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

201–210 of 210 posts

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

#201

Post by streetfighter64 »

mitxela wrote: post #172
streetfighter64 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I doubt any EU court will stop you selling a waterproof phone, but they will stop you making your flagship phone waterproof specifically for the purpose of making it hard to repair. They do have common sense, you know.

So what do you want to change, actually? My point is that the waterproof phones I've owned hasn't been hard to repair, because heating a phone to remove some glue, is not hard. The point is that the waterproofing glue, for me, is a worthwhile tradeoff because it adds like 10 minutes to the repair process.

Obviously, if you want to introduce new regulation, it must be because you want to change something, right? Or is the regulation about preventing a hypothetical scenario that's not the case right now?

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

#202

Post by streetfighter64 »

welwala wrote: post #186
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.

Yes please! That would be great. I would love to just be able to replace a screen easily. And really this is what this law does already.

> I would love to just be able to replace a screen easily.

Yes, as I said, I've easily replaced my screen on my phone from 2022 already.

My point is that the definition of "easy" is different for me and GP (is it "easy" to remove and apply glue?). So which definition do we need to write into the law?

People were probably saying "I'd love to avoid tracking cookies on all websites" back before the EU cookie law too, and look at how that turned out.

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

#203

Post by streetfighter64 »

mitxela wrote: post #171
tvbusy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll never forget the feeling when you get an old phone, replace the battery and it's like brand new again. People no longer need to replace their phone every year anymore so being able to just replace the screen and battery makes the device practically brand new.

Another thing you can do: scroll through your app list and delete all the ones you don't use. And if you keep your phone in flight mode when you're not using it, you'll quadruple your battery life or more. Both because the radio is off, and also because apps aren't waking up the CPU to spy on you every few minutes, since they can't transmit it.

Quadruple? Depends on how you're counting I suppose. The problem with using flight mode is that the phone then becomes useless at its job as a phone, i.e. a device that other people can use to call you.

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

#204

Post by zelphirkalt »

maccard wrote: post #197
zelphirkalt wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the severity of punishment for violations was high enough, we would only need very few example cases, before it stops.

severity of punishment does not correlate to reoffending rates. We’ve seen this time and time again. Consistency of enforcement does.

Consistently collecting pennies also won't do. Both is needed. It needs to hurt the business in violation, and it needs to be consistent.

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

#205

Post by mschuster91 »

herbst wrote: post #79
mschuster91 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ever had a GoPro? Or professional camera? Drone? It's really not so hard to imagine a market for replaceable batteries lol. My ThinkPad t420 had a small built in battery so I could switch batteries without shutdown. Imagine the magic. Imagine taking 20+ hours of laptop battery with you 15 years ago.

> Ever had a GoPro? Or professional camera? Drone? It's really not so hard to imagine a market for replaceable batteries lol.

All three, in fact. GoPro is about 15 seconds from "battery empty warning" over safe shutdown, battery replacement and it's booted back up into fully working. Professional camera (Sony A7S2) about 10-15 seconds, depending on what BS the lens tries to pull on startup. Drone about 1 minute including landing/takeoff (DJI Mini 3 Pro).

My Android tablet from Samsung however? Two minutes for safe shutdown and boot to userland alone plus all the apps starting in the background that keep yapping to whatever mothership cloud. It's an annoying hassle. And on top of that, despite the thing actually having a removable battery and being marked watertight and suitable even for underwater operation - it clearly is not.

I'd rather have an actually watertight device that has guaranteed availability of spare batteries, and actual screws instead of that glue shit that can't ever be fully removed from either the display or the housing.

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

#206

Post by mitxela »

oblio wrote: post #190
mitxela wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hint hint, if you're European, wake up and make some good software!

The EU needs a real single digital market with single patents, copyright, IP licensing. The EU also needs easier financing of risky ventures, probably with tax incentives associated. The EU needs specific regulation to facilitate accelerated scaling across all its countries. This last part is the hardest to do because by definition startups are challenges to big and rich incumbents. I would just ban US software compa…

You can't have good regulations and also have all the world's evil billionaires pouring their money in. You get to pick one of those.

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

#207

Post by poetaster »

999900000999 wrote: post #52

All you really need are easy to replace batteries. That’s the only part that will wear out within a reasonable lifecycle. Aside from FairPhone no one offers that

In Germany both Shift and Gigaset have had user replaceable batteries for over a decade. The rebrands like Volla and rePhone, obviously. The Finish Jolla has a new phone with battery, camera lenses, etc. Typing on a GS5 with Sailfish. Repair of display was easy to perform.

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

#208

Post by oblio »

mitxela wrote: post #206
oblio wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The EU needs a real single digital market with single patents, copyright, IP licensing. The EU also needs easier financing of risky ventures, probably with tax incentives associated. The EU needs specific regulation to facilitate accelerated scaling across all its countries. This last part is the hardest to do because by definition startups are challenges to big and rich incumbents. I would just ban US software compa…

You can't have good regulations and also have all the world's evil billionaires pouring their money in. You get to pick one of those.

Shockingly Europe had and still has a lot of money.

Estimated GDPs for 2026:

US $32tn.

EU $23tn.

It's not like the EU only has couch cushion money for investments.

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

#209

Post by graemep »

mschuster91 wrote: post #50
graemep wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GDPR is reasonable, maybe too weak regulation of big businesses with lots of data. The problem is that it applies to small organisations, even non-profits, that do not trade that information which is proportionately a much bigger burden. Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and no…

> Real examples of organisations I have come across who have to comply with GDPR include a local community theatre, a parish church etc. They are keep fairly simple information, and not exchanging it with anyone, but they still have to put effort into ensuring compliance. Yeah, and that is precisely where you want something like the GDPR to be as well! Large corporations are one thing, they have compliance department…

> so many local organizations have gotten hacked or data exfiltrated because "why do software and hardware updates when everything is working"

They have a lot less information. Consider my too examples. What do they record electronically? Name and address. The church will have relationship to people such as spouse and children, which are in public records anyway. A few details of sons preferences and involvements. The theatre is even more public - if you act its publicised. They might both have records of tax deductible donations. They do not have unique identifiers such as appear on ID documents or NI (UK tax and social security) numbers. They do not correlate this with outside sources. There is very little to leak.

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

#210

Post by ragall »

maccard wrote: post #198
ragall wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying the European way is better.

I mean, I agree. But it also has some drawbacks. Uber is a perfect example of this - they completed ignored the existing taxi and private hire laws, ate the penalties left right and centre and while they still suck they dragged taxis kicking and screaming into the 21st century in the UK. The days of being overcharged by a driver who takes a notion and a new route, or finding out the card machine isn’t working at your…

I would have preferred the old ways if that means upholding the rule of law. American MBAs are pure evil and toxic for a society's social fabric, and they should be kept away as much as possible, even if that means putting up with some guild-like behaviour.
Post reply on HN