7 ms·

> There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the b

by cle 6y ago

> There's absolutely no reason for not making user-replaceable batteries other than planned obsolescence Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the benefits of controlling the quality of batteries that are put in the devices. I agree with your sentiment, but it doesn’t help to pretend like there aren’t benefits to supply chain control. Just look at Amazon.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Even genuine batteries fail, if your device can't cope (eg shutdown) with batteries with low current/voltage then it's defective. Then it's a case of testing the battery is providing the right current/voltage and continuing. iPhones at least can cope with defective batteries, by throttling the processor, so presumably other companies can do the same and just not try to hide it from users.
arcticbull 6y ago
There is no reason to make that supply chain control mandatory. If I want to risk a third party battery on my phone that’s my business is it not? It’s my phone, it’s my third party battery.
- 542458 6y ago
  I think the concern is less about “people with DIY skills making informed tradeoffs” and more about “sketchy repair places using poor quality or dangerous batteries”. Then somebody’s phone catches fire on a plane and becomes a PR trainwreck for the phone manufacturer. I also support right to repair, but I think we should be realistic about the objections and concerns the opposition has.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    We've had replaceable batteries for decades prior, and the only time there was a PR nightmare over phones catching fire was when Samsung itself supplied phones with faulty batteries that caught fire . Otherwise i have never come across a story of this happening, so it seems lime a fantasy scenario thats just used as a talking point.
    - canofbars 6y ago
      There have been a lot of stories about iphone chargers catching fire and it ends up being some $1 ali express charger. I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Fun fact, a company has no right to good PR. You're welcome to champion an effort to put a "right to good PR" into law, while the rest of us champion right to repair. Don't you think it would be better to, for instance, regulate dangerous components instead of preventing me from repairing the device that I own with parts I procure? Wouldn't the world be better off if all parts were good, instead of if companies had the right to look good at all times?
        542458 6y ago
        Sure. And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. As such, we are discussing new legislation for this ‘right to repair’ where (as with all new legislation) the wants of various parties are relevant because it affects the ability of that legislation to get passed. You can argue that the wants of multi billion dollar corporations should be irrelevant, but the current political system nonetheless allows their option to carry weight.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        > And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. Which is why I'm advocating right to repair legislation, not right to good PR legislation. With reference to GP: "I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair." I find it really strange when individuals, against their own interests, advocate for the "rights" of a giant multi-trillion dollar company. Especially silly ones like Apple's right to look good. They can advocate for themselves. Let's look out for us, and let them look out for them. They've already paid lobbyists and lawyers to do so -- why do it for free?
- judge2020 6y ago
  What if the corner repair store does it? It's still the user's problem, but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    > but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year. The user chose to go to a non-Apple certified store. After that, there is no warranty and Apple is no longer responsible.
    - Bud 6y ago
      Except we don't live in Fantasy World. Here in the Real World, Apple is responsible and would be held responsible and would suffer reputation damage if a device exploded, regardless of details that might be reported later about whether a substandard part or non-Apple repair caused it.
    - R0b0t1 6y ago
      Apple must prove any damage happened because of the third party battery or its installation. I know you're probably assuming the battery is bad or explodes, but the nuance is important as the manufacturer warranty and their obligation to sell working devices is not abrogated by repairing it yourself.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    My right to be able to swap out batteries on devices is more important than Apple's reputation.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- bleepblorp 6y ago
  I agree 100% with regard to most components but there needs to be a balance with regard to unregulated hazardous parts, such as li-ion batteries. If your phone explodes in your hand because of something you did to the phone, then that's your problem. If you happen to be on an airliner at the time, however, your exploding phone is suddenly the problem of everyone else on the airliner and everyone the airliner will fall on if it crashes. Similarly, if you're hiking in wildfire season and your phone explodes, that exploding phone is the problem of everyone in the surrounding area. Further, not everyone who might want to use a third-party battery will have the know-how to appreciate these risks or appreciate that the civil liability from starting a wildfire will vastly exceed the amount of insurance coverage they could buy. The public needs some degree of protection against these kinds of risks because it's not reasonable to expect average people to understand the full implications of buying a cheaper battery. It's not in the public interest to have widely-used consumer products randomly exploding, which is why people aren't generally allowed to do things like manufacture their own propane cylinders or gasoline cans. Large lithium batteries are similarly hazardous and should be treated similarly. I think the ideal solution would be something along the lines of a right to repair combined with mandatory safety standards for lithium batteries. There wouldn't be as much of a safety issue if both OEM and 3rd party batteries were required to pass the same requirements and testing.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Weve had replaceable batteries on laptops and phones for decades, and that was fine somehow. Has either of these scenarios ever happened? The wildlife scenario is particularly fantastical - people have campfires, they carry gas stoves, torches, guns, drones, cameras (with replaceable batteries!), candles, bikes, and hundreds of other things far more dangerous.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Just another point -> "Anyone in the UK can start a car repair business without needing a certain level of experience or expertise. This is completely legal" In most places you can repair your own car, buy parts, change breaks, Pour any liquid you want into the petrol tank, or the motor oil compartment. Imagine how dangerous that is! And people sit here making up contrived scenarios "what if you repair your iphone battery, and then eat the old iphone battery! While on a plane! With a gas leak! With kids nearby!"
benologist 6y ago
Can't they control the quality of external or replaceable batteries in exactly the same way?
cyphar 6y ago
This seems like a reasonable point, until you note that Apple explicitly forbids their manufacturers from selling genuine batteries to anyone. If the issue was simply that Apple didn't want their brand to be tarnished due to low quality third party batteries, they could do what Samsung does and provide public access to their manufacturers so anyone can buy genuine parts.
- valuearb 6y ago
  This is a legit complaint, but none else is. Apple makes better products for their customers by using glue and integrated batteries. Right to repair should exist, but not at the expense of forcing design changes.
  - canofbars 6y ago
    The glue does not make better products. For ages macbooks used a plastic bracket to hold the battery down but now they use glue thats insanely hard to remove. The Dell XPS is a great example of why this is not needed, the battery is still fixed in place with screws and a bracket and the ram is removable while the laptop is slightly thinner than a macbook pro.
    - selectodude 6y ago
      The 15" MacBook Pro went from a 50 watt-hour removable battery to a 77.5 watt-hour plastic bracket battery to a 99.5 watt-hour glued in battery (in a thinner chassis). Dell is putting an 86 watt-hour battery in their current XPS 15. You may not like what Apple is getting out of gluing in their fragile batteries but I certainly appreciate getting as much battery that can be crammed into the laptop using any means necessary in lieu of having an easier time swapping the battery once every three years (which Apple will do for me for basically the cost of a new battery).
    - valuearb 6y ago
      I’ve dropped so many MacBooks and never had one break. I’m betting that super hard to remove glue has something to do with it.
alacombe 6y ago
> Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the benefits of controlling the quality of batteries that are put in the devices. Nobody's barring Apple / John Deere to provide the replacement parts.
indymike 6y ago
You don't have to solder and glue batteries to control what gets put in the device. Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice.
- cle 6y ago
  > Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice. This is a completely separate issue—I don’t know Apple’s rationale for this practice. The issue we’re talking about is whether there are reasons to do it at all, and I still think there are obvious benefits for customers to making it difficult to put defective or dangerous batteries in their devices. (Just to reiterate, as a technical consumer I’d prefer to be able to swap batteries myself. But I get the tradeoffs that Apple is making, and whether they make sense or not for a given company is a complicated decision that I don’t feel qualified to judge.)

by cle 6y ago

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Even genuine batteries fail, if your device can't cope (eg shutdown) with batteries with low current/voltage then it's defective. Then it's a case of testing the battery is providing the right current/voltage and continuing. iPhones at least can cope with defective batteries, by throttling the processor, so presumably other companies can do the same and just not try to hide it from users.

arcticbull 6y ago

There is no reason to make that supply chain control mandatory. If I want to risk a third party battery on my phone that’s my business is it not? It’s my phone, it’s my third party battery.

542458 6y ago
I think the concern is less about “people with DIY skills making informed tradeoffs” and more about “sketchy repair places using poor quality or dangerous batteries”. Then somebody’s phone catches fire on a plane and becomes a PR trainwreck for the phone manufacturer. I also support right to repair, but I think we should be realistic about the objections and concerns the opposition has.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  We've had replaceable batteries for decades prior, and the only time there was a PR nightmare over phones catching fire was when Samsung itself supplied phones with faulty batteries that caught fire . Otherwise i have never come across a story of this happening, so it seems lime a fantasy scenario thats just used as a talking point.
  - canofbars 6y ago
    There have been a lot of stories about iphone chargers catching fire and it ends up being some $1 ali express charger. I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Fun fact, a company has no right to good PR. You're welcome to champion an effort to put a "right to good PR" into law, while the rest of us champion right to repair. Don't you think it would be better to, for instance, regulate dangerous components instead of preventing me from repairing the device that I own with parts I procure? Wouldn't the world be better off if all parts were good, instead of if companies had the right to look good at all times?
      - 542458 6y ago
        Sure. And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. As such, we are discussing new legislation for this ‘right to repair’ where (as with all new legislation) the wants of various parties are relevant because it affects the ability of that legislation to get passed. You can argue that the wants of multi billion dollar corporations should be irrelevant, but the current political system nonetheless allows their option to carry weight.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        > And while a company has no right to good PR, you currently also have no right to support from manufacturers when repairing products you own. Which is why I'm advocating right to repair legislation, not right to good PR legislation. With reference to GP: "I still think a companies right to good PR is lower priority than right to repair." I find it really strange when individuals, against their own interests, advocate for the "rights" of a giant multi-trillion dollar company. Especially silly ones like Apple's right to look good. They can advocate for themselves. Let's look out for us, and let them look out for them. They've already paid lobbyists and lawyers to do so -- why do it for free?
judge2020 6y ago
What if the corner repair store does it? It's still the user's problem, but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year.
- Shared404 6y ago
  > but this time it's just because they went to a non-Apple store/non-Apple certified store. If the battery is defective, that becomes Apple's problem when it swells, starts smoking, or has 50% capacity within a year. The user chose to go to a non-Apple certified store. After that, there is no warranty and Apple is no longer responsible.
  - Bud 6y ago
    Except we don't live in Fantasy World. Here in the Real World, Apple is responsible and would be held responsible and would suffer reputation damage if a device exploded, regardless of details that might be reported later about whether a substandard part or non-Apple repair caused it.
  - R0b0t1 6y ago
    Apple must prove any damage happened because of the third party battery or its installation. I know you're probably assuming the battery is bad or explodes, but the nuance is important as the manufacturer warranty and their obligation to sell working devices is not abrogated by repairing it yourself.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  My right to be able to swap out batteries on devices is more important than Apple's reputation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bleepblorp 6y ago
I agree 100% with regard to most components but there needs to be a balance with regard to unregulated hazardous parts, such as li-ion batteries. If your phone explodes in your hand because of something you did to the phone, then that's your problem. If you happen to be on an airliner at the time, however, your exploding phone is suddenly the problem of everyone else on the airliner and everyone the airliner will fall on if it crashes. Similarly, if you're hiking in wildfire season and your phone explodes, that exploding phone is the problem of everyone in the surrounding area. Further, not everyone who might want to use a third-party battery will have the know-how to appreciate these risks or appreciate that the civil liability from starting a wildfire will vastly exceed the amount of insurance coverage they could buy. The public needs some degree of protection against these kinds of risks because it's not reasonable to expect average people to understand the full implications of buying a cheaper battery. It's not in the public interest to have widely-used consumer products randomly exploding, which is why people aren't generally allowed to do things like manufacture their own propane cylinders or gasoline cans. Large lithium batteries are similarly hazardous and should be treated similarly. I think the ideal solution would be something along the lines of a right to repair combined with mandatory safety standards for lithium batteries. There wouldn't be as much of a safety issue if both OEM and 3rd party batteries were required to pass the same requirements and testing.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Weve had replaceable batteries on laptops and phones for decades, and that was fine somehow. Has either of these scenarios ever happened? The wildlife scenario is particularly fantastical - people have campfires, they carry gas stoves, torches, guns, drones, cameras (with replaceable batteries!), candles, bikes, and hundreds of other things far more dangerous.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Just another point -> "Anyone in the UK can start a car repair business without needing a certain level of experience or expertise. This is completely legal" In most places you can repair your own car, buy parts, change breaks, Pour any liquid you want into the petrol tank, or the motor oil compartment. Imagine how dangerous that is! And people sit here making up contrived scenarios "what if you repair your iphone battery, and then eat the old iphone battery! While on a plane! With a gas leak! With kids nearby!"

benologist 6y ago

Can't they control the quality of external or replaceable batteries in exactly the same way?

cyphar 6y ago

This seems like a reasonable point, until you note that Apple explicitly forbids their manufacturers from selling genuine batteries to anyone. If the issue was simply that Apple didn't want their brand to be tarnished due to low quality third party batteries, they could do what Samsung does and provide public access to their manufacturers so anyone can buy genuine parts.

valuearb 6y ago
This is a legit complaint, but none else is. Apple makes better products for their customers by using glue and integrated batteries. Right to repair should exist, but not at the expense of forcing design changes.
- canofbars 6y ago
  The glue does not make better products. For ages macbooks used a plastic bracket to hold the battery down but now they use glue thats insanely hard to remove. The Dell XPS is a great example of why this is not needed, the battery is still fixed in place with screws and a bracket and the ram is removable while the laptop is slightly thinner than a macbook pro.
  - selectodude 6y ago
    The 15" MacBook Pro went from a 50 watt-hour removable battery to a 77.5 watt-hour plastic bracket battery to a 99.5 watt-hour glued in battery (in a thinner chassis). Dell is putting an 86 watt-hour battery in their current XPS 15. You may not like what Apple is getting out of gluing in their fragile batteries but I certainly appreciate getting as much battery that can be crammed into the laptop using any means necessary in lieu of having an easier time swapping the battery once every three years (which Apple will do for me for basically the cost of a new battery).
  - valuearb 6y ago
    I’ve dropped so many MacBooks and never had one break. I’m betting that super hard to remove glue has something to do with it.

alacombe 6y ago

> Come on, it doesn’t take much effort to think of the benefits of controlling the quality of batteries that are put in the devices. Nobody's barring Apple / John Deere to provide the replacement parts.

indymike 6y ago

You don't have to solder and glue batteries to control what gets put in the device. Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice.

cle 6y ago
> Supply chain control has zero to do with this practice. This is a completely separate issue—I don’t know Apple’s rationale for this practice. The issue we’re talking about is whether there are reasons to do it at all, and I still think there are obvious benefits for customers to making it difficult to put defective or dangerous batteries in their devices. (Just to reiterate, as a technical consumer I’d prefer to be able to swap batteries myself. But I get the tradeoffs that Apple is making, and whether they make sense or not for a given company is a complicated decision that I don’t feel qualified to judge.)