same difficulty as applying torque with a screwdriver.
There's little metal tabs you can alligator-clip a 9-volt battery onto, which will release the adhesive. Way better than the stupid pull tabs you had to pull and roll in a very particular way in order to not tear them and render the battery unsafe to remove.
An Apple product manager just fainted at the thought of a user taking a screwdriver to an iPhone.
not if they manage to find a screw head that can only be opened by a clean, minimalist, proprietary, expensive Apple screwdriver
You joke but...
https://www.homedepot.com/p/Lukyamzn-P2-P5-P6-Pentalobe-Scre...
At first it looks like a normal torx head, but then you realize it has 5 lobes instead of 6. Apple used these on early iPhone models when you actually could open them with this proprietary screwdriver.
I get it for watches, but I've never understood the mass-market need for a waterproof phone, outside of a few niche hobbies. Are people showering and swimming with their phones or something? Or dropping them in their toilets? The wettest my phone has ever been in 8 years is in my pocket while it's raining.
People in humid climates and cold climates were regularly having their phones get denied warranty service because the water ingress stickers turned red due to condensation, without ever exposing their phone to water immersion. This was understandably upsetting for a lot of people who just wanted their phone to be fixed under warranty.
Thus, companies put in a big effort to seal their phones against dust and water, which ought to have dramatically reduced these service issues and led to a better customer experience overall!
There is waterproof specification levels. I haven't met one consumer product which doesn't let moisture in. I live in a hot country (not over 40ºC mind you)
If I not being precise, keeping your phone in your jeans deep tight pocket when you are sweating or raining will cause you problems. It might seem too many coincidences for you, but it is common enough that some of us avoid keeping the phone in the pocket.
Life happens, people want the assurance that their phone isn’t necessarily e-garbage after an accidental dunk.
It is not that long ago that smartphones would die from moisture exposure if you left them in the bathroom while taking a shower. I had a girlfriend around 2001 who spent all her savings on a shiny new Nokia 8250, got drunk and barfed on her jacket. The phone was in the pocket, and the moisture from the wet jacket completely killed it, she cried about it for weeks. I also remember my mother dropping her iPhone 6 in the harbor while getting off a boat, it got picked up but was dead. Last year I was out hiking in the rain, and my aging (5+ years old) iPhone 11 got water inside it and started dying soon after (I'd been sailing/swimming with the phone and had exposed it to salt water, apparently that will wear down the seals if you do it enough.)
In other words, I absolutely see the need for waterproof phones, even for ordinary people doing ordinary things, and am never going to buy one that isn't.
I like to wash my phone under the tap, not getting paranoid of having it in a table close to the pool while drinking a few beers with my wife and friends, it is a really nice to have feature if you live in a warmer climate.
> Or dropping them in their toilets?
That.
It’s also nice to be able to wash them under the tap
Notably a bigger problem for women who must put their phones in their back pockets due to having no/small pockets in front.
The latter often goes hand in hand with the former.
I like to wash my phones every now and then. Even submerging them in water.
Kayaking, fishing, river floating, surfing, diving, snorkeling, etc. "No one I know takes their phone snorkeling" <- that's because they're not presently waterproof, but I imagine a lot of people would like to take a high quality camera under water.
Swimming. Lakes generally don't come with a securely closed box, and even if I come with company, they usually want to swim at the same time.
Of course I don't have to actually _use_ the phone while swimming, so it goes into a waterproof pouch - but having a 2nd layer of defense is nice.
I'd rather have an 3.5mm audio jack
> Are people showering and swimming with their phones or something?
Believe it or not, yes!
Tens of millions of people have outdoor hobbies that puts them in direct or incidental contact with water. Hundreds of millions live in places where rain happens. Billions live in situations where a spill of drinking water (or water based liquids) are a real risk for thier phones.
I don't want to take extra care and caution just to have a life and a fone. Theoretically this thing makes my life easier and I want it to act like it damnit.
What, you stop refreshing HN while you're showing?
I think it's mostly marketing. When all phones are identical glass rectangles, the only meaningful way to distinguish your product is by being the biggest, thinnest, highest IP-rating.
Most of these metrics are entirely orthogonal to what any real person wants from a phone, but that's an irrelevant detail to marketing types
Yes, people are so addicted to scrolling their idiotic looping videos that they take their phones in public pools. Saw it myself.
How do they waterproof around the screws?
They don't. The screws are outside of the gasket: https://rmdd.net/writing/2023/sensor-watch/2.jpeg
Usually there is a gasket, which ages just like glue (it gets stiff and brittle) and should be replaced every decade or so.
technically you're meant to replace the rubber ring around it, but yes, not hard to do.
I actually never did. I think you're only supposed to replace it on those scuba-style watches with screw-on casebacks that shred the gasket when fully tightened to ensure a tight seal.
But on those watches with 4 screws on the case, the gasket seemed fine to me to keep reusing.
I think a lot of sealing rings / gaskets are meant to be single use. I had to swap the heater on my hot tub a while back and the store told me to change the o-rings on the inlet and outlet as it was unlikely the prior ones would re-seal after being loosened.
That's common on high-pressure systems. It's not very common on diving-depth water-proof equipment.
Worse than I thought: https://support.casio.com/en/support/answer.php?cid=00900101...
"• To maintain water resistance, have the gaskets of your watch replaced periodically (about once every two or three years)."
It seems like the same can be true for the glue used on the iPhone.
> Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions and resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty, but you might have rights under consumer law.[0]
If a gasket has a predictable life, there could be a warning after that period that the water resistance may be compromised and to replace the gasket if this is a concern for how the user use's the phone. With glue, it seems less certain and Apple goes so far as to say even dropping your phone can compromise the seal enough to risk liquid damage.
Meanwhile, a G-Shock was designed to have a battery life of 10 years, have a water resistance of 10 bar, and survive a fall of 10 meters. Dropping the watch doesn't nullify the water resistance claims, the goal was to be able to do all of those things at once.
[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/108039
A gasket.
The buttons can’t be operated underwater. You’ve been lucky thus far. Casio asks you not to use the buttons underwater.
https://www.casio-intl.com/asia/en/wat/water_resistance/
> Even if a watch is water-resistant, do not operate its buttons or crown while it is submersed in water or wet.
Timex has been making iron-man watches held together with Philips-head screws that can withstand 100 meters of water pressure since the mid-1980s. Waterproofing is no excuse for this nonsense.
Watch cases are relatively huge for what needs to be inside them. You can see the difference between an entire smartphone and a simple time keeping device, right?
They also don’t have the long aspect ratio of phones (bending moment).
This doesn’t compare to phones at all. It’s like trying to compare your TI-83 calculator to a MacBook Pro
Then use more screws. Stud them all the way down the perimeter of the back 1cm apart for all I care. Still better than heat-guns and prying.
Adding more holes to a surface isn't going to make it more waterproof
Tell that to boat hull riveters
Now go look up why they stopped riveting ships in the 40's and went to welding, there are no modern riveted ships. Even with the rivets they were forged not pressed, nothing like a screw.
Cheap aluminum boats are still riveted, welding preferred for obvious reasons. I have an old riveted aluminum John boat and is leaks through the rivets and seams...
> there are no modern riveted ships
> Cheap aluminum boats are still riveted
I think you may need to think out your entire post before typing such contradictions.
Riveted hulls worked for hundreds of years and well maintained they can last forever. Just bacause welding makes it cheaper to maintain in the long run does not detract from the fact that riveted hulls are very performant, which is why they were used everywhere that needed not only waterproofing but pressure containment too.
Wood boats have been around for hundreds of years as well doesn't mean they are just as good in leak resistance to welded boats...
Ship vs boat is also not a contradiction.
You'd be really interested to learn the difference between a rivet and a screw.
Rivets use holes, exactly the thing the parent mentioned about not being waterproof.
They also don't have speakers, microphones, and charging ports.
My Galaxy Watch disagrees.
I once had a cheap Timex watch die from water ingress after running a track workout during a torrential downpour. At the time I joked that it only failed because we ran farther than the 100m rating
Is there any chance it was counterfeit (Timexx or so)
No. Bought in person at a Walmart in like, 2005
I think the USB & speaker are the weak links for water ingress. Also, a removable battery would (probably?) significantly weaken the phone. So, if you dropped it, it'd be more likely to sustain real damage.
I don't see them as very big weak points. USB doesn't have enough voltage to do jack in water even if you don't detect the water and turn it off. And the speaker can be made entirely out of waterproof materials, there are literally waterproof floating pool speakers you can buy for dirt cheap. The weak link is the main oring/glue as always.
Is there any other details on what it means.
There is a difference between:
- Having a manufacturer promise that the battery will last with little oversight on how testing is done and no specific warranty.
- A lifetime warranty where any battery that gives less than 80% of its rating for 1000 cycles has to be replaced free of charge. With the added obligation that measurements should be user-readable and accurate (no cheating the cycle counter and battery gauge).
> has to be replaced free of charge
I assume you mean the battery would have to be replaced free of charge. But what if I don't want to hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation with no oversight of how it will be handled? What if I can't afford to part with that computer?
I would be stuck with having to replace that battery on my own since I don't want to risk giving physical access to my computer to untrusted parties.
There needs to be a different way to handle this. For example, send me a new battery and the tools needed to replace it, with monetary compensation if certain features would be lost, like waterproofing. Or something else - not sure. But I don't believe in the honor of the people who would service my computer.
> hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation
I'm equally paranoid, so I back up and wipe any device I hand in for repair.
> What if I can't afford to part with that computer?
No perfect answer for this, but I've always kept my last phone in a drawer in case my current phone breaks. It's saved me a couple of times. Maybe not everything works, but basic calls and texts always have, and I can use a browser for banking and other "complicated" stuff for a few days.
I'm OK if the perfect doesn't get in the way of the good - both personally, and in this sort of legislation.
Without sufficient technical information on how the computer works and without root access, we can't be certain a "wipe" will actually wipe everything.
For malware that could be inserted in a targeted manner, even with desktop computers we don't have access the every firmware of every part.
When we're talking about mobile "phones", we usually have an interface that tells us "sure, it's wiped", but is it? Without full root to every part of it, can you be certain that it is? When you press "wipe" on an iPhone or a closed Android flagship (or whatever the UI is), what happens exactly on the filesystem that you can't even access fully?
Telling people to hand over their devices willy-nilly is far from "good". We shouldn't settle for this. The hardware companies can ship us the tools to replace the battery ourselves. Maybe not "ourselves" - my aunt can ask me to do it for her if she can't do it on her own. But she trusts me more than she does people she's never seen ever. If the tools are expensive, we can ship them back. There are many options so we should discuss them.
Still, the majority of the population would get a phone with replaceable battery.
All the top smartphone manufacturers hit that bar, at least for their mid and high end phones. The focus on apple is misleading and weird.
This will only impact bottom barrel phones.
Exactly. Apple and Samsung phones account for 90% of the market and are exempt fro mthis bill. So just how much ewaste will it prevent?
Remember ios 10.2.1? Batterygate?
That was 10 years ago. Are there any other instances similar that are more recent?
"Remember the time Apple fixed iOS so the iPhone would run instead of crashing under low voltage conditions" remains, to me, the most inexplicable of HN's mass psychoses.
Remember that they did it secretly and denied it for ages, only to backtrack and use this excuse when it was actually proven they were slowing the devices.
Dont let the marketing spin white-wash your long term memory of an event.
In my bubble, some. In the general population? Very very few.
displayedBatteryHealthPercent = max(80, actualBatteryHealthPercent);
(I suspect the health figures displayed are already somewhat fudged to try and downplay the reality of battery degradation?)
Huh, my iPhones have never come close to this. They are always under 80% capacity before 1000 charge cycles.
unfortunately, it will be based on _design_ / _rated_ capacity, probably.
My iPhone 13 Mini is almost 5 years old and well over 1000 charges and the battery health app reports 81% which I believe.
Watch apple secretly defining 1000 charge cycles as 1500 10%-80% "normal use" days. (Remember the "full charge in 8 minutes fiasco? Well, I searched a reference but I didn't find any :/)
That had me thinking as well. What if the manufacturer says that to get to that number you are only allowed to charge it to 80% ever? My iPhone pro battery is at 92% at 417 cycles over 20 months.
Do what EVs do: make 100% on the display not 100.0% electro-chemically and 0% not be 0.0% chemically.
This is a serious suggestion, as I think it’s actually net beneficial for the consumer.
This is already the case and has been so for a long time. But it's a trade off between longevity and capacity
The problem is that consumers want to buy a phone with 24 hours of runtime and an EV with 200 miles of range, and they want the phone to be thin and light and the car to be fast and light, and manufacturers want to achieve those capacities with as little electrochemistry as possible. The number of charge cycles at full capacity will be a big deal a year or two in, but on the sales floor it's a secondary concern for typical buyers and sellers.
Playing fast and loose with the numbers, I'm sure that if 100% on the display was 80% in the battery and 0% was 20%, you'd have an amazing number of charge cycles. You could program that 40% of unused capacity to be reduced as the battery ages very slowly, and by the time the used capacity is only at 80% of its original revealed capacity you're at many thousands of cycles. But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1.
Absent breakthroughs in battery chemistry, this basically regulates the amount of buffer capacity that manufacturers are required to include in their ~~lies~~ marketing materials.
There's no coming back from 0% chemically. Running li-ions that low results in physical damage.
In that hypothetical scenario they should advertise 80% as the full capacity. Competition generally prevents this kind of "underclocking".
So as far as I can tell, they can't do this as it's based on equivalent full-charge cycles - so that's nice at least.
I wonder who’s gonna verify the claims about holding or not holdings 80% charge after 1000 cycles.
And what consequences will there be for whoever lies.
Reminds me when I tried to warranty a macbook air battery a couple years ago. I was already under 80% within the warranty period per System Profiler. They hook up their diagnostics and turns out, System Profiler is wrong, I was at 81% capacity after 1 year. No repair for me.
1,000 charge cycles is hardly even 4 years. I’m not sure what this regulation is trying to fix. That ultimately means landfills will be filled with more iPhone Ns.
I wonder how much did the phone manufacturers spend on lobbying for this.
Yeah, and it's BS because in real usage iPhone batteries almost never reach this lifespan. Apple's lobby made this law ineffective, I hope customers start suing.
Apple doesn't comply with regulations that weren't their idea with sincerity.
You can also just redefine the battery capacity so that 100% = former 80% and then add a paid subscription feature to "occasionally overcharge it by 25%"
/s
Doesn't seem like a problem. Assuming the phone needs recharging every 3 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~8.2 years; longer than the OS is likely to be supported. Assuming a recharge every 2 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~5.5 years.
That's a pretty crazy assumption. I have to charge at least once a day on my flagship phone.
Granted, I hate big phones so it's a Samsung S25 smallest version but still. I don't know anyone who can get more than a day on a charge.
My iPhone is less than 1 year old and I have to charge it every day.
I'm guessing they use very conservative usage in their math. I'm on my pixel all day long but I barely use my iPhone 13 more than maybe an hour a day. I can leave it unplugged all weekend and come back Monday with enough charge to get me through the day.
You have a very loose definition of recharge and charge cycle which seems to fit Apples marketing spin like a glove.
As others have mentioned this is for phones with batteries that can’t survive a reasonable number of cycles.
That’s a reasonable exemption, in my opinion. I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
I do wish one manufacturer would make a flagship phone with replaceable battery so all of the uncompromising replaceable battery fans could have a phone that fits their niche demands rather than trying to force everyone else to pay the extra costs (price, size, water intrusion, structural rigidity) that would come with laws forcing all phones to have removable batteries.
> a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote. After a day of taking photos in the wild its nice to be able to just chuck in a fresh batttery and off you go.
I feel like this feature of phones was not only lost, but pretty much forgotten about after smartphones stopped including user replaceable batteries.
External battery banks are a far superior solution now that almost everything has standardized on USB and we have power banks supporting high speed charging.
They can be charged with the same power adapter you use to charge your phone, without the need of an extra docking thing.
They can be used to charge any USB-chargeable device.
They are not tied to your specific model, and thus you're not vendor locked with them, making them cheaper and easier to find anywhere in the world.
They come in multiple capacities, allowing you to plan in advance your energy needs and choose the right size bank for your situation.
They are far more sturdier than any modern battery, which makes them more resistant to puncture and bending.
They don't have external contacts that could potentially short in contact with conductive surfaces.
Lots of advantages, but one major downside: you can't pop the empty battery, put a new one and keep working.
There's a reason professional devices (e.g. cameras) still have replaceable batteries.
The people who need this feature should go buy one of the phone models with replaceable batteries.
Reading the comments here, it's obvious that the replaceable battery fans can't even agree on what they want. One commenter wants the back covered in tens of screws for waterproofing. Other commenters want the battery quickly replaceable so they can do hot swaps without missing a beat. Some people are sharing links to phones that have replaceable batteries and getting responses from people saying they'd never buy that phone because it's too big, too ugly, or other reasons.
This is an impossible debate because one side has convinced themselves that it's possible to have their cake and eat it, too: They believe that removable batteries can be implemented without any tradeoffs and the only reason they're not removable is so the phones are forced to become e-waste, which requires you to ignore all of the low cost battery replacement services available.
too many CS majors and not enough mechanical engineers on this forum
I use a lot of rechargeable AAA and AA batteries. They have lower voltage than alkaline batteries (by design apparently), which is not normally an issue, but sometimes is a deal breaker. E.g. my thermostat did not like lower voltage AA batteries and shut down prematurely a number of times.
There's challenges adopting standardized rechargeable batteries, e.g. trying to recharge alkaline batteries risks fire/explosion (and you know that will happen far too often given the number of people out there), but if we have had standard battery sizes, voltages, and capacities for rechargeable batteries, things would be so much better.
I have a magnetic wireless power bank that I put on my phone and I can continue using it as normal.
But you can plug in the battery pack and keep working…
Nobody needs to do that with a mobile phone.
> This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote.
There are several high end phones with removable batteries. You should buy one of them if this feature is important to you.
This movement to force everyone's phones to pay the costs of removable batteries to address these really niche use cases is not great.
> he costs of removable batteries to address these really niche use cases
You seem to have completely missed the primary point of all this, which is to reducew ewaste. That fact that it also satisfies some niche uses cases is a great bonus!
> You seem to have completely missed the primary point of all this, which is to reducew ewaste.
Everyone acting like iPhones and mainstream Android phones become e-waste after 3 years is just making specious arguments.
Why does the average phone user know more about phone batteries and replacing them than all of these commenters acting like iPhones are becoming e-waste after a couple years?
I think I know more people with 4-6 year old iPhones than with an iPhone 17.
Apple stores will replace the battery for you for a very reasonable fee and the phone will carry on for many years more. This is a common thing to do and you can find battery replacement services for popular Android phones too.
Replaceable batteries are one thing, but truly hot swappable batteries like you're asking for will absolutely effect the waterproofing and add a lot of weight/size. Is there a reason you can't just bring a battery pack in your rucksack? They make magnetic ones you can slap on the back and be on your way.
Continuing to take photos with a battery pack hanging off a device is no where near as simple as popping in a fresh 100% battery and coninuing as normal.
These don't dangle or impede your use:
https://www.anker.com/products/a1665-5k-ultra-slim-qi2-power...
Is that ... just a wall wart with a screen on it? Why is that relevant?
EDIT: Wait no it's a carousel of completely unrelated products because the page redirected (without my input) to https://ankernordics.com/.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what you're seeing to be honest. The link should be to a slim 5000mah magsafe battery that attaches to the back of iPhones.
The Anker Nano Power Bank (5K, MagGo, Slim). No screen, charges via USBC.
Seems like this product, on the Anker Nordic page so that it works for us who for whatever reason are booted from the main Anker website: https://www.ankernordics.com/products/a1665-anker-nano-power...
Yeah, that would work. The first party Apple MagSafe power bank is also a decent alternative.
just to note, wireless charging is very inefficient. From the page you linked:
"Due to a 30% to 45% energy loss in battery cells and conversion circuitry, a fully charged 5,000 mAh power bank typically offers an estimated 2,750 to 3,500mAh to power devices"
Then use the supplied USB-C to USB-C cable for more efficient charging, while using the magnets to stick it to the back of your phone.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I would still prefer replaceable batteries back though, and you really dont need to convince me otherwise!
You can keep several power bricks that will charge any USB-C device now.
yes exactly my point, I dont want to wait to charge up my device with another device. I just want to pop in a fresh 100% battery. It used to be so simple.
My powerbrick connects to the back of my phone. Form factor wise it's pretty close to my extra large StarTac removable battery that I would carry around.
Bully for you!
Id like my user replaceable 100% full batteries back if its ok with you?
Then go buy one of the phones with replaceable batteries?
https://www.androidcentral.com/best-android-phone-removable-...
Fine with me purchase any phone with that feature you want.
Apologies, my coment came off a bit unecessarily aggressive.
It is my preference to have user replaceable batteries, and my belief is that they were only removed to make phones become obselete quicker and cause higher turnover of purchased phones.
No amount of battery packs can bring that back.
No apologies needed. The market is just not working in your favor.
> It is my preference to have user replaceable batteries, and my belief is that they were only removed to make phones become obselete quicker and cause higher turnover of purchased phones.
My iPhone 12 is six years old. I replaced the battery last year. While it probably won't be workable on cellular networks in six years, outside of physical damage there's little reason it'll stop working. My original iPhone from 2007 still boots up and runs. There's no GSM service for it to talk to but it runs as a WiFi only iPod just fine if I really wanted.
The idea that non-replaceable batteries is a conspiracy to lower the lifetime of devices is sort of silly. Flagship phones are made of incredibly sturdy materials. If they were designed to be disposable they'd have a bunch of sacrificial structural elements to limit their lifetime. Instead they're built as well as they can possibly be built.
A flagship phone will be left behind in CPU power running bloated JavaScript blogs or cellular service long before any internal component fails. Non-replaceable batteries are about hitting a capacity/size target more than anything else. Replaceable batteries enforce constraints on a phone's design that non-replaceable ones do not have.
My 2018 car lost all it's connected features when the 3G network was shut down.
There's tons of MagSafe battery packs for iPhones. They charge the phone continuously. There's no need to let the phone drop to zero before attaching the battery pack. There's also cases with integral batteries. I assume there's Android equivalents for various phones.
I'd say these are more convenient than extra swappable batteries. They have integral charge controllers and charge via USB. There's no need to charge them in the phone or have to buy some extra external battery charger.
Many flagship phones promise 7 years of security updates now. 3-4 years means the battery will only last for half that time, and heavy users (1 cycle per day) will hit that quota in under 2.75 years.
The battery doesn't cease functioning after 3-4 years. The benchmark says it should have 80% capacity.
It's also not really that expensive to have phone batteries replaced. Apple will do it for $120 including the battery for their flagship models that cost over $1000. Cheaper for lower end models.
I can't take any arguments seriously that claim these phones are becoming e-waste after 2.75 years. Battery replacement is a common process.
Importantly “last” means that it will have at least 80% battery capacity left.
That must be somewhat significant, because after that percent, Apple will start showing "Your battery’s health is significantly degraded" warnings.
Degradation is usually nonlinear.
Then the law should just make sure that there's a second source at least for the batteries, that technicians have free access to disassembly instructions, and that it can be done without undue effort or risk.
Requiring common tools or technical skills for replacing something that last 4 years is not a hassle to justify enshitiffying phones design as long as you're not vendor locked for such replacement, and a technician can do it in a reasonable amount of time, with reasonable tool and without the risk of degrading the functionality of the device doing so.
I'm old enough to remember the old Nokia phones that had removable cases, removable batteries, and you would have upgrade envy for the last year of your 36 month cell service contract. Then we had wince and early android devices and BlackBerries which were pretty much the same.
Somehow we made it work back then.
This regulation isn't primarily for fans of replaceable batteries, it's driven by general concerns about e-waste. It's unclear how much it might actually reduce e-waste in practice but it will certainly increase compliance costs.
At least it's a performance standard. If the Government is going to regulate consumer products I would rather it be performance standards than implementation details. If a device doesn't meet performance standards it can trigger warranty requirements.
> I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.
What are you doing to your phone that needs all that? Using it as a hammer? Temporary support while building a tunnel?
The big question is, what happens when the manufacturer claims it can survive a reasonable number of cycles, then it turns out it can't. By the time this becomes obvious, the phones will be out of warranty.
Will the manufacturer simply be prohibited from selling those phones (which are probably no longer sold by that time anyways), will they be fined a "cost of doing business" level fine, or will customers have an actual remedy (e.g. full refund even after the 2 year warranty period)?
> I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery
This is a BS excuse. Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.
> Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.
And this is a BS rebuttal. None of them achieve the same miniaturization and water tightness as iPhone.
This law is basically government being co-opted by a tiny vocal minority to force their unpopular opinions onto the rest of the public.
If any modest percentage of the market cared about replaceable batteries above all else in their phones, the market would already be packed with removable battery phone options.
Should we not expect phones to last more than 3-4 years? We aren't in the exponential performance growth and requirements part of the smartphone world anymore, a 5-7 year old phone can be a perfectly functional device. Isn't it unfortunate that a perfectly good phone gets turned to e-waste years before it has to, just because a consumable part of it happens to be non-replaceable?
I think it may help to clarify that there are two Regulations which seem to have been muddled in the comments:
* Regulation 2023/1670 provides, inter alia, that smartphone manufacturers must make replacement batteries available to consumers, except where the 80%/1000 cycle criteria is met, in which case replacement batteries can be made only available to professional repairers. There is also a requirement for it being able to replace the battery but this does permit use of non-trivial tools under certain circumstances.
* Regulation 2023/1542 provides that portable batteries (not limited to smartphones) must be readily end-user replaceable if they meet certain criteria unless the strict waterproofing/medical industry criteria are met.
I've a plan: 2027 I'm buying a Motorola with first-party support for GrapheneOS and a replaceable battery. Things are looking up!
There is almost zero chance that the Motorola phones will come with a replaceable battery and likely fall under the exemption anyways. The GOS supported phones will all be flagship level devices (i.e. Signature/RAZR).
Yes! Hope they deliver some decent enough device
I tend to find these days that OS version obsolescence and charge port damage happen far sooner than the battery losing significant capacity
I just called the shop to replace the perfectly fine e-Call battery in my soon four year old Hyundai car. 250€ to change a battery that has a ten year lifespan. I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer (not the one by law). Why is this stuff not considered as well?
Also curious whether the "specialized devices" exemptions are AND requirements. Even if those are AND, wouldn’t smartphone manufacturers try to satisfy all three of them?
> I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer. Why is this stuff not considered as well?
They're the ones paying for repairs, so it doesn't seem that unreasonable? That said: If you can prove the car is being maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications they can't require you to go to a brand dealership. That's just not necessarily easy to prove.
Recalls don’t require you to have had maintained the car at the dealership previousy
A recall means the manufacturer shipped a faulty product. If you can prove you received a faulty product such requirements also don't apply.
Why are you replacing it if it is perfectly fine?
I like the idea in principle, but I hope the implementation does not just result in thicker phones with worse water resistance and higher prices.
The real win would be if batteries are replaceable without specialized tools, parts are available for several years, and manufacturers are not allowed to use software pairing to block third-party repair.
Otherwise we may technically get “replaceable batteries”, but not the practical right to keep a phone alive longer.
Ooh, can the batteries also trigger pop-up consent dialogs?
Was discussed recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47834195
In principle, this is the kind of right sentiment but for the wrong things.
I can't remember a phone that died because of the battery since the era of Ni-Cd cells in early cell phones. I don't think I've never discarded a phone with a li-ion battery because of the battery. It's always physical breakage or getting too slow to be usable, because of age.
Sure, I don't spend a cycle per day. Not even every other day. That's probably rare, I get that. But much rather than because of dying batteries I'd like EU to mandate
- the phone should come with full keys so that I can own the machine if I want to - or at the very least the hardware must become unlockable once the support period ends - individual components should be made available for independent repairs - repairs must not need software pairing of hardware components on unlocked devices
because of right to own and right to repair which shouldn't be "rights" but nonnegotiable traits of physical properties like they used to be.
> getting too slow to be usable
Not sure what the behavior is like on Android, but iOS will throttle performance if your battery has degraded past a certain state. So I'm sure that there are many iPhone users that are replacing their phone due to what they think is poor performance related to the age of the phone, when it's really due to the age of the battery.
I think the iPhone will warn you if your battery performance is significantly degraded?
I’ve definitely replaced iphones because the battery wasn’t holding a charge. My understanding is that this is a pretty common issue, no?
Rule does not apply to gadgets that already retain 80% charge capacity at 1k charge cycles.
What is the share of the smartphone market that this applies to?
You can bet it will be measured in such a way that the major companies’ devices will qualify. And that it will have little bearing on the retained charge amount you’ll have in real life use. I’m at 82% and 714 cycles. But it’s a joke to suggest that all cycles are equal. Some people never go outside the 20-80 band, others charge to 100% and keep it there all day, then burn it down to 10%. Both of those generate “cycles” but are very far apart.
Do we know if and how cycles are defined in the regulation?
My iphone 15 pro max. manufactured in Aug 2023. 536 cycles. is at 84%. I doubt it will make it to 1k at above 80%.
We have similar phones. I’m now at 82% at 714 cycles. In real life, our devices wouldn’t qualify but I’m sure Apple will be allowed to write the testing methodology in a way that’ll be nice and gentle.
Huh interesting datapoint. I just checked on mine, also August 2023 15PM, and 86% @ 707 cycles here. I’m pretty careless with charging it whenever is convenient/letting it drain to 0% while traveling/etc as well.
My iPhone 14 Pro is at 88% but I have no charging cycle count.
My 15 pro max is at 649 cycles and 91%
iPhone Air. 225 cycles, started use in October 2025, 99%
It’s more about the calendric aging than number of cycles these days. My own stayed at 99% until ~400 cycles, and then in a few days it dropped to 94%.
100% probably.
0%.
Wait, that’s not true: In true regulatory capture fashion, I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.
> I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.
Maybe that would be the case in the US but since that is the EU it will likely be some kind of self-certification where the manufacturer swears that they're not lying, and if enough people complain then maybe one of the national regulators will look into it and ask the manufacturer to do better.
Recently my 2021 macBook gave me an alert that its battery was not charging past 80%. I took it to the Apple Store and because it had only been through 971 charge cycles, the battery was replaced for free.
Might be a good idea to verify before sharing misinformation
Not perfect, but the “80% capacity after 1000 cycles” part at least creates some decent incentives imo.
Classic EU move, the last-minute 1000-cycle exemption undercuts the entire regulation.
Looks like saner minds prevailed. Almost nobody needs or wants that. Having to pay a street corner repair shop to replace a battery only after 3 or 4 years of usage is completely worth a price to pay for having thinner batteries.
Would have been even more classic EU to not add the exception and have all Europeans stuck with a slower, bulkier, and more expensive "EU edition" of a phone.
The previous discussion of the bill on HN noted that the newest version of the bill is the one without the exemption. Is that incorrect?
My initial reaction as an EU citizen is “oh hell no” because it gave me flashbacks to removable covers with clips that broke my nails. But after reading the article where it mentions that the battery is also considered removable if standard tools should be used, I’m quite okay with it. I welcome getting more rugged and durable devices.
Serious question: how are you worse off with a cover that breaks your nails vs. the status quo: a cover that’s glued on and a battery that’s glued in? If they did bring that back, couldn’t you just not open the cover and be just as happy?
The covers were typically flimsy and used flimsy hooks in addition to the flimsy push pin. Actually most of my annoyance stems from the hooks breaking easily and the covers not closing flush. I would not want to return to that time where dropping a phone leads to covers flying around.
It is my assumption that any cover that still requires screws that it will be both more sturdy and easier to close flush.
The current status quo of having sleek devices while having batteries relatively easily replaced yourself or even quite cheaply in every phone shop. I’m not so bothered by the status quo.
IGNORE: duplicated
You already wrote this comment before
fuck, can't delete.
So in order to save your nails you rather buy a new device? Makes total sense.
The number of people worried about a slightly thicker phone are absolutely baffling to me. I honestly think there is no hope for us broadly. Normally I'd say that people cannot deal with minor inconveniences -- but this does not even register as an inconvenience.
From my view, this is a _perceived_ downgrade in luxury status. Not even a real downgrade in luxury status -- and not a downgrade in convenience whatsoever.
A slightly thicker back so that in four years time it will take me 5 minutes versus 60 minutes to change the battery? Yes, that sounds like something I am not interested in.
I would also consider swapping a battery once every four years a minor inconvenience.
I want my phone 5 times thicker, just put as many batteries as you can fit in there.
How tf did phones even become a "luxury" status symbol? They're just portable computers that also happen to be covered in nasty germs. People are freaking weird.
> this does not even register as an inconvenience
You don’t have any idiosyncratic product preferences?
Not ones where design decisions reduce features for no other reason.
Stop lying.
Because the reason for it is not valued by most of us. I do not care about a removable battery. I do not care. I value it at zero. So yes, I do not want to be inconvenienced for something I value at zero.
The number of people who profess to care about user-replaceable batteries is absolutely baffling to me.
It would save you an $80 trip to the Apple Store (or non-Apple equivalent) every three or four years. What am I missing?
Well ... I don't have an Apple Store anywhere near me, so ... Or anything else, really.
And having multiple batteries would enable me to swap the battery and charge the expended one in near real time. No cord, no puck, nothing. And if the phone had an internal 100 or so mah battery also, I wouldn't even have to restart the phone!
But other than that, I don't really care.
It's even crazier when you consider how many people buy their fancy thin iPhones and then immediately slap some ugly and/or bulky case on them.
This is just flat out wrong. Making it removable means making it less effective, meaning using more materials etc.
What is much more concerning is that you seem to be totally fine with the government deciding how something should be designed for not reason what so ever.
Regulatory Superpower
I am european and proud.. but what has europe created in the last 20 years worth of mention
Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47834195
I wish the EU would tackle standardization of tool batteries. It's so stupid that every brand has their own battery system.
I wish they would stop trying to over regulate everything. If you want to use your tool battery in another brand just get an adapter.
All new phones sold in the EU already include information on declared battery life and the number of charge cycles before reaching 80% battery health. The vast majority of phones will meet this requirement.
Headline is misleading as the loopholes written into the regulation will likely end up exempting many/most phones
Didn't they remove many of the exemptions in the final, adopted bill?
Not really… the rules were heavily influenced by big tech in a way that basically exempts many devices. For example iPhone 15 onwards already meets the defined standard and thus doesn’t need a user replaceable battery.
So the headline is misleading. Removable batteries aren’t mandatory. They’re only mandatory if the battery fails to meet certain performance standards.
Unless you have giant hands, with modern screen sizes, thinner devices are not merely a luxury. For people that have active outdoor lives, water resistance is also non-negotiable.
The only thing that you should care about if you are being pratical and not just an annoying nagging geek, is that you are not forced to use an authorized reseller to buy a replacement battery, and that batteries can be bought from third party suppliers.
Having to have a corner-shop cheap technician doing it once every 3 years is an acceptable trade-off in exchange to get thinner and water-resistant devices.
Who wants thinner? I want more battery capacity and thickness. I actually want a smaller screen too.
Looks like you want the opposite the market wants.
On the bright side, at least now you know who wants those things: Almost everybody else other than you.
I also am fine with this, I don’t need thinner than things already are. More battery life and product longevity on the other hand is brilliant.
Exactly. I'd buy an iPad if I wanted thin and big
Smartwatches should also be on the list. My Apple Watch 8 is at 76% maximum capacity. Apparently it costs $99 to have Apple replace the battery, which is probably not worth it.
Agreed. $100 to replace a battery that must cost them maybe $10 is criminal. Source: https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/bom-analysis-ap...
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.
> 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.
Nobody has quantified what lots means. Which is my issue. The article just says many. Lots and many do not make great legislation.
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).
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.
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
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.
making claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators
The bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.
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.
80% after 1000 cycles. I hope that doesn’t mean faking battery health instead.
Would be easy to say "if the software says "< 80%" after 1000 cycles, the warranty applies and the manufacturer has to replace it for free.
I guess the law won't say that though.
When has a legally mandated metric ever been gamed into a loophole? /s
Controversial I know, but EU regulations are largely reasonable and mostly come down to good practices. For example I was part of a team building a crewing application for container ships and largely I agree with almost all of the conclusions we came to in making the app GDPR compliant.
What is a “special tool”? A Philips screwdriver is pretty clearly not, but is a T-5 Torx? A security T-5? A Tri-wing? A Pentalobe?
"Special tool" is not used in the actual regulation; the requirement is that replacement must be possible with basic tools, defined:
> (50) 'basic tools' means a screwdriver for slotted heads, a screwdriver for cross recess screws, a screwdriver for hexalobular recess heads [Torx], a hexagon socket key, a combination wrench, combination pliers, combination pliers for wire stripping and terminal crimping, half round nose pliers, diagonal cutters, multigrip pliers, locking pliers, a prying lever, tweezers, magnifying glass, a spudger and a pick;
(Excepted devices can require "commercially available tools" which is defined exactly as you'd expect.)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1670/oj
> A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge […] to disassemble it.
> Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj
Why does the Pentalobe exist in the first place?
in one product design i did, unironically because the customer thought that six-star screws were antisemitic
Antisemitic geometry. Now I've seen everything
Imagine the lasting havoc the Nazis could have wrought if they adopted a + instead of a swastika
Any tool you can’t get at a random local hardware store.
Right to repair for the win.
Does this need a law? Most phones have replaceable battery.
> Easy replacement: Batteries must be replaceable using standard tools (e.g., screwdrivers).
> No barriers: The use of adhesives that can only be removed with heat or solvents is prohibited.
> Tools: If a special tool is required for replacement, the manufacturer must provide it free of charge.
> Spare parts guarantee: Replacement batteries must be available to end users at a reasonable price for at least 5 years.
When it comes to most phones I've seen...
Easy replacement: Currently, special tools are needed to heat the glue holding on the screen, picks to pry it up, and then there are various ways to release the glue holding in the battery.
No barriers: Currently, there are adhesives used for both the screen and battery. Depending on the phone this may require a solvent, heat, or electrical release... maybe a combination of these.
Tools: Currently, tools are not provided with the phone and kits need to be purchased in addition to the battery to complete the repair.
Spare parts guarantee: I think this is very hit and miss based on the manufacturer, but I suspect most replacement batteries people are buying are not coming from the OEM.
The link is not working for me, but I hope they have defined what "removable" means (removable without special tools) If not, a lot of companies are going to argue that they already make removable batteries
> If a special tool is required for replacement, the manufacturer must provide it free of charge.
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi...
79-pound hyper-elaborate repair kit. Expensive for them to send out, but since only two people will ever want them to, probably amortizes well.
IIRC, screwdrivers and prying tools are not considered special. Removal cannot require solvents or heat, but I believe those pull tab glue pads are allowed.
I wish those prying tools were considered "special". I have a very low success rate at opening up any device that's held together with "clips" without snapping any plastic. It inevitably means "force it just hard-enough to break stuff if you don't do it absolutely perfectly".
Also, removeable by who? Its all very well saying its removeable, but thats useless if only possible by a skilled techinician with tools. I dont see the term 'user-removable' anywhere.
And make all these batteries compatible among all smartphone brands
The size and shape of the battery depends on the size and shape of the phone, as well as the internal structure (which is highly variable). At that point you might as well just legislate that everyone build iPhone 17's.
Absolutely trash aftermarket batteries that are e-waste in 6 months here we come!
I want a phone with li-ion 18650! Because having a replaceable batteries won’t prevent the manufacturer from increasing those batteries prices so it’s equal to non replaceable ones. It would be great to have 18650 as a standard in all electronics, so you just carry dozens of them when you go out and you are set up for the weekend, no recharging, maybe even add hot swap too.
It would be nice to have mandatory SD cards..
SD cards and phone jacks!
so more regulations to raise prices extract tax revenues by EU
I'm not a fan of regulation in general but over the last decade it has been extremely frustrating with the removal of replaceable SD cards and batteries from Androids.
I never put my phones in my back pocket nor do I wear butt hugging leggings, so having a thick phone stick out my ass and make it look bad isn't on my list of worries. I end up purchasing thick waterproof cases for these slim phones anyways.
What's most confusing is the premium phones lack replaceable SD cards and batteries - it's like they are trying to take the worst ideas from the Apple ecosystem and simply don't understand why some people use Androids.
Surprisingly, it's the cheaper models that carry replaceable SD cards and batteries - I would have imagined the opposite!
I often go on trips and hikes with poor cellular coverage and having some SD cards with useful information or being able to swap them out as the camera gets full is really helpful. Attaching drives over the USB port isn't really practical.
When I do have cellular coverage, I might have to rapidly download a LOT of data, which overheats the phone and discharges the battery. With a replaceable battery, this isn't even an issue.
The benefits of replaceable batteries cannot be overstated when you're not on the grid or take great care of the phone where they last more than a few years. I can have a few batteries charged, during the day using solar that I can then just swap them in as evening sets in, instead of having to plug the phone into a powerbank and pray it doesn't shut off as I keep using it.
I think in general not being able to replace the battery toolless is quite an acceptable compromise nowadays. The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space which can be used for more capacity instead. You have (sometimes quite insane) fast charging and also powerbanks which support it. Also quality batteries can be quite durable.
The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.
Good points, but from a chemistry perspective, fast charging is detrimental to the battery. It would be more efficient to have two or three batteries standard charged to 70% that you can swap in as you go than have one that you need to repeatedly fast charge.
I argue that easier they make for user to swap batteries themselves, higher the demand for the batteries will be, thus lower their price.
> The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space
This is true
> The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.
I think when a manufacturer isn't designing to allow a regular customer (the owner) to be able to replace the battery themselves, using glue and restricting spare parts is a natural consequence of financial realities: Most people are not going to take a $500 phone that has been used a few years to a shop that will need to charge $100+ in just labor to swap out a battery. So there's no incentive to have a bunch of spare batteries.
I'm a huge fan of user replaceable batteries because in addition of obvious benefits, you can also just remove the battery and power it simply off USB-C when running something heavy on the phone for extended periods of time. A battery used in that scenario wouldn't just overheat itself but stop the phone from cooling off too.
This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.
If I want a thicker, clunkier, less waterproof phone with a user-replaceable battery, I can already buy a Fairphone or a Samsung Galaxy XCover6 Pro, or whatever.
The reason people buy iPhones and flagship Samsung phones is they want the benefits that come from a design that doesn't have to make sacrifices to accomodate a user-replaceable battery.
Do you still believe in free markets? What other things? Santa? The Easter Bunny?
They're not real you know.
> This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.
Ohh sweet summer child... We are in an era of obscene consolidation, in pretty much every sector, wealth is being consolidated to degrees unseen before, oligopolies enshrine their dominance via regulatory capture and a plethora of unfair practices. There's just no competition left to suggest that "markets can decide" of anything beneficial for our skinny bottom lines..
EU is awesome!
...and Apple will be exempt due to a loophole in the law (80% after 1k cycles) making the law utterly pointless.
I keep hearing this over and over, but it's neglected to add that it sets a minimum durability requirement which applies only for a very small niche of ruggedized waterproof devices
Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries
>Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries
Can you provide your source for this? If nothing else, it's very surprising to me that an EU regulation uses a US standard as the baseline!
Edit: Having done a bit of reading on the standard, it also seems like the regulation needs quite a bit of detail if it really does rely on the MIL-STD, since the standard only defines test procedures, not pass/fail criteria?
Are you sure the loophole exists?
AFAIK, this is the regulation:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng
I don't see that exemption listed. The other ones are, but not that one.
Take this with a mountain of salt since I've not at all an expert, but with a little help from AI, it seems like the exemption lives in 2023/1670 [0]. The LLM claims that this and the regulation you link are interconnected, with the recital of 2023/1542 explicitly linking them.
0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
This makes no sense but I still see it mindlessly repeated to exhaustion. That mention is in no way Apple specific, it’s a quality of the battery itself. Any manufacturer is in the same position, not like Apple has a monopoly on batteries that hold 80% charge after 1000 cycles.
I don’t understand how this could be measured fairly though. What kind of cycles? What temperatures was it exposed to? Charged fast or slow? This is an incomplete set of criteria, which seems designed specifically to be meaningless / gameable.
To me this seems like saying you can sell a car with a sealed gas tank as long as it “gets 40 miles per gallon.” And GM gets to decide the test course for measuring MPG, which will be a 2-mile slightly downhill coast with no stopping. Surprise! All our cars get 40-60MPG!
The unspoken implication here is that if your phone still retains 80% after 1000 cycles, then it’s probably so old and obsolete by then that battery replacement would be a silly waste of time, so why burden people with these “onerous rules” in that case.
But in reality, nothing about that metric, even if it’s true, means that customers don’t need to replace their batteries. My iPhone 15 Pro Max is in dire need of a battery replacement, at 82% after only 714 cycles. Aside from the battery, I have literally zero motivation to replace this phone. The phone manufacturers hate the idea that the battery might get replaced, because in this day and age it’s pretty much the only reason a 2 to 3-year-old phone (especially a flagship) isn’t extremely adequate for 99% of the population.
In the US the EPA gets to set the guidelines for mileage testing, which GM has to follow. We've already had a major case in penalties for not following the guidelines via VW and emissions.
It will likely boil down to "typical use" so in the event that someone wants to bring Apple to court over it and demonstrate the issue, it could solidify what's currently a little vague. Laws aren't required to get it perfect out of the gate.
> then it’s probably so old and obsolete by then that battery replacement would be a silly waste of time
obsolescence is a spectrum, if a swappable battery mandate gives a small % of devices a few extra years it would be worth it... I already give old devices to family members and kids on the "free is better than nothing" spectrum and a swappable battery would have extended the life at least a few of said devices, in my personal experience
Yup, that’s a pretty wild loophole. I think they’re targeting the lower end of the market probably to reduce most of the ewaste.
not really! at the very least it requires more thought around battery quality
the choice for budget devices is now
1. better battery
2. removability (likely more expensive and complicates water-tightness )
The supposed aim of this is to reduce e-waste. But when 90% of smartphones sold are iPhones and Samsung Galaxies which are exempt it makes this bill completely pointless, as the ewaste it will save is a small fraction of a percentage of the total.
> the ewaste it will save
well we agree that it will work at least a little, which looks like a good start to me
We agree that it works a little, but not that it is a good start.
If this bill had just targetted all battery devices it would have made an incredible change. But as usual it was lobbied into near non existence.
Why do we have to be content with tiny chips away at a serious issue instead of insisting it is dealt with properly?
Why not anything that has a battery? Why just cellphones?
The regulation does cover everything that uses batteries.
So now the EU want to design phones too. What could possible go wrong.
Another anti poor person law
I think this was discussed recently on HN. It’s not a bad idea. There’s nothing about this that “ruins” anything else. This is not specific for phones even if everyone focuses on them. The usual arguments are waterproofing and thinness but we can still have them with removable batteries.
The introduction of glue into the assembly of consumer electronics is a crime against humanity and the Earth. If Timex could make iron-man watches 100-meter waterproof with Phillips-head jeweler's screws back in the '80s, there's no good reason smartphones and laptops can't. And there's a whole host of bad reasons to eschew screws.
Of course you can build a waterproof smartphone with screws (except the screen has to be bonded to the glass for capacitive touch to work and the glass to the frame so there’s still some glueing involved), but it would probably have 1cm bezels around the screen.
While sounding nice in theory, these sorts of regulations will certainly curtail innovation while providing very, very little value elsewhere.
If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't.
> If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't.
This argument gets thrown about every time companies make anti-consumer changes, and it completely ignores the information asymmetry and other dynamics at play. When I go to the store to buy a new phone, where does it list on the box how repairable the device is? Where does it show how expensive the repair will be? If I'm locked in the apple ecosystem, where do I buy an iPhone with a replaceable battery?
Your assumption that the market is driven by informed consumer choices presupposes that every buyer is an expert.
None of that really matters, though. Most people are not repairing anything they own. It is cheaper to replace.
That may be good or bad, I do not know.
I don't have the evidence to say either way, but I do know that at least my city has a lot of cellphone repair businesses, including mall kiosks. Presumably they have enough clientele to keep them going which suggests a lot of people are repairing their phones.
Which flagship phones with replaceable batteries can customers buy?
Samsung was the last major brand in the US to have one, and they made the choice to remove it.
Not sure. But there are plenty of flip phones with removable batteries.
So you're suggesting we all just need to buy exclusively flip phones for a few years to send the market a signal that it wants replaceable batteries. Then the free market will do its thing and keep the engine of innovation running
Speaking of which, does anyone want to do a list of "features added to smartphones over the last 10 years" vs "features removed from smartphones over the last 10 years" so we can see just what innovations are at risk?
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm simply offering the reality of the smartphone market. What you are suggesting is a contrived, exaggerated take of how markets function.
People generally like small, thin phones, as evidenced by the billions sold. It really isn't much more complicated than that.
That's an interesting assertion given that phones have gotten progressively larger and the iPhone Mini was phased out
Maybe it is more complicated than that
"Which flagship phones with replaceable batteries can customers buy?"
Most of the Kyocera Duraforce line has this ability.
Their latest and greatest PRO 3 runs a chip that was mid-range when it releases 4 years ago and only 6 GB of RAM. That is decidedly not a flagship.
My Kyocera will work in orbit and withstand intense radiation. In fact, this very moment my new Duraforce Pro 3 is having fun in a launch-testing thermal/vac chamber.
Kyocera's 'flagship' is high-reliability phones in absolute garbage environments.
Samsung's 'flagship' overheats and earns them class-action lawsuits.
Motorola's 'flagship' is a hinged throwback to the 90s.
Apple's 'flagship' is an overpriced piece of vendor lock-in.
Meanwhile my phone takes serious abuse and laughs at it. I've dropped it and watched it go more than 700 feet down the side of a mountain (Chambless Skarn) and BARELY chip the screen protector. Waterproofing still intact. Case barely scratched.
What you consider a flagship phone is a brittle piece of junk in my hands.
I want removeable batteries in my phone, largely because it means I don't have to buy them a lot!
I ran my LG G5 with replaceable batteries from 2016 through 2021, at which point there were no affordable replaceable-battery phones left. I bought quite a few replacement batteries, even trying aftermarket batteries with varying levels of success after the OEM LG ones were discontinued.
That is, of course, a problem for manufacturers that want to sell a lot of phones.
Innovation generally happens because of some kind of impediment to doing things the old way. So this is more likely drive innovation than curtail it.
> "If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't."
For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about. Furthermore, speaking purely for myself, a removable battery is not a must but a nice-to-have. A lot of slabs that have removable batteries are out of the game for entirely different reasons.
> For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about.
Not really. If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers did a market analysis and decided it’s not even worth it to offer that. So either their analysis is extremely wrong and it actually would sell, or the consumers don’t want to buy it that bad.
> "If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers [...] decided it’s not even worth it to offer that."
You got it surrounded. Why offer devices that you have to support for a longer time (e. g. enterprise models) when there's more money to be made when you enshittify (which obviously goes beyond just batteries)?
Because you’ll be the only manufacturer making the desired product and have 100% of this market? If there are multiple manufacturers competing, surely one of them would do it if it’s profitable?
Yeah, sure, some of them already do. Their market share is practically negligible, enterprise players (e. g. Samsung with their Galaxy Xcover line) notwithstanding. That, on a strictly personal level, still doesn't mean they offer a desirable product.
Yes, but it’s an indicator that the general consumer doesn’t care that much about it.
And I say that as an absolute supporter of the mandatory USB C. But I don’t think the average consumer cares enough about it that apple would have switched without being forced.
If we talk about the same "average consumer" it describes an individual that doesn't care for technical minutiae beyond a couple of specific use cases (telecomms, photo/video shooter, socials). These people are precisely the reason for why a regulator has to jump in if a government wants to implement sustainability efforts.
So really it's not about phones having a removable battery, but a whole host of other features plus a removable battery. Which is just untenable from a regulatory POV.
Well, strictly from a regulatory standpoint, at least given the thread's topic, it's just the batteries. So or so, the loophole is already in the package as well, so as long as you meet the relevant certs the point is moot.
I absolutely would buy a Samsung Smartphone with replacable battery. The last one which had this was the S5 I think...
Even with a battery that can be replaced using a tiny screwdriver, this still doesn’t make it DIY for probably 80-90% of smartphone users.
That's not the point. It being done in a local shop for a few bucks with no small letter text saying that "we may break your screen in half because this thing can't be repaired properly". It mentions that it should not use glue, not need solvent and only commercially available tools may be usable (or they have to be provided next to the phone).
Also availability of original spare parts is important. Aftermarket batteries often tend to be shitty.
Nonsense. It just mandates easier repairability and spare parts availability, not ad-hoc replacement. Also this does not apply if the battery is able to retain 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles so "innovative" manufacturers just need to use high quality batteries.
that isnt how markets really work. you could say that if apple had two otherwise identical iphones except one has removable battery and one doesn't. but the enshittification cycle works via a ratcheting effect. once you achieve a certain level of dominance and lock-in, you can start getting away with all kinds of anti-consumer strategies to make more money and not get punished for it, and your competitors will follow suit. as long as you can ratchet above whatever detrimental thing you want to get away with is you'll probably be fine.
you can look at the lightning connector as an example. if you said "if people wanted usb connectivity they wouldn't buy iphones", nobody would take you seriously. and when apple was forced to switch, it absolutely didnt tank their sales because people just loved the lightning connector so much. the bad thing went away and it was great.
If Apple could make money from removable batteries, meaning there was a market for it and people wanted it over some other alternative, are you suggesting they are not smart enough to do the research and work necessary to accomplish that?
The reality is people don't want it, at all. At least not enough to warrant action. So the story ends there.
Also, the lighting connector is better than USB in every way. Mandating an inferior technology is an odd choice.
False dichotomy. The question isn't whether you can make money with a replaceable battery, but whether you can make more money by selling specialized service (or an entirely new phone) than a battery. What else are people going to do, not buy a phone? Switch operating systems entirely?
This whole thing becomes more obvious in the Android world, where models with various features do exist, but only in certain markets
Even then, this whole line of argument seems moot because if the battery still holds enough charge over time the regulations don't even require it to be replaceable
People can, and do, switch OSes. Or use a flip phone.
> If Apple could make money from removable batteries, meaning there was a market for it and people wanted it over some other alternative, are you suggesting they are not smart enough to do the research and work necessary to accomplish that?
sort of missed the point. market dominance and lock-in means they already are the 800-lb gorilla, and removable batteries sit below where it'd move most people to switch
> The reality is people don't want it, at all.
lmao thats a good blither
https://www.androidauthority.com/removable-battery-poll-resu...
> Also, the lighting connector is better than USB in every way. Mandating an inferior technology is an odd choice.
right, except in the ways that matter and that people care about
Sourcing a tiny, esoteric, tech-heavy, developer website poll about smartphone batteries is not a fair sample of the billions of people in the world that use smartphones.
lmao.
...is what people said when they brought in the mandate for usb charging but it didnt.
It turns out market consolidation is usually the biggest innovation killer.