Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

techspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 622 posts

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#561

Post by scarface_74 »

Jochim wrote: post #557
scarface_74 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you made absolutely sure that the battery was secured tightly - from the same article. Out of the 200M+ iPhones that Apple sells every year, how many people do you think wouldn’t put the battery and the cover on perfectly?

The same applies to gluing the rear cover back on, except instead of simply ensuring you've applied enough pressure and the gasket is in good condition, you now need to check that you've soldered the battery properly, positioned the glue correctly, heated the glue enough that it melts but doesn't fry your phone, and applied enough pressure evenly.

Well you don’t have to do anything. Spend $69 - $89 and let an Apple certified repair company to replace it and if they do something wrong, it’s covered under warranty.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#562

Post by Jochim »

scarface_74 wrote: post #561
Jochim wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same applies to gluing the rear cover back on, except instead of simply ensuring you've applied enough pressure and the gasket is in good condition, you now need to check that you've soldered the battery properly, positioned the glue correctly, heated the glue enough that it melts but doesn't fry your phone, and applied enough pressure evenly.

Well you don’t have to do anything. Spend $69 - $89 and let an Apple certified repair company to replace it and if they do something wrong, it’s covered under warranty.

Ah, there's nothing better than being granted the opportunity to burn money.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#563

Post by DropInIn »

sethammons wrote: post #516
DropInIn wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You saying "it can be discussed" doesn't change that your model is flawed on its face, with no amount of extra layers of ad hoc workarounds able to overcome those blatant flaws.... A simpler solution is to start with a return to something resembling the original IP laws where one lost their rights within their own lifetime.... Theres a reason that was originally proposed, rather than lifetime protections, and why cre…

Private citizens get different rules than corporations might fit into a discussion. Let an author hold their personal IP. Corporate IP taxed. Might be odd for legal exposure as there wouldn't be a corporate vail.

Again, adding layer after layer of Caveats and Conditionals doesn't change that At The Core your proposition is fundamentally flawed.

Just stop fighting for a broken concept and come up with something better.

Ed:typos

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#564

Post by Jochim »

jntvjnvutnuvt wrote: post #138
malermeister wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are any of them bad so far?

Having cookies message popup on every website you visit is a good thing?

Yes, it makes it very obvious which sites are trying to track my activity and should be avoided and rewards sites that don't by making it obvious that they aren't.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#565

Post by nerdbert »

DropInIn wrote: post #449
dingaling wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the IP is commercially viable then it would generate revenue to cover the fees. If it wasn't viable then it would either never be created or would automatically enter the public domain. Currently, if IP is not commercially viable then the author has the choice of not creating it, or creating it and releasing it under CC or just public domain. So essentially the same.

A poor writer who works full time min wage to barely scrape by and writes a masterpiece will not have the funds to cover the fees while waiting to get accepted by a publisher To assert the model isn't blatantly flawed is absurd

It doesn't have to start until it is published or otherwise commercially exploited.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#566

Post by horsawlarway »

robertlagrant wrote: post #560
horsawlarway wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Society is not improved if a beaurocrat can nullify people's inventions. Who decides what "using" is? This is reversing the natural order of things. That bureaucrat isn't nullifying fucking ANYTHING. That bureaucrat is artificially limiting who is allowed to create/use a thing. The natural state of the information is: "Use this - it's free". The whole of humanity might exist because mirror neurons literally go: "He…

It's hard to know what point you're making, although your aggression is (hopefully) a sign of how extremely you care about this topic. I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power. You seem to be saying this at the end as well, so, as I say, I'm not sure what point you're making. But your excitement on this topic is appreciated.

> I agree that patents are odd here, but the solution isn't to patch in more power to bureaucrats over the top of the other power.

What is confusing here? The entire structure is already a perversion of the natural world.

If we did not have our government, and the rules that it enforces (those "bureaucrats" you don't seem to like), then there is no "invention" to be nullified.

They already have this power. They enforce it through violence and imprisonment (tools reserved officially to the government). If the bureaucrats want your idea - they will take it, because they are the only thing stopping them from doing so.

The question is not: "Will the government nullify my invention?!?!?". It's - "What might my life have been like if the government did not restrict SO many people from competing at all - by artificially stopping them from using the tools and ideas they see around them? (for fairly ridiculous time periods)"

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#567

Post by robertlagrant »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #436
robertlagrant wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is replicable. It might open up companies' IP to worldwide competition. That's the difference from hardware.

We're talking about firmware which is device-specific, which is why it has to be released separately for each device. Moreover, there exist devices with fully open source firmware, so if anybody wanted one to copy, they don't need yours. They only need yours to use it with your hardware.

But there is still a difference between software and hardware. This is like saying that for every hardware device I should be able to also spin up my own factory to produce it, and have that bundled into the purchase price.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#568

Post by refurb »

malermeister wrote: post #360
refurb wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the adjustment is not without cost itself. Is the cost of a complete redesign > lost sales in EU? Then don't do the redesign.

The redesign is a one-time cost. Lost sales in the EU will be ongoing until it happens.

That's true, but a new product line has on-going update costs and warranty support costs as well.

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#569

Post by DropInIn »

nerdbert wrote: post #565
DropInIn wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A poor writer who works full time min wage to barely scrape by and writes a masterpiece will not have the funds to cover the fees while waiting to get accepted by a publisher To assert the model isn't blatantly flawed is absurd

It doesn't have to start until it is published or otherwise commercially exploited.

[flagged]

Re: European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries

#570

Post by [deleted] »

DropInIn wrote: post #563
sethammons wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private citizens get different rules than corporations might fit into a discussion. Let an author hold their personal IP. Corporate IP taxed. Might be odd for legal exposure as there wouldn't be a corporate vail.

Again, adding layer after layer of Caveats and Conditionals doesn't change that At The Core your proposition is fundamentally flawed. Just stop fighting for a broken concept and come up with something better. Ed:typos

[deleted]
Post reply on HN