I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
It's a bit hard to find good pictures of it, but the original Kyocera Torque from 2013 was IP 67 and had a user-replaceable battery. Its back had a large fingernail-turnable latch and pretty well-designed seal.
Say what you will about the aesthetics of the handset, it's proof that waterproof, user-replaceable batteries are absolutely possible on a consumer handset.
Or the Samsung Xcover Pro 6[1] that ships with a user replaceable battery like in the good old days, yet still has water resistance, so it is definitely possible, they just don't want to do it on the entire range of phones.
Also, why do we need proof from modern phones? We've had cheap plastic wrist watches that can be submerged and operated under water for decades. The secret? Stainless steel back, screwed on the plastic body with a rubber gasket in between. Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago? I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
>Why can't phones use this "outstanding" innovation from 60 years ago?
Because it requires too much space. It works on watches because they are small, if you tried to screw in a phone back plate with 4 screws, it wouldn't seal at the sides, as pressure is too low.
>I'm sure the likes of Apple, considering their enormous R&D budget, can figure it out into a modern solution.
They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
>if you tried to screw in a phone back plate with 4 screws
You don't think Apple or Samsung can afford more screws?
>They already have found a way to tightly and reversibly seal a phone, which allows for repairs of components and is low cost. It is called glue and pretty much the optimal way to seal a phone.
Have you been paying attention to anything written on this thread? We don't need phones to be sealed with glue for water resistance as that's just a forced obsolescence design choice.
My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to.
> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery
I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace.
> battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device.
The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.
It's not only about diving though, any drop into sea or pool might be affected, and even if you aren't submerging you'll have the peace of mind of using the phone near a body of water.
Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%.
I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
How about an opt out for a cost neutral swap by phone makers? So Apple will swap out the battery for free, keeping your waterproofness and you just pay for the material cost of a battery or supply your own. Then they can design how they want. There's extra costs on them, but tough shit.
And when the phone is 4 years old and won't make a full day without a second charge (as opposed to just overnight) then you'll probably simply replace it despite it being good for another 4 years, easily, if it had a new battery. That may be fine for you, but not all of us are so filthy rich.
"What's with the US government mandating seat belts in foreign cars sold here!!! How dare they! Instead of requiring seat belts, the US government should offer tax breaks to auto makers who do offer seat belts. Surely that's the right way to incentivize them."
"What's with the US's 'Tylenol bill' that requires tamper proof cases on over the counter medications to prevent another cyanide murder case like the one in 1982? How dare the US government interfere in the design of drug makers' product packaging. Instead of enforcement, they should have just given a big fat tax break any of over the counter medication producers that voluntarily decided to offer tamper proof containers. That would surely be in the public's best interest, right?"
If you have an iPhone and want a new battery, it doesn’t cost much to have Apple replace the battery for you. It’s much cheaper than buying a new phone.
because the manufacturers are not required to make them last that long. if they were required to, they would alter the chemistry / capacity of the battery instantly and this would be solved.
Is there a lithium ion battery chemistry that lasts 8 years after being manufactured and ~3,000 discharge cycles without significant (10+%) degradation?
My Samsung S5 was water resistant (IP67) and had user-replaceable batteries. They solved it by having an "O-ring" gasket around the periphery of the case[1].
I have several Garmin GPS devices used for hiking and they've been handling soaking multi-day hikes, with one of them being fully submerged for over an hour, and they only have a IPX7 rating, and they have replaceable batteries.
I keep my iPhones for years, and the only thing showing the age is the battery.
Water damage one of the top causes of phone repair. They happened commonly enough --- and people lied about this happening enough --- for Apple (and many others) to add hardware checks for internal moisture.
I shoot underwater A LOT, and even if I never used it that way I'd prefer peace of mind of not having water damage in a potential situation, over a replaceable battery that I've never needed to replace in a single device in my entire life.
So the rest of us should suffer because 0.00001% of smartphones get used under water A LOT? That's just silly.
How about you buy an underwater case for your piece of mind and we all get the battery replacement we want while still getting the rare and accidental fall in the pool or toilet easily protected against.
I don’t shoot underwater. My phone has been accidentally submerged. Sure am glad it was fine. Also, I’ve had iPhone batteries replaced several times over the years. It’s not expensive.
Glueing phones shut is done because with a minimal footprint you have a very good seal.
The alternatives are all worse, either requiring too much space or being susceptible to the seal being broken. If this rule takes effect, phone design will have to change and quite likely many complaints will be had about phones failing at their advertised rating.
Glue is a fairly easily reversible process, which allows basically any repair shop, when parts are available, to perform a repair. Even hobbyists with basic equipment can do it.
Screws and gaskets are just as compact (see literally any wristwatch), but slightly more expensive. This, and probably some planned obsolescence, is the only reason why phones are glued together.
Phones have been using screws for years, it’ll be okay, we can handle screws and phones, we have the tech to accomplish this with minimal increase in size.
You realy think the screws are the weakest link in the chain towards thinner phones? Because if they are not, your remarks on thinner seals are irrelevant.
the assumption being that if apple did not, then apple could not. this assumption seems flimsy. it also implies that the only correct approach would be screws and gaskets. and assumes that larger is easier.
It doesn't really matter. In practive it's only usable as minor rain protection anyway. I'm not bringing my phone into the shower.
And like people have mentioned, the most rugged phones do have replaceable batteries. I used to have an Xcover for hiking and it never had any issues with water ingress either.
Y'know, Nokia phones (before the whole smartphone fad) were famous for being solid. That is to say, the joke was that if you dropped your phone off a skyscraper you'd just have to pick it up and it'd just work. And as far as I recall they required precisely zero equipment in order to take the battery out.
I don't know how it compares in general, but quickly swappable/replaceable battery was the main reason I selected the Samsung XCover6 Pro, and it has an IP68 rating.
You are talking like any normal consumer is going spearfishing with his smartphone. They're not. Being able to deal with some rain at most it's all it's needed for normal use and was achievable by electronics with replaceable batteries for decades.
Any more than that is just falling for the spiel given by companies known to be hostile to de idea of prolonging the lifetime of their products.
When I am traveling away from all my charging cords, I carry a battery pack in my pocket. I care about that much more than the once in a lifetime drenching I got in a tropical deluge in Shanghai that made my phone inoperable for a few days
This is a solved problem and many phones had it before the “let’s make it as hard as possible to change phone batteries” craze kicked in. Apple has the tech to do this, as does Samsung.
I’d say these days it’s essentially required. Common example: I had my phone in my pocket while headed to a pool party. Totally forget it was in my pocket and just got in the pool. Absolutely no problem, just pulled it out (after it was in the pool for minutes) and everything was fine. No panic. In comparison, I remember doing the same thing many years ago with a moto razr. Even after rice and drying and pulling the battery, it was toast. Had to get a new phone.
Required for who? It's fine that you need it. But I think you overestimate the number of people who simultaneously go to pool parties, jump in with their jacket on, and don't have accidental damage insurance.
Replacing your phone with accidental damage insurance is a lot more troublesome than going to Apple on the occasion you want a new battery. Insurance is often much more expensive.
the assertion from grandparent comment was that nobody needed it. parent asserts that yes, they do.
it’s nice that you don’t need it, but lots of people do. It’s a pretty basic durability/longevity thing.
don’t worry you can always move the goalposts back to “but you can waterproof a phone with a removable battery”, that’s a much more defensible bailey. “Literally nobody uses waterproofing” just was never a strong argument.
Rain, or even a short time at the bottom of the pool, is easily managed with a simple seal compatible with user replaceable batteries. Failure rates will be a tiny bit higher because users won't always get the closure perfect, but that's not going to affect most people. What will affect most people is an immediate two or three year extension in the life of their phones with a $15 Amazon.com order.
That's hundreds of dollars a year in savings. For me it would be about $330/yr in savings, enough to cover my streaming video and music bills completely. That savings falls in half if my time is valuable and I've got to drive to an Apple store and pay $90 for the replacement, so I've never done that. Instead, I go on Amazon.com and order an entirely new phone when my battery gets to be an issue.
I think replaceable batteries will make calculus work for me and billions of others over the long haul. Maybe 50% of consumers take advantage and save money, 49.999% never notice or care, and 0.001% miss scuba diving raw-dog with their smartphones and have to buy a specialized case for piece of mind.
I think he was saying that he just replaces his whole phone rather than pay Apple to replace the battery (including the effort of getting the phone to them and waiting while they do it). (It took me a while to interpret that.)
I suppose that there will be some number of phone replacements delayed if battery replacement were cheaper and easier. But I'd bet it's a relatively narrow range between "willing to let a pro do it" and "might as well upgrade the features anyway".
He's saying if he could buy a battery on Amazon then he’d do that over buying a new phone. You can actually buy iPhone batteries and they come with the tools to replace it now. He is buying a new phone because he wants a new phone. Anyone that wants to save $300/year can easily save that money already in a few ways. Apple repair, third party repair shops, or a DIY kit on Amazon.
I care, many people care if you’re around the water at all. I think it’s practically a mandate these days that a phone can survive a dip in the pool at least for a few minutes.
Yeah. I want IP67 and have to replace my battery every 2 years.
I don’t mind taking it to Apple for that. It’s less often than my car went back to the dealer for service. And my dealer wouldn’t give me a new car if they fuck up my old one in the process (Apple did this when they broke mine during a battery swap).
