4 ms·

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would allowing battery replacement hinder development of battery tech? If anything it should spur a battery aftermar

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Why would allowing battery replacement hinder development of battery tech? If anything it should spur a battery aftermarket using different charge controllers, chemistries, etc. that are user-swappable for the OEM ones. It just sounds like a generic antiregulatory complaint ungrounded in reality? It's not like li-ion tech has advanced dramatically absent such regulations. The bottleneck seems to be chemical, a matter of energy density, not a regulatory chokehold on innovation. It's just part of a bigger right-to-repair war, whether it's batteries or cars or operating systems. Manufacturers are increasingly moving to rent-seeking behaviors and X as a subscription, which is great for their profits but not so good for consumers or societies. Big tech is already on the verge of supplanting governments across the world, the last thing they need is more freedom to "innovate". They don't do it for the social good, just for their profits, and regulation is always playing catch-up to try to limit the social and environmental damage from their actions. At least the regulations have some measure of democratic buy-in, vs the what, 2-4 big tech companies that alone determine the future of tech? They don't have your interests at heart, at all.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago
Specifically on development of battery tech development portion of your question, requiring any given characteristic in an appliance tends to halt innovation on the axis of that characteristic. For example, if an exact size of a part is specified, there's dramatically less incentive to innovate smaller versions of the same part. One place this is seen is building regulations. It's not uncommon for an exact door or frame thickness to be legislated, and the required thickness is based on fire risks. This was a very good thing in the short term, but in the longer term, it removed any economic incentive for innovating new materials that require less thickness to provide the same level of protection. Since it's been many decades since regulations were created in most places, there's often quite a bit of low hanging fruit, from a materials technology standpoint. There would be even more if the rules had targeted objectives (e.g. fire resistance), as opposed to methods (e.g., a set material thickness). In the big scheme of things, technological progress has been strongly correlated with social good. We live longer, healthier lives and have more amenities than any time in history. It's much nicer to be living in the 2020s than I would be in the 1970s, 1920s or the 1820s. People living in each of those earlier eras saw the benefits they had from electricity, antibiotics, rail transportation, etc that those before them lacked and it's not hard to imagine people in the 2070s will be happy not to be saddled with our current level of technology. It's easy to devalue what we don't yet have, but it's a fallacy.
- technobabbler 5y ago
  So going off that logic, wouldn't mandating end user/consumer serviceability be an objective (repairability) and not a method? People are still free to innovate battery materials how they want, they just can't be locked into the device with no easy way to replace them when they're dead. I still don't see how that hinders innovation. Sure, a lot of technology has proven socially useful, but usually with regulation (of natural monopolies, for example) and subsidies and such. It's not an either or situation. Companies can and do profit alongside mandatory social contributions that they otherwise would not have done if it meant more profit. In the electronics space, things like safety regulations, charging standards, warranty protections, etc. have hurt profits but been good for the consumer. There's a balance.
  - AlchemistCamp 5y ago
    That's fair. I definitely see a lot more harm in specifying "everything has to use USB-C" than in requiring that something is relatively easy to service. Still, there are valid reasons to make more integrated devices and it's not reasonable to expect everything to be as easy to service as it becomes more advanced. My father could take apart and rebuild all kinds of car engines in the 80s and 90s, but would never be able to do that with a Tesla. It was still a great thing for Tesla to drag the auto market kicking and screaming into an age of electronic vehicles, though.
    - technobabbler 5y ago
      I couldn't read the original source (foreign language) but I thought the OP was just about mandating replaceable batteries. If it's mandating a particular connector instead, yeah, I get how that would be bad. USB C is a total shitshow that not even the manufacturers and standards bodies can get right. I wouldn't trust any government with that sort of fine grained oversight. Even the cookie law was a disaster. About electric cars though, case in point, they are a market that people have been clamoring for right to repair on. Not necessarily so they can hack the firmware themselves, but so that they can take it to their local mechanic for repairs instead of the dealership. I understand there is something of a cottage industry of places that can service some Priuses and Leafs etc but some newer cars are too locked down for third parties. That's essentially a DRM thing and hampers innovation in the post sale services sector, anticompetitive OEMs who want to prevent cheaper third party components.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago

Specifically on development of battery tech development portion of your question, requiring any given characteristic in an appliance tends to halt innovation on the axis of that characteristic. For example, if an exact size of a part is specified, there's dramatically less incentive to innovate smaller versions of the same part. One place this is seen is building regulations. It's not uncommon for an exact door or frame thickness to be legislated, and the required thickness is based on fire risks. This was a very good thing in the short term, but in the longer term, it removed any economic incentive for innovating new materials that require less thickness to provide the same level of protection. Since it's been many decades since regulations were created in most places, there's often quite a bit of low hanging fruit, from a materials technology standpoint. There would be even more if the rules had targeted objectives (e.g. fire resistance), as opposed to methods (e.g., a set material thickness). In the big scheme of things, technological progress has been strongly correlated with social good. We live longer, healthier lives and have more amenities than any time in history. It's much nicer to be living in the 2020s than I would be in the 1970s, 1920s or the 1820s. People living in each of those earlier eras saw the benefits they had from electricity, antibiotics, rail transportation, etc that those before them lacked and it's not hard to imagine people in the 2070s will be happy not to be saddled with our current level of technology. It's easy to devalue what we don't yet have, but it's a fallacy.

technobabbler 5y ago
So going off that logic, wouldn't mandating end user/consumer serviceability be an objective (repairability) and not a method? People are still free to innovate battery materials how they want, they just can't be locked into the device with no easy way to replace them when they're dead. I still don't see how that hinders innovation. Sure, a lot of technology has proven socially useful, but usually with regulation (of natural monopolies, for example) and subsidies and such. It's not an either or situation. Companies can and do profit alongside mandatory social contributions that they otherwise would not have done if it meant more profit. In the electronics space, things like safety regulations, charging standards, warranty protections, etc. have hurt profits but been good for the consumer. There's a balance.
- AlchemistCamp 5y ago
  That's fair. I definitely see a lot more harm in specifying "everything has to use USB-C" than in requiring that something is relatively easy to service. Still, there are valid reasons to make more integrated devices and it's not reasonable to expect everything to be as easy to service as it becomes more advanced. My father could take apart and rebuild all kinds of car engines in the 80s and 90s, but would never be able to do that with a Tesla. It was still a great thing for Tesla to drag the auto market kicking and screaming into an age of electronic vehicles, though.
  - technobabbler 5y ago
    I couldn't read the original source (foreign language) but I thought the OP was just about mandating replaceable batteries. If it's mandating a particular connector instead, yeah, I get how that would be bad. USB C is a total shitshow that not even the manufacturers and standards bodies can get right. I wouldn't trust any government with that sort of fine grained oversight. Even the cookie law was a disaster. About electric cars though, case in point, they are a market that people have been clamoring for right to repair on. Not necessarily so they can hack the firmware themselves, but so that they can take it to their local mechanic for repairs instead of the dealership. I understand there is something of a cottage industry of places that can service some Priuses and Leafs etc but some newer cars are too locked down for third parties. That's essentially a DRM thing and hampers innovation in the post sale services sector, anticompetitive OEMs who want to prevent cheaper third party components.