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

EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

mjtsai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#41

Post by maratc »

Title a bit misleading: EU exempts all smartwatches (not just Apple Watch) and probably all wireless headphones (not just AirPods) as well:

    > The Commission is now adding six new product categories to the existing list of exemptions. This includes wearable devices such as smartwatches and fitness trackers, electric toys, and products within the scope of the ATEX Directive (equipment used in explosive atmospheres such as explosion-proof motors, sensors, pumps or forklift trucks).

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#42

Post by sajithdilshan »

> The iPhone was already exempt from the removability rule under the original regulation, thanks to its battery cycle life and water resistance rating.

I can understand for super compact devices like AirPods, you cannot provide replaceable batteries without making the device larger. But why on earth would they exempt iPhones? Like is it rocket science to build a water proof battery replaceable phone in 2026?

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#43

Post by bluecalm »

Ciantic wrote: post #28
GuestFAUniverse wrote: post #20

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.

That is what I also wonder, who added that tootbrush statement there? Given that Oral-B has done replacable batteries for years, and they have dominant position, I'm thinkin that statement didn't come from lobbies. Maybe someone who are making the law is reasoning with itself or small group and didn't know that replacable batteries in toothbrushes are already a thing.

Oral-B is an American company. Phillips is an European company. Phillips toothbrushes don't have removable batteries (at least none of many I owned had them).

Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#44

Post by make3 »

ryandrake wrote: post #36
afiori wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What makes that reasonable? I can open and repair pretty much any other electronic device in my house if I need to. What makes a phone special?

are the other devices waterproof

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#45

Post by ryandrake »

make3 wrote: post #44
ryandrake wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes that reasonable? I can open and repair pretty much any other electronic device in my house if I need to. What makes a phone special?

are the other devices waterproof

Some of them are.

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#46

Post by hvb2 »

bluecalm wrote: post #43
Ciantic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is what I also wonder, who added that tootbrush statement there? Given that Oral-B has done replacable batteries for years, and they have dominant position, I'm thinkin that statement didn't come from lobbies. Maybe someone who are making the law is reasoning with itself or small group and didn't know that replacable batteries in toothbrushes are already a thing.

Oral-B is an American company. Phillips is an European company. Phillips toothbrushes don't have removable batteries (at least none of many I owned had them). Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.

> Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.

Uh sure. If you've been paying attention the last year and a half it's the US putting up trade barriers to every other country. Like how the EU is under investigation for forced labor, that outcome might be used in the coming months to justify more tariffs.

Just to address this one specific case. If they're exempt, and you can sell more of them, why would you go beyond the regulation? This is why regulation like this shouldn't have exemptions.

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#47

Post by bko »

tsimionescu wrote: post #40
bko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is another option here - the company may refuse to offer a replaceable battery because it would eat into the market itself by increasing the lifetime of the products. And different companies may have agreed, in secret or just tacitly, to perpetuate this. Especially as replaceable batteries are not THAT high on the list of features consumers actually look for - it's not like Samsung could eat Apple's lunch by in…

Why wouldn't one of the hundreds and probably thousands of companies that can make phones at scale not jump in? These are all pretty much off the shelf parts.

Why did Google even attempt Project Ara? Why did Fairphone or Teracube never produce a compelling product?

If anyone could make replaceable batteries work, even at a premium, it would be a big hit. I remember replaceable batteries and they were incredible. The batteries were slim, can barely feel them in your pocket. I popped 2 or 3 for my camping trip and never had to worry about charging.

The idea that there's collusion in one of the most competitive marketplaces in the world (consumer electronics) is an extraordinary claim. Companies don't just nuke their products and survive long term.

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#48

Post by hvb2 »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #42

> The iPhone was already exempt from the removability rule under the original regulation, thanks to its battery cycle life and water resistance rating. I can understand for super compact devices like AirPods, you cannot provide replaceable batteries without making the device larger. But why on earth would they exempt iPhones? Like is it rocket science to build a water proof battery replaceable phone in 2026?

I've always been a bit suspicious of the waterproof claims and their use.

My phone is IP68 rated, meaning prolonged submersion (at least 30 minutes) in water of up to 3 meters deep.

Why? What's the practical use here. It surely will make maintaining that level of waterproofing hard if you need to open it up...

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#49

Post by bko »

fragmede wrote: post #38
bko wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product? It costs less to make the inferior product, so even if you have to lower prices, you make it up in volume.

Right, and people don't want to pay a high enough premium to justify the cost and design tradeoffs. That's how markets work. Mandating a more expensive product w features consumers aren't willing to pay for normally makes everyone worse off

Re: EU Exempts Apple Watch and AirPods from Battery Removal Requirements

#50

Post by theshrike79 »

sajithdilshan wrote: post #42

> The iPhone was already exempt from the removability rule under the original regulation, thanks to its battery cycle life and water resistance rating. I can understand for super compact devices like AirPods, you cannot provide replaceable batteries without making the device larger. But why on earth would they exempt iPhones? Like is it rocket science to build a water proof battery replaceable phone in 2026?

The goal of the law wasn't explicitly user-replaceability, it was device longevity.

iPhone batteries are over the required minimum cycle limit + water resistant -> no need to be user-replaceable.

Also people still have the notion that "user-replaceable" means that you can just clip off the battery while queueing in the store and snap on a fresh one from your belt holster. That's not what the law states, it just can't require specialist tooling. Screws and glue strips are fine.

Post reply on HN