Do You Support The EU's Requirement That Smart Phones Have Replaceable Batteries?

ihfree on 22/09/2023 - 15:20
Last edited 22/09/2023 - 19:01 by 1 other user

The EU has introduced a law requiring phones and other devices to have an easily replaceable battery. This law looks to create a circular economy for batteries.

Do you support the regulation? If not, why not?

A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it

News article - Mashable
Android Authority
Discussion from right to repair advocate

Poll Options

  • 848
    Yes
  • 48
    No
Mobile Battery Mobile Phone

Comments

  • boomramada on 22/09/2023 - 15:25
    +60

    Poor Apple.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 22/09/2023 - 15:55
      +41

      Oh No! …..anyway…..

    • Caped Baldy on 22/09/2023 - 16:18
      +23

      They'll find a way to make money out of it. For example, smaller propriety batteries and a dodgy cover so it falls out and need to be replaced.

      • localhost on 22/09/2023 - 21:29
        +10

        Don't forget special chip in batteries like cables :)
        + Special screws….

        • joelmuzz on 25/09/2023 - 09:20

          The special OEM chip is exactly what this is banning. Plus the requirement is for toolless replacement.

    • hasher22 on 22/09/2023 - 17:20
      +14

      Apple will most likely make a huge profit out of it with selling replaceable batteries. They will release an update to slow down the phones again, then release a recall statement to change the battery for X amount of dollars.

      • Grunntt on 23/09/2023 - 11:09
        +6

        This flies in the face of the CIA who "orchestrated" non-removeable batteries so they could spy on everyone.

        Any chance you could point us to your source for this claim.

        When googled the first link is to sputnikglobe.com in 2017 and the next one is to this OzBargain thread.

        The closest I could find was an article on CNN from 2019 that explained how it was possible for 'them' to tell your phone to not turn off (and rather than 'spy on everyone' as you put it - they need to set up their own mini-cell tower to intercept your phone).

        Any other conspiracy theories you could enlighten us with? (maybe with some sort of link to actual real research if you are trying to help people become better informed).

        • whyisave on 24/09/2023 - 00:21
          +2

          Any chance you could point us to your source for this claim.

          You won't find sources for people whose job is to ensure there are no sources

          • Grunntt on 24/09/2023 - 09:01
            +4

            @whyisave:

            You won't find sources for people whose job is to ensure there are no sources

            OK, to go down this rabbit hole a little further - so how would anyone be able to make this claim then if there are literally no sources of this information?

        • jrvb42 on 24/09/2023 - 07:58

          Google: NSO Pegasus Guardian.

          • Grunntt on 24/09/2023 - 08:59
            +1

            @jrvb42: I am aware of the Pegasus spyware - "that is developed, marketed and licensed to governments around the world by the Israeli company NSO Group".

            What I asked of the above poster was something to support their statement

            the CIA who "orchestrated" non-removeable batteries so they could spy on everyone.

            • Bii on 25/09/2023 - 07:46
              -4

              @Grunntt: Any sources to show it's a false claim?

              It might be an opinion. It's still possible. I assume the reserved battery can be enough to track someone for weeks or months.

              • DashCam AKA Rolts on 25/09/2023 - 07:52
                +6

                @Bii:

                Any sources to show it's a false claim?

                Really? Reversing the onus of proof! If you make a claim, you need to be able to back it up, not demand anyone who queries the claim to provide evidence to the contrary.

                • Bii on 26/09/2023 - 01:04
                  -2

                  @DashCam AKA Rolts: It's still possible unless you can show it's a false claim.

                  How much do you agree with the privacy concerns of using social media like facebook etc? It's not a straight yes or no; you can always hear people talk about it. And how about home security cams? and how about the US base in Australia? Can they spy on Australians?

                  • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/09/2023 - 07:57

                    @Bii:

                    It's still possible unless you can show it's a false claim.

                    No-one has to show it's a false claim. You made an assertion, it's up to you to provide evidence that it's correct when challenged.

                    • Bii on 26/09/2023 - 08:29
                      -2

                      @DashCam AKA Rolts:

                      No-one has to show it's a false claim

                      You can, of course, if you have one.

                      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/09/2023 - 10:57

                        @Bii: Still trying the ol' reverse onus of proof? My primary school debate teams would be challenging you on that line.

                        I repeat: IF YOU MAKE A CLAIM, IT IS UP TO YOU TO PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR CLAIM IF CHALLENGED.

                        I don't have sufficient crayons to explain this to you any further.

                        • Bii on 26/09/2023 - 14:02
                          -1

                          @DashCam AKA Rolts: You and OP can choose not to provide proof. I only asked if there was one. I don't see anything wrong with that.

                          And I used the phrase "It's still possible". I don't see anything wrong either.

                          Reading this disccussion is more useful than replying to your off-topic "ol' reverse onus of proof" lol

                          • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/09/2023 - 14:48

                            @Bii:

                            You and OP can choose not to provide proof.

                            We don't have to, no obligation to provide proof. We're not the ones making a claim, you are. Asking someone who challenges your point to prove the contrary is correct is the definition of reverse onus of proof.

                            Easy.
                            Step 1. Make a claim.
                            Step 2. Get challenged.
                            Step 3. Provide proof or withdraw you claim.
                            Simples. That's how it works.

                            • Bii on 26/09/2023 - 15:41
                              -2

                              @DashCam AKA Rolts: Maybe you are confused with the word "can". It means ability or possibility and no obligation same as what you tried repeating.

                              Also, you keep repeating around the definition of "reverse onus" (very off-topic). I feel you try to relate it to some sort of shifting the burden, while I try to seek more findings from both sides.

                              The idea of giving more sources is to strengthen your statements despite you being the opposition.

                              NSA Can Reportedly Track Phones Even When They’re Turned Off - 2013
                              Can You Track Switched Off Phones? Apparently, NSA Can! - 2022

                              If you want to challenge this claim, you still need sources to support your points, otherwise, it's just your say (weak). That's my point.

                              • DashCam AKA Rolts on 26/09/2023 - 16:22

                                @Bii:

                                If you want to challenge this claim

                                Asking for proof of a claim is not taking the opposing view, then having to defending it.

                                • Bii on 26/09/2023 - 16:36
                                  -1

                                  @DashCam AKA Rolts: It's clear you have no point related to the original topic except to put more burden on the claimer.

        • HeWhoKnows on 27/09/2023 - 08:14
          -1

          Believe what you like but if you have inside information (not freely available) you will know this

    • Randolph Duke on 24/09/2023 - 15:27

      Hardly alone with non-replaceable batteries. Expect water resistant earrings to drop with this directive.

      • Harold Halfprice on 24/09/2023 - 17:05
        +5

        There are plenty of devices that have removable batteries or can be opened up that have excellent water resistance.

        There is no reason a phone can't have an accessible battery and retain water resistance.

      • banana365 on 25/09/2023 - 17:26

        The phone can be a higher protection level than the battery compartment. Even if some water gets in to the battery compartment, a battery shorted by water (even if it's sea water) isn't going to have significant damage if it's removed and dried out.

    • dealsucker on 25/09/2023 - 09:23
      -2

      And samsung and google and oppo and insert any manufacturers name of your choice. Most importantly, good luck samsung having replaceable batteries on folding phones keeping water resistance. I do not like governments meddling in technology. If they had any idea of technology, the lives of the citizen's would have been much better.

      • banana365 on 25/09/2023 - 17:35
        +1

        If governments didn't meddle in technology you'd have effectively no standards (or so many that they were irrelevant). Good luck getting a phone that works across the country and next to other electromagnetic emitting devices. Governments regulate that kind of thingvery strongly. What? You want something that lasts more than 6 months before you're forced to buy WonderPhone version X+1? Sorry mate, we stopped that government meddling in consumer rights and serviceability of devices. Somebody said they didn't like it so you're on the manufacturer driven treadmill of "upgrade to the latest colour before your old phone dies".

  • Bman17 on 22/09/2023 - 15:34
    +24

    Yes, as long as manufacturers don't have to compromise for water resistance / IP ratings.

    • boomramada on 22/09/2023 - 15:39
      +2

      They will argue on that.

      • scrimshaw on 22/09/2023 - 16:03
        +14

        The Samsung Galaxy S5 was water resistant (IP67) and had a removable battery.

        Well, so long as the gasket on the back cover held up. Once you've taken the back cover off a few times the rubber gasket isn't as reliable anymore.

        I believe the biggest compromise would be in fast charging capabilities and overall battery capacity — some phones utilize a dual-cell design which charges two batteries simultaneously.

        • boomramada on 22/09/2023 - 16:10

          Yeah but current generation phones are like IP68

          • rumblytangara on 22/09/2023 - 18:11
            +19

            @boomramada: I've somehow survived 15 years without water damaging a smartphone. What are people expecting to do these days with phones- bungee jump into rivers whilst taking selfies?

            • Aureus on 22/09/2023 - 18:21
              +17

              @rumblytangara: Do you not check if anyone has liked one of your posts while in the shower?

            • brendanm on 22/09/2023 - 18:44
              +7

              @rumblytangara: I've taken mine in my pocket to waterparks so I could get photos of my daughter when she was little playing in the water, same thing at the beach. I go boating/kayaking/etc, phones fall out of pockets etc, go in the water. Many other use cases. I suppose if you just sit inside 24/7 there isn't much need for it to be waterproof.

              • rumblytangara on 22/09/2023 - 18:50
                +8

                @brendanm: I've taken mine canyoneering, coastal seacliff traversing, and into Asian typhoons- double ziploc bags are amazing.

                I used to outrigger/surf ski, and regardless of how 'waterproof' a phone might claim to be, nobody would ever be foolish enough to depend on IP rating over an Otterbox or a waterpoof lanyard bag.

                • brendanm on 22/09/2023 - 18:54
                  +6

                  @rumblytangara: I didn't need any liploc bags though, and I could actually use the phone to take pictures while it was wet.

                  nobody would ever be foolish enough to depend on IP rating over an Otterbox or a waterpoof lanyard bag.

                  I happily do, all photos are backed up to the cloud.

            • gumbs on 23/09/2023 - 14:15
              +7

              @rumblytangara: My S10E spent 20 minute on the bottom of a pool.

              I kayak regularly and just use a lanyard.

              I wash my phone with tap water to clean it.

              I've put 2 old phones through the wash.

              I'm happy to pay extra for water proofing.

            • clover on 27/09/2023 - 19:14

              @rumblytangara: I have only put my first ever phone (sony erricson) into the laundry and it came out fine. :)

        • ssfps on 23/09/2023 - 00:23
          +6

          Well, so long as the gasket on the back cover held up. Once you've taken the back cover off a few times the rubber gasket isn't as reliable anymore.

          Can't speak for all of them, but my s5 survived 5 years of constant use and still survived a few water incidents without issues. The S5 is basically an ideal example that the water resistance argument is bullshit, and it's actually about size, manufacturing cost, or potentially just planned obsolescence.

        • Name on 24/09/2023 - 20:58
          +2

          The Samsung Xcover6 Pro has removable battery and IP68. It was released last year.

          https://www.samsung.com/au/business/smartphones/xcover/galax…

    • Drakesy on 22/09/2023 - 16:48
      +1

      They'll engineer a way through it. But it does pose a huge amount of warranty issues if the battery isn't securely sealed in etc. Likely would lost the IP ratings of many phones.
      I'm sure they'll get around it somehow and easily is open to interpretation. What's easy for a phone repair shop (a few torx screws) may not be easy for your average consumer.

      It does make sense given the slowdown in innovation in phones meaning they'll stay current for longer. I Went through 2 batteries on my iphone 6 before binning it, back when it was relatively easy to do yourself.

      S9+ and S22+ with IP ratings were cost prohibitive to do.

      • macrocephalic on 24/09/2023 - 11:53

        It seems pretty straightforward: just replace the glue with some screws. Maybe they could go back to plastic backs rather than glass.

        • joelmuzz on 25/09/2023 - 09:24
          -1

          The new law will require toolless replacement. So it has to be the clip-on system.
          Changing the raw cell isnt the requirement, it can be encapsulated in a housing.

          • wots on 25/09/2023 - 12:36

            @joelmuzz: "A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it"

      • joelmuzz on 25/09/2023 - 09:30
        +1

        The battery connection is just a few pins, a good design should seal the connectors off from the electronics even when submerged with the battery removed.
        And even wet connectors shouldnt cause a problem because a good design should detect the conductivity and cut the power to the pins (which is what the USBC plug does to stop damage if charged while wet).

    • HeWhoKnows on 23/09/2023 - 08:51
      +4

      Samsung Galaxy S5 had a removable battery and was water resistant so no problem.

      "With an IP67 rating, the S5 is completely sealed against dust contamination and can be immersed in liquid up to 1m deep for 30 minutes."

      beside water resistance is a furphy.
      See how many people have water damaged phones…hohum!

    • SlartiBartFozz on 23/09/2023 - 19:15

      the battery could be a plastic-coated, sealed block that just slots into the phone like laptop batteries used to have, there is no need to compromise on water/dust ratings, in fact it should enable doing away with the ports altogether, and make everything wireless (or would that be a breach of the EU rulings on USB-C compatibility?). Certainly getting rid of the SIM slot would improve the IP-rating issue, and moreso with phone without an SD-card slot (though I do love having that on my Moto G phone).

    • smartazz104 on 23/09/2023 - 20:01
      +1

      Or people can forget about showering with their phones.

    • CalmLemons on 23/09/2023 - 23:37

      They're figure it out. It's about time the phones went up a leap in technology.

      I wouldn't mind if they made them thicker , honestly they aren't comfortable to hold these days without the case anyway.

    • Sendthegoods on 24/09/2023 - 09:30

      Whilst it's nice to have, I would say only a small minority would benefit from any difference in water resistance and IP rating.
      Besides, it's 2023, if a multi million/billion cannot figure it out, I find that very hard to believe.

    • mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 16:17
      +6

      This sort of fear seems weird to me.
      If a better invention comes along, changing the law is just changing some words. The law isn’t some immutable mountain, if people want something changed, it will get changed.

      • trapper on 23/09/2023 - 11:52
        +2

        The law isn’t some immutable mountain

        lol

    • shxhshzhz on 22/09/2023 - 17:13
      +2

      iPhone 15, innovative…

    • bargaino on 22/09/2023 - 17:17
      +1

      When the law starts getting too specific,

      The law is very broad. The details are in regulations, which can be, and are, regularly updated as circumstances change. I think that is a false premise to your argument.

    • [Deactivated] on 22/09/2023 - 18:18

      But we should not kid ourselves that it won't block some technical advances. It will stifle innovation of exactly the sort Apple has built its business on.

      You'd think so at first, but no. These type of batteries are basically a strip of dielectric material soaked with a conductive electrolyte, laid onto a second strip of metallic material like foil, that are then wrapped into whatever shape is required. To make them thin all they do is wrap them into a flat rectangle as wide as the phone itself less the width of the outer shell, and make the shell pop off with reusable tabs much like phone cases already do. The battery and its access can then be a drag-and-drop affair in software between models - no need to ever change it again.

      I'm not sure what "something better" could be, unless you're referring to nuclear batteries. If that happens there won't be a need for replaceable batteries and doors anymore, because the owners will be long dead before their little nuclear power plant depletes its radioactive material.

      Btw… Without going to those nuclear batteries, the "next generation of batteries" is going to be of the very same construction. Only the materials used will change. They could use capacitors instead but they too are constructed that same way.

    • rumblytangara on 22/09/2023 - 19:02
      +1

      But we should not kid ourselves that it won't block some technical advances. It will stifle innovation of exactly the sort Apple has built its business on. Apple cites the example of requiring the use of USB-C. That stops moving to something better.

      If that kind of 'stifling' meant that we still had audio jacks on portable devices, or 1K electronics that could be repaired cost effectively instead of becoming landfill, then I am all for it.

    • ssfps on 23/09/2023 - 00:29
      +2

      It will stifle innovation of exactly the sort Apple has built its business on

      LOL
      Apple is foremost a fashion company, tech R&D is secondary.

      The only thing it risks stifling is the sleek fashionable seamless unibody design.

    • OZKap on 23/09/2023 - 13:09
      +9

      Apple cites the example of requiring the use of USB-C. That stops moving to something better.

      Apple who were using USB 2.0 spec "lightning" cables in their flagship phones until they were dragged kicking and screaming to use USB C. If anyone was stifling Innovation it's apple

      • morebunnings on 23/09/2023 - 22:58
        +3

        And they only implemented USB 3.2 (10gbit) on the 15 pro. The regular 15 and 15 plus have a USB C port, but only a USB 2.0 (480mbit) interface.

        • OZKap on 24/09/2023 - 10:08

          Oh man, that's so apple.

          • Randolph Duke on 24/09/2023 - 15:29

            @OZKap: When was the last time you plugged your phone in to transfer/restore anything? I honestly can’t remember, would be a few years.

      • capslock janitor on 24/09/2023 - 17:45
        +1

        If anyone was stifling Innovation it's apple

        Let's not forget about Intel (PRE-AMD comeback) now

      • zyj494949 on 25/09/2023 - 11:06
        +1

        Not sure who care the transfer speed… I haven't use the port to transfer any data in so many years. It's cool to have type c to charge as one less cable to carry when travel.

    • cycleri3 on 24/09/2023 - 22:54
      +1

      What innovation? that you must dispose off your airpods once battery degrades because their battery isn't replaceable, not even by apple?

    • joelmuzz on 25/09/2023 - 09:46

      USBC isnt locked in forever, they will do the same process with 5 years notice when a better option is proposed.
      Which may not happen until the magnet connectors are out of patent or there is some new non corroding superconducting connector pin material or near-lossless inductive coupling.

      The USBC rule doesnt stop inductive charging either. If they have a charge plug then USBC must be one of the options provided, but they dont have to have any plug at all.
      Which is where I expect Apple to go over the next few years. They are already doing the MagSafe powerbank and a line of desk chargers all using the magnetic clip inductive charging.

    • coffeeinmyveins on 25/09/2023 - 09:47

      It will stifle innovation of exactly the sort Apple has built its business on

      ah yes, apple, the innovators of the century.

      "Here's a new phone, with a USB-C cable" oooooooooo so innovative!

      it can stop businesses and industries doing things a lot better

      You do realise you're defending a company with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash here, right? They can innovate mate. They will do as little as they need to to make billions.

  • Muzeeb on 22/09/2023 - 15:50
    +6

    a easily replaceable battery

    an easily replaceable battery

    • ihfree on 22/09/2023 - 15:51
      +1

      fixed.

    • GordonD on 22/09/2023 - 15:52

      You missed the fact the title has a different grammatical error in the same words.

      • ihfree on 22/09/2023 - 15:53
        +1

        Fixed. Grammarly is clearly a bit slow today.

        • [Deactivated] on 22/09/2023 - 18:00
          +6

          So YOU'RE the one that uses it!

  • JimB on 22/09/2023 - 16:15
    +2

    I agree in theory, but that would means phones will be bigger and/or compromise waterproofing.

    • mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 16:19
      +6

      Does it, though? There are already waterproof buttons, charge ports and speakers, why would the battery be any different. And if you could have a spare for when you needed it in your glovebox or desk, maybe manufacturers could make even thinner phones.

      • JimB on 22/09/2023 - 16:36
        -3

        but every time you replace one of those items or screens, you compromise the waterproofing because they are permanently sealed with sealant.

        It is what it is.

        • mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 16:40
          +9

          Do you compromise the water proofing every time you charge the phone with a cable? it is obviously possible to design a waterproof connector that allows power transfer, so just make the phone like that where the battery connects, and make the battery like that where it connects to the phone. So you have two water proof items, one a phone, one a battery, each with a water proof connector.

          • JimB on 22/09/2023 - 16:49

            @mskeggs: I suggest you patent the idea and make a motza.

            • mskeggs on 22/09/2023 - 16:57

              @JimB: I think I already had a feature phone in the early 2000s that did that.

          • callum9999 on 23/09/2023 - 12:28

            @mskeggs: Obviously it's "possible", but how certain are you that it's possible to design a waterproof connector and a waterproof battery that isn't any bigger than the existing technology?

            I'm fully in support of this legislation, but I don't see how you can guarantee that technology can be developed without compromising on size. It seems weird they wouldn't already be doing that if it's as easy as you imply.

            • mskeggs on 23/09/2023 - 12:35

              @callum9999: I think the trick is not the connector, but being able to eliminate water from the area where the battery sits against the phone body. This is a pretty big flat area that would not dry out if some water seeped into the seam, and might provide a source for corrosion.
              The openings on current phones are all small and exposed, so that they can effectively dry out if they get wet, but if you imagine you left a charger cable plugged in, it might take a long time for any water trapped in the port to dry out.

              It depends if the goal is ‘replaceable’ like a watch battery where you replace it only at the end of life, so adding a 5 cent replacement rubber gasket is no big deal, or “swappable” where a user is able to swap batteries every day.
              I think both would be possible, but swappable would be harder.

              • callum9999 on 23/09/2023 - 18:39

                @mskeggs: And they achieve that by sealing the phones. The entire point of this was that when you make the back removable, you lose that security and then have to rely on things like rubber seals remaining effective. Something you cannot easily see or measure until the phone is submerged - at which point it's too late.

                It doesn't particularly matter if the external charging port gets corroded, the problem is the water damaging the sensitive electronics within the phone.

                They'd focus on the former as, despite people on here saying they'd love to do it, I cannot imagine people carrying spare batteries around with them. I did when I was a teenager, but cheap and ubiquitous power-banks make that a bit redundant. And I don't think you'd necessarily be able to fit removable "rubber gaskets" inside a lot of phones - there's really no space at all inside a modern phone. There is nothing at all stopping this being technically possible, I merely said I don't think you can necessarily dismiss a fear that it will either make the phone bigger or reduce the number of them getting water/dust proof certification.

                • mskeggs on 23/09/2023 - 19:04
                  +1

                  @callum9999: But it isn’t an unknown problem - even in the 70s dive watches had batteries replaced with new gaskets and a pressure test (where they dunk a watch in water in a little fish tank negative pressurised with a hand pump like a bike pump to see if any bubbles emerge around the gasket so they can test water proof with no water getting in to the mechanism).
                  There is no need for new tech to solve replacing a battery at the end of its life.

                  • callum9999 on 24/09/2023 - 00:41

                    @mskeggs: I think you keep mis-framing the problem.

                    No-one has claimed it isn't technically possible, they're questioning whether it's technically possible within a shell that is already jammed pack with zero free space.

                    • joelmuzz on 25/09/2023 - 11:50

                      @callum9999: More space opens up as the electronics get more compact year by year. Phone internals in 4 years will be more compact than today so they wont get bigger vs todays phones.
                      They might also shrink the base model battery, since they wont be bound by "one size fits all" battery requirement anymore. So overall thinner despite battery pack mechanisms, unless you choose the 10,000mAh fat pack.

                      I could see inductive coupling winning, the phone currently contains a lot of inductors for the multiple supply voltages which are both step-up and step-down but the whole power circuit could be replaced by multiple split transformers between the battery pack and the screen, make the coupling part of the power circuit not just the raw battery voltage. The more precise the fit between the two transformer halves the more efficient. Heaps of potential for innovation.

                      In 4 years the phone itself may be a 4mm fully sealed sliver of glass/plastic which clips/magnets onto a battery pack/case sold seperately. I could see manufacturers being happy to let third party market provide battery packs because they carry so much risk (the exploding Samsungs disaster for example).

                      • callum9999 on 25/09/2023 - 14:49

                        @joelmuzz: While I'm not sure I fully buy that, "won't be bigger than today's phones" does not mean the same thing as "won't be bigger". There isn't a "one size fits all battery requirement"? There's nothing stopping a manufacturer producing model variations with bigger batteries?

                        I have no idea what you mean with this paragraph (not necessarily because it's wrong - it's probably more likely me not understanding how internal power circuits currently work!)

                        Maybe, but that seems incredibly unlikely. Likewise, it seems incredibly unlikely manufacturers actively want third parties to make and sell the batteries for their phones. Again - there's nothing stopping them from doing that already (and they specifically stopped it happening in the past - when this was common - by making batteries non-removable!).

      • [Deactivated] on 22/09/2023 - 18:25
        +4

        Exactly. The method of swapping a battery could be as simple as the rear case separates off, so new batteries will come as a "kit" with a new waterproof gasket. Much like removing/replacing the rear plate on dive watches.

    • gumbs on 23/09/2023 - 14:25
      +1

      Does it though?

      It doesn't say they need to be hot swappable. It also doesn't say tool less. It just says user replaceable.

      There's nothing stopping the phone back being held on by Phillips head screws, and having a single use gasket tohat is supplied with the battery.

      It just means no glueing the phone together and requiring heats pads and a pry tool to seperate a piece of rear glass from the frame to get to the battery and most importantly no voiding warranty for paying a third party to replace a battery.

      This law is long over due.

      Hopefully the next stage is current monitoring being legislated so you clearly prove that the 2 weekly security updates intentionally slowly up CPU demand so the batteries drop down to 4 hours screen on time by 2 years even if they're brand new.

    • SlartiBartFozz on 23/09/2023 - 19:20

      If you substitute the USB port with a battery slot, the waterproofing could be significantly improved. Just pull the battery out a swap it with a fresh wirelessly-charged one or put the device with battery on the wireless charger, the USB cable might become redundant if they can find a way to connect data through the Qi wireless connection.

      • macrocephalic on 24/09/2023 - 16:48
        +1

        That's a good idea: just make the battery have a maule USB on one end and a female USB on the other, and you clip it on the phone. Then you can make a bigger one, or daisy chain them, or use the device without a battery plugged in.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join