... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win 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.
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?
I don't disagree that smartphones generally have a longer life, and I'm still using an iPhone 7+ which I bought refurbished , but at the same time, consumers aren't, for the most part, holding on to iPhones beyond the 3 year expected lifespan for the battery. For those people that do, there are plenty of approved iPhone services that can properly install a new battery, and Apple charges $99.00.
avon b7 specifically argued that most users don't require the current levels of IP protection, because liquid ingress hardly ever happens, and I countered that consumers expect smartphones to be reliable under any expected conditions, including occasional submergence in water.
You seem confident that a user accessible battery would provide the same IP rating without otherwise affecting features, but that re-engineering effort is almost certainly going to add cost to the device. Should that be the case, I would rather extra cost be directed to improved battery technology that gives greater charge cycles and longer life, which would benefit all users, nullifying the benefit of a user replaceable battery.
More to the point, I don't want the EU designing phones; that should be left to the market.
... 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?
I don't disagree that smartphones generally have a longer life, and I'm still using an iPhone 7+ which I bought refurbished , but at the same time, consumers aren't, for the most part, holding on to iPhones beyond the 3 year expected lifespan for the battery. For those people that do, there are plenty of approved iPhone services that can properly install a new battery, and Apple charges $99.00.
avon b7 specifically argued that most users don't require the current levels of IP protection, because liquid ingress hardly ever happens, and I countered that people consumers expect smartphones to be reliable under any expected conditions, including occasional submergence in water.
You seem confident that a user accessible battery would provide the same IP rating without otherwise affecting features, but that re-engineering effort is almost certainly going to add cost to the device. Should that be the case, I would rather extra cost be directed to improved battery technology that gives greater charge cycles and longer life, which would benefit all users, nullifying the benefit of a user replaceable battery.
More to the point, I don't want the EU designing phones; that should be left to the market.
One thing that people in this forum do not understand is that this regulation will impact Android OEMs much more than it impacts Apple. With Apple, most of the customers have options to replace the battery in their 3-4 year old phones with little bit of effort. Good luck finding a reliable battery for a 3-4 year old Android phone (either OEM one or 3rd party).
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
You seem unable to comprehend, that you just made the case for the market for thin and light, all without user replaceable batteries, with the Honor V2.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
You seem unable to comprehend, that you just made the case for the market for thin and light, all without user replaceable batteries, with the Honor V2.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
LOL!
I never destroy my own arguments and yes, I do actually comprehend things.
Thickness is one thing. Replaceable batteries are another. Waterproofing is another.
Don't lose track of that.
Yes, replaceable batteries will make phones ever so slightly thicker. That is understandable.
There is no problem with that.
Replaceable batteries should not impact water resistance either.
The Honor V2 (like most folding phones and plenty of slab phones) actually has no IP rating at all. Yes! The shock. The horror!
The truth is (and it's an ugly truth) that waterproofing itself is not a necessity. Being splashproof is more than enough for the vast majority of users.
My argument is that 'thickness' is not a valid argument against replaceable batteries.
The Honor V2 destroys that line of thinking. Completely and utterly. That battery (or two!) could fit into a slab phone, be replaceable, and still be thin!
As for the V2 itself with replaceable batteries. Well, seeing at it has no I rating it would be a piece of cake to tweak the design and, although it will inevitably get a little thicker, it would probably be a fair bit slimmer than the extremely popular Fold 4.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
You seem unable to comprehend, that you just made the case for the market for thin and light, all without user replaceable batteries, with the Honor V2.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
LOL!
I never destroy my own arguments and yes, I do actually comprehend things.
Thickness is one thing. Replaceable batteries are another. Waterproofing is another.
Don't lose track of that.
Yes, replaceable batteries will make phones ever so slightly thicker. That is understandable.
There is no problem with that.
Replaceable batteries should not impact water resistance either.
The Honor V2 (like most folding phones and plenty of slab phones) actually has no IP rating at all. Yes! The shock. The horror!
The truth is (and it's an ugly truth) that waterproofing itself is not a necessity. Being splashproof is more than enough for the vast majority of users.
My argument is that 'thickness' is not a valid argument against replaceable batteries.
The Honor V2 destroys that line of thinking. Completely and utterly. That battery (or two!) could fit into a slab phone, be replaceable, and still be thin!
As for the V2 itself with replaceable batteries. Well, seeing at it has no I rating it would be a piece of cake to tweak the design and, although it will inevitably get a little thicker, it would probably be a fair bit slimmer than the extremely popular Fold 4.
In summary: a non issue.
There are still so many potential physical failure modes for folding phones, adding death by liquid ingress probably wouldn't make any difference. I hear that these are now selling on the order of 15 million a year, with Samsung having 80% of the market, but that's only 4% of Samsungs total smartphone sales.
Apple sells none of these, and takes home 85% of smartphone profits, but at least Samsung get most of what's left. Still, should Apple eventually introduce a folding phone, it will all be thanks to the efforts of others that Apple builds on, and Apple will again take 85% of those profits as well.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
You seem unable to comprehend, that you just made the case for the market for thin and light, all without user replaceable batteries, with the Honor V2.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
LOL!
I never destroy my own arguments and yes, I do actually comprehend things.
Thickness is one thing. Replaceable batteries are another. Waterproofing is another.
Don't lose track of that.
Yes, replaceable batteries will make phones ever so slightly thicker. That is understandable.
There is no problem with that.
Replaceable batteries should not impact water resistance either.
The Honor V2 (like most folding phones and plenty of slab phones) actually has no IP rating at all. Yes! The shock. The horror!
The truth is (and it's an ugly truth) that waterproofing itself is not a necessity. Being splashproof is more than enough for the vast majority of users.
My argument is that 'thickness' is not a valid argument against replaceable batteries.
The Honor V2 destroys that line of thinking. Completely and utterly. That battery (or two!) could fit into a slab phone, be replaceable, and still be thin!
As for the V2 itself with replaceable batteries. Well, seeing at it has no I rating it would be a piece of cake to tweak the design and, although it will inevitably get a little thicker, it would probably be a fair bit slimmer than the extremely popular Fold 4.
In summary: a non issue.
There are still so many potential physical failure modes for folding phones, adding death by liquid ingress probably wouldn't make any difference. I hear that these are now selling on the order of 15 million a year, with Samsung having 80% of the market, but that's only 4% of Samsungs total smartphone sales.
Apple sells none of these, and takes home 85% of smartphone profits, but at least Samsung get most of what's left. Still, should Apple eventually introduce a folding phone, it will all be thanks to the efforts of others that Apple builds on, and Apple will again take 85% of those profits as well.
Life is good!
The single biggest failure point for all modern phones, and it far outweighs ALL others, is the use of glass on front and back panels.
Just like waterproofing, glass backs were definitely not a necessary design move.
And given the current state of 'glass' which invariably ends up with a factory or user installed (and often plastic) screen protector on phone screens and a case, the question is, is the delicate kind of glass (even with high end tempering treatments) currently used, and breaking all over the world, even the best solution?
Apple notable for not applying a screen protector at the factory but its screens still scratch and break.
As glass becomes 'plastilised' or plastic becomes 'glassified', shouldn't we be using 'unbreakable' solutions that can be 'healed' without requiring a screen or back panel replacements? Or even 'self healing' at some point. I wonder if we are close to seeing a company bring a 'softer' screen to market specifically to tackle that number on failure point.
Any physical format that can change shape is going to introduce more mechanical parts. It doesn't matter if it's a foldable phone or a scrolling screen or even a laptop with a hinge mechanism.
Introducing more potential failure points is in no way a valid justification for not offering the product at all. People understand the tradeoffs.
The V2 that Ben reviewed in the link above was a unit being subjected to stress testing on the hinge. It had been through 200,000 folds and was in fine shape.
Folding phones hit the ground running on every count. They were always going to be expensive but they are already affordable enough to be seen out in public and the trend on pricing is moving downwards.
You can be sure that Apple has samples of every folding mechanism brought to market in its labs and is using those to help it with its own efforts.
That is how technology evolves.
It's possible that one day we might see a design without a mechanical hinge (some kind of material with 'memory') or the screen itself might move into a HUD-style display.
... 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.
What a bunch of BS. Water damage is one of the leading causes of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. It always have been.
In 2021, water damage was the 4th and 5th leading cause of mobile phones needing to be repaired/replaced. 28% of users dropped their device into water and 8% spilled a liquid on it.
Gee. you think maybe why Apple (and other mobile phone makers) spent so much in RD to make their devices more waterproof is because of so many consumers accidentally getting their phones soaking wet?
If the reason why many users upgrade their devices is because they didn't want to spend the money to replace the battery (after 3-4 years of use), then why did Apple lose so many lawsuits (even in the EU) concerning them throttling the CPU so consumers with iPhones that had bad batteries, didn't have to immediately pay to upgrade or put in a new battery. The claim was that by throttling the CPU (on phones with already bad batteries), consumers were forced to upgrade because their devices were so much slower than new ones. Something that happens with a 4 year old phone, even with a good or new battery.
I have replaced over half a dozen iPhone batteries, for myself, family and friends. All the batteries in those iPhones were the original and not one of the iPhones were less than 4 years old. And in every case, except for mine, the owner was upgrading to a newer phones because of the new features. (My brother gave my wife his 4 year old iPhone 7 and even though it was going to need a new battery soon, it was not the reason he upgraded.) Not one of them were upgrading because they had to replace the battery. But they wanted to give their old iPhone to their kid or have as a back up. I only charged them for the cost of the battery from eBay. About $12 to $15 (including shipping). I'm a user, the battery is user replaceable and so far had no problem replacing the battery from at least an iPhone 5 to an iPhone 8. All the tools needed can be purchased with the battery for about an extra $1 (if needed). Takes me about 30 minutes.
You know how much money I save for myself and others by replacing the battery, instead of having a repair shop do it? About $15 per iPhone. That's all. The cellular phone repair store at the local mall charges $30 to replace an iPhone battery (for iPhone 8 and older) and installs the same China knock off iPhone battery from eBay. So don't tell us that consumers are being forced to upgrade because it cost too much to replace the battery in their 4 year old phones and would not be upgrading if they can change the battery themselves.
The only real complaint I have is that I can not buy an original Apple OEM battery. It would probably cost at least twice that of the China knock off iPhone batteries from eBay, but I would gladly pay the extra cost for an iPhone I plan on keeping for at east another 2 to 3 years. I still remember original OEM batteries for my Motorola (and Nokia) flip phones cost $30, compared to the knock off ones on eBay that cost less than $10.
And if you weren't so anti-Apple, you would know that the upgrade cycle for an iPhone has been increasing over the years mainly due to their software support and now of days, it's no longer the cost of replacing the battery that plays any important role in whether to upgrade or not. What' more important now is the trade-in value and how much it will go down if one were to keep their phone for another year or two.
If it's going to cost you $899 to upgrade and you can get $300 trade in value for your 3 year old iPhone (regardless that it needs a new battery), but if you put in a new battery, (even if all you had to do was to buy the battery and remove the access cover like the old flip phones) and use it for another year, the trade-in value for a 4 year old iPhone might drop to $175 on the same $899 upgrade cost and will drop to below $100 for a 5 year old iPhone, then it makes sense to upgrade sooner that later. This if you can afford to upgrade sooner than later.
And really, if you're one of the many that have no problem using an iPhone until its end of life (about 7 to 8 years), what is the big deal about paying Apple $80 to replace the battery once, so the iPhone can be used until it's end of life? And really, you figure even if you were able to easily replace the battery yourself, it might still cost you $40-$50 for an OEM Apple battery.
And have you even thought about how much more battery e-waste there will be if users can easily change the batteries in their mobile phones? Aren't you the one that always reminding us about how much e-waste is being produce by consumers electronics and the EU is nothing short of being a saint by trying to reduce it through regulations? Well, if the user can easily change out the battery in their devices, then there as no real good reason why they should have to make any effort to adapt to their device shorter battery use time, as it ages. Just pop in a new battery when the old one reaches 85% health and be done with it. So what ends up happening is that a phone will end up consuming at least 3 or maybe 4 batteries in their useful life instead of the 2 or maybe 3 now. And you can bet that most will be buying cheaper China knock off batteries which will not last nearly as long as the more expensive OEM batteries. Thus adding even more battery e-waste. That's human nature, even for you people in the EU. If something cost a lot to replace, then we tend try to make it last as long as possible by taking proper care of it, not wasting it and keep using it for as long as we can. But if its easy and cheap to replace, why bother? There's no way that this is a win-win regulation.
You start with a link from 2016.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about new phones being brought to market, what matters is that the consumers decide, based on all kinds of market incentives.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
As consumers demanded more sophisticated smartphones, manufacturers had no choice but to make sacrifices to comply with the latest trends. That's because these light and slim all-screen designs became sales hits, allowing companies to make more money for their investors.
Let's look at some of the features smartphones now integrate which necessitated the non-removable battery.
Despite all the development in battery technology, batteries are still inherently dangerous. That's because they store energy between cathode and anode electrodes, separated by a thin electrolyte.
If these electrodes somehow come into direct contact, it would cause a short circuit and generate a lot of heat. This condition, in turn, would create even more heat leading to a runaway thermal reaction and could result in the battery bursting into flames or exploding.
For this reason, a removable battery needs a hard plastic case to prevent accidental damage, especially when it's not connected to a phone. This kind of case adds to the bulk and weight of a smartphone. So, when consumers wanted a slimmer, lighter design, one of the solutions engineers came up with was to install a permanent battery.
By ensuring you cannot remove the battery, engineers made the smartphone's case and chassis serve as its protection instead.
As smartphones became more expensive, with flagship devices reaching four-digit prices, consumers demanded that they last longer and have more robust protection. After all, if you're paying a month's salary for a phone, it should withstand everyday wear and tear, including protection against accidental drops in water. That's why smartphone makers hardened their devices by sealing the outer case. But when they sealed the phone, users lost access to replaceable batteries.
Besides, it's challenging to create a thin and light device with a closed outer case. If you look at waterproof cameras, you'll see that it has a thick battery door secured by thick rubber gaskets. If you apply the same solution to a smartphone, you can say goodbye to its small, pocketable form factor.
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
So much wrong in all that.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
You seem unable to comprehend, that you just made the case for the market for thin and light, all without user replaceable batteries, with the Honor V2.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
LOL!
I never destroy my own arguments and yes, I do actually comprehend things.
Thickness is one thing. Replaceable batteries are another. Waterproofing is another.
Don't lose track of that.
Yes, replaceable batteries will make phones ever so slightly thicker. That is understandable.
There is no problem with that.
Replaceable batteries should not impact water resistance either.
The Honor V2 (like most folding phones and plenty of slab phones) actually has no IP rating at all. Yes! The shock. The horror!
The truth is (and it's an ugly truth) that waterproofing itself is not a necessity. Being splashproof is more than enough for the vast majority of users.
My argument is that 'thickness' is not a valid argument against replaceable batteries.
The Honor V2 destroys that line of thinking. Completely and utterly. That battery (or two!) could fit into a slab phone, be replaceable, and still be thin!
As for the V2 itself with replaceable batteries. Well, seeing at it has no I rating it would be a piece of cake to tweak the design and, although it will inevitably get a little thicker, it would probably be a fair bit slimmer than the extremely popular Fold 4.
In summary: a non issue.
There are still so many potential physical failure modes for folding phones, adding death by liquid ingress probably wouldn't make any difference. I hear that these are now selling on the order of 15 million a year, with Samsung having 80% of the market, but that's only 4% of Samsungs total smartphone sales.
Apple sells none of these, and takes home 85% of smartphone profits, but at least Samsung get most of what's left. Still, should Apple eventually introduce a folding phone, it will all be thanks to the efforts of others that Apple builds on, and Apple will again take 85% of those profits as well.
Life is good!
The single biggest failure point for all modern phones, and it far outweighs ALL others, is the use of glass on front and back panels.
Just like waterproofing, glass backs were definitely not a necessary design move.
And given the current state of 'glass' which invariably ends up with a factory or user installed (and often plastic) screen protector on phone screens and a case, the question is, is the delicate kind of glass (even with high end tempering treatments) currently used, and breaking all over the world, even the best solution?
Apple notable for not applying a screen protector at the factory but its screens still scratch and break.
As glass becomes 'plastilised' or plastic becomes 'glassified', shouldn't we be using 'unbreakable' solutions that can be 'healed' without requiring a screen or back panel replacements? Or even 'self healing' at some point. I wonder if we are close to seeing a company bring a 'softer' screen to market specifically to tackle that number on failure point.
Any physical format that can change shape is going to introduce more mechanical parts. It doesn't matter if it's a foldable phone or a scrolling screen or even a laptop with a hinge mechanism.
Introducing more potential failure points is in no way a valid justification for not offering the product at all. People understand the tradeoffs.
The V2 that Ben reviewed in the link above was a unit being subjected to stress testing on the hinge. It had been through 200,000 folds and was in fine shape.
Folding phones hit the ground running on every count. They were always going to be expensive but they are already affordable enough to be seen out in public and the trend on pricing is moving downwards.
You can be sure that Apple has samples of every folding mechanism brought to market in its labs and is using those to help it with its own efforts.
That is how technology evolves.
It's possible that one day we might see a design without a mechanical hinge (some kind of material with 'memory') or the screen itself might move into a HUD-style display.
Your long treatise on the glass in smartphones, especially the glass backs on iPhones, is an example of why designing smartphone is especially complicated.
In the case of Apple, a glass back is an especially useful solution for multiple antenna placement and Qi charging, and is considered a better and more premium solution than plastic, and the glass has continued evolving to be more resilient. Let me know the last story that AI did on glass backs, because, as far as I can tell, they aren't considered a problem today.
I'm not seeing any sign of a "softer" screen coming to the market, since it would no longer be considered part of the structure of the phone, and it almost certainly wouldn't have optical properties of glass, an amorphous solid, but sure, that might turn out to be an innovation.
As for hinge mechanisms, 200,000 cycles is certainly an improvement over early mechanisms, but how well do folding phones handle drops, in various configurations from fully open to fully closed? How costly are they to repair for the owner?
Folding phones hit the ground running on every count.
Yeah, not so much. Most of the early examples were both poor user experience and prone to failure in their expected lifetimes, to the point that users found that the value was depreciating much more than typical smartphones. That's acceptable to early adopters, and later models certainly are better, but none have so far been big sellers. Depending on who you quote, something on the order of 40 million total will be sold by either 2026 or 2027. Considering 1.2 to 1.5 billion phones are sold per year, those numbers don't yet indicate an exploding market.
I don't think that there has been enough innovation in folding phones to date, so, sure, there is future growth ahead, but certainly, Apple need not be in any hurry to enter the market.
Comments
avon b7 specifically argued that most users don't require the current levels of IP protection, because liquid ingress hardly ever happens, and I countered that consumers expect smartphones to be reliable under any expected conditions, including occasional submergence in water.
You seem confident that a user accessible battery would provide the same IP rating without otherwise affecting features, but that re-engineering effort is almost certainly going to add cost to the device. Should that be the case, I would rather extra cost be directed to improved battery technology that gives greater charge cycles and longer life, which would benefit all users, nullifying the benefit of a user replaceable battery.
More to the point, I don't want the EU designing phones; that should be left to the market.
Couldn't you find anything a little more relevant?
You then follow up with two more links.
One is a blog post from a small insurance company with a vested interest in convincing you that you really need water protection.
The other is from a company selling waterproof pouches for phones.
Come on!
On top of that, and just for the hell of it, we'll run with your linked stats. Even then, the vast majority of users do not have water damage issues of any kind.
Cost and age of the batteries is irrelevant here. There is no point bringing that in. So is trade in.
What's the big deal with paying Apple?
Have you really go no idea about why that is an issue? Downtime? Displacement? Yes, and cost.
Why on earth do you think e-waste is going to be an issue if:
A. It is illegal to dump batteries in the EU.
B. Recycling is completely free.
C. Extending phone lifespans reduces e-waste.
D. Less electronic turnover is a good thing. Or would you prefer entirely new phones be brought to market instead of easily replaceable batteries?
Replaceable batteries are a good thing and all industry has done over the last 10 years has turn 'water damage' into something that suits its own goals.
Most of those market incentives are via cellular providers, and ironically, one of the best ways to gain new customers is to offer deals on iPhones.
No one could have imagined.
If the goal of the EU is to slow down the adoption of new technology, which is essentially what you are arguing for, then by all means, continue on.
As for replaceable batteries, my recollection is that battery covers were a known failure mode for feature phones, and no one even has to imagine why replaceable batteries went away early in the evolution of the smartphone. Consumers are going to hate battery covers.
https://www.makeuseof.com/why-smartphones-dont-have-removable-batteries/
Myself, if I were the EU, I would incentivize solid state batteries that would be absolutely safer, and likely provide a longer life.
Consumers never demanded anything.
Ironically, all manufacturers carry out studies to check on what consumers are interested in but ultimately, if the devices sell (which could be for all manner of reasons), the manufacturer will follow its own needs - not the needs of the consumer, or anyone else.
In the case of phones this was proven with the charging situation. In the end, legislation had to be passed.
Jobs would famously sometimes spit out the 'It's the number one feature our customers asked for'.
Let's forget for a moment that that particular feature (whatever it was) was almost always incredibly late in arriving, but what about numbers 2, 3 and 4 on the list? Nowhere to be found! Not a peep. Just keep drip feeding the users.
And no. Consumers definitely didn't demand thinner phones (except for when phones were brick-like).
Thin-in-the-hand will always have something going for it but at what cost?
Nowadays, a shorter battery lifespan, simply because people use their phones so much more. They get through the battery's charging cycles faster. That's why phones now have features trying to get you to cut back on usage under the guise of 'surely you could do something better with your time?'
Higher capacity, longer lasting batteries are an option but they have to shine in the real world. If that is the case, let the manufacturers prove it with no qualms battery warranties. Easy.
They won't. Just like almost none will offer a waterproofing guarantee either.
But there is no getting away from the fact that first impressions (especially, size and weight) are an important marketing play. People will often associate the look of something ('sleekness' etc) with it being 'better' even though that often has little to do with those aspects. Manufacturers will play off that as much as they can. I get it.
As for carriers being the main channel for phone sales, I believe that is the case in the US. I doubt that is the case here and I many other places. Not that that has anything to do with anything in this context.
This legislation isn't about how people get their phones. It's about batteries.
That said, it's about much, much more, as this is just one area, of many, that are being looked at.
Others include designing for repair, software support and features along with the DSA/DNA etc.
Nothing in your quoted text is even relevant in that context.
BTW, have you seen the battery in the Honor V2?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bensin/2023/07/13/honor-magic-v2-hands-on-a-breakthrough-in-foldable-mobile-tech/?sh=20c9e12e7ceb
Take a close look at that phone, especially the side by side shot with the Fold 4 and the Pixel Fold.
Not even the clunkiest of the three (the Fold 4) would be unusable even as a slab phone. The Pixel Fold would be around the same thickness as some larger capacity slab phones. But the Honor V2 is actually slimmer than many slab phones. In fact, I believe Huawei's last foldable was less than 1mm thicker than an iPhone 14 - when folded! Imagine it unfolded!
But here's the kicker. Those phones all probably have TWO batteries in them.
Think about that for a second. Let it sink in. TWO completely encased batteries in a product that is thinner than some slab phones even when folded.
Getting just one battery into a slab phone and making it replaceable is not going to make things thicker to any appreciable degree.
In the EU, the Honor V2 would also have to have replaceable batteries, and two of them at that.
I'm always impressed with your ability to destroy your own arguments.
I never destroy my own arguments and yes, I do actually comprehend things.
Thickness is one thing.
Replaceable batteries are another.
Waterproofing is another.
Don't lose track of that.
Yes, replaceable batteries will make phones ever so slightly thicker. That is understandable.
There is no problem with that.
Replaceable batteries should not impact water resistance either.
The Honor V2 (like most folding phones and plenty of slab phones) actually has no IP rating at all. Yes! The shock. The horror!
The truth is (and it's an ugly truth) that waterproofing itself is not a necessity. Being splashproof is more than enough for the vast majority of users.
My argument is that 'thickness' is not a valid argument against replaceable batteries.
The Honor V2 destroys that line of thinking. Completely and utterly. That battery (or two!) could fit into a slab phone, be replaceable, and still be thin!
As for the V2 itself with replaceable batteries. Well, seeing at it has no I rating it would be a piece of cake to tweak the design and, although it will inevitably get a little thicker, it would probably be a fair bit slimmer than the extremely popular Fold 4.
In summary: a non issue.
Apple sells none of these, and takes home 85% of smartphone profits, but at least Samsung get most of what's left. Still, should Apple eventually introduce a folding phone, it will all be thanks to the efforts of others that Apple builds on, and Apple will again take 85% of those profits as well.
Life is good!
Just like waterproofing, glass backs were definitely not a necessary design move.
And given the current state of 'glass' which invariably ends up with a factory or user installed (and often plastic) screen protector on phone screens and a case, the question is, is the delicate kind of glass (even with high end tempering treatments) currently used, and breaking all over the world, even the best solution?
Apple notable for not applying a screen protector at the factory but its screens still scratch and break.
As glass becomes 'plastilised' or plastic becomes 'glassified', shouldn't we be using 'unbreakable' solutions that can be 'healed' without requiring a screen or back panel replacements? Or even 'self healing' at some point. I wonder if we are close to seeing a company bring a 'softer' screen to market specifically to tackle that number on failure point.
Any physical format that can change shape is going to introduce more mechanical parts. It doesn't matter if it's a foldable phone or a scrolling screen or even a laptop with a hinge mechanism.
Introducing more potential failure points is in no way a valid justification for not offering the product at all. People understand the tradeoffs.
The V2 that Ben reviewed in the link above was a unit being subjected to stress testing on the hinge. It had been through 200,000 folds and was in fine shape.
Folding phones hit the ground running on every count. They were always going to be expensive but they are already affordable enough to be seen out in public and the trend on pricing is moving downwards.
You can be sure that Apple has samples of every folding mechanism brought to market in its labs and is using those to help it with its own efforts.
That is how technology evolves.
It's possible that one day we might see a design without a mechanical hinge (some kind of material with 'memory') or the screen itself might move into a HUD-style display.
In the case of Apple, a glass back is an especially useful solution for multiple antenna placement and Qi charging, and is considered a better and more premium solution than plastic, and the glass has continued evolving to be more resilient. Let me know the last story that AI did on glass backs, because, as far as I can tell, they aren't considered a problem today.
I'm not seeing any sign of a "softer" screen coming to the market, since it would no longer be considered part of the structure of the phone, and it almost certainly wouldn't have optical properties of glass, an amorphous solid, but sure, that might turn out to be an innovation.
As for hinge mechanisms, 200,000 cycles is certainly an improvement over early mechanisms, but how well do folding phones handle drops, in various configurations from fully open to fully closed? How costly are they to repair for the owner?
Yeah, not so much. Most of the early examples were both poor user experience and prone to failure in their expected lifetimes, to the point that users found that the value was depreciating much more than typical smartphones. That's acceptable to early adopters, and later models certainly are better, but none have so far been big sellers. Depending on who you quote, something on the order of 40 million total will be sold by either 2026 or 2027. Considering 1.2 to 1.5 billion phones are sold per year, those numbers don't yet indicate an exploding market.
I don't think that there has been enough innovation in folding phones to date, so, sure, there is future growth ahead, but certainly, Apple need not be in any hurry to enter the market.