top 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Thank you EU for making life better for literally everyone

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    they'll still block access to the battery in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, it would still be possible to get an iPhone with a removable battery.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Companies will just make EU specific devices and continue to fuck over the rest of us

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago

    This would require them to sacrifice significant economies of scale. With past EU legislation like this what has mostly happened is most devices are pretty much the same for the entire world, but some region-specific devices won't be compliant because they were never intended for sale in the EU in the first place

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 29 points 6 months ago (8 children)

    this is a good idea, just like forcing apple to make their phones usbc

    So many fuking cables

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (7 children)

    Oh, yeah, that usbc change was so positive

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    Never used an iphone so a bit out of the loop on what would be negative about it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Apple's Lightning connector was initially an improvement on microUSB being kinda a not great connector/port. I can't remember if it also ran at a faster data rate than USB2 or if I'm just mixing up my history with FireWire.

    But once USB-C became ubiquitous, Apple's continued insistence on the Lightning connector was more because being different became a social pressure to switch to and remain in the iOS ecosystem, plus they collect royalties on every lightning connector cable/device sold

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • yes, it was running at usb2 speeds which was considered slow in 2014. they intentionally limited it to force people to use iCloud to move data around devices instead of sending pictures over the cable.

    ironically when they moved to the USB c ports with the 15 series. the base 15 was still usb2 speeds under the hood just with a new chip. the pro, plus, and pro max were faster iirc.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 49 points 6 months ago (6 children)

    This has been a massive no-brainer for quite a while. I think the only iPhone that was pretty close to having this a reality was the iPhone 4, it was really easy to just slide the back open and swap the battery. Not as easy as it could be, but certainly close.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Repairability has never been an Apple thing.

    I've replaced the keyboard on a Macbook, I swear there were 40 screw in that thing, and I'm not exaggerating for effect or anything. About every 2 keys it was screwed to the case from the bottom.

    I've also done an iphone battery a couple times for friends, it's a nightmare, but now pretty much all phones are difficult. I have to do the batteries on my Razr soon and I'm not looking forward to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    FWIW they’re definitely improving in that regard, probably because they know legislation like this is coming.

    The iPhone 16 replaced the frustrating glue strips with a special adhesive that unsticks with an electric current, and the MacBook Neo is apparently really easy to get into for simple repairs.

    Still a long way to go, but it’s encouraging.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    This was a thing with Samsung from the beginning all the way to the S7. The rational after that was the waterproof rating but I have a Zebra TC27 at work that's IP rated WITH ad repalcable battery. So it's easy to do, just cost more than not doing it and for Apple it's a revenue stream replacing batteries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The s5 was also water resistant, same rating as every other water resistant galaxy since. Used to have 2 batteries and a separate battery charger so I could just hot swap. I don't think I ever actually plugged the phone into a charger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago

    πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    The EU again, making strides to improve consumer electronics. Thank you EU

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (18 children)

    I'm very curious how this will be handled by OEM's.

    Water resistance is pretty much universal at this point, and as far as I know that's dependent on an airtight seal being maintained throughout the device.

    The EU rule forbids use of tools, chemicals or heat to remove the battery. So how does Apple, Google etc retain the IP68 rating if the back is removable via screws?

    I obviously think this is a really great step for mobile phones; I miss being able to carry a second battery for long trips back in the day. But I'm concerned that this will also make phones bulkier, heavier and less water resistant.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago

    The Galaxy S5 was water resistant and had a replaceable battery. The main reason they stopped was that Apple was doing glass/metal phones without replaceable anything that still sold like pancakes, so Samsung moved to glass-back phones with the S6 and the rest of the OEMs eventually followed suit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    That is what gaskets are designed to do. Admittedly I haven't read the regulations, but they could even go as far as making the gasket "single use". Meaning the battery is user replaceable, but not meant to be constantly swapped. Removing the back cover could require replacing the gasket and using a specific torque value and sequence on the screws the same way you would on any other gasket interface meant to keep dust and liquids in or out.

    They could also potentially start waterproofing the circuit boards themselves with conformal coating the way they do with mission critical hardware that needs to still function even if there is some amount of water ingress. I'm not saying I'd be happy with that solution, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    What would also work is waterproofing the phone except of the battery case and use a waterproof connector between the battery and the phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    I like the idea, and I suspect gaskets will be the solution they go with, with the back cover applying pressure to the gasket to create a seal. but the EU regulation specifically says that no expertise should be required and you should be able to do it with commercial, standard tools (i.e screwdriver). I don't think they could make single-use gaskets where you have to purchase additional gaskets from the OEM. I suppose they could come with the battery itself, which the EU requires OEMs to sell for 5 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 1 point 6 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (4 children)

    Do we know know if requiring specific torque values would violate the regulation? That's a genuine good faith question. The reason I ask, and what I was thinking of when I made my original comment was cars, and not the new bull shit we have. If I reference the shop manual for any of the vehicles I owned made in the late 80s to early 90s every fastener had a specific torque value specified for their installation from a lug but, to a cable management clip, to a head gasket bolt. Only one of those items I listed ever had a torque wrench brought out to be installed if they were worked on though by a mechanic or an owner.

    I'm just wondering if it might be a similar situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 6 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Well, that's kinda what I'm getting at. The kind of tool used by a mechanic to install a cable management clip (that the shop manual states has a torque value) is a simple screw driver. I think I have seen seen some computer heatsinks that have listed a recommended torque value as well. Of course I have never grabbed my torque wrench for this either, I have always just gone with feel.

    To be clear, I'm not advocating that the manufacturer require users to buy a torque gauge of some kind and get away with it. It can be very helpful though to have a recommended torque value and sequence as a reference point though if they go the route of screws and gaskets. There are tons of other engineering solutions that are possible up to and including just not having an IP rating.

    I'm currently using a Fairphone 5 with the back cover removed and in a case and I haven't ever had any issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    Could they potentially leave the innards of the device water proof while the battery itself is not sealed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    Not sure, is the battery waterproof? If I drop my phone in a sink of water, and it's IP68 rated, would this mean I need to replace my battery immediately?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I think it might have worked better if the requirement is for every phone to have an OPTION for a replaceable battery. I.E. manufacturers can provide a "waterproof" or "slim" or whatever version of each model, without a replaceable battery, so long as there's a version with a replaceable battery as well. With equivalent availability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 6 months ago

    I don't like the idea personally, because the replaceable battery version would be priced up, and likely not given the flagship experience. The point of this law is to prevent ewaste from 2 year old batteries performing badly, and standardising replaceable batteries is the way to stop that. OEMs would just find ways to convince users to buy the phones with no replaceable batteries because they make more money long-term that way. I don't trust corporations lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 6 months ago* (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 2 points 6 months ago*

    John Apple has a tough path ahead of him

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I wonder if this will take the wind out of the sails of fairphone

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Finally some good news!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    Tom Apple did not like that

  • source
  • [+] -16 points 6 months ago (19 children)

    Playing devils advocate here.

    How do you have a phone with replaceable battery and water resistance / proofing

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 6 months ago (10 children)

    The way we always did, of course. I’ve an underwater camera from the 80s that has user replaceable batteries and film.

    The idea that they have to be designed the way they are for dust/waterproofing reasons is just propaganda by the device manufacturers. There’s more money in them not being serviceable because that means that they can upcharge you for fixes, or better, push you to buy a new device when your current device doesn’t work the way it should.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 6 months ago (9 children)

    Yea but that underwater camera is encased in a huge plastic shell. Are you going to be carrying around your phone in a huge plastic shell?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 months ago*

    It’s actually not as large and bulky as you might think. These ideas aren’t mutually exclusive is the thing. My old work phone was a Samsung XCover. They have replaceable batteries and are waterproof.

    They’re a little bulkier than my 16 Pro, but not by that much, and the bulk isn’t really for waterproofing reasons alone.

    Seal the phone and leave the battery compartment just weather proof. You’ll still be able to drop the phone in the toilet or whatever and the phone will be basically identical except with a slide off back. We’ve done it before, it’s not impossible.

    Again, the idea that having devices be user serviceable leads to them needing to be designed to not be dust or waterproof is just a lie sold to us by the manufacturers. They could make our devices user serviceable, but they choose not to. Every time they’ve been coaxed into even a little bit of consumer friendliness, they oblige in the most malicious ways they can.

    What I’m saying is, you don’t need to play the Devil’s Advocate. His position isn’t based on reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The majority of people don't need phones that can survive underwater. Most get exposed to a bit of rain occasionally and that's it. So even if it was impossible for both to exist (it isn't), we don't need it anyway. People are sold "IP68" or whatever because it allows manufacturers to make their phones harder to repair, that's the only reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 6 months ago

    You mean like a Samsung Galaxy S5?

    Or any of the the ruggedized industrial phones available today?

    Its one of those save a dollar in manufacturing and forced obsolecence decisions made in a boardroom.

    They have gaslit people into thinking its because of waterproofing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    Screws and an adhesive gasket.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 6 months ago (3 children)