The EU decided on this regulation about a year ago. [0]
From my understanding, the most important point was to make it easier to recycle rare earth minerals in rechargeable batteries so as not to be as reliant on countries outside the EU (read: China) where they are mined.
Makes sense and it will also increase the longevity of phones. I welcome the change.
It doesn't have to be as easy as it was with e.g. the Samsung S5 or the xcovers (which, by the way are still waterproof). But as far as i understand it a simple tool like a screwdriver can be used.
It also means I won't have to mollycoddle my phone battery so much (limiting charge to 80% etc) because I can just charge it and get a fresh one after a year or 2-3.
> From my understanding, the most important point was to make it easier to recycle rare earth minerals in rechargeable batteries...
I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore. And this comes as someone using old smartphones (still on their first battery).
Phones are supported for 5-7 years across the major makers. My battery is down to 70% of its original capacity in half that time, no longer able to make a full day's use.
Being able to easily swap in a brand new battery at the half way point in a phone's lifetime and get back to full day usage so typical overnight charging instead of needing a second mid-day charge cycle, is a huge win.
That you think a 3 or 4 year old phone is outdated when the makers support it for up to twice that long is ludicrous, and even then it's silly to have to toss it because the maker won't provide further security updates. I'd use a phone 10 years, about what I use my laptops for, if the battery was easily replaceable. Instead, they land in a drawer every 3-4 years when the battery isn't good enough and a the cost of manufacturer replacement in dollars and downtime is so exorbitant that I just buy a new device.
I'm perfectly happy with the performance of my iPhone SE (2020), and it's still receiving software updates, but the battery is severely degraded. The same was true for my first-generation iPhone SE; I was able to get a cheap replacement back then due to Apple's battery replacement program related to batterygate.
Access to cheap replacement batteries would definitely have an impact when deciding whether I should replace my phone or not. I believe Apple even mentioned the battery replacement program being a factor contributing to lower-than-expected sales a few years ago (sorry, can't find the source).
> I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore
My previous phone lasted four years, and really I only replaced it because I have more money than sense and wanted a 120hz screen. iPhone 11 Pro, came out nearly five years ago, still totally fine, lots of them in circulation. The battery was certainly beginning to show its age by the end, but the phone was otherwise fine.
Your point was maybe valid a decade ago, but phones last much, much longer these days. And getting supported still longer; current phones, particularly on the high end, are far faster than they need to be to support the OS, and rate of hardware change has slowed significantly (Apple, say, hasn't had a full-blown microarch change in years, with the M1-4 and their sibling A-whatevers being very much incremental progress on each other).
The submission title has almost nothing to do with the meat of the announcement. This unfortunately is buried in a link from a tweet, quoted by another tweet, about 2-3x past the threshold of effort most people put into reading to get to the point.
This is a manufacturer of stainless steel battery cases announcing Apple will use them for the battery in the iPhone 16 [0].
> Sunway is a major supplier of stainless steel battery cases.
> Apple uses the stainless steel battery case for the first time as a thermal solution
> Looking forward to 2025, if all 2H25 new iPhones adopt this new design
I don't care about the material of batteries in apple's phones. I care much more about user-replaceable batteries. I don't think I'm alone in that and I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
> I care much more about user-replaceable batteries
Then I strongly encourage a trip down memory lane to one year ago when this was actually decided and discussed [0]. Lots of good info there on exactly this topic.
> I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
Because behind the misleading title of the submission that "The EU regulates [...]" is really content about the material Apple will use.
I already mentioned this and quoted that content to avoid too much of the discussion being besides the point and reduce the threshold of effort needed to get the info down to approximately 0. Still too high I take it?
I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
It's a bit hard to find good pictures of it, but the original Kyocera Torque from 2013 was IP 67 and had a user-replaceable battery. Its back had a large fingernail-turnable latch and pretty well-designed seal.
Say what you will about the aesthetics of the handset, it's proof that waterproof, user-replaceable batteries are absolutely possible on a consumer handset.
Or the Samsung Xcover Pro 6[1] that ships with a user replaceable battery like in the good old days, yet still has water resistance, so it is definitely possible, they just don't want to do it on the entire range of phones.
Also, why do we need proof from modern phones? We've had cheap plastic wrist watches that can be submerged and operated under water for decades. The secret? Stainless steel back, screwed on the plastic body with a rubber gasket in between. Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago? I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery
I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace.
> battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.
It's not only about diving though, any drop into sea or pool might be affected, and even if you aren't submerging you'll have the peace of mind of using the phone near a body of water.
Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%.
I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
because the manufacturers are not required to make them last that long. if they were required to, they would alter the chemistry / capacity of the battery instantly and this would be solved.
My Samsung S5 was water resistant (IP67) and had user-replaceable batteries. They solved it by having an "O-ring" gasket around the periphery of the case[1].
I have several Garmin GPS devices used for hiking and they've been handling soaking multi-day hikes, with one of them being fully submerged for over an hour, and they only have a IPX7 rating, and they have replaceable batteries.
I keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
Water damage one of the top causes of phone repair. They happened commonly enough --- and people lied about this happening enough --- for Apple (and many others) to add hardware checks for internal moisture.
I shoot underwater A LOT, and even if I never used it that way I'd prefer peace of mind of not having water damage in a potential situation, over a replaceable battery that I've never needed to replace in a single device in my entire life.
Glueing phones shut is done because with a minimal footprint you have a very good seal.
The alternatives are all worse, either requiring too much space or being susceptible to the seal being broken. If this rule takes effect, phone design will have to change and quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
Glue is a fairly easily reversible process, which allows basically any repair shop, when parts are available, to perform a repair. Even hobbyists with basic equipment can do it.
Screws and gaskets are just as compact (see literally any wristwatch), but slightly more expensive. This, and probably some planned obsolescence, is the only reason why phones are glued together.
Y'know, Nokia phones (before the whole smartphone fad) were famous for being solid. That is to say, the joke was that if you dropped your phone off a skyscraper you'd just have to pick it up and it'd just work. And as far as I recall they required precisely zero equipment in order to take the battery out.
I don't know how it compares in general, but quickly swappable/replaceable battery was the main reason I selected the Samsung XCover6 Pro, and it has an IP68 rating.
You are talking like any normal consumer is going spearfishing with his smartphone. They're not. Being able to deal with some rain at most it's all it's needed for normal use and was achievable by electronics with replaceable batteries for decades.
Any more than that is just falling for the spiel given by companies known to be hostile to de idea of prolonging the lifetime of their products.
When I am traveling away from all my charging cords, I carry a battery pack in my pocket. I care about that much more than the once in a lifetime drenching I got in a tropical deluge in Shanghai that made my phone inoperable for a few days
This is a solved problem and many phones had it before the “let’s make it as hard as possible to change phone batteries” craze kicked in. Apple has the tech to do this, as does Samsung.
I’d say these days it’s essentially required. Common example: I had my phone in my pocket while headed to a pool party. Totally forget it was in my pocket and just got in the pool. Absolutely no problem, just pulled it out (after it was in the pool for minutes) and everything was fine. No panic. In comparison, I remember doing the same thing many years ago with a moto razr. Even after rice and drying and pulling the battery, it was toast. Had to get a new phone.
I care, many people care if you’re around the water at all. I think it’s practically a mandate these days that a phone can survive a dip in the pool at least for a few minutes.
Yeah. I want IP67 and have to replace my battery every 2 years.
I don’t mind taking it to Apple for that. It’s less often than my car went back to the dealer for service. And my dealer wouldn’t give me a new car if they fuck up my old one in the process (Apple did this when they broke mine during a battery swap).
Replaceable or user replaceable, quite the important distinction. Don’t know of any phone you can’t replace the battery, quite hard to do yourself though on a lot of them.
> The regulation provides that by 2027 portable batteries incorporated into appliances should be removable and replaceable by the end-user, leaving sufficient time for operators to adapt the design of their products to this requirement. This is an important provision for consumers. Light means of transport batteries will need to be replaceable by an independent professional.
Thanks for the link. This will make most of what’s being sold today incompatible with the legislation, it’s going to be interesting to see how this works out for things that are not phones, probably back to AA batteries and finicky plastic lids.
Although, I've had my xcover6 pro for 2 years now. it's been in water several times, dropped many times (I think the back bursting off does indeed help dissipate energy). The screen is still fine (well, some minor scratches that I think are due to putting it in same pocket as my keys far too often), and I've not had any issues. As far as I can tell the battery is sealed off from everything that is important, and there is a rubber gasket around the battery as well. I have a second backup battery for it, and I can rapidly swap between the 2 in a few seconds. The back is a little plain and ugly, but I don't see why it couldn't be snazzed up to apple standards (metal shell or whatever) and still be a quick replacement.
When you look at the regulation [1], you see several potential loopholes.
Firstly, the regulation does not say an appliance MUST allow removal and replacement of batteries by end-users, but SHOULD allow it.
The capability is not meant to allow for swapping batteries to increase user comfort (e.g. by replacing a dying one with a new one), but primarily to allow for disposal and recycling of the battery. This is likely to create new EU legislations that put more burdens on the end-user (e.g. having to remove and separately dispose of the battery instead of dropping the device off at a recycling center).
Then, in paragraph 38, a battery is considered replaceable by the end-user if the end-user can replace it with generally and commercially available tools. A manufacturer could, for instance, make replacement dependant on a tool that they individually sell for an absurd amount of money, and would be in compliance with the regulation.
In paragraph 39, the text shows again that there is no general requirement for a manufacturer to allow user-replacement in all cases. Some example given when this is not considered necessary are water-resistance, and safety concerns. A smartphone manufacturer could easily argue that the battery is too fragile to be handled by end-users and doing so risks lithium fires.
These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must', and which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
In subpoint 4, it points out that the list of excepted devices can be extended whenever they so feel like - all it takes is a series of kids who start burning themselves while mishandling batteries, ideally on social media, and smartphones are explicitly exempt after the outcry.
Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law.
> Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39
They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1].
> These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must'
This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2].
> which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception.
Readit News
From my understanding, the most important point was to make it easier to recycle rare earth minerals in rechargeable batteries so as not to be as reliant on countries outside the EU (read: China) where they are mined.
[0]. https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
It doesn't have to be as easy as it was with e.g. the Samsung S5 or the xcovers (which, by the way are still waterproof). But as far as i understand it a simple tool like a screwdriver can be used.
It also means I won't have to mollycoddle my phone battery so much (limiting charge to 80% etc) because I can just charge it and get a fresh one after a year or 2-3.
I guess because from a user point of view it doesn't make much sense: by the time the battery is dead, the phone is so outdated it serves no use anymore. And this comes as someone using old smartphones (still on their first battery).
Being able to easily swap in a brand new battery at the half way point in a phone's lifetime and get back to full day usage so typical overnight charging instead of needing a second mid-day charge cycle, is a huge win.
That you think a 3 or 4 year old phone is outdated when the makers support it for up to twice that long is ludicrous, and even then it's silly to have to toss it because the maker won't provide further security updates. I'd use a phone 10 years, about what I use my laptops for, if the battery was easily replaceable. Instead, they land in a drawer every 3-4 years when the battery isn't good enough and a the cost of manufacturer replacement in dollars and downtime is so exorbitant that I just buy a new device.
Access to cheap replacement batteries would definitely have an impact when deciding whether I should replace my phone or not. I believe Apple even mentioned the battery replacement program being a factor contributing to lower-than-expected sales a few years ago (sorry, can't find the source).
My previous phone lasted four years, and really I only replaced it because I have more money than sense and wanted a 120hz screen. iPhone 11 Pro, came out nearly five years ago, still totally fine, lots of them in circulation. The battery was certainly beginning to show its age by the end, but the phone was otherwise fine.
Your point was maybe valid a decade ago, but phones last much, much longer these days. And getting supported still longer; current phones, particularly on the high end, are far faster than they need to be to support the OS, and rate of hardware change has slowed significantly (Apple, say, hasn't had a full-blown microarch change in years, with the M1-4 and their sibling A-whatevers being very much incremental progress on each other).
This is a manufacturer of stainless steel battery cases announcing Apple will use them for the battery in the iPhone 16 [0].
> Sunway is a major supplier of stainless steel battery cases.
> Apple uses the stainless steel battery case for the first time as a thermal solution
> Looking forward to 2025, if all 2H25 new iPhones adopt this new design
[0] https://medium.com/@mingchikuo/%E4%BF%A1%E7%B6%AD%E9%80%9A%E...
Then I strongly encourage a trip down memory lane to one year ago when this was actually decided and discussed [0]. Lots of good info there on exactly this topic.
> I don't see why the iphone 16 battery should somehow be the "meat" of the announcement.
Because behind the misleading title of the submission that "The EU regulates [...]" is really content about the material Apple will use.
I already mentioned this and quoted that content to avoid too much of the discussion being besides the point and reduce the threshold of effort needed to get the info down to approximately 0. Still too high I take it?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510
Say what you will about the aesthetics of the handset, it's proof that waterproof, user-replaceable batteries are absolutely possible on a consumer handset.
https://www.gsmarena.com/kyocera_torque_e6710-5270.php
https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3ds-kyocera-torque-e671...
Also, why do we need proof from modern phones? We've had cheap plastic wrist watches that can be submerged and operated under water for decades. The secret? Stainless steel back, screwed on the plastic body with a rubber gasket in between. Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago? I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
[1] https://www.androidpolice.com/samsung-xcover6-pro-review/
My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery
I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace.
> battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.
Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%.
I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
Different manufacturers, same answer: water damage - you’re on your own bud!
On the other hand I had 0 problems replacing dying or faulty battery.
I also side on waterproofing side of things.
[1]: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s5-smart...
I keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
Besides, the cycling GPS I bought in the 2010s had a replaceable battery and IP68 rating, you just need orings around removable parts to make it so.
Water-resistant phones help a lot here.
The alternatives are all worse, either requiring too much space or being susceptible to the seal being broken. If this rule takes effect, phone design will have to change and quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
Glue is a fairly easily reversible process, which allows basically any repair shop, when parts are available, to perform a repair. Even hobbyists with basic equipment can do it.
They already often do and manufacturers usually deny warranty due to water ingress which is really ridiculous on a supposedly waterproof phone.
At least this way it's easier to check and clean.
Also, the circuit boards themselves can be conformal coated leading to it not being such a big deal when water gets in.
Any more than that is just falling for the spiel given by companies known to be hostile to de idea of prolonging the lifetime of their products.
Deleted Comment
The only time it matters is when using a phone in the rain. There are no other real situations in which I need a phone with me.
And a basic rubber seal is far more than enough unless you drop the thing in a pond.
I don't know how much resistance that needs, but I'd also really like it to withstand the occasional drop in a pond.
If a plain rubber seal does that, fantastic. Though I'd really like to be 100% certain that I've closed things sufficiently.
I don’t mind taking it to Apple for that. It’s less often than my car went back to the dealer for service. And my dealer wouldn’t give me a new car if they fuck up my old one in the process (Apple did this when they broke mine during a battery swap).
From https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023...
When you look at the regulation [1], you see several potential loopholes.
Firstly, the regulation does not say an appliance MUST allow removal and replacement of batteries by end-users, but SHOULD allow it.
The capability is not meant to allow for swapping batteries to increase user comfort (e.g. by replacing a dying one with a new one), but primarily to allow for disposal and recycling of the battery. This is likely to create new EU legislations that put more burdens on the end-user (e.g. having to remove and separately dispose of the battery instead of dropping the device off at a recycling center).
Then, in paragraph 38, a battery is considered replaceable by the end-user if the end-user can replace it with generally and commercially available tools. A manufacturer could, for instance, make replacement dependant on a tool that they individually sell for an absurd amount of money, and would be in compliance with the regulation.
In paragraph 39, the text shows again that there is no general requirement for a manufacturer to allow user-replacement in all cases. Some example given when this is not considered necessary are water-resistance, and safety concerns. A smartphone manufacturer could easily argue that the battery is too fragile to be handled by end-users and doing so risks lithium fires.
These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must', and which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
In subpoint 4, it points out that the list of excepted devices can be extended whenever they so feel like - all it takes is a series of kids who start burning themselves while mishandling batteries, ideally on social media, and smartphones are explicitly exempt after the outcry.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
Politely, you're presumably not a lawyer of European law.
> Then, in paragraph 38 [. . .] In paragraph 39
They're called Recitals, and I'm not sure why you're so focused on them. Recitals help clarify purpose but are not legally binding[1].
> These exceptions then are codified in Article 11, which uses 'shall', not 'must'
This proves the opposite of the point you're making. Shall denotes an obligation[2].
> which gives us another reason when this does not apply - for devices which need to have power constantly, e.g. for the integrity of data collection. Which you could easily argue that smartphones fall under.
Come on. That's not a good faith interpretation of the exception.
[1] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-009-6368?transi...
[2] https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/c45f5b70-2d0e... paragraph 10.27
User replaceable batteries by 2027 is old news. The new news seems to be how Apple plans to accomplish it.