31–40 of 72 posts
anyone know how you can build a water-resistant phone with a removable battery?
Wouldn't a "toxic waste tax" be better than all these individual regulations? Have a sales tax on each product that corresponds to the toxicity of its components. Exempt recycled materials from the tax so companies have an incentive to collect old parts and recycle them, preventing them from going to a landfill.
Electric toothbrushes are exempt? Why? We have several for our kids, with removable batteries from Oral-B. All are years old and still waterproof. And with that amount of voltage, where can there _ever_ be a "safety issue"? That is quackery! Sounds more like somebody lobbied successfully.
My guess is there is a trade of that's worth it on the product side. That's why you can't buy a compelling phone w a replaceable battery anywhere. Its an incredibly competitive market. If there was a design that worked and tradeoffs made sense it works certainly exist and do well since who wouldn't like it.
I just believe that the fact it doesn't exist tells you that the trade offs aren't worth it. I didn't buy conspiracy theories how dozens of independent manufacturer and hundreds of hardware manufacturers that are on the side line so collude to keep this design choice at bay.
anyone know how you can build a water-resistant phone with a removable battery?
The current issue with battery replacement is mainly the fact that they're glued to the phone. Which make them very dangerous to replace, as newbie might try to pry off the battery with metal tools (and you don't want to know what happens when a lithium battery is pierced.) The only thing that will change as far as I know is that battery won't be glued anymore. You'll still have to open the phone with screw like you…
Nothing like that will change, not with this regulation, which already exempts any waterproof device like a waterproof phone. Per the article:
> The iPhone was already exempt from the removability rule under the original regulation, thanks to its battery cycle life and water resistance rating.
Wouldn't a "toxic waste tax" be better than all these individual regulations? Have a sales tax on each product that corresponds to the toxicity of its components. Exempt recycled materials from the tax so companies have an incentive to collect old parts and recycle them, preventing them from going to a landfill.
Also, EU can't levy taxes, so it's a moot question.
>some products, such as medical devices and so-called “wet appliances” (for example, electric toothbrushes or water flossers), are already exempt from this requirement, mainly for safety reasons. In these cases, batteries only need to be removable and replaceable by independent professionals. Note: this is exemption from user replacing battery themselves, not a blanket exemption on the product not being serviceable f…
IMO they entire law should have been target at "replaceable by independent professionals", it is reasonable to require industry standard professional equipment for opening and working on a phone
Wouldn't a "toxic waste tax" be better than all these individual regulations? Have a sales tax on each product that corresponds to the toxicity of its components. Exempt recycled materials from the tax so companies have an incentive to collect old parts and recycle them, preventing them from going to a landfill.
You should read up on what the existing WEEE requirements are.
Electric toothbrushes are exempt? Why? We have several for our kids, with removable batteries from Oral-B. All are years old and still waterproof. And with that amount of voltage, where can there _ever_ be a "safety issue"? That is quackery! Sounds more like somebody lobbied successfully.
Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product? My guess is there is a trade of that's worth it on the product side. That's why you can't buy a compelling phone w a replaceable battery anywhere. Its an incredibly competitive market. If there was a design that worked and tradeoffs made sense it works certainly exist and do well since who wouldn't like it. I just believe that the fact it doesn't exist tells…
It costs less to make the inferior product, so even if you have to lower prices, you make it up in volume.
Electric toothbrushes are exempt? Why? We have several for our kids, with removable batteries from Oral-B. All are years old and still waterproof. And with that amount of voltage, where can there _ever_ be a "safety issue"? That is quackery! Sounds more like somebody lobbied successfully.
Electric toothbrushes are exempt? Why? We have several for our kids, with removable batteries from Oral-B. All are years old and still waterproof. And with that amount of voltage, where can there _ever_ be a "safety issue"? That is quackery! Sounds more like somebody lobbied successfully.
Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product? My guess is there is a trade of that's worth it on the product side. That's why you can't buy a compelling phone w a replaceable battery anywhere. Its an incredibly competitive market. If there was a design that worked and tradeoffs made sense it works certainly exist and do well since who wouldn't like it. I just believe that the fact it doesn't exist tells…