4 ms·
Overdue for sure. I wonder if there could be unintended side effects, I can’t think of any…
by netfl0 5y ago
Overdue for sure. I wonder if there could be unintended side effects, I can’t think of any…
- judge2020 5y agoDepending on what it actually does, we can predict side effects by imagining it was in place 10 years ago. What if the Apple Watch required a user-replaceable battery? Would the design have changed demonstrably to accommodate this design restriction?
- netfl0 5y agoIn that case it would probably affect water resistance.
- lizardactivist 5y agoImportant to note here is that when it comes to household gadgets and personal electronics, not everything needs to be engineered to have water resistance like a diver's watch. Making sure something survives splashes or a minute at the bottom of the swimming pool will be enough to keep most of these things working.
- user_7832 5y agoWater resistance was my first thought as well, however I suspect a company with the R&D budget of Apple could likely find a way. The small dimensions of the watch might be a problem, but for phones I'm fairly certain it can be done. For a while companies like Motorola were selling nano-repellent (essentially hydrophobic) coating phones and calling them splash proof. You could easily design a gasket or something, existing waterproof phones already have parts that open for eg the sim card or microsd slot (which are gasketed).
- everdrive 5y agoI've got an IP-68 (or whatever is waterproof) phone with a user-replaceable batter. It effectively has weather stripping along the battery door, and uses a screw to keep it tight. It's cheap, simple, and effective. (and no, it's not a smart phone)
- choko 5y agoSo this would impact big players less, leaving startups in a more difficult position. That's regressive.
- Tams80 5y agoIf they want to design, manufacture, and sell rugged devices, then they should shoulder the costs. If they don't want to, then they can make something less rugged. No excuses for resource waste and pollution.
- endemic 5y agoHaven’t we had water resistant watches for quite a long time already?
- schwartzworld 5y agoWhy? There are children's water toys that take batteries and do a fine job keeping the water out of the compartment.
- throwmeariver1 5y agoMy water-resistant watches with user replaceable batteries beg to differ. I bet the margin wouldn't be as high but it would certainly be doable from an engineering point of view.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cesaref 5y agoCheap quartz watches have been waterproof since whenever, and all have replaceable batteries. Why is an apple watch any different?
- aaaaaaaaaaab 5y agoBullshit. Watches (mechanical and quartz) have been water resistant since forever.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y agoMore expensive phones, more materials wasted, bulkier phones.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoBut on the flip side, phones can last twice as long (or longer, assuming the software and other hardware doesn't crap out instead) and the total materials in that time are one phone plus two batteries, not two phones and two batteries.
- choko 5y agoThe choice should be up to the consumer, not the EU. We had phones with removable batteries co-exist with phones with non-removable batteries. Most people preferred a slimmer, more attractive device and chose that over a removable battery. Ditto with keyboards. I would have preferred a phone with a hardware keyboard and a removable battery, but my tastes are niche. That doesn't mean I want a regulator to force the issue.
- adhesive_wombat 5y agoExcept it's never a straight choice to a consumer. If a company asked me do I want 50% more battery life or 1mm thinner, I'm going for the battery. And lots of people would. How many people moan about their battery, and how many say "ooo, I with this phone was just a hair thinner"? But you don't get a choice, because it's all bundled up with other features to make it for you. Want NFC? Ok, you have to have the flagship model with the thinner case. Oh, you want the bigger battery, sorry we don't actually do one because we only had one model called the FailChungus 0.1 with a big battery and no one bought it (never mind that it came only in brown and had a 480x480 screen). Same for the 3.5mm jacks: no one has ever gone out and deliberately bought a phone without them. You just don't get a choice if you want everything else. I specifically got a non-flagship phone to keep that port, but I missed out on a lot of other stuff. While it's nice to think that consumers lead these choices, I don't think that's actually what's happening: the illusion of choice is given but the companies gradually do what they wanted to do anyway.
- wyager 5y agoA couple that come to mind: This will make various compact designs difficult/impossible (such as airpods or other small wireless earbuds). This will make waterproofing difficult/impossible/lower quality for many device classes (phones, earbuds, etc). Waterproofing on these devices requires adhesive (not easily replaceable) or ultrasonic welding (not user serviceable at all).
- ComradePhil 5y agoTo keep up the sales, they will have to find other methods of planned obsolescence.