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

The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 334 posts

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#111

Post by PeterStuer »

scarface_74 wrote: post #105
bjackman wrote: post #4

I think this is fantastic news. It will be interesting to see how it affects the amount of phones that get discarded. I think the next bottleneck is likely to be software longevity. This has improved a lot lately! But basically I think phones have now reached a place like laptops and desktops where HW capabilities are stable, and there's no good reason for devices to be obsolete in 5 years any more. I wonder if regul…

> But basically I think phones have now reached a place like laptops and desktops where HW capabilities are stable, and there's no good reason for devices to be obsolete in 5 years any more. Unless you care about your phone working as a phone. 2G was discontinued years ago, 3G is rapidly being dropped by the carriers and how much longer before 4G is discontinued? > streamlining the Android update process? (To Google'…

3G is alive and well in IoT.

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#112

Post by XorNot »

tomjen3 wrote: post #99
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the hardware was more open it wouldn’t even be a problem. People could pick and choose ROMs best suited for their phones and use cases, just like Linux. Newer phones could use bleeding edge features for their HW, and older phones could use more stripped down versions to preserve battery life.

That is the first good suggestion I have seen in this thread. We just need to make it illegal to not allow you app to run on an open device.

I mean realistically there's never been a good reason that phone OS's are as specific as they are. The driver situation is absurd. The most common highly integrated feature - the camera - doesn't even really run on the phone OS anymore since there's usually an image processor of some sort inline.

I have absolutely no problems with running a USB-C on the phone and component manufacturers to get their act together and figure out an open standard to support common components (i.e. basebands, cameras, audio routing, security chips) so hardware can be supported after release (which I would hope in practice would just be "in the Linux kernel tree").

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#113

Post by croes »

nonethewiser wrote: post #88
croes wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They cookie banners are the fault of the website owners. They did this on purpose so the users would blame the laws. Could have simple valued the Do-Not-Track flag but they didn't want to.

If thats true then their competitors will gladly not ask for permission and enjoy higher user satisfaction and the banners will disappear due to that long term. But we all know thats bullshit and the law actually did cause this.

All these sites make money from tracking, if they back out once the customers would knew they get screwed.

And not all websites have banners

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#114

Post by scarface_74 »

onli wrote: post #8
veave wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which goes to show that the option is there and people don't take it because they simnply don't want it so this regulation is the EU being the EU.

Disagree. First, the devices with removable batteries are exceedingly rare right now. They also often enough are niche products. Second, it is not reasonable to expect every consumer to always think about what is right, and not instead to follow what marketing tells him to buy. This is exactly what regulations are good for and historically have solved.

Yes people are too stupid to make their own choices. The EU should just start coming out with “5 Year Plans”. What could possibly go wrong?

The EU’s regulations must be why there is a thriving tech sector in Europe…

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#115

Post by XorNot »

systemtest wrote: post #12

It is interesting that the EU only wants to regulate markets that they are not participating in. They don't make smartphone anymore so any regulations isn't hurting them. It would be admirable if they held the same standard for vehicles, including brands from the EU.

I mean if this is too onerous a regulation, the smartphone makers are free to pull out of the world's third largest market...

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#116

Post by scarface_74 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #54
nuker wrote: post #33

I’d hate to lose waterproof feature on iPhone. For it’ll be dealbreaker.

FWIW, my old iPhone 7 started to have a bulging battery. It started pushing on the screen, which started separating from the case. Since I could see the innards, that thing was probably no longer waterproof. I'd have to take it in for service, and I'm not certain that they guarantee its water tightness after a repair. Contrast this to my Galaxy S5. When the battery started bulging, I changed it with a new one, and I…

People always bring up the s5 and leave out the part that is only water proof if the cover is over the ports and if you make absolutely sure that the battery cover is on correctly.

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#117

Post by scarface_74 »

Tade0 wrote: post #45
nuker wrote: post #33

I’d hate to lose waterproof feature on iPhone. For it’ll be dealbreaker.

Galaxy S5 was IP67 certified despite having a removable battery. iPhone users had to wait two additional years to get the same feature. It's a solved problem - it's just that Apple dragged its feet on it.

And if you had the rubber cover secured tightly covering the ports…

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#118

Post by f6v »

progfix wrote: post #81
f6v wrote: post #28

I don’t know. I already have to click cookie buttons on every goddamn web site I visit, it’s annoying as hell. These EU initiatives can be a bit pointless. Battery needs to be replaced like once every 2-3 years. Why change the device design to make battery user-replaceable when I can bring it to the repair shop?

> Why change the device design to make battery user-replaceable when I can bring it to the repair shop? You'd rather go to a repair shop and pay a service fee for something that you can probably do in a couple of minutes at home?

I think that making battery replaceable by user will affect the phone design. I had a ton of first-wave Android devices back in the day. I don’t remember carrying an extra battery with me. Maybe someone did, but how many of total users?

Another point is that making a phone water-resistant is likely not trivial when you can take the whole back panel away.

My point is: are these dramatic changes worth it when the battery degrades only couple years after purchase?

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#119

Post by scarface_74 »

vladvasiliu wrote: post #56
mvanbaak wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those phones were not water resistant. While maybe not important to some, to others it is

The Galaxy S5 was IP67 rated. The back cover could be opened with just a fingernail.

Only if the rubber port was on the port. Not exactly engineering excellence.

Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

#120

Post by giantrobot »

makeitdouble wrote: post #96
tomjen3 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not great - those devices really do not have space for a replaceable battery. And no, I don't want them bigger than they already are.

Replaceability is not about space but design. In particular this legislation lets the maker build sealed and compact products as long as there's a reasonable way to open them and replace the battery.

Replaceability is very much about space. LiPoly batteries are very dangerous without an outer impact shell. If they're bent or punctured they'll catch fire or explode.

Batteries sealed in a device use the body of the device as their impact shell so get more battery mass and thus storage for a given envelope. A replaceable battery needing its own impact shell will have less storage for the same envelope volume.

This is very much a space problem. For any given envelope a replaceable battery will end up with less storage than a non-replaceable battery.

Post reply on HN