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…
In my experience, the current bottleneck with (Android) phones is that the get very slow without any apparent reasons after a few years. I've had multiple reports of acquaintances complaining about their phones getting slow after a few years, and I've always assumed that they were just full of apps... until it happened to me. I can't find an unambiguois explanation; my guess is a mix of CPUs deteriorating over time d…
The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
221–230 of 334 posts
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second proposed legislation from the article seems to require that at least 5 years of updates must be provided after the device was last sold. This is far more than many low-end and mid-range Android phones, moreover many Android phone manufacturers start counting after the device was released, not last sold. Interestingly, they also seem to put upper bounds on how quickly these updates should be rolled out. Eg.…
Is it? It is going to meant that Android can't take advantage of the high end features of the new phones that are being released, and that old and slow phones are going to get updates that makes them run even slower. To top it of, it is not like manufacturers are into throwing away money, so this will likely mean that prices on the cheapest phones will increase more.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It’s almost like “the user will choose the best product” is bullshit. It has never been true, people are not rational agents, otherwise marketing wouldn’t work at all. The best we have is to define small markets with strict regulations - within that some competition can happen that will tend to raise better products.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the low end, surely you'd get more standardisation. Same processor, screen, Bluetooth and mobile chips. So that from an update pov it's easy. They can always differentiate with cameras, batteries, cases etc.
So a communist phone for the lower class? That’s the not-nice way of saying the same thing. I’m not sure if I am for or against that without more thought.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 i…
> A replaceable battery needing its own impact shell Why ? Current battery replacements are sold without an impact shell, and the main issue is to have to remove all the parts to reach the battery at the very bottom of the stack and then deal with the dirty gluing. A design where you remove the bottom first, unglue the battery through pull tabs and stick the new battery would have exactly the same properties, the bod…
A UR mark (its a backwards printed UR) is a UL certification for components meant to go in a UL listed product but themselves aren't individually certified as UL products. Not that UL or any other testing labs are the end-all be-all of safety but in liability terms they are important.
The UR testing means the component isn't outright defective for purpose when installed in the UL listed device. So if there's ever a lawsuit around a device and all the components are UR labeled and the product is UL listed the manufacturer is unlikely to be forced to recall that entire class of device.
In order for a battery to get UL listed instead of UR listed it needs additional testing (money) and any sub-models or major changes need to be retested. It's much easier to get UR labeling for a component that can only be used in the intended UL listed device. Phone retailers do not want component-only certified things sitting in warehouses in shitty retail packaging.
Besides the whole liability issue there's issue of scale. Manufacturing a hundred million widgets with glue to hold batteries in place is more efficient than screws. Screws require screw holes, assembly is slower, and screws work themselves loose with thermal expansion/contraction. Glue is more efficient for assembly and overall safer over the life of the device (measured in the total manufacturing run divided by defects from battery slippage).
Devices could require fewer disassembly steps but it would be at the cost of assembly complexity. A $1 more in assembly costs is an extra hundred million it costs Apple or Samsung for just one model of phone.
I know Apple is just evil and can do no right but there are reasons shit is built they way it is. iPhones are far sturdier and resilient than they were ten years ago and their batteries last as long/longer despite higher power draw of their SoC and radios. Part of that sturdiness is gluing pieces together to better handle impacts and batteries that have more power storage per volume because they do t need thick impact shells. There's pretty good odds that making an iPhone with less glue and more easily replaced batteries would lead to more phones going in the trash due to them breaking more easily.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t you think “only if the port was covered” and if the battery and the cover were put back just right are big caveats?
I don't know what you mean by "just right" for the cover. I just clipped it back on, without taking any special precautions, and it seemed fine under heavy rain. Granted, I didn't try throwing it in a pool, though, so I don't know if it would have survived that. Furthermore, the port cover was just in the way if I didn't clip it back in, so I always did, and, as above, never had any issue. While I agree that I much p…
> After every charge and boot sequence, the phone reminds the user to preserve the IP67 rating by securing the back cover and making sure the USB flap is closed. This reminder gets old fast, but is necessary considering how rushed and absentminded people can be
On top of that, to get a reputable battery for it that includes NFC support (because the NFC was built into the battery) was not that much cheaper than just taking an iPhone to an authorized dealer for replacement.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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'…
That's the situation in the US. In most of the EU, you can expect either 2G or 3G to be available for at least five more years.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#228No more waterproof phones I guess. This saddens me. I find it very useful when driving my bike outdoors with it being mounted to my bike.
Yeah, I honestly don't see the advantage. What I would ask is that companies that create phones without replaceable batteries, should provide replacement by a reasonable fee (let's say no more than 9% the cost of the phone).
https://www.popsci.com/energy/lithium-ion-batteries-recyclin... https://www.waste360.com/business/li-ion-battery-fires-unfai...
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#229It 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.
Re: The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
#230No more waterproof phones I guess. This saddens me. I find it very useful when driving my bike outdoors with it being mounted to my bike.