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.
No. I haven't forgotten anything and TSMC, to all intents and purposes, is NOT in the US.
When Apple switched to using TSMC exclusively for some essential components, it was a major risk.
The EU is more than Germany. Southern Europe was never going to be directly impacted by Russian gas supply restrictions. Again, the risks were well known.
And now you want to drag China into the discussion? Bonkers is definitely the word of the day.
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
If only batteries for traditional waterproof watches were user-replaceable instead of just disposing of them or sending the watch to an expensive service center when the battery goes bad. /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.
You can have e both a user-replaceable battery and weather resistance, and it need not be expensive to do so. Look at the Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro with an IP68 rating, a battery you can change in seconds, and $600 or less. Surely you aren't claiming that Apple can't do the same, even if the price is higher.
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.
You can have e both a user-replaceable battery and weather resistance, and it need not be expensive to do so. Look at the Samsung Galaxy XCover 6 Pro with an IP68 rating, a battery you can change in seconds, and $600 or less. Surely you aren't claiming that Apple can't do the same, even if the price is higher.
Great phone but not rugged at all! T back cover comes lose very easily leaving the phone vulnerable! I discovered this when my grandson sprayed me with the hose and just enough water got on to kill the phone! If you have one of these get a case that will keep the back secured! What a waste of $600 my non rugged phones could handle more water than this one.
I'm sure that Apple could as well build a phone with a cover that would seal to iP68, but what would be the compromises to that?
Mostly, I just want the EU to stay out of "design" business, and let the market decide. I don't have a problem with the EU providing consumer incentives to buy their "vision" over standard fare, but what exactly is this a solution to? For the most part, consumers don't have to have a battery change during normal ownership, and in Apple's case, it is readily available for a nominal charge. Most phones are recycled in depots, and batteries are easily renewed during refurbishment and resold.
Battery fires also expected to increase 10-fold as users replace batteries with cheap third party knockoffs.
When batteries were largely replaceable, was their a major issue with battery fires?
Even today, with cheap third party battery options available, is there a battery-fire problem?
Yes, battery fires are a problem. And in the article it says that battery demand will increase at least 10x. So it stands to reason that fires will as well.
Battery fires also expected to increase 10-fold as users replace batteries with cheap third party knockoffs.
When batteries were largely replaceable, was their a major issue with battery fires?
Even today, with cheap third party battery options available, is there a battery-fire problem?
Yes, battery fires are a problem. And in the article it says that battery demand will increase at least 10x. So it stands to reason that fires will as well.
Battery demand will definitely increase. It has been on an upward trend for many years and will continue to balloon. Lots of batteries are also from third parties.
Are battery fires a problem though?
No.
My house is full of lithium batteries. Many are third party batteries. Many homes are full of lithium batteries.
If battery fires truly were a problem, we would have been well aware of it by now.
To be sure, they happen. And when they do, it can be nasty.
In fact electric scooters are currently banned on public transport where I live while the authorities work out the safety concerns that surround precisely battery fires.
This is because an electric scooter battery actually caught fire on a train.
Now, to put that into context, hundreds of thousands of electric scooter travel hours had gone by before that fire.
The battery in question was not a third party either.
The reality is that lithium batteries are actually getting safer and safer as newer, safer materials make their way into designs.
Glad to see this - maybe now they’ll actually design some phones with batteries that are easier to replace. They don’t need to be as easy as your TV remote, but look at what we have currently - designs that make you melt adhesive off the screen, pentalobe screws, etc. everyone says you can’t have water resistance but that’s not an issue for iPads which are just as onerous.
Contrary to what the headline implies and everyone seems to be assuming here this is not just for Apple - it’s for everyone. Apple’s not going to be disadvantaged compared to Samsung, LG, etc.
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
If only batteries for traditional waterproof watches were user-replaceable instead of just disposing of them or sending the watch to an expensive service center when the battery goes bad. /s
Thanks for the disingenuous comment. Traditional watches use far less energy versus a smartwatch and therefore the battery to overall volume of the device is much lower. Apple has to look at every bit of volume in its watches (and phones) to pack in as much battery as possible while keeping the device size reasonable. Requiring Apple Watch batteries to be replaceable toilet mean all Apple Watches might need to be as big, or bigger than, the Ultra. It just makes no sense.
... making the RAM and SSDs replaceable/upgradeable again!
While I agree in theory, the reality is that integrated boards improve reliability. In addition, the computers and phone which never receive any type of dedicated updates (and often from companies that have no strategy to update the software) make phone and computers feel like they have run their course, when in reality the hardware is still fine and needs no upgrades. I'd rather see EU focus on dedicated software support, than on mandating certain hardware requirements. However, since software is generally "invisible" in nature, the higher ups can't quite comprehend the benefit of good software in the long run, vs. fully user replaceable hardware.
I agree with you. I'd rather see the EU focus on defense, economics and crime rather than getting involved in this kind of micromanagement.
The reason I'd like to have upgradeable RAM & storage is because we can't anticipate what's down the road that may require more resources. Sure, you can max out your device when you order it, but even then, newer models will use that max as a starting point. It also increases the longevity of your device.
I don't think most people would notice/care if their device was 8-10mm instead of 6-7mm thick.
On the positive side, you'd get painless swapping of batteries. Many folks bring along spare power banks on trips. Now you'd have the option of simply attaching a 'fat' battery to your mobile.
10mm is 67% thicker than 6mm. People would notice, unless they never had 6mm devices in the first place. Ignorance is bliss.
With the way I abuse my phone in daily use, I don't see the ability to change the battery as a need - I've trashed it long before battery capacity is compromised. But for the tablets and laptops, more interest. Or the consumer electronics with smaller, usually lower quality batteries, much more interest.
Nice spin, but 8mm is only 14% thicker than 7mm. No one will care.
no, spin is trying to revise both what I wrote, and what I responded to. I've re-included it here for your review.
1mm would be marginally noticeable. 2 would be obvious, and 4 would be massive.
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 huge win! I’m happy to give up a bit of dust, water proofing, and thinness for an easily user replaceable battery. Apple is smart they’ll figure it out.
I on the other hand am not willing to give up any bit of ingress protection, and would instead prefer to see ingress protection be included in the iPad and MacBook.
Heck, I have to take my battery powered watches to. Jeweler to change a battery. Is the EU going to fix that non-problem as well?
Why do you need to take a battery powered watch to the jeweler to change the battery? I would think the only type of watch that needs to be repaired or maintained by an expert would be one with mechanical action.
Well in my case I don’t have that tool that is used to remove the plate that covers the internals. Also I like having a shop around where I can go to and get these things done, that is to say I’d rather pay someone to do it and use the tine for something else.
Battery fires also expected to increase 10-fold as users replace batteries with cheap third party knockoffs.
When batteries were largely replaceable, was their a major issue with battery fires?
Even today, with cheap third party battery options available, is there a battery-fire problem?
What I do remember from those days was that the battery life sucked and required a second or third battery, whereas today I can go through an entire day with plenty of capacity at days end.
Simple solution for the EU. iPhones for that market will have internal battery removed and the phone will instead be powered by a magsafe pack. The rest of us can continue having a version done the right way.
... making the RAM and SSDs replaceable/upgradeable again!
While I agree in theory, the reality is that integrated boards improve reliability. In addition, the computers and phone which never receive any type of dedicated updates (and often from companies that have no strategy to update the software) make phone and computers feel like they have run their course, when in reality the hardware is still fine and needs no upgrades. I'd rather see EU focus on dedicated software support, than on mandating certain hardware requirements. However, since software is generally "invisible" in nature, the higher ups can't quite comprehend the benefit of good software in the long run, vs. fully user replaceable hardware.
I agree with you. I'd rather see the EU focus on defense, economics and crime rather than getting involved in this kind of micromanagement.
The reason I'd like to have upgradeable RAM & storage is because we can't anticipate what's down the road that may require more resources. Sure, you can max out your device when you order it, but even then, newer models will use that max as a starting point. It also increases the longevity of your device.
That’s a false argument that people like to use. Just like saying “why aren’t the police working on violent crime rather than giving me a speeding ticket?” It implies that the EU (or police) only work on one problem at a time. If they *only* worked on economics and crime they would still be neglecting other things. The fact is they can work on more than one issue at once so the argument is Irrelevant.
Batteries are not that dissimilar from RAM - replacing the battery can take a device that is at the end of its life and make it useful for another 2-3 years or more, which is exactly the point of the regulation.
... making the RAM and SSDs replaceable/upgradeable again!
While I agree in theory, the reality is that integrated boards improve reliability. In addition, the computers and phone which never receive any type of dedicated updates (and often from companies that have no strategy to update the software) make phone and computers feel like they have run their course, when in reality the hardware is still fine and needs no upgrades. I'd rather see EU focus on dedicated software support, than on mandating certain hardware requirements. However, since software is generally "invisible" in nature, the higher ups can't quite comprehend the benefit of good software in the long run, vs. fully user replaceable hardware.
I agree with you. I'd rather see the EU focus on defense, economics and crime rather than getting involved in this kind of micromanagement.
The reason I'd like to have upgradeable RAM & storage is because we can't anticipate what's down the road that may require more resources. Sure, you can max out your device when you order it, but even then, newer models will use that max as a starting point. It also increases the longevity of your device.
That’s a false argument that people like to use. Just like saying “why aren’t the police working on violent crime rather than giving me a speeding ticket?” It implies that the EU (or police) only work on one problem at a time. If they *only* worked on economics and crime they would still be neglecting other things. The fact is they can work on more than one issue at once so the argument is Irrelevant.
Batteries are not that dissimilar from RAM - replacing the battery can take a device that is at the end of its life and make it useful for another 2-3 years or more, which is exactly the point of the regulation.
Sure, but the fine point is, most smartphones in first sale never require battery replacement, because the consumer decides to update to newer models and features. Most are simply traded in, and at that point, they are refurbished and the batteries are renewed, and resold as refurbished. Historically, there are consumers that trade up because the battery life is reduced, but is that a common occurrence?
So the real question is, are most batteries lasting long enough to exceed the current upgrade cycle? In the case of Apple, that cycle is an average of under fours years for its user base.
... making the RAM and SSDs replaceable/upgradeable again!
While I agree in theory, the reality is that integrated boards improve reliability. In addition, the computers and phone which never receive any type of dedicated updates (and often from companies that have no strategy to update the software) make phone and computers feel like they have run their course, when in reality the hardware is still fine and needs no upgrades. I'd rather see EU focus on dedicated software support, than on mandating certain hardware requirements. However, since software is generally "invisible" in nature, the higher ups can't quite comprehend the benefit of good software in the long run, vs. fully user replaceable hardware.
I agree with you. I'd rather see the EU focus on defense, economics and crime rather than getting involved in this kind of micromanagement.
The reason I'd like to have upgradeable RAM & storage is because we can't anticipate what's down the road that may require more resources. Sure, you can max out your device when you order it, but even then, newer models will use that max as a starting point. It also increases the longevity of your device.
That’s a false argument that people like to use. Just like saying “why aren’t the police working on violent crime rather than giving me a speeding ticket?” It implies that the EU (or police) only work on one problem at a time. If they *only* worked on economics and crime they would still be neglecting other things. The fact is they can work on more than one issue at once so the argument is Irrelevant.
Batteries are not that dissimilar from RAM - replacing the battery can take a device that is at the end of its life and make it useful for another 2-3 years or more, which is exactly the point of the regulation.
Sure, but the fine point is, most smartphones in first sale never require battery replacement, because the consumer decides to update to newer models and features. Most are simply traded in, and at that point, they are refurbished and the batteries are renewed, and resold as refurbished. Historically, there are consumers that trade up because the battery life is reduced, but is that a common occurrence?
So the real question is, are most batteries lasting long enough to exceed the current upgrade cycle? In the case of Apple, that cycle is an average of under fours years for its user base.
There is an element of big tech evil in all this.
They know perfectly well that that making batteries harder to replace will be another factor in getting users to upgrade.
They stand behind the weatherproofing/waterproofing angle as one justification but everyone knows that line does not hold up to scrutiny.
That waterproofing is not guaranteed though and they use that too as an encouragement to get you into an Apple certified operation for the replacement as the sealing will be done correctly although still without a guarantee AFAIK.
If the batteries are supposed to outlast the lifetime of the device the solution is simple. Guarantee the battery for the lifetime of the device. It would be a great selling point.
Reality is, people use their devices more and more. Apple knows this perfectly well too (hence screen time etc) and that takes us back to square one. Your battery will probably lose enough performance to make you feel you need a battery replacement and, if it's hard to do, there are people that will feel nudged to upgrade.
Battery tech is becoming more efficient/reliable (but not Apple's as that is not on the bleeding edge) but if Apple is confident that it's current batteries can get users through the life of the phone without issue, all they have to do is guarantee it.
If that isn't the case, a replaceable battery is a great solution for consumers.
... making the RAM and SSDs replaceable/upgradeable again!
While I agree in theory, the reality is that integrated boards improve reliability. In addition, the computers and phone which never receive any type of dedicated updates (and often from companies that have no strategy to update the software) make phone and computers feel like they have run their course, when in reality the hardware is still fine and needs no upgrades. I'd rather see EU focus on dedicated software support, than on mandating certain hardware requirements. However, since software is generally "invisible" in nature, the higher ups can't quite comprehend the benefit of good software in the long run, vs. fully user replaceable hardware.
I agree with you. I'd rather see the EU focus on defense, economics and crime rather than getting involved in this kind of micromanagement.
The reason I'd like to have upgradeable RAM & storage is because we can't anticipate what's down the road that may require more resources. Sure, you can max out your device when you order it, but even then, newer models will use that max as a starting point. It also increases the longevity of your device.
That’s a false argument that people like to use. Just like saying “why aren’t the police working on violent crime rather than giving me a speeding ticket?” It implies that the EU (or police) only work on one problem at a time. If they *only* worked on economics and crime they would still be neglecting other things. The fact is they can work on more than one issue at once so the argument is Irrelevant.
Batteries are not that dissimilar from RAM - replacing the battery can take a device that is at the end of its life and make it useful for another 2-3 years or more, which is exactly the point of the regulation.
Sure, but the fine point is, most smartphones in first sale never require battery replacement, because the consumer decides to update to newer models and features. Most are simply traded in, and at that point, they are refurbished and the batteries are renewed, and resold as refurbished. Historically, there are consumers that trade up because the battery life is reduced, but is that a common occurrence?
So the real question is, are most batteries lasting long enough to exceed the current upgrade cycle? In the case of Apple, that cycle is an average of under fours years for its user base.
That used to be true but smartphones are a maturing/mature technology. They have become a near necessity for many, but many/most do not need or use all the features and a 4-5 year old smartphone works just fine for them. To answer your question the upgrade cycle has become longer than the battery life. As @"avon b7" pointed out, one also needs to be careful looking at statistics - they don't differentiate between cause and effect.
Ultimately the assumption of many posters here is that increasing the ease of battery replacement will automatically compromise features or functionality. I don't buy that argument. I think this requirement will just force the designers to think differently. Isn't that what Apple is supposed to be good at?
Comments
When Apple switched to using TSMC exclusively for some essential components, it was a major risk.
The EU is more than Germany. Southern Europe was never going to be directly impacted by Russian gas supply restrictions. Again, the risks were well known.
And now you want to drag China into the discussion? Bonkers is definitely the word of the day.
I'm sure that Apple could as well build a phone with a cover that would seal to iP68, but what would be the compromises to that?
Mostly, I just want the EU to stay out of "design" business, and let the market decide. I don't have a problem with the EU providing consumer incentives to buy their "vision" over standard fare, but what exactly is this a solution to? For the most part, consumers don't have to have a battery change during normal ownership, and in Apple's case, it is readily available for a nominal charge. Most phones are recycled in depots, and batteries are easily renewed during refurbishment and resold.
Are battery fires a problem though?
No.
My house is full of lithium batteries. Many are third party batteries. Many homes are full of lithium batteries.
If battery fires truly were a problem, we would have been well aware of it by now.
To be sure, they happen. And when they do, it can be nasty.
In fact electric scooters are currently banned on public transport where I live while the authorities work out the safety concerns that surround precisely battery fires.
This is because an electric scooter battery actually caught fire on a train.
Now, to put that into context, hundreds of thousands of electric scooter travel hours had gone by before that fire.
The battery in question was not a third party either.
The reality is that lithium batteries are actually getting safer and safer as newer, safer materials make their way into designs.
Main problem then becomes tackling fake UL and other certification logos on the batteries.
1mm would be marginally noticeable. 2 would be obvious, and 4 would be massive.
So the real question is, are most batteries lasting long enough to exceed the current upgrade cycle? In the case of Apple, that cycle is an average of under fours years for its user base.
They know perfectly well that that making batteries harder to replace will be another factor in getting users to upgrade.
They stand behind the weatherproofing/waterproofing angle as one justification but everyone knows that line does not hold up to scrutiny.
That waterproofing is not guaranteed though and they use that too as an encouragement to get you into an Apple certified operation for the replacement as the sealing will be done correctly although still without a guarantee AFAIK.
If the batteries are supposed to outlast the lifetime of the device the solution is simple. Guarantee the battery for the lifetime of the device. It would be a great selling point.
Reality is, people use their devices more and more. Apple knows this perfectly well too (hence screen time etc) and that takes us back to square one. Your battery will probably lose enough performance to make you feel you need a battery replacement and, if it's hard to do, there are people that will feel nudged to upgrade.
Battery tech is becoming more efficient/reliable (but not Apple's as that is not on the bleeding edge) but if Apple is confident that it's current batteries can get users through the life of the phone without issue, all they have to do is guarantee it.
If that isn't the case, a replaceable battery is a great solution for consumers.
Ultimately the assumption of many posters here is that increasing the ease of battery replacement will automatically compromise features or functionality. I don't buy that argument. I think this requirement will just force the designers to think differently. Isn't that what Apple is supposed to be good at?