New EU directive pushes toward replaceable iPhone batteries - Page 2

Well done. It is time to protect the environment and to protect the consumer, avoiding the ABUSE of some companies. The same could be said for iPhones: they should be free and not linked to any carrier by law. As said, STOP ABUSE!!!

What a tool, this has nothing to do with Apple versus other manufactures, it is all to do with the EU recycling programmes

I doubt it. Why would Apple engineers come up with something when to date no one else has? Apple does not make batteries. They buy them just like everyone else.

By this continued "Apple" is the inventor of all things wonderful, you would assume that we all sit and wait for manna to drop from Culpertino.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!! Is it an nuclear powered battery or just maybe lithium ion, or maybe air zinc or some other combination? Are you saying that something as simple as opening the back and taking out the battery will require a degree?

I can't believe some of the reactions I read here, it's pretty sad to be honest.
The EU is trying to do some good for our planet by giving the industry some simple and really not so difficult rules. As you can read in the article they have done this before and with good result. The industry is forced to find new solutions and by doing this they might even improve quality.
Apple is proudly presenting itself as a 'green' company, which is a great development. Some people acually care for the enviroment and it even sells!
And for the people that are so scared of removable batteries in their iPod or iPhone... don't be, it's Apple, they will find a beautifull solution for the 'problem' and you might even be happy with this new feature. (the tiny Apple remote is perhaps a good example)

No flames here. Trust me if this was directed against M$, or Nokia, or Motorola, or some other non-Apple product, the Appleistas here would be cheering and lining up to witch hunt.

Don't waste you time on commen sense with this crowd.

Your dumb post was sponsored by Apple.

The same thing happened when Nokia came out with the original N95. It was underpowered. Nokia fixed it, and did a software upgrade.

Your dumb post was sponsored by Nokia.

but we should collect and send to factory for recycling.

I think you misunderstand. It's not about the free market, but about environmental protection, and all those millions of batteries are a dangerous problem. Many people here (in Europe) prefer regulations and state (or even better EU) control in order to protect their environment. What would be the alternative? Being at the mercy of some CEO whose only legitimate goal is to make money?

You can't honestly believe (after what's happening to Wallstreet right now) that the free market would take anything into consideration but the highest short term profit.

Just what phones have you been buying where the latch or shell breaks that easily? I have never had a latch broken in 10+ years of using almost as many individual Nokia and Sony Ericsson phones. I haven't heard of a latch breaking on any friend's phone. Some of these phones are from the very bottom of the price range (think £20). And I treat phones far from gently.

It better be alright for Apple to run a recycling program, instead of redesigning the iPod / iPhone. I personally hate removable batteries. I've never had the need for them, and it's one of the things I appreciate about Apple's consumer products.

Did you actually read the article? It's about protecting the environment, not protecting individual consumers. Do you think that protecting the environment is a bad thing? Or is the shiny box of wires in your pocket more important to you?

Actually, this is far from the most extreme case of government interference in phone design. Korea mandates a common charger socket, for example. Again, it's for environmental reasons as it stops redundant (but perfectly functional) chargers from being thrown away.

That is NOT an urban myth.

The urban myth is that it is an urban myth!

From COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94...
This is as someone else put it ""The regulation that Eurofanatics always deny exists"" which includes the lines...

"free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers"
"defects of shape"
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...4R2257:EN:HTML


An embarrassed EU have been trying to portray this as an urban myth down the usual pro EU channels such as the BBC. They have done this by saying they did not ban "bendy bananas"... sure they never said in so many words "bendy bananas" but what is bendy if it is not "abnormal curvature of the fingers" or "defects of shape"??!!

Lets not stop with bananas, how about cucumbers...
EUs over-regulation. European Commission Regulation No. 1277/88 states...
"if a cucumber bends more than 10 millimeters per 10 centimeters (0.4 inches per 4 inches) in length"

Notice now the use of the word "bend"!

If it is an urban myth, how come the EU dropped much of their (ridiculous) legislation only this year?

25% of the surface of an apple has to be red, carrots too wide, the regulations were never ending, and were certainly NOT a myth!

Even though I'm sure Apple could design an excellent hot swappable battery design for their iPhones without compromising the solid and compact design, this just means there must be simple guidelines of how to remove and replace the battery. Perhaps Apple could offer this service for free in the case of the consumer buying a new battery, or the consumer decides to recycle the product.

This deal is first for the environment, and secondly for the consumer.

True, heck we would be furious if suddenly the iPhone gets thicker just to accommodate removable batteries (and maybe storage).


Same to me, some people say the iPod dont have replaceable batteries, I say, So What! by the time the battery dies of, you yourself would want a new iPod or something else.

Wow. How original. Came up with that all by yourself did cha?

Problem is , what we find quite often with the EU is that their regulation often causes more harm than good to the very cause these regulations portray to be supporting.
I'm not saying that is definitely the case in this particular piece of legislation as I dont have the time to research it, but just because something masquerades as 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' in reality does not always mean it is so.
Being 'green' is big business, and subject to the same exaggerated truths as any other industry.

Have you got anything to back this claim up?

As the vast majority of mobile phone sold this past year has a user replaceable battery how can you possibly claim that it is not a feature that consumers want?

When I go biking or hiking I usually find tons of iPods and iPhones in the wild hiding behind the trees and bushes all coloring the landscape in a tripy mood...

Oh, come on ! ... give me a break !!!!!
seriously

I understand your point, but that doesn't mean that every regulation does more harm than good. I don't believe the goverments goal is to profit from these regulations, sure they make mistakes, but hopefully they learn from them.
In this case I don't see how making hazardous waste more easy to recycle would be a bad thing? At a certain point in time the millions of iPod/iPhone users do want to get rid of their old or broken device and I'm sure a large quantity of them will just end up in the garbage bin. It wouldn't do any harm to at least take out the battery for recycling before doing so.
"Whaaat you cannot even take out the battery! that is sooo 2008..."

This is exactly the type of thing that should be regulated. Batteries are harmful when disposed incorrectly. Regulation to create behaviour that benefits everyone that wouldn't occur in normal competitive business (which is all about cutting costs) is often required.

I don't think Apple have an issues here anyway, the battery is accessible with screws, so as long as the old phone is handed in to a phone recycling centre (which many people do because they get money back) or an Apple store, etc, there's no issue.

Do you know what 'abnormal' means? Bananas normally curve.

Now I agree that the regulation is absolutely pointless (selling malformed bananas would be a failed business proposition, and my malformed I mean malformed like a three eyed fish, not 'slightly more curved'), but that's not the point here.

oh so STRAIGHT bananas should be banned because they are NOT 'normal' ? I get ya!

Who is to say what is or is not 'normal' in regards to a piece of fruit? and that is my point.

Lots of fruit n veg was chucked in the bin because it was not 'normal', in this day and age of food shortages (or even when this legislation was first passed) is damn stupid and thats that.

I will decide when I buy a banana at the store if it is normal or not thank you very much meddling EU.

Just as an example of a possible reverse consequence (and this is only for the point of discussion)..

The casing may have to be manufactured from multiple parts, increasing wastage, increased energy usage to make those parts.
The recycling process may use much energy, and utilize toxic chemicals to extract the recyclable materials, if they are ever actually recycled.
There have been cases in the UK of recyclable waste that people have gone to the effort of separating just getting chucked in the landfill with everything else.

Another example of green idiocy was greenpeace in the 80's slamming nuclear power at every opportunity. We now know that nuclear power is actually the 'greener' solution, or at least the lesser of evils, which I and many other could have told greenpeace 20 years ago, but at the time we would have been (and were) labeled 'horrible polluting monsters' for suggesting such a thing.

With nuclear power at least the radioactive waste is collected and stored (you could call it recycled). This process also uses energy but just dumping it in the ocean is not really a good alternative
In my opinion the recycling of batteries is not so different from this. They contain heavy metals which are dangerous for the environment and people when directly exposed to. I believe it's common knowledge that the recycling of batteries is the better alternative than throwing them in the garbage.
Also, I don't believe that adding the option on a device to replace a battery would be such a big waste of material and energy. If it would be, why would 99.9% of the portable devices allready have this option?

I'm curious what you think most people do with old cell phones. Hint: they don't dispose of them "properly"... People don't dispose of CFL's properly either, or regular AA batteries either. Most people just pitch them in the trash and call it a day. Actually, now that I come to think of it this would actually INCREASE the # of improperly disposed of batteries. As it is now when a person is done with their phone a lot of people take their old phone into the store and switch it out (at least in the US) and that lets AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/et al take care of it. However, if you let everyone replace their own batteries with the cheapo one they buy off the internet they are just going to pitch the old one in the trash...

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

It's not uncommon for 99.9% of the world to be wrong, I should know, I'm an atheist and a mac user. But yeah, sure, I'm just playing devils advocate on this one.
But what I do disagree with is legislation such as this, because it will most definitely stifle innovation. There must be room for maneuver, to say "you cant do A, you must do B because its better" is wrong as all innovation with A is then halted.
There may be (and probably is) equal if not better environmental solutions using method A that nobody has thought of, and if they DO think of them its now not possible to put the ideas into practice because of red tape, which is very hard to remove.
A deposit on each iphone, with Apple footing the recycle bill, may or may not be a better solution, but we will never know thanks to the silly ole EU.

Will fuel cells fall under the same legislation? and will it hamper the adoption of this technology into mobile phones? If history is anything to go by.... probably

I like the quote.

That link conveniently doesn't work, but the directive didn't ban anything - it just classified the fruit into classes: Class I bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature". And what is wrong with that? Class II bananas can be any shape you like. It's the same story for cucumbers and apples. If you buy Tesco Value banas, you'll probably find they are labled as class II - and strangely they are cheaper! Get over it!

Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that someone's doing something to address this issue. A phone battery has a working lifespan of about two years of moderate use. Maximum. To manufacture something like a phone with all the precious resources it requires, and then chuck it away in two years because it is old fashioned or can't hold a charge is a shocking waste. I've had my mobile for 3 years maybe 4, and my ipod mini longer. I had to change the battery on the mini myself and it was fairly straightforward, but I can't imagine a novice doing it. On the phone, I just unclipped the back and put in a new battery I bought in Tottenham Court Road...

To all those who pounced on me for months and said the iPhone would never get nor need a replaceable battery- HA!

As usual, your comprehension of the topic is wanting.

Funny....

Aside from the fact most of the world are now actively managing economies to save them from total collapse -I'm not convinced markets work magically by themselves, without rules, morality or principles- environmentally this rule makes sense and is a logical and progressive step by the EU.

It ensures that when products are recycled at the end of their life, the batteries can be removed so they don't end up in the environment. Likewise consumers are given the choice to extend the life of the product - that gives people more options, not less. Companies can't make this decision themselves as they can't guarantee their competitors will skimp or perhaps save money in the short term, but hand local governments the cost of disposal at their end of things. The regulation provides a level playing-field.

I don't see Apple's insistence on sealing the battery into the device as particularly innovative. The fact you have to take it back to Apple, a third party or buy a special tool to replace the battery reminds me of the way we used to go to a jeweller to fix our clockwork watches, or replace watch batteries for that matter. That seems like a retrograde step.

I'm sure Jonathan Ive or Apple can come up with a good design solution that works aesthetically. The claim they can't suggests they are trying to hookwink people so there's a faster product turn around and replacement cycle - not very green (but a lot to do with their bottom line).

I look forward to iPod with a user replaceable battery. Who would've thunk it? What will they come up with next?

Just because you can't admit that you're wrong on the topic don't take it out on me with your warped distortions. It was the NY Times not me that said "Unless Apple does something about its battery problem, the iPhone will always be more a toy than a tool. "
Sorry- you loose.

You should not be surprised as much of the regulation in the EU is with out scientific evidence. Even the RoHS is of questionable value as there is little in the way of evidence that lead on PC boards was harming anybody.

Now I'm not against improving tech and making the world a better place but you need real alternatives before passing laws. As it is nothing has effectively replaced lead solder. So now we have more electronics going into the waste stream, sad!

Not likely! Moreso people discard phones by throwing them into a recycling box.

Besides that who is saying that people can't replace an iPhone battery? The directions are right on the net. This sort of regulation is a fine example of government treating people like imbiciles.

Well that and the issue of pervasive corruption in the EU. I have no doubt that some of Apples competition is behind this.


I'd say no. In the case of Apple products I'd say it is less than average. Mainly because people like the iPod line and tend to keep the product or resell.

As a side note I don't like Apples integrated battery approach for other reasons. One big issue is that if you discharge the battery you are basically screwed until you can plug into a recharger. This unfortunately eliminates iPod Touch and IPhone from a lot of potential industrial uses. On the otherhand I still believe Apple has the right to market it's product as it sees fit. As others have already pointed out iPhone is a more durable device due to it's construction.


Dave

Being that you are such an expert at industrial design, waste recycling, product engineering, etc, I am sure that you have great ideas. :-(

Did it ever occur to ANYONE that rather than making cheap throw-away JUNK like most of the phone manufacturers, Apple makes long lasting quality stuff that is designed to help the environment. You use their product over and over and over and over and then if there is an issue, you return the product to them so they can safely remove and process the battery rather than let you (the industry expert user) throw it in the trash.

Hmmm, just a thought. PS. while I applaud people trying to make things better, there are way too many people today just trying to make things SOUND like they are getting better. Many times, things that SOUND good really suck when applied across the board with out reason and expertise. Like this EU thing. Maybe they should list WHY they want this law enacted so that it can be correctly ignored when it does not apply. Just a reasonable thought. :-)

en

Who cares if the life is past or prologue. As long it has been paid for, Apple (or whomever they authorize) would be compelled to remove and dispose of it (once) on behalf of whomever asking for it when they ask for it.