- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Title is incorrect. Glue is still allowed under this law as long as it doesn’t require heat to take apart the device.
Also waterproof devices don’t need to have user replaceable batteries. They need to be replaceable but by a professional.
So this essentially means that Apple can just keep making phones the way they always have, and have you go to the “professionals” at the Apple Store to replace your battery?
It essentially means that anyone can just keep making phones like that. Personally I’d take IP67/IP68 over “user replaceable battery” any day as it still can be replaced but to me watertightness is one of the most important features for such device. I already had two “waterproof” phones with replaceable battery but both were leaking water inside (Galaxy S5 and Motorola Defy).
Indeed it does.
Best tech news I’ve heard in a long time, the current phones designed to last only a few years are such a ridiculous waste.
It’s amazing to me how many people have been convinced that sealed-in batteries are somehow necessary for waterproofing, given the array of electronics, like watches, that have been around for a long time with both waterproofing and replaceable batteries.
I dunno if that’s exactly comparable. Yes, you’re technically correct…but then we should expect phones to either be thicker or have smaller battery capacity to compensate. That’s probably a fine trade-off for you (and probably for me), but that’s not universally true.
Personally, I think ‘form factor’ is another silly argument.
Add a few mm in thickness in return for a device that lasts many years longer? That’s an obvious benefit to the consumer (imo) and an easy way to reduce electronic waste.
Moreover, these paper-thin phones need big, sturdy cases to prevent bending in the pocket, so why not build a sturdier phone, and attach a thinner case, for the same resultant thickness?
To me, these are flimsy excuses the c-suite uses to justify unjustifiable levels of planned obsolescence, and the accompanying profit margins.
My preference is that I don’t care about waterproofing. I don’t take my phone underwater and I’ve never dropped any phone in water, thankfully.
I would much rather have an easily replaceable battery, so I can keep my phone going for years.
deleted by creator
It probably boils down to what costs the most, making a universal model for everywhere, or making a European model and a separate “screw you” model for the rest of the world.
deleted by creator
I think it might probably cheaper to make two different devices anyways, since we wouldn’t be in this planned obsolescence mess otherwise. I.e. people might start to buy new phones every 4-5 years instead of every 1-2 years, if they can easily replace the battery.
I mean. I’m not talking about the actual cost of making the device but rather the total cost. Ie the cost to their bottom line.
The cheapest would probably be to make a single device with a replaceable battery, and weld the battery in place outside of Europe, but that would probably be so blatant that they would get in trouble.
Hopefully it’ll be seen as a marketing strategy in NA and premium phones would have the ability to change batteries. Once that happens the market will shift.
