The news articles I’ve read all say without tools, so we have the EU forcing phone designs that are 27% thicker with reduced IP78 ratings for what?
The better solution is manufacturers to provide detailed guides on their websites about how to change a battery, provide genuine replacement parts for 5 - 10 years for a reasonable price and not cancel warranty coverage if a user replaces a battery.
As I’ve said before Right To Repair is very important, changing laws to force phones back to the early 2000s with pop-off back covers and people carrying spare batteries around is a waste of time.
The problem is, under the current model battery repairs are prohibitively difficult for most people. The amount of effort it takes to open a phone, remove the glue safely, and swap out the battery, as well as the amount of ambiguity and complexity in the process is enough for most people to nope out and instead just go with the manufacturer approved solution of buying a new phone and tossing the old one. Which is exactly what the EU aims to prevent.
A phone that’s 27% thicker, which is still just 2mm (alright, 2.1mm… we’re really splitting hairs here) is well worth it for sustainability. And ensuring people actually replace their batteries is about more than just making the option available, you need to make it easy to use. Apple itself showed it time and time again that people vastly prefer things that are easy to use than “better” alternatives that you can technically use for the same purpose.
Besides, we’re talking about the same company here that forced people to use wireless headphones by taking out the jack, forced faceid on people by taking out the fingerprint reader, and on and on. And all of these changes were heralded as positive and forward-looking things by the userbase. So why is that so, but when the EU tries to do something like that, it’s not even a bad thing?
And again, no one is forcing Apple to adopt the same system as the Xcover6. An engineering goal has been given to them, it’s up to them how they accomplish it.
It’s $99 for an official battery replacement from Apple and less from phone shops. Offical swap in batteries would be what $60? Maybe more. $40 - $50 labour is reasonable.
I’m against low repairability scores and glued in batteries and am arguing that a middle ground can exist where batteries are reasonably easy to replace and we don’t end up with pop off back covers. Which make phones 27% thicker and lower IP ratings.
We are going in circles, so are likely better off leaving it here.
And I’m saying that toolless repairability (if that’s even actually mandated) doesn’t require phones to have lower IP ratings or disruptive thickness. The difference between the Xcover6’s 1.5m for 60 minutes and the iPhone 14’s 6m for 60 minutes is already marginal at best, and the Xcover6 is not engineered to be a thin phone, Samsung obviously doesn’t want it to eat into their S23 or A54 sales.
I trust that Apple would be able to engineer a phone exactly to your desires even with the mandate present, they just currently have no incentive to do so. They are, however, very much incentivized to enforce device failures, put disposable components in devices that are extremely hard to dispose of, and push people towards buying electronics at a higher frequency than necessary through exorbitant repair costs and discouraging self repair. Once those incentives flip around, you’ll see some awesome phones from them even with the design goals – unless they just throw a temper tantrum because they don’t like being pushed around.
The Fairphone 5, arriving this year, is already going to be significantly thinner, while sacrificing nothing of the repairability. (Which includes a lot more than just a pop off back, it also has a removable screen, as opposed to having the whole phone built on the screen.) And it’s not hard to add some o-rings. If a small company can figure this out while having to stay price-competitive while also being constrained by the low volume and the fair trade materials that are more expensive due to the smaller market and the audits for human rights violations, then it should be a walk in the park for Apple with their resources.
9.9mm - 7.8mm = 2.1mm
2.1mm extra on a 7.8mm device is 27% thicker!
The news articles I’ve read all say without tools, so we have the EU forcing phone designs that are 27% thicker with reduced IP78 ratings for what?
The better solution is manufacturers to provide detailed guides on their websites about how to change a battery, provide genuine replacement parts for 5 - 10 years for a reasonable price and not cancel warranty coverage if a user replaces a battery.
As I’ve said before Right To Repair is very important, changing laws to force phones back to the early 2000s with pop-off back covers and people carrying spare batteries around is a waste of time.
The problem is, under the current model battery repairs are prohibitively difficult for most people. The amount of effort it takes to open a phone, remove the glue safely, and swap out the battery, as well as the amount of ambiguity and complexity in the process is enough for most people to nope out and instead just go with the manufacturer approved solution of buying a new phone and tossing the old one. Which is exactly what the EU aims to prevent.
A phone that’s 27% thicker, which is still just 2mm (alright, 2.1mm… we’re really splitting hairs here) is well worth it for sustainability. And ensuring people actually replace their batteries is about more than just making the option available, you need to make it easy to use. Apple itself showed it time and time again that people vastly prefer things that are easy to use than “better” alternatives that you can technically use for the same purpose.
Besides, we’re talking about the same company here that forced people to use wireless headphones by taking out the jack, forced faceid on people by taking out the fingerprint reader, and on and on. And all of these changes were heralded as positive and forward-looking things by the userbase. So why is that so, but when the EU tries to do something like that, it’s not even a bad thing?
And again, no one is forcing Apple to adopt the same system as the Xcover6. An engineering goal has been given to them, it’s up to them how they accomplish it.
It’s $99 for an official battery replacement from Apple and less from phone shops. Offical swap in batteries would be what $60? Maybe more. $40 - $50 labour is reasonable.
I’m against low repairability scores and glued in batteries and am arguing that a middle ground can exist where batteries are reasonably easy to replace and we don’t end up with pop off back covers. Which make phones 27% thicker and lower IP ratings.
We are going in circles, so are likely better off leaving it here.
And I’m saying that toolless repairability (if that’s even actually mandated) doesn’t require phones to have lower IP ratings or disruptive thickness. The difference between the Xcover6’s 1.5m for 60 minutes and the iPhone 14’s 6m for 60 minutes is already marginal at best, and the Xcover6 is not engineered to be a thin phone, Samsung obviously doesn’t want it to eat into their S23 or A54 sales.
I trust that Apple would be able to engineer a phone exactly to your desires even with the mandate present, they just currently have no incentive to do so. They are, however, very much incentivized to enforce device failures, put disposable components in devices that are extremely hard to dispose of, and push people towards buying electronics at a higher frequency than necessary through exorbitant repair costs and discouraging self repair. Once those incentives flip around, you’ll see some awesome phones from them even with the design goals – unless they just throw a temper tantrum because they don’t like being pushed around.
The Fairphone 5, arriving this year, is already going to be significantly thinner, while sacrificing nothing of the repairability. (Which includes a lot more than just a pop off back, it also has a removable screen, as opposed to having the whole phone built on the screen.) And it’s not hard to add some o-rings. If a small company can figure this out while having to stay price-competitive while also being constrained by the low volume and the fair trade materials that are more expensive due to the smaller market and the audits for human rights violations, then it should be a walk in the park for Apple with their resources.