5 ms·

There is a link to this document [1], which has article 11: > Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries s

There is a link to this document [1], which has article 11: > Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries. > A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product. There are exceptions: > By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals: (a) appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable; (b) professional medical imaging and radiotherapy devices, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746. Does a smartphone qualify under the section (a) exemption? What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water. > The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons. Another potential loophole? [1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT/en/pdf https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT... EDIT - It appears that page 11 & 12 make it clear that any battery in a smartphone is a "portable battery"

lb4r 3y ago
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries. So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?
- Kon-Peki 3y ago
  It seems to be the case.
  - lb4r 3y ago
    Interesting. The wording makes it sound like it would apply to controllers as well. So for a system like the Switch, they'd have to make sure that not only the battery of the console is replaceable, but also those of both Joy-Cons.
- roxgib 3y ago
  I'll be interested to know if it applies to things like AirPods, those would be more challenging to redesign with replaceable batteries (though obviously not impossible).
thrtythreeforty 3y ago
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the key phrase is "specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment..." That is, a phone designed to be used underwater would be exempt, but a phone that can get wet occasionally - or even be immersed - is not specifically designed to operate underwater. Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule. Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.
  - forty 3y ago
    Sometimes it works. Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad. Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid) And it seems it was confirmed being legal...
    - bombolo 3y ago
      Either they are the customer and must pay it, or if they are legally not, they can be asked for the list of customers so that they can all be fined, which will lead to customers suing them.
      - lamontcg 3y ago
        Usually that's how these "lifehacks" around regulations wind up playing out. The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.
Spare_account 3y ago
>What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water. Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage. I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.
- wryanzimmerman 3y ago
  With iPhone you can’t claim warranty for water damage, but if you have apple care+ you can just say “oops I broke it, here’s $100 for a new one”
- oneTbrain23 3y ago
  It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.
  - zuhsetaqi 3y ago
    > It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra. How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.
    - rebolek 3y ago
      On some rumors and previous Apple behavior.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
jsmith45 3y ago
> > The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons. > Another potential loophole? Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply. The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data. This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.
roxgib 3y ago
Shouldn't that be "in vivo diagnostic medical devices"?
- projektfu 3y ago
  The document it refers to is about "in vitro diagnostic devices" and this includes things like those pregnancy tests with an LCD readout. 2017/746 is about point of care diagnostic devices generally. I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.

lb4r 3y ago

> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries. So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?

Kon-Peki 3y ago
It seems to be the case.
- lb4r 3y ago
  Interesting. The wording makes it sound like it would apply to controllers as well. So for a system like the Switch, they'd have to make sure that not only the battery of the console is replaceable, but also those of both Joy-Cons.
roxgib 3y ago
I'll be interested to know if it applies to things like AirPods, those would be more challenging to redesign with replaceable batteries (though obviously not impossible).

thrtythreeforty 3y ago

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the key phrase is "specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment..." That is, a phone designed to be used underwater would be exempt, but a phone that can get wet occasionally - or even be immersed - is not specifically designed to operate underwater. Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.

lamontcg 3y ago
> Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule. Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.
- forty 3y ago
  Sometimes it works. Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad. Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid) And it seems it was confirmed being legal...
  - bombolo 3y ago
    Either they are the customer and must pay it, or if they are legally not, they can be asked for the list of customers so that they can all be fined, which will lead to customers suing them.
    - lamontcg 3y ago
      Usually that's how these "lifehacks" around regulations wind up playing out. The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.

Spare_account 3y ago

>What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water. Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage. I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.

wryanzimmerman 3y ago
With iPhone you can’t claim warranty for water damage, but if you have apple care+ you can just say “oops I broke it, here’s $100 for a new one”
oneTbrain23 3y ago
It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.
- zuhsetaqi 3y ago
  > It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra. How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.
  - rebolek 3y ago
    On some rumors and previous Apple behavior.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago

jsmith45 3y ago

> > The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons. > Another potential loophole? Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply. The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data. This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.

roxgib 3y ago

Shouldn't that be "in vivo diagnostic medical devices"?

projektfu 3y ago
The document it refers to is about "in vitro diagnostic devices" and this includes things like those pregnancy tests with an LCD readout. 2017/746 is about point of care diagnostic devices generally. I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.