6 ms·

Socialist planning economy, that is all that is. It sounds good on paper, but will just make things more wasteful and expensive. I personally haven't had top c

Socialist planning economy, that is all that is. It sounds good on paper, but will just make things more wasteful and expensive. I personally haven't had top change batteries in phones for over a decade.

assbuttbuttass 5y ago
How will this make things more wasteful? If anything it should cut down on waste by allowing people to replace just a battery rather than throwing the whole phone away
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  I can easily see more replaceable systems being less waterproof, leading to more water-damaged units, which means more trash and higher replacement rates. Also, nooks and crannies on stuff tends to get broken and lost (just remember how your TV remote looks after a few years), something a monoblock-style phone doesn't have. Sure, we know you can build consumer electronics to be virtually indestructible - but few people wantt to walk around with a Nokia 3310 these days. To add insult to injury, this ruling will be quoted to justify price increases. Replaceability exists on the market already, but it does not seem to be competitive outside of very niche (very ecologically-conscious folks for the fairphone, outdoor enthusiasts for ruggedized phones) customer groups.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  You need more materials to construct the phone with a replaceable battery. You need connectors, latches for opening, screws...
  - Kbelicius 5y ago
    You need more resources to construct one phone with a replaceable battery than 2,3,4 or however many phones without a replaceable battery? I'm not well versed in hardware but that sounds like bullshit.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Most people don't have to replace their phones because of the battery. Your assumption that people would buy only one fourth the amount of phones if they could exchange the battery is wrong.
adhesive_wombat 5y ago
And I've replaced batteries in 4 phones in 3 years (not all mine, after seeing my phone come back to life, everyone else around me wanted the same service). So I see your anecdote and raise you my anecdote. It's not easy to replace, since the batteries are glued in and cases are hard to open, but my £10 kit of opening tools has paid for itself about 50 times over already.
hestefisk 5y ago
What does standards and fair consumer regulation have to do with socialist planning? Sorry maybe I’m missing the point :)
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Socialists think they know how to make better phones than the industry, so they mandate industry has to do it their way. They are wrong, of course. It is also not "standards and fair consumer regulation", as it will only make phones more expensive. So if that angle works for you: it will hurt the poor the most.
  - Tams80 5y ago
    Mate, companies are out to make as much money as possible. Publicly traded ones are even obliged to by law. So no, this isn't some hippy=dippy 'socialist' thing. It's basic common sense and decency.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Competition between companies is what drives prices down, not regulation. Companies don't make more money if governments force them to use technology that is more expensive to build.
      - hestefisk 5y ago
        Then, by the same token, why did we end up with a near-monopoly in search and highly concentrated duopoly in mobile devices where Apple can charge 30% of revenues made? It’s hardly competition. These adverse effects happened due to lack of regulation. It’s called the real world, not socialism :)
        kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        There are like a zillion different phones available, so I am not sure what your argument is supposed to be. There are also alternatives in search. However, search engines and smartphones are complicated enterprises, so it is not too surprising that their number is also temporarily limited (both have only been around for a very short amount of time).
archi42 5y ago
Obviously I can only guess how often you get a new phone, but I'd expect you get a new one every two, maybe three years? Other data point: I threw away three phones in the same time frame. Each and every single of them had to eventually get a new battery. The first just became too slow to use (Galaxy S2), the second was at some point physically deformed beyond repairability (Xperia Z1) and for the last one (HTC 10) it was the worst: No repair shop in our city wanted to repair it OR quoted insane prices (100 or 150 Euros I think) and I could not find a reputable seller offering replacement batteries. After two weeks of having the battery die on me on nearly every important occasion I gave up and got my current phone. I hear the same from a lot of friends. While most are interested in each others new phones from a nerdy perspective, I can only think of one friends still acting as if having the newest generation was a necessity or even a status symbol. So, long story short: My anecdata tells me that having easily replaceable batteries is a huge boon to using the phone for a longer time.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  My last phone was a Pixel 3 which I had to now replace after 3 years because of the ending software support. However, the battery is still fine. I actually intend to sell it in the hopes somebody can be bothered to run it with LineageOS. Also while it is cool if somebody has the skills to repair their own phones, the reality is that most people do not. And then you need an expert and 100€ to 150€ is a price you can reach quickly with expert hours. That is what fans of the "right to repair" don't seem to get: it is just way cheaper to produce most products than to repair them, because production can be done by mostly unskilled workers.
  - Tams80 5y ago
    And none of that is justification for environmental pollution, wasting resources, and potentially human suffering if the device ends up in an e-waste dump somewhere in Africa.
    - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
      Batteries are not the issue, software support is. And even with new batteries, the technology will be outdated eventually. My new Pixel 6 has G5, for example, my old Pixel 3 doesn't. A better solution would be to make the phones suitable for recycling. I wouldn't be surprised if glue is also better for recycling than screws, because you can just resolve it with heating or chemicals, no manual labor required.
JaimeThompson 5y ago
Regulations != socialism.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  Regulation to take care of externalities is OK. "Regulation" in the form of telling businesses how to build their products is not. Politicians are not experts in making smartphones consume less resources, so they are unlikely to make the right calls.
Broken_Hippo 5y ago
Certainly you know folks that have. More commonly, you've probably known folks that replaced their tablets or laptops because of a bad battery. Replacing a battery is definitely less waste than replacing an entire device, even if that battery has packaging.
- kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
  No I don't know folks that have done that - not for many years. Sure replacing a battery is less waste than replacing an entire device. But what percentage of devices needs replacing? That has to related to the extra cost for every device, not just the ones that break.
pxmpxm 5y ago
Ehhhh there's a middle ground solution that will almost certainly be lost on all the Eurocrats, largely going by the previous prescriptive attempts with micro-usb for all phones etc: Instead of mandating user-replacable whatever parts, go with right-to-repair type of legislature, where the manufacturer cannot try to lock you out from being able to replace what you need. We've already seen Lexmark and Apple lead the way with this BS in the consumer device space (crypto-pairing the parts and not letting anyone have the private keys), so right to repair would be of far more benefit that mandating that the next phone should have functionally have the form factor of 2000s Palm pilot.

assbuttbuttass 5y ago

How will this make things more wasteful? If anything it should cut down on waste by allowing people to replace just a battery rather than throwing the whole phone away

DocTomoe 5y ago
I can easily see more replaceable systems being less waterproof, leading to more water-damaged units, which means more trash and higher replacement rates. Also, nooks and crannies on stuff tends to get broken and lost (just remember how your TV remote looks after a few years), something a monoblock-style phone doesn't have. Sure, we know you can build consumer electronics to be virtually indestructible - but few people wantt to walk around with a Nokia 3310 these days. To add insult to injury, this ruling will be quoted to justify price increases. Replaceability exists on the market already, but it does not seem to be competitive outside of very niche (very ecologically-conscious folks for the fairphone, outdoor enthusiasts for ruggedized phones) customer groups.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
You need more materials to construct the phone with a replaceable battery. You need connectors, latches for opening, screws...
- Kbelicius 5y ago
  You need more resources to construct one phone with a replaceable battery than 2,3,4 or however many phones without a replaceable battery? I'm not well versed in hardware but that sounds like bullshit.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Most people don't have to replace their phones because of the battery. Your assumption that people would buy only one fourth the amount of phones if they could exchange the battery is wrong.

adhesive_wombat 5y ago

And I've replaced batteries in 4 phones in 3 years (not all mine, after seeing my phone come back to life, everyone else around me wanted the same service). So I see your anecdote and raise you my anecdote. It's not easy to replace, since the batteries are glued in and cases are hard to open, but my £10 kit of opening tools has paid for itself about 50 times over already.

hestefisk 5y ago

What does standards and fair consumer regulation have to do with socialist planning? Sorry maybe I’m missing the point :)

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Socialists think they know how to make better phones than the industry, so they mandate industry has to do it their way. They are wrong, of course. It is also not "standards and fair consumer regulation", as it will only make phones more expensive. So if that angle works for you: it will hurt the poor the most.
- Tams80 5y ago
  Mate, companies are out to make as much money as possible. Publicly traded ones are even obliged to by law. So no, this isn't some hippy=dippy 'socialist' thing. It's basic common sense and decency.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Competition between companies is what drives prices down, not regulation. Companies don't make more money if governments force them to use technology that is more expensive to build.
    - hestefisk 5y ago
      Then, by the same token, why did we end up with a near-monopoly in search and highly concentrated duopoly in mobile devices where Apple can charge 30% of revenues made? It’s hardly competition. These adverse effects happened due to lack of regulation. It’s called the real world, not socialism :)
      - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
        There are like a zillion different phones available, so I am not sure what your argument is supposed to be. There are also alternatives in search. However, search engines and smartphones are complicated enterprises, so it is not too surprising that their number is also temporarily limited (both have only been around for a very short amount of time).

archi42 5y ago

Obviously I can only guess how often you get a new phone, but I'd expect you get a new one every two, maybe three years? Other data point: I threw away three phones in the same time frame. Each and every single of them had to eventually get a new battery. The first just became too slow to use (Galaxy S2), the second was at some point physically deformed beyond repairability (Xperia Z1) and for the last one (HTC 10) it was the worst: No repair shop in our city wanted to repair it OR quoted insane prices (100 or 150 Euros I think) and I could not find a reputable seller offering replacement batteries. After two weeks of having the battery die on me on nearly every important occasion I gave up and got my current phone. I hear the same from a lot of friends. While most are interested in each others new phones from a nerdy perspective, I can only think of one friends still acting as if having the newest generation was a necessity or even a status symbol. So, long story short: My anecdata tells me that having easily replaceable batteries is a huge boon to using the phone for a longer time.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
My last phone was a Pixel 3 which I had to now replace after 3 years because of the ending software support. However, the battery is still fine. I actually intend to sell it in the hopes somebody can be bothered to run it with LineageOS. Also while it is cool if somebody has the skills to repair their own phones, the reality is that most people do not. And then you need an expert and 100€ to 150€ is a price you can reach quickly with expert hours. That is what fans of the "right to repair" don't seem to get: it is just way cheaper to produce most products than to repair them, because production can be done by mostly unskilled workers.
- Tams80 5y ago
  And none of that is justification for environmental pollution, wasting resources, and potentially human suffering if the device ends up in an e-waste dump somewhere in Africa.
  - kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
    Batteries are not the issue, software support is. And even with new batteries, the technology will be outdated eventually. My new Pixel 6 has G5, for example, my old Pixel 3 doesn't. A better solution would be to make the phones suitable for recycling. I wouldn't be surprised if glue is also better for recycling than screws, because you can just resolve it with heating or chemicals, no manual labor required.

JaimeThompson 5y ago

Regulations != socialism.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
Regulation to take care of externalities is OK. "Regulation" in the form of telling businesses how to build their products is not. Politicians are not experts in making smartphones consume less resources, so they are unlikely to make the right calls.

Broken_Hippo 5y ago

Certainly you know folks that have. More commonly, you've probably known folks that replaced their tablets or laptops because of a bad battery. Replacing a battery is definitely less waste than replacing an entire device, even if that battery has packaging.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
No I don't know folks that have done that - not for many years. Sure replacing a battery is less waste than replacing an entire device. But what percentage of devices needs replacing? That has to related to the extra cost for every device, not just the ones that break.

pxmpxm 5y ago

Ehhhh there's a middle ground solution that will almost certainly be lost on all the Eurocrats, largely going by the previous prescriptive attempts with micro-usb for all phones etc: Instead of mandating user-replacable whatever parts, go with right-to-repair type of legislature, where the manufacturer cannot try to lock you out from being able to replace what you need. We've already seen Lexmark and Apple lead the way with this BS in the consumer device space (crypto-pairing the parts and not letting anyone have the private keys), so right to repair would be of far more benefit that mandating that the next phone should have functionally have the form factor of 2000s Palm pilot.