Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Significant win for consumers? Are you that ignorant? First off, Apple will never design their products with a user replaceable battery (not counting small market products like Air Tag). Secondly, how is this even an issue with Apple products? I still use a MacBook Air from 2011 and 2014 iPad Air 2, both with their original battery. I’ve had the battery replaced in two iPhones (3GS, original SE), and this wasn’t a hassle. And lastly, are you willing to give up a thinner, lighter, and water resistant/proof design just so you can open a plastic compartment to replace a battery yourself (which would be more often if user replaceable, meaning more battery waste in the end).
Don’t you think this is regressive? It’s as if the lunatics in the EU pine for the days of crappy electronics of the 90s.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well it wouldn't be my solution, it would be an industry solution.
I included the bolded extract partly with some watches in mind. I suspect Apple will try to slip the watch into that category.
There is no reason that it can't be done without requiring special tools for the swap. That is one thing.
The other is a pressure test to check the waterproofing aspect. That would be a different aspect and I'd say there are ways around that too.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
Personally I think a better program would be to charge an extra amount (say 50 euros) per device and at the end of life of said device you exchange it for a newer one and get reimbursed or apply that deposit to the new one.
I this is about the most sensible comment made in this entire discussion. Modern devices, especially Apple's, are designed to optimise whole battery life to go beyond the expected lifetime of the device. Some would call this a 'disposable' device but having a deposit scheme achieves everything the EU in this regulation is trying to aim for. Forget about the politics of 'the right to change your own battery' and instead focus on environmental impact. If the purchase price of a device included a returnable deposit towards a new device or simply for returning it to recycle/refurbish then practically all the bad behaviour would be eliminated.
One of the reasons the UK left the EU was this constant over-reach into every day affairs by people who made mediocre decisions.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Back in fall 1963, Apollo Command Module (CM), Service Module (SM), and Saturn V rocket second-stage contractor North American Aviation invited Grumman and Charles Stark Draper’s Instrumentation Lab at MIT, which NASA had contracted to develop the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC), into a joint task force. Dubbed “Project Christmas Present” for the timing of its plan submission, the effort ensured badly-needed comprehensive schedule integration. As part of this effort, Grumman hosted and led mission planning, including an MIT Draper Lab contingent onsite. One outgrowth was the Apollo Mission Planning Task Force (AMPTF) in January 1964, which anticipated and addressed manifold contingencies—including the one that would save the day during Apollo 13. NASA had initiated AMPTF “to examine the various phases of the mission and look for ways to make them safer.”[3] “One major result” had been “the identification of the ‘LM Lifeboat’ mission,” which triggered prescient increases in tank size for consumables, although that role “had never been rehearsed by either the ground or flight crews or written into specific operational procedures.”[4]
“While postulating the effect of various CSM [Command-and-Service Module] failures on the outbound leg of the mission, the planners realized that a number of them could be countered by using the LM as a lifeboat and utilizing its propulsion, guidance and control, life support, and other systems to return the crew to the vicinity of the Earth’s atmosphere for re-entry in the CSM,” Tom Kelly, the LM Chief Design Engineer for the program’s first seven years,[5] later recounted. “To provide this rescue capability, some of the LM consumables, such as oxygen, water, and electrical power, would have to be increased by 10 to 15 percent above that needed to perform the basic mission. Because LM then existed only on paper, we decided to make the tanks that much larger. At a later date it could be decided whether to actually load the consumables into them. Six years after it first appeared in the AMPTF’s reports, this vital crew rescue mode was dramatically utilized on Apollo 13.”
Driven in part by specific prompting from Director of Flight Operations at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Howard “Bill” Tindall, Jr., who was charged with riding herd over Apollo software, Draper’s Lab presciently developed and loaded software that would enable the LM autopilot “to push the heavy Command and Service Modules through the limber docking joint.” Grumman and Draper’s Lab subsequently collaborated with great effectiveness in supporting Apollo flight operations, with saving Apollo 13 a shared finest hour. Whereas Grumman had added additional consumables to power the LM to as a lifeboat and tugboat of last resort, Draper’s Lab had coded and uploaded software to make sure the pushing interface remained intact. “No one had ever tested the docking collar between the LM and CM/SM on being able to survive the LM pushing the much heavier CM/SM combination. Someone, thankfully, had asked ‘What if we had to do that’ and software and been written and installed in the AGC.”[6]
The above is an example of over-engineering that oddly came in handy on a single occasion. I would expect no less from Apple, and I want Apple devices to be my lifeboat in an emergency, and the reason that battery covers went away in smartphones, is that they were a common failure point in feature phones.
It seems that the EU regulations may create an unfortunate compromise of serviceability versus reliability. With the exception of the small number of posters here, and elsewhere, I doubt that the masses of consumers care if their Apple, or any other devices, are self serviceable.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
I can’t believe the stupidity you are displaying. I said no such thing. In life or death situations, everything helps. If someone gets hit with a flash flood, they are not going to be thinking oh let me keep my only splash resistant phone dry or make a phone call. First thing is what happened, how to get out of the situation and then where is the phone. How do you know that the phone didn’t fly to the floor of the car where it floods first? How do you know the car didn’t flood in minutes? How do you know a person wasn’t asleep when flash flooding happened and now the phone isn’t under water? Are you seriously saying these situations can be planned around and we should by special phones just in case? Do you even read or pay attention to the news?
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
You seem to fail to understand how nature works; par for the course for you.
With the exception of a few natural disasters, fire, earthquakes and tornadoes being examples, most natural disasters take a considerable amount of time to unfold, so no, it isn't good enough to get a phone call off only during the initial stages of a natural disaster. People in these situations will likely be involved for days and even months, and that phone may be the only link they have with emergency services. I'd prefer the most reliable phone, and it will of course need to be recharged, so emergency services will work to set up charging stations as soon as possible.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Back in fall 1963, Apollo Command Module (CM), Service Module (SM), and Saturn V rocket second-stage contractor North American Aviation invited Grumman and Charles Stark Draper’s Instrumentation Lab at MIT, which NASA had contracted to develop the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC), into a joint task force. Dubbed “Project Christmas Present” for the timing of its plan submission, the effort ensured badly-needed comprehensive schedule integration. As part of this effort, Grumman hosted and led mission planning, including an MIT Draper Lab contingent onsite. One outgrowth was the Apollo Mission Planning Task Force (AMPTF) in January 1964, which anticipated and addressed manifold contingencies—including the one that would save the day during Apollo 13. NASA had initiated AMPTF “to examine the various phases of the mission and look for ways to make them safer.”[3] “One major result” had been “the identification of the ‘LM Lifeboat’ mission,” which triggered prescient increases in tank size for consumables, although that role “had never been rehearsed by either the ground or flight crews or written into specific operational procedures.”[4]
“While postulating the effect of various CSM [Command-and-Service Module] failures on the outbound leg of the mission, the planners realized that a number of them could be countered by using the LM as a lifeboat and utilizing its propulsion, guidance and control, life support, and other systems to return the crew to the vicinity of the Earth’s atmosphere for re-entry in the CSM,” Tom Kelly, the LM Chief Design Engineer for the program’s first seven years,[5] later recounted. “To provide this rescue capability, some of the LM consumables, such as oxygen, water, and electrical power, would have to be increased by 10 to 15 percent above that needed to perform the basic mission. Because LM then existed only on paper, we decided to make the tanks that much larger. At a later date it could be decided whether to actually load the consumables into them. Six years after it first appeared in the AMPTF’s reports, this vital crew rescue mode was dramatically utilized on Apollo 13.”
Driven in part by specific prompting from Director of Flight Operations at NASA’s Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, Howard “Bill” Tindall, Jr., who was charged with riding herd over Apollo software, Draper’s Lab presciently developed and loaded software that would enable the LM autopilot “to push the heavy Command and Service Modules through the limber docking joint.” Grumman and Draper’s Lab subsequently collaborated with great effectiveness in supporting Apollo flight operations, with saving Apollo 13 a shared finest hour. Whereas Grumman had added additional consumables to power the LM to as a lifeboat and tugboat of last resort, Draper’s Lab had coded and uploaded software to make sure the pushing interface remained intact. “No one had ever tested the docking collar between the LM and CM/SM on being able to survive the LM pushing the much heavier CM/SM combination. Someone, thankfully, had asked ‘What if we had to do that’ and software and been written and installed in the AGC.”[6]
The above is an example of over-engineering that oddly came in handy on a single occasion. I would expect no less from Apple, and I want Apple devices to be my lifeboat in an emergency, and the reason that battery covers went away in smartphones, is that they were a common failure point in feature phones.
It seems that the EU regulations may create an unfortunate compromise of serviceability versus reliability. With the exception of the small number of posters here, and elsewhere, I doubt that the masses of consumers care if their Apple, or any other devices, are self serviceable.
You do realise that Apple does basically the exact opposite of what you just described.
Components for extreme environments are 'hardened' and individually tested multiple times. Every single time.
That is one of the reasons why devices for those environments are so expensive.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
I can’t believe the stupidity you are displaying. I said no such thing. In life or death situations, everything helps. If someone gets hit with a flash flood, they are not going to be thinking oh let me keep my only splash resistant phone dry or make a phone call. First thing is what happened, how to get out of the situation and then where is the phone. How do you know that the phone didn’t fly to the floor of the car where it floods first? How do you know the car didn’t flood in minutes? How do you know a person wasn’t asleep when flash flooding happened and now the phone isn’t under water? Are you seriously saying these situations can be planned around and we should by special phones just in case? Do you even read or pay attention to the news?
If you had bothered to read what I said, and right from the outset to boot, you would know that I said splash resistance is more than enough for the vast majority of users. There is zero need for anything more, and that is exactly why IP ratings are not IP guarantees.
Let's not just stop at the life or death situations. Let's throw in absolutely all and any immersion situations (dropped into the toilet/pool or accidentally put into the washing machine etc).
In terms of statistical significance, where do you think we stand?
Drop resistance is of far more importantance yet Apple and most of the industry had no qualms in moving from plastic to very fragile glass.
Removable batteries do not mean the end of waterproofing and, again, I made that clear too. Nanocoatings have been around for years.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
I can’t believe the stupidity you are displaying. I said no such thing. In life or death situations, everything helps. If someone gets hit with a flash flood, they are not going to be thinking oh let me keep my only splash resistant phone dry or make a phone call. First thing is what happened, how to get out of the situation and then where is the phone. How do you know that the phone didn’t fly to the floor of the car where it floods first? How do you know the car didn’t flood in minutes? How do you know a person wasn’t asleep when flash flooding happened and now the phone isn’t under water? Are you seriously saying these situations can be planned around and we should by special phones just in case? Do you even read or pay attention to the news?
If you had bothered to read what I said, and right from the outset to boot, you would know that I said splash resistance is more than enough for the vast majority of users. There is zero need for anything more, and that is exactly why IP ratings are not IP guarantees.
Let's not just stop at the life or death situations. Let's throw in absolutely all and any immersion situations (dropped into the toilet/pool or accidentally put into the washing machine etc).
In terms of statistical significance, where do you think we stand?
Drop resistance is of far more importantance yet Apple and most of the industry had no qualms in moving from plastic to very fragile glass.
Removable batteries do not mean the end of waterproofing and, again, I made that clear too. Nanocoatings have been around for years.
Statistically, Russia only invades Europe every once in a while, so the EU doesn't need to spend on defense, and why worry; let's get hooked on cheap Russian natural gas and oil.
What could possibly go wrong? Better the EU steering the design of smartphones, which the EU was once the master of.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
I can’t believe the stupidity you are displaying. I said no such thing. In life or death situations, everything helps. If someone gets hit with a flash flood, they are not going to be thinking oh let me keep my only splash resistant phone dry or make a phone call. First thing is what happened, how to get out of the situation and then where is the phone. How do you know that the phone didn’t fly to the floor of the car where it floods first? How do you know the car didn’t flood in minutes? How do you know a person wasn’t asleep when flash flooding happened and now the phone isn’t under water? Are you seriously saying these situations can be planned around and we should by special phones just in case? Do you even read or pay attention to the news?
If you had bothered to read what I said, and right from the outset to boot, you would know that I said splash resistance is more than enough for the vast majority of users. There is zero need for anything more, and that is exactly why IP ratings are not IP guarantees.
Let's not just stop at the life or death situations. Let's throw in absolutely all and any immersion situations (dropped into the toilet/pool or accidentally put into the washing machine etc).
In terms of statistical significance, where do you think we stand?
Drop resistance is of far more importantance yet Apple and most of the industry had no qualms in moving from plastic to very fragile glass.
Removable batteries do not mean the end of waterproofing and, again, I made that clear too. Nanocoatings have been around for years.
Statistically, Russia only invades Europe every once in a while, so the EU doesn't need to spend on defense, and why worry; let's get hooked on cheap Russian natural gas and oil.
What could possibly go wrong? Better the EU steering the design of smartphones, which the EU was once the master of.
Another bonkers comment.
Think why the EU defence budget was what it was. Yes, defence is statistical but also strategic.
Russia's moves into Ukraine did not come as a surprise to anyone. They had been on the cards for over a decade.
The same with energy. The risks were well known. Most of the EU was unaffected (in terms of major disruption) in spite of the abruptness of supply restrictions.
You evaluate risks and take decisions based on your evaluations.
Apple took the biggest gamble in its history by moving chip fabbing solely to TSMC in a country with a relatively high exposure to natural disasters. Sometimes it will pay off (Apple) . Other times it won't (Germany).
Russia, Ukraine, defence budgets and energy supply have nothing to do with the discussion.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Its not a “significant win for consumers”, Implementing this can lead to less water and dust proofing, heavier devices, and less overall quality uni-body build
It's a massive win all round.
There was never any reason water and dust proofing had to be done the way the industry went about it.
Nano coatings have been around for years and have been specifically designed for waterproofing.
It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users.
If a device is actually designed to spend most of its usage time in water, there is a provision for that:
"To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable
batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users."
The 'quality vs accessibility' argument is not really the best way to evaluate the situation. Batteries should be easily replaceable and designers should be working to achieving that goal.
In fact many parts of modern phones should be easily replaceable, even for qualified technicians. The less time needed to perform a repair and the less good components that need replacing, the better, so now the industry should be moving towards design for repair too.
Good to see something as simple as information getting some support too. Users should have simple, clear access to what type of battery they have in the phone.
I’m so much looking forward to your solution for the Apple Watch. /s
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
"It's also worth challenging the very notion of waterproofing on a device not designed for regular immersion use, as made clear by the warranty of the device not even guaranteeing waterproofing and falling back onto a IP rating that 'should' suffice for the rated level of protection. Splash resistance is all that is really necessary for the vast majority of users."
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Oh dear!
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
Yes because people can prevent themselves from ending up in emergency situations. I like how you avoided floods being a thing. You know storm surges from hurricanes can flood the insides of houses right? It can be sunny where a person is and they still can get hit with flash flooding from miles away. I guess it is better that people die so we can meet environmental laws.
Are you suggesting that in any flood situation, people wait until their phones are completely soaked before they call?
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
I can’t believe the stupidity you are displaying. I said no such thing. In life or death situations, everything helps. If someone gets hit with a flash flood, they are not going to be thinking oh let me keep my only splash resistant phone dry or make a phone call. First thing is what happened, how to get out of the situation and then where is the phone. How do you know that the phone didn’t fly to the floor of the car where it floods first? How do you know the car didn’t flood in minutes? How do you know a person wasn’t asleep when flash flooding happened and now the phone isn’t under water? Are you seriously saying these situations can be planned around and we should by special phones just in case? Do you even read or pay attention to the news?
If you had bothered to read what I said, and right from the outset to boot, you would know that I said splash resistance is more than enough for the vast majority of users. There is zero need for anything more, and that is exactly why IP ratings are not IP guarantees.
Let's not just stop at the life or death situations. Let's throw in absolutely all and any immersion situations (dropped into the toilet/pool or accidentally put into the washing machine etc).
In terms of statistical significance, where do you think we stand?
Drop resistance is of far more importantance yet Apple and most of the industry had no qualms in moving from plastic to very fragile glass.
Removable batteries do not mean the end of waterproofing and, again, I made that clear too. Nanocoatings have been around for years.
Statistically, Russia only invades Europe every once in a while, so the EU doesn't need to spend on defense, and why worry; let's get hooked on cheap Russian natural gas and oil.
What could possibly go wrong? Better the EU steering the design of smartphones, which the EU was once the master of.
Another bonkers comment.
Think why the EU defence budget was what it was. Yes, defence is statistical but also strategic.
Russia's moves into Ukraine did not come as a surprise to anyone. They had been on the cards for over a decade.
The same with energy. The risks were well known. Most of the EU was unaffected (in terms of major disruption) in spite of the abruptness of supply restrictions.
You evaluate risks and take decisions based on your evaluations.
Apple took the biggest gamble in its history by moving chip fabbing solely to TSMC in a country with a relatively high exposure to natural disasters. Sometimes it will pay off (Apple) . Other times it won't (Germany).
Russia, Ukraine, defence budgets and energy supply have nothing to do with the discussion.
You seem to have forgotten that TSMC is now in the U.S.
Russia, Ukraine, defence budgets and energy supply have nothing to do with the discussion.
...and yet everything to do with the EU...and for the record, the EU was very lucky that last winter was unusually mild.
Next up for the EU, how to deal with China as a rival.
Comments
Well, according to avon b7, there is plenty of design headroom available to degrade in today's smartphones;
Yeah, the one device that allows people to communicate almost anywhere in the world, in any conditions, and the EU wants Apple, et al, to forget millions of man-hours in that effort that they put into devices over the years to make mobile devices increasingly reliable, resilient, and robust, all in the interest of making "consumer serviceable" devices.
There's a shit ton of people in the world that have unexpectedly found themselves in deluges and floods, snows storms, and hurricanes, emergency of all kinds, and I'll bet that none of them ever wished that their phone was less protected from the elements. So of course, Apple foolishly added the capability to send low bandwidth text to satellites from any region currently supported, for those life and death emergencies that are out of range of any cellular network.
I don't know all that much about the EU, other than it appears to be barely functional, but it seems that the bureaucracy focusses on minutiae, and has long lost the ability to see the big picture, so I'll make a suggestion:
How about the EU use VAT reduction incentives to encourage companies to add "consumer serviceability", and let those companies that are unimpressed with the downsides of consumer serviceability, continue on an evolutionary path of more reliable, resilient, and robust devices.
Give consumers a choice.
Don’t you think this is regressive? It’s as if the lunatics in the EU pine for the days of crappy electronics of the 90s.
I included the bolded extract partly with some watches in mind. I suspect Apple will try to slip the watch into that category.
There is no reason that it can't be done without requiring special tools for the swap. That is one thing.
The other is a pressure test to check the waterproofing aspect. That would be a different aspect and I'd say there are ways around that too.
No there are not a shit ton of people out in hurricanes or snow storms making calls.
I've seen plenty of people making calls in a deluge. Strangely, all of them were under umbrellas!
iPhones are rated for protection, not guaranteed for protection.
Splash proofing is more than enough for almost everyone.
Resilience and robustness have nothing to do with any of this and are already covered by 'fit for purpose' requirements anyway.
And if Apple were truly interested in those two aspects, they would never have put glass on the back and far fewer people would put cases on their phones.
I disagree.
But that is not an insurmountable problem, even with more easily replaceable batteries.
Same logic applies though. How many (as a percentage of all phone users) even find themselves in that situation - in their entire lives?
Thankfully, very, very few and, as I have just made perfectly clear, only a minute fraction of those will not have made the call before the phone is immersed. And on top of that, a phone call is very unlikely to help if the emergency responders are overloaded anyway.
Help, if even available, is far more likely to come from people within hearing distance.
One of the reasons the UK left the EU was this constant over-reach into every day affairs by people who made mediocre decisions.
The above is an example of over-engineering that oddly came in handy on a single occasion. I would expect no less from Apple, and I want Apple devices to be my lifeboat in an emergency, and the reason that battery covers went away in smartphones, is that they were a common failure point in feature phones.
It seems that the EU regulations may create an unfortunate compromise of serviceability versus reliability. With the exception of the small number of posters here, and elsewhere, I doubt that the masses of consumers care if their Apple, or any other devices, are self serviceable.
With the exception of a few natural disasters, fire, earthquakes and tornadoes being examples, most natural disasters take a considerable amount of time to unfold, so no, it isn't good enough to get a phone call off only during the initial stages of a natural disaster. People in these situations will likely be involved for days and even months, and that phone may be the only link they have with emergency services. I'd prefer the most reliable phone, and it will of course need to be recharged, so emergency services will work to set up charging stations as soon as possible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/opinion/floods-vermont-new-york-heat-climate-change.html
People might want to consider something like this as a must have in emergencies.
https://www.amazon.com/20000mAh-Portable-Waterproof-Flashlight-Electronic/dp/B08XYY6GDT/ref=sr_1_2_sspa?crid=N7NMNSLG3X7K&keywords=solar+charger+for+cell+phone&qid=1689329057&sprefix=solarc+charger%2Caps%2C362&sr=8-2-spons&sp_csd=d2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGY&psc=1
Components for extreme environments are 'hardened' and individually tested multiple times. Every single time.
That is one of the reasons why devices for those environments are so expensive.
What you just stated was just plain bonkers.
Let's not just stop at the life or death situations. Let's throw in absolutely all and any immersion situations (dropped into the toilet/pool or accidentally put into the washing machine etc).
In terms of statistical significance, where do you think we stand?
Drop resistance is of far more importantance yet Apple and most of the industry had no qualms in moving from plastic to very fragile glass.
Removable batteries do not mean the end of waterproofing and, again, I made that clear too. Nanocoatings have been around for years.
Think why the EU defence budget was what it was. Yes, defence is statistical but also strategic.
Russia's moves into Ukraine did not come as a surprise to anyone. They had been on the cards for over a decade.
The same with energy. The risks were well known. Most of the EU was unaffected (in terms of major disruption) in spite of the abruptness of supply restrictions.
You evaluate risks and take decisions based on your evaluations.
Apple took the biggest gamble in its history by moving chip fabbing solely to TSMC in a country with a relatively high exposure to natural disasters. Sometimes it will pay off (Apple) . Other times it won't (Germany).
Russia, Ukraine, defence budgets and energy supply have nothing to do with the discussion.
Even today, with cheap third party battery options available, is there a battery-fire problem?
...and yet everything to do with the EU...and for the record, the EU was very lucky that last winter was unusually mild.
Next up for the EU, how to deal with China as a rival.