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

Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#101

Post by nradov »

mschuster91 wrote: post #48
library8848 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spare battery: remove empty battery, switch battery, you are back to 100% Powerbank: mess with cables, keep phone plugged until it's charged and wait If there is a market for spare batteries, there might be a market for external battery chargers as well > swap battery in the morning instead of charging, place empty battery on charger, repeat the next day

Spare batteries are a nightmare to handle. Far too easy to bend or have something short-circuit the pads, and you have to shut down and restart your phone. However, what is needed desperately is the ability to quickly change a degraded battery.

Nah, when the old Samsung phones allowed user battery replacement it was completely safe and easy to handle. Restarting the phone took only a few seconds.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#102

Post by delusional »

gustavus wrote: post #77
delusional wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Twitter frontpage should include a little counter with how much child exploitation it has facilitated today. I don't think there's a single politician in Bruxelles that wouldn't love to come down hard on X. There is no love for Elon in those circles anymore. The problem is that he's attached himself to international politics through his daddy. Trump has threatened the EU with strict sanctions if they levy any so…

[flagged]

I don't care about any of your examples. I am explicitly not talking about Iran, China, Russia, Takedown requests by the UK, "downsizing" the government, or "remigration". I have opinions about all that, but it is not what I'm talking about here.

I am talking about weaponized trade relations, such as coupling embargoes or tariffs, to inner market fines. I am talking about explicitly threatening allies for enforcing their own legally sanctioned laws inside their sovereign territory. I am, in part, talking about threatening allies with invasion, if they don't do what you want.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#103

Post by ButlerianJihad »

library8848 wrote: post #47
streetfighter64 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Powerbank: Works with all phones, Doesn't require you to shut down and take your phone apart, Can be charged with a regular phone charger. Spare battery: ???

Spare battery: remove empty battery, switch battery, you are back to 100% Powerbank: mess with cables, keep phone plugged until it's charged and wait If there is a market for spare batteries, there might be a market for external battery chargers as well > swap battery in the morning instead of charging, place empty battery on charger, repeat the next day

I purchased a Lenovo T580 ThinkPad in 2018, and I configured it with an extra battery. So it had one built-in and one that was removable. This added some extra weight and plenty of extra battery life.

Several times I thought about purchasing a spare battery, but I never did. I also thought about detaching the battery and using the machine without it, such as on AC line power, or when I didn't need the extra juice. But I realized that it was a bad idea to carry it around with a gaping hole on the bottom and exposed battery contacts. I would've felt comfortable if there was a dummy cap to snap on instead.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#104

Post by friendzis »

pbasista wrote: post #28
KaiserPro wrote: post #4

As its the EU and regulation, its time to trott out your hobby horse. So let me trot out mine: regulation is good so long as it is backed up by even handed, robust, transparent, quick and effective sanctions. the Online safety act is a good example of a bad law, which is enforced badly. The first big test (X producing industrial quantities of minors engaging in sexual activity) was failed. Had a small company produce…

> X got a letter saying they should stop. I am unfamiliar with these matters and I am also unsure what specifically you are referring to. But in general, if big companies get away with wrongdoings by receiving a gentle slap on their fingers, figuratively speaking, it will, in my opinion, lead to no change whatsoever. Because if there are no material consequences for wrongdoings, they probably would not care. And ther…

> Because if there are no material consequences for wrongdoings, they probably would not care. And there are very few kinds of actually material consequences for big companies. One of them being a really hefty fine.

In mono/oligo-poly situations there's no really such a thing as "a really hefty fine". Either the cost will be happily trickled to the very public that are being wronged or the fine is effectively unsurvivably hefty, which noone would levy against a too-big-to-fail entity.

Look at the recent fine for Meta for example. Settling a case against one of the core monopolic drivers for a couple percentage points of early revenue is peanuts. I can't believe the exec suite[-s] are thinking anything else than "which anti-consumer behavior can we buy indulgence for?", they would be stupid not to at these discounted rates.

I'm half joking here, but at this point it feels like the only reasonable way to instill some fear against building Torment Nexus and cyberpunk dystopia would be personal criminal liability of the boards and exec suites that is impossible to settle.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#105

Post by streetfighter64 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #73
streetfighter64 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but so far I've replaced my phone screen once and the battery never, I suppose both would be equally easy though. Why is heating a big issue but removing screws not? Shouldn't we mandate user-replaceable screens too? Soon you'll end up regulating all phones to be modular.

> Soon you'll end up regulating all phones to be modular. That would be great, obviously there would be tradeoffs (not as thin, potentially less waterproof) but that seems like the right direction to go in.

I don't really see the value of regulation requiring a certain preference, given that there are tradeoffs. I owned a modular phone previously, and it was, as you say, not as thin and not waterproof, and not dustproof either. Given that it takes like 30 minutes to change the screen or battery on my current phone (which is not modular), I don't see why my preference should be disallowed by EU regulation?

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#106

Post by Danox »

With the thru the roof cost of smartphones and many other computer hardware products because of the current memory crisis I believe the EU should concentrate on making sure customers get satisfaction when something goes wrong from the seller.

I’m not interested in fixing the device myself. I’m taking it back to the company Apple, Sony, Nvidia or Audio-Engine and have them fix it, a third-party chop shop or me involved trying to fix it myself is unacceptable.

Most of the items sold today-simply cost too much to try a tinker with it myself. That’s utterly ridiculous. I hope the EU or any country for that matter concentrate on making sure companies with strong laws, honor/standby and fix the problem with their product. I have little faith that they will.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#107

Post by exogenousdata »

delusional wrote: post #102
gustavus wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I don't care about any of your examples. I am explicitly not talking about Iran, China, Russia, Takedown requests by the UK, "downsizing" the government, or "remigration". I have opinions about all that, but it is not what I'm talking about here. I am talking about weaponized trade relations, such as coupling embargoes or tariffs, to inner market fines. I am talking about explicitly threatening allies for enforcing t…

How about just delegitimizing free & fair elections? The foundation of representational democracy requires confidence in voting.

President Trump has spent over 7 years trying, without any proof, that US state and federal elections are rigged when he or his allies do not win.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#108

Post by cromka »

KaiserPro wrote: post #4

As its the EU and regulation, its time to trott out your hobby horse. So let me trot out mine: regulation is good so long as it is backed up by even handed, robust, transparent, quick and effective sanctions. the Online safety act is a good example of a bad law, which is enforced badly. The first big test (X producing industrial quantities of minors engaging in sexual activity) was failed. Had a small company produce…

> Another good example is NCAP ratings.

Ironically it's a very bad example: EuroNCAP is an independent organization and has nothing to do with the EU and legislation/regulations as such.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#109

Post by ceejayoz »

nradov wrote: post #88
WarmWash wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe had the opportunity to create a silicon valley 30 years ago. They fumbled it so badly that most euro tech talent went to the US and worked or even founded their companies there. They still have not (and likely never will) implement the general reforms needed to create fertile grounds for tech to compete with the US. If the current EU mindset existed 150 years ago, they would have banned steam engines because t…

You will actually find European HN users who will unironically say that we should have never started using fossil fuel engines at all.

Let's assess that opinion in a hundred years. Maybe they're just Michael Burrys.

Re: Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

#110

Post by bot403 »

friendzis wrote: post #104
pbasista wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> X got a letter saying they should stop. I am unfamiliar with these matters and I am also unsure what specifically you are referring to. But in general, if big companies get away with wrongdoings by receiving a gentle slap on their fingers, figuratively speaking, it will, in my opinion, lead to no change whatsoever. Because if there are no material consequences for wrongdoings, they probably would not care. And ther…

> Because if there are no material consequences for wrongdoings, they probably would not care. And there are very few kinds of actually material consequences for big companies. One of them being a really hefty fine. In mono/oligo-poly situations there's no really such a thing as "a really hefty fine". Either the cost will be happily trickled to the very public that are being wronged or the fine is effectively unsurvi…

I don't consider meta too big to fail. If they go out of business the world can move on with minor disruption and inconvenience.
Post reply on HN