6 ms·

> Non-replaceable batteries have NO redeeming qualities in my opinion Non-replaceable batteries contribute to lowering the price. If the producer can expect to

> Non-replaceable batteries have NO redeeming qualities in my opinion Non-replaceable batteries contribute to lowering the price. If the producer can expect to sell more copies of the same product, the price of a single item can be lower.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Which is useful to the producer, not to the consumer. The consumer ends up spending more money by having to buy more phones. It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single purchase, not over time.
- klntsky 4y ago
  > It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single purchase, not over time. It's not entirely true, if you don't buy a new phone and simply live with a battery not holding power for more than a day, you get both cheaper price of the phone and a technically working phone. Of course someone with higher expectations for battery time will have to buy a new phone sooner, but if you can't afford it, it's valuable to you personally regardless.
  - hattar 4y ago
    If the device degrades to the point where it’s effectively useless for my primary use case, I’m not really saving money. Useful timeline needs to be accounted for when considering cost effectiveness.
    - klntsky 4y ago
      You are implying that the primary use case is the same for everyone. Consider this counter example: what if I want a phone to use a navigator app in my car (to leave it always on charge)? Battery life would not be important at all.
- tosc 4y ago
  You don’t have to buy a new phone to replace the battery. Just take it to any repair shop.
  - don-code 4y ago
    This may work for common phones (aka: Apple and Samsung phones). I had to retire a perfectly workable, but five years old, HTC phone after three such shops refused to fix it, citing unfamiliarity and cost. I now have an ASUS phone, and fully expect the same to happen in several years.
    - tosc 4y ago
      It seems like weird logic to legislate that Apple and Samsung must make their phones less reliable for everyone simply because a 5 year old phone made by a cut price manufacturer is no longer supported. Why did you buy the ASUS phone if you don’t expect to get support for it?
      - don-code 4y ago
        I bought it used, and with the expectation that I'm going to be on the hook for my own long-term maintenance and support, as is true with more or less everything I buy. (Full-time Linux user here.) The sad reality is that the experience of running an off-brand phone with an easily-replaceable battery would, long-term, be much worse than running a locked-in flagship that LineageOS builds for.
      - janosdebugs 4y ago
        They can't really say Apple and Samsung have to do this, everybody else doesn't. And they are by far the market leaders, so they sell the most phones ending up in landfills.
  - dns_snek 4y ago
    > Just take it to any repair shop. Device manufacturers see that as a bug, not a feature. They are starting to pair genuine parts to a specific device, which will completely lock us out of 3rd party repair options if we accept and normalize this behavior. See for example: - "The iPhone 14 Continues Apple’s Digital Repair Lockdown" by iFixit - https://www.ifixit.com/News/66879/iphone-14-parts-pairing-results-apple-is-still-trying-to-monopolise-repair https://www.ifixit.com/News/66879/iphone-14-parts-pairing-re... - "iPhone 14 Pro Programmed To Reject Repair" by Hugh Jeffreys - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8 - The long list of Louis Rossmann's rants on the topic
Jorchime 4y ago
Which probably doesn't reflect the real costs of extracting, processing and discarding resources and their effect on humans, life and nature very well.
dns_snek 4y ago
Given that we've largely decided that sustainability is the way forward, an argument in favour of e-waste isn't particularly convincing. User-replaceable batteries are just the first step. What we should all be pushing towards to reduce waste and emissions is a no-compromise right to repair, with easily accessible parts, tools and schematics.
- nradov 4y ago
  I support the right to repair, but it's not the only way to reduce e-waste. Another complementary approach is through refundable deposits, just like with beverage containers. Include a $20+ deposit in the price of each smartphone, then refund it when the consumer returns it to a retailer or manufacturer for proper recycling and safe disposal.
  - witheld 4y ago
    Recycling is pretty much a scam, the first step of reduce-reuse-recycle is “reduce”. One commenter said this legislation doesn’t make sense because they get a new phone every three years. Even if they do, it would reduce demand if the phone continued to have parts and software for someone else to use.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The price of the battery or the price of the final product that uses batteries? Regardless, it matters what your pricing power is. For a luxury finished product - you price on what your consumers will bear (with some maximization curve). For a commodity battery - then maybe. Though, I'm not sure I follow your logic why this means more batteries will be sold.
hn92726819 4y ago
In the very short term, maybe. But it's only cheaper for the very first phone. In a few years when the battery dies, the cost of the battery would be much lower than the cost of a new phone, which the consumers are required to buy Same faulty logic for injket printers. They're extremely cheap so sure, you're "saving money" for a period, but the scales tip after one or two refill ink cartridges
onli 4y ago
If non-repairable products were cheaper and those savings passed on to consumers, apple products and the surface series would be the cheapest that exist. They are not...

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Which is useful to the producer, not to the consumer. The consumer ends up spending more money by having to buy more phones. It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single purchase, not over time.

klntsky 4y ago
> It's only cheaper if you're looking at a single purchase, not over time. It's not entirely true, if you don't buy a new phone and simply live with a battery not holding power for more than a day, you get both cheaper price of the phone and a technically working phone. Of course someone with higher expectations for battery time will have to buy a new phone sooner, but if you can't afford it, it's valuable to you personally regardless.
- hattar 4y ago
  If the device degrades to the point where it’s effectively useless for my primary use case, I’m not really saving money. Useful timeline needs to be accounted for when considering cost effectiveness.
  - klntsky 4y ago
    You are implying that the primary use case is the same for everyone. Consider this counter example: what if I want a phone to use a navigator app in my car (to leave it always on charge)? Battery life would not be important at all.
tosc 4y ago
You don’t have to buy a new phone to replace the battery. Just take it to any repair shop.
- don-code 4y ago
  This may work for common phones (aka: Apple and Samsung phones). I had to retire a perfectly workable, but five years old, HTC phone after three such shops refused to fix it, citing unfamiliarity and cost. I now have an ASUS phone, and fully expect the same to happen in several years.
  - tosc 4y ago
    It seems like weird logic to legislate that Apple and Samsung must make their phones less reliable for everyone simply because a 5 year old phone made by a cut price manufacturer is no longer supported. Why did you buy the ASUS phone if you don’t expect to get support for it?
    - don-code 4y ago
      I bought it used, and with the expectation that I'm going to be on the hook for my own long-term maintenance and support, as is true with more or less everything I buy. (Full-time Linux user here.) The sad reality is that the experience of running an off-brand phone with an easily-replaceable battery would, long-term, be much worse than running a locked-in flagship that LineageOS builds for.
    - janosdebugs 4y ago
      They can't really say Apple and Samsung have to do this, everybody else doesn't. And they are by far the market leaders, so they sell the most phones ending up in landfills.
- dns_snek 4y ago
  > Just take it to any repair shop. Device manufacturers see that as a bug, not a feature. They are starting to pair genuine parts to a specific device, which will completely lock us out of 3rd party repair options if we accept and normalize this behavior. See for example: - "The iPhone 14 Continues Apple’s Digital Repair Lockdown" by iFixit - https://www.ifixit.com/News/66879/iphone-14-parts-pairing-results-apple-is-still-trying-to-monopolise-repair https://www.ifixit.com/News/66879/iphone-14-parts-pairing-re... - "iPhone 14 Pro Programmed To Reject Repair" by Hugh Jeffreys - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2WhU77ihw8 - The long list of Louis Rossmann's rants on the topic

Jorchime 4y ago

Which probably doesn't reflect the real costs of extracting, processing and discarding resources and their effect on humans, life and nature very well.

dns_snek 4y ago

Given that we've largely decided that sustainability is the way forward, an argument in favour of e-waste isn't particularly convincing. User-replaceable batteries are just the first step. What we should all be pushing towards to reduce waste and emissions is a no-compromise right to repair, with easily accessible parts, tools and schematics.

nradov 4y ago
I support the right to repair, but it's not the only way to reduce e-waste. Another complementary approach is through refundable deposits, just like with beverage containers. Include a $20+ deposit in the price of each smartphone, then refund it when the consumer returns it to a retailer or manufacturer for proper recycling and safe disposal.
- witheld 4y ago
  Recycling is pretty much a scam, the first step of reduce-reuse-recycle is “reduce”. One commenter said this legislation doesn’t make sense because they get a new phone every three years. Even if they do, it would reduce demand if the phone continued to have parts and software for someone else to use.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

The price of the battery or the price of the final product that uses batteries? Regardless, it matters what your pricing power is. For a luxury finished product - you price on what your consumers will bear (with some maximization curve). For a commodity battery - then maybe. Though, I'm not sure I follow your logic why this means more batteries will be sold.

hn92726819 4y ago

In the very short term, maybe. But it's only cheaper for the very first phone. In a few years when the battery dies, the cost of the battery would be much lower than the cost of a new phone, which the consumers are required to buy Same faulty logic for injket printers. They're extremely cheap so sure, you're "saving money" for a period, but the scales tip after one or two refill ink cartridges

onli 4y ago

If non-repairable products were cheaper and those savings passed on to consumers, apple products and the surface series would be the cheapest that exist. They are not...