The "form over function" argument is about Apple trying to shave a couple of millimeter from the plastic housing (to make the iphone smaller in physical size) and sacriface the function of end users' ability to (1) use an extended battery or (2) swap batteries.
For example, the LG Voyager comes with 2 standard batteries --- so the end users can swap them. You can also buy the optional extended battery for the Voyager.
Yes, but you are making the unwarranted assumption that the concept of a removable battery is a part of the designed function of the device from the start (it is not). The removable battery originates in a design failure so you can't logically argue that you are adding function by forcing this failure on another product that doesn't need it.
Technically, by adding removable batteries to an iPod or iPhone, you would be destroying the form for no reason as the function of the thing is both fine as it is and exactly as designed. The new product, by reason of it's now removable battery would have some minor advantages and some minor disadvantages as well. I would argue that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages, but in either case it would be an entirely new product.
Just because you can't admit that you're wrong on the topic don't take it out on me with your warped distortions. It was the NY Times not me that said "Unless Apple does something about its battery problem, the iPhone will always be more a toy than a tool. "
Sorry- you loose.
If the NYT writes sommething you agree with, it must be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Not likely! Moreso people discard phones by throwing them into a recycling box.
As you've stated, it's more than just hte battery that needs to be properly recycled so having widespread access to bins for disposing of all electronics is the best way. It has to second nature and simple for the consumer or it's not going to work.
Also, there are plenty of devices that have batteries that one never accesses. Would these be exempt? Will the simple 2 screw access for the iPhone be too complex for RoHS? There are too many questions and not enough answers for some people to be claiming that Apple products will all get easily removed battery doors.
PS: Who was the first to use a Li-Ion battery as standard in a PMP? How much of a positive impact have those batteries had over the deposable alkaline batteries that came before it?
Quote:
Besides that who is saying that people can't replace an iPhone battery? The directions are right on the net. This sort of regulation is a fine example of government treating people like imbeciles.
It involves less steps than adding RAM or replacing a HDD in a MacBook.
Quote:
As a side note I don't like Apples integrated battery approach for other reasons. One big issue is that if you discharge the battery you are basically screwed until you can plug into a recharger. This unfortunately eliminates iPod Touch and IPhone from a lot of potential industrial uses. On the otherhand I still believe Apple has the right to market it's product as it sees fit. As others have already pointed out iPhone is a more durable device due to it's construction.
Now that is a valid reason for wanting a tool-free replaceable battery!
Yes, but you are making the unwarranted assumption that the concept of a removable battery is a part of the designed function of the device from the start (it is not). The removable battery originates in a design failure so you can't logically argue that you are adding function by forcing this failure on another product that doesn't need it.
Technically, by adding removable batteries to an iPod or iPhone, you would be destroying the form for no reason as the function of the thing is both fine as it is and exactly as designed. The new product, by reason of it's now removable battery would have some minor advantages and some minor disadvantages as well. I would argue that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages, but in either case it would be an entirely new product.
So let's design cars where you can't get under the hood and are sealed shut for design purposes.
The fact is - you will be adding a useable function to the device not destroying its form. The designed function in this case destroys a much needed function.
Most iPhones are in cases anyway- you rarely see their backsides.
I'm surprised that there are so many, anybody actually, that sees this as anything more than the corruption that is rampant in the EU. The only possible reason for such regulation is the protection of EU companies from innovative American companies. After it became obvious this year that European regulations and standards are up for sale to the highest bidder, can anyone look at these regs as anything other than servicing the interests of big EU businesses.
That's what I said!! If you make it possible for everyone to buy new batteries from the internet or wal-mart or whatever they are going to go home, switch it out and chuck the old battery in the trash. Call it ignorance if you want but that's just how it is...
Dude- I've been stating that for months and so has the NY Times- Don't you listen?
No, no you haven't. Giving you the benefit of the doubt?again?I did a Google search for Teckstud+discharge and Teckstud+drain. Apparently Google isn't your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
That's what I said!! If you make it possible for everyone to buy new batteries from the internet or wal-mart or whatever they are going to go home, switch it out and chuck the old battery in the trash. Call it ignorance if you want but that's just how it is...
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
No, no you haven't. Giving you the benefit of the doubt—again—I did a Google search for Teckstud+discharge and Teckstud+drain. Apparently Google isn't your friend.
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
You're probably the only consumer that would complain and whine if they had the option to replace their phone battery themself.
You should look up my prior posts here AI on replaceable iPhone batteries if your memory is that weak.
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
So why not leave it as it is now? If you mandate certified replacements only then the consumers are annoyed and if you mandate user-replaceable batteries now the environment is taking a hit because the consumer is just going to chuck the old one in the trash.
What are they going to do next? Mandate biodegradable batteries? (if that were possible and could actually contend with Li-Ion then we'd really have something that consumers, environmentalists and the gov't can agree on!)
The issue is not as simple as you make out. Even the EU (bless their pea brains) decided it was a load of twaddle and killed off the legislation this year.
The Matrix used biodegradable batteries. Prisoners with life sentences; unwanted, lobotomized babies, and, of course, baby seals would all work very well.
That's what I said!! If you make it possible for everyone to buy new batteries from the internet or wal-mart or whatever they are going to go home, switch it out and chuck the old battery in the trash. Call it ignorance if you want but that's just how it is...
I can tell you that for example in Holland most people will not just trow a battery in the trash. Perhaps you should teach your children different instead of just ignoring the problem.
I can tell you that for example in Holland most people will not just trow a battery in the trash. Perhaps you should teach your children different instead of just ignoring the problem.
Well good for Holland. I can tell you that in Texas we don't pay income tax. Perhaps you should teach everyone you know to move here or Florida (also doesn't charge income tax).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
I'm surprised that there are so many, anybody actually, that sees this as anything more than the corruption that is rampant in the EU. The only possible reason for such regulation is the protection of EU companies from innovative American companies. After it became obvious this year that European regulations and standards are up for sale to the highest bidder, can anyone look at these regs as anything other than servicing the interests of big EU businesses.
Dave
Well, new progressive CO2 emission rules for cars passed the European parliament, taking most of the German car industry by surprise. Even with their power and influence they couldn't buy off the vote and now have to make their engines more fuel efficient. Trade rules have politicking all over them, but not all rules service the interests of EU business, particularly environmental regulations.
Well good for Holland. I can tell you that in Texas we don't pay income tax. Perhaps you should teach everyone you know to move here or Florida (also doesn't charge income tax).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
good point! perhaps we should also stop paying tax and start throwing all our trash on the street
hmm or perhaps it is so easy for us to recycle because we're paying tax?
Back on topic, this quote from the European Commission website kind of implies that Apple doesn't really have to fear this new law:
What does "batteries and accumulators can be readily removed" mean?
End-users or professionals (e.g. appliance service centres, waste treatment facilities) should be able to remove batteries from appliances. The instructions showing how the batteries can be readily and safely removed should also specify who, in the view of the manufacturer, is the best person to safely remove the battery.
I'm surprised that there are so many, anybody actually, that sees this as anything more than the corruption that is rampant in the EU. The only possible reason for such regulation is the protection of EU companies from innovative American companies. After it became obvious this year that European regulations and standards are up for sale to the highest bidder, can anyone look at these regs as anything other than servicing the interests of big EU businesses.
Sure, because we all know that every government in the world is as corrupt as the US government -- and the only motivation for government action is collusion with business.
You know, in some places, the news media actually investigates and is able to report to the public when the government is in bed with large corporations. And in many cases it topples the government (eg. Chretien). As opposed to "more local news/paranoia" or "more celebrity gossip". Sure, major cities like NYC have some real news sources, but the majority of news media across the US is just plain nonsense for people who lack the time and/or education to analyze the world around them in terms other than job security, consumption, and paranoia.
So please, quit preaching the religion that "government is evil" and that "the market will act in the public's best interest". Some of us actually understand the proper role of government in capitalism, and believe that as long as there are investigators and media ensuring government doesn't get too cozy with private interests, it can act in the public interest quite well (environmental protection, basic standards for health care and education). We understand that private interests do not necessarily align with public interests. And that the average consumer doesn't necessarily have the power or time to make the two align. Especially when the only major voice they have (the government) has very little power to change anything (eg. the failed attempts to implement a public health care system in the US in the face of massive FUD campaigns and payoffs/lobbying from private interests).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
The 'evil, corrupt (hopefully that has covered themall)' EU has passed a law requiring businesses that sell batteries to collect back similar battery types for recycling.
Introduced with RoHS, the EU's 2006 Battery Directive updated existing regulation from 1991.
...
While the Battery Directive now in force states that it must be easy for consumers to remove batteries from electronic products, the "New Batteries Directive" now being drafted over the next year goes even further to state that electrical equipment must be designed to allow that batteries be 'readily removed' for replacement or removal at the end of product's life.
Does anyone actually research their sources before publishing an article with 0% news value?
From the Directive regulation 1991:
Article 5
Member States shall take measures to ensure that batteries and accumulators cannot be incorporated into appliances unless they can be readily removed, when spent, by the consumer.
From the Directive regulation 2006:
Article 11
Removal of waste batteries and accumulators
Member States shall ensure that manufacturers design appliances in such a way that waste batteries and accumulators can be readily removed. Appliances into which batteries and accumulators are incorporated shall be accompanied by instructions showing how they can be removed safely and, where appropriate, informing the end-user of the type of the incorporated batteries and accumulators.
In the Directive regulation 2008 are no changes mentioned concerning article 11
Comments
I look forward to iPod with a user replaceable battery. Who would've thunk it? What will they come up with next?
A MacBook Air with a replaceable battery and ports?
The "form over function" argument is about Apple trying to shave a couple of millimeter from the plastic housing (to make the iphone smaller in physical size) and sacriface the function of end users' ability to (1) use an extended battery or (2) swap batteries.
For example, the LG Voyager comes with 2 standard batteries --- so the end users can swap them. You can also buy the optional extended battery for the Voyager.
Yes, but you are making the unwarranted assumption that the concept of a removable battery is a part of the designed function of the device from the start (it is not). The removable battery originates in a design failure so you can't logically argue that you are adding function by forcing this failure on another product that doesn't need it.
Technically, by adding removable batteries to an iPod or iPhone, you would be destroying the form for no reason as the function of the thing is both fine as it is and exactly as designed. The new product, by reason of it's now removable battery would have some minor advantages and some minor disadvantages as well. I would argue that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages, but in either case it would be an entirely new product.
Just because you can't admit that you're wrong on the topic don't take it out on me with your warped distortions. It was the NY Times not me that said "Unless Apple does something about its battery problem, the iPhone will always be more a toy than a tool. "
Sorry- you loose.
If the NYT writes sommething you agree with, it must be true.
Not likely! Moreso people discard phones by throwing them into a recycling box.
As you've stated, it's more than just hte battery that needs to be properly recycled so having widespread access to bins for disposing of all electronics is the best way. It has to second nature and simple for the consumer or it's not going to work.
Also, there are plenty of devices that have batteries that one never accesses. Would these be exempt? Will the simple 2 screw access for the iPhone be too complex for RoHS? There are too many questions and not enough answers for some people to be claiming that Apple products will all get easily removed battery doors.
PS: Who was the first to use a Li-Ion battery as standard in a PMP? How much of a positive impact have those batteries had over the deposable alkaline batteries that came before it?
Besides that who is saying that people can't replace an iPhone battery? The directions are right on the net. This sort of regulation is a fine example of government treating people like imbeciles.
It involves less steps than adding RAM or replacing a HDD in a MacBook.
As a side note I don't like Apples integrated battery approach for other reasons. One big issue is that if you discharge the battery you are basically screwed until you can plug into a recharger. This unfortunately eliminates iPod Touch and IPhone from a lot of potential industrial uses. On the otherhand I still believe Apple has the right to market it's product as it sees fit. As others have already pointed out iPhone is a more durable device due to it's construction.
Now that is a valid reason for wanting a tool-free replaceable battery!
Yes, but you are making the unwarranted assumption that the concept of a removable battery is a part of the designed function of the device from the start (it is not). The removable battery originates in a design failure so you can't logically argue that you are adding function by forcing this failure on another product that doesn't need it.
Technically, by adding removable batteries to an iPod or iPhone, you would be destroying the form for no reason as the function of the thing is both fine as it is and exactly as designed. The new product, by reason of it's now removable battery would have some minor advantages and some minor disadvantages as well. I would argue that the disadvantages would outweigh the advantages, but in either case it would be an entirely new product.
So let's design cars where you can't get under the hood and are sealed shut for design purposes.
The fact is - you will be adding a useable function to the device not destroying its form. The designed function in this case destroys a much needed function.
Most iPhones are in cases anyway- you rarely see their backsides.
Dave
Now that is a valid reason for wanting a tool-free replaceable battery!
Dude- I've been stating that for months and so has the NY Times- Don't you listen?
So let's design cars where you can't get under the hood and are sealed shut for design purposes..
If they can make my car as reliable as my iphones battery then go ahead and seal it up, I dont poke about in my engine for fun thats for sure.
Dude- I've been stating that for months and so has the NY Times- Don't you listen?
No, no you haven't. Giving you the benefit of the doubt?again?I did a Google search for Teckstud+discharge and Teckstud+drain. Apparently Google isn't your friend.
That's what I said!! If you make it possible for everyone to buy new batteries from the internet or wal-mart or whatever they are going to go home, switch it out and chuck the old battery in the trash. Call it ignorance if you want but that's just how it is...
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
No, no you haven't. Giving you the benefit of the doubt—again—I did a Google search for Teckstud+discharge and Teckstud+drain. Apparently Google isn't your friend.
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
You're probably the only consumer that would complain and whine if they had the option to replace their phone battery themself.
You should look up my prior posts here AI on replaceable iPhone batteries if your memory is that weak.
That does seem like the most likely result. Going to the opposite end of RoHS, requiring batteries to only be changed by certified companies with proper disposal training would benefit the environment more, but would be a pain for the consumer.
So why not leave it as it is now? If you mandate certified replacements only then the consumers are annoyed and if you mandate user-replaceable batteries now the environment is taking a hit because the consumer is just going to chuck the old one in the trash.
What are they going to do next? Mandate biodegradable batteries?
That link conveniently doesn't work, but the directive didn't ban anything - it just classified the fruit into classes:
Nothing convenient about leaving out my own evidence mucker...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...5L0046:EN:HTML
The issue is not as simple as you make out. Even the EU (bless their pea brains) decided it was a load of twaddle and killed off the legislation this year.
Mandate biodegradable batteries?
The Matrix used biodegradable batteries. Prisoners with life sentences; unwanted, lobotomized babies, and, of course, baby seals would all work very well.
That's what I said!! If you make it possible for everyone to buy new batteries from the internet or wal-mart or whatever they are going to go home, switch it out and chuck the old battery in the trash. Call it ignorance if you want but that's just how it is...
I can tell you that for example in Holland most people will not just trow a battery in the trash. Perhaps you should teach your children different instead of just ignoring the problem.
I can tell you that for example in Holland most people will not just trow a battery in the trash. Perhaps you should teach your children different instead of just ignoring the problem.
Well good for Holland. I can tell you that in Texas we don't pay income tax. Perhaps you should teach everyone you know to move here or Florida (also doesn't charge income tax).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
I'm surprised that there are so many, anybody actually, that sees this as anything more than the corruption that is rampant in the EU. The only possible reason for such regulation is the protection of EU companies from innovative American companies. After it became obvious this year that European regulations and standards are up for sale to the highest bidder, can anyone look at these regs as anything other than servicing the interests of big EU businesses.
Dave
Well, new progressive CO2 emission rules for cars passed the European parliament, taking most of the German car industry by surprise. Even with their power and influence they couldn't buy off the vote and now have to make their engines more fuel efficient. Trade rules have politicking all over them, but not all rules service the interests of EU business, particularly environmental regulations.
Well good for Holland. I can tell you that in Texas we don't pay income tax. Perhaps you should teach everyone you know to move here or Florida (also doesn't charge income tax).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
good point! perhaps we should also stop paying tax and start throwing all our trash on the street
hmm or perhaps it is so easy for us to recycle because we're paying tax?
Back on topic, this quote from the European Commission website kind of implies that Apple doesn't really have to fear this new law:
What does "batteries and accumulators can be readily removed" mean?
End-users or professionals (e.g. appliance service centres, waste treatment facilities) should be able to remove batteries from appliances. The instructions showing how the batteries can be readily and safely removed should also specify who, in the view of the manufacturer, is the best person to safely remove the battery.
(source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/wast..._directive.pdf)
I'm surprised that there are so many, anybody actually, that sees this as anything more than the corruption that is rampant in the EU. The only possible reason for such regulation is the protection of EU companies from innovative American companies. After it became obvious this year that European regulations and standards are up for sale to the highest bidder, can anyone look at these regs as anything other than servicing the interests of big EU businesses.
Sure, because we all know that every government in the world is as corrupt as the US government -- and the only motivation for government action is collusion with business.
You know, in some places, the news media actually investigates and is able to report to the public when the government is in bed with large corporations. And in many cases it topples the government (eg. Chretien). As opposed to "more local news/paranoia" or "more celebrity gossip". Sure, major cities like NYC have some real news sources, but the majority of news media across the US is just plain nonsense for people who lack the time and/or education to analyze the world around them in terms other than job security, consumption, and paranoia.
So please, quit preaching the religion that "government is evil" and that "the market will act in the public's best interest". Some of us actually understand the proper role of government in capitalism, and believe that as long as there are investigators and media ensuring government doesn't get too cozy with private interests, it can act in the public interest quite well (environmental protection, basic standards for health care and education). We understand that private interests do not necessarily align with public interests. And that the average consumer doesn't necessarily have the power or time to make the two align. Especially when the only major voice they have (the government) has very little power to change anything (eg. the failed attempts to implement a public health care system in the US in the face of massive FUD campaigns and payoffs/lobbying from private interests).
Or, maybe, just maybe, people in Holland don't just chuck them because it's easy to find a place to get rid of them. That's not the case in America. Given an easy option of recycling most people will do it but few will go well out of their way for something as small as a battery...
The 'evil, corrupt (hopefully that has covered themall)' EU has passed a law requiring businesses that sell batteries to collect back similar battery types for recycling.
Introduced with RoHS, the EU's 2006 Battery Directive updated existing regulation from 1991.
...
While the Battery Directive now in force states that it must be easy for consumers to remove batteries from electronic products, the "New Batteries Directive" now being drafted over the next year goes even further to state that electrical equipment must be designed to allow that batteries be 'readily removed' for replacement or removal at the end of product's life.
Does anyone actually research their sources before publishing an article with 0% news value?
From the Directive regulation 1991:
Article 5
Member States shall take measures to ensure that batteries and accumulators cannot be incorporated into appliances unless they can be readily removed, when spent, by the consumer.
From the Directive regulation 2006:
Article 11
Removal of waste batteries and accumulators
Member States shall ensure that manufacturers design appliances in such a way that waste batteries and accumulators can be readily removed. Appliances into which batteries and accumulators are incorporated shall be accompanied by instructions showing how they can be removed safely and, where appropriate, informing the end-user of the type of the incorporated batteries and accumulators.
In the Directive regulation 2008 are no changes mentioned concerning article 11
(source: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/batteries/)