Live data from Hacker News

The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries

theverge.com

221–230 of 334 posts

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

#221
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…

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…

How old? I'm still using two LG V20's from 2016 and don't experience issues.

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

#222
post #58

Earlier 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.

In recent years I think phone hardware has managed to outrun software bloat. My latest phone doesn't feel any faster than the previous one and it didn't noticeably slow down after three Android updates. Five years of updates would probably be fine.

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

#223
post #98

Earlier 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.

Especially since it's not like there is a manufacturer for every cell of the feature matrix. Every single option has its downsides, and the optimal option most likely doesn't exist.

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

#224

Earlier 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.

White-labeling an oem part is not exactly the kind of communism Marx was known for

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

#225

Earlier 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…

Current LiPoly replacement batteries are not sold as consumer items. You can't buy them off a peg at a normal retail store. Take a look at phone batteries sometime and make note of the logos everyone ignores.

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

#226

Earlier 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…

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/samsung-galaxy-s5-smart...

> 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

#227
post #183

Earlier 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.

Nope. 3G is being shut down in Finland as we speak. Should be finished by early 2024.

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

#228

No 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).

The problem that these bills are trying to solve isn't just consumer, it's End of Life management at the recycler level. Glued-in, Li-ion batteries over the years have caused so much headache for ewaste processors. Apple has improved over the years with their glue tabs, but it's still a big problem in the market as a whole.

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

#229

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 would think the ban on petrol cars (2035?) does affect europeans manufacturers.

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

#230

No 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.

The Samsung Galaxy S5 has a replaceable battery and was waterproof, so they are not mutually exclusive options.
Post reply on HN