5 ms·

The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model. Seems like this law is o

The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model. Seems like this law is once again a step backwards. No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.

pessimizer 3y ago
> The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model. There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult. > No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add. Seems like it's all about tradeoffs. They're trading whatever hypothetical advances you're referring to here for less tech waste and lower consumer costs. They're deciding that it's an area in which manufacturers aren't allowed to innovate, because the innovations are trivial compared to the externalities that they impose.
- aeternum 3y ago
  If consumers cared to make those tradeoffs, you would see phones with removable batteries with the most market share. You don't because that's not actually what most consumers want, and thus the misguided need to regulate it.
  - majewsky 3y ago
    Counter-hypotheses: - Consumers optimize for what looks nicest in the store, and it's easy for the store to bury the nonreplacability of the battery under a thick layer of tech mumbojumbo. - Most consumers (at least here in Germany) get their phones from their phone plans, so they are limited by what the phone companies offer with their contracts.
  - gsich 3y ago
    This is the wrong conclusion. Lack of products does not equal "the customer doesn't want it". The customer has no choice.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    That's such a naive view of how capitalism works. You could turn the argument around: clearly consumers do want this tradeoff, because they have decided to vote in governments to legislate for it to be a requirement. If you think that's an overly simplistic argument, then I invite you to re-evaluate yours.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Yes because out of all of the issues people vote in the government for, replaceable batteries was the one they cared about the most
  - lozenge 3y ago
    Consumers get to throw e waste in the bin and let somebody else deal with it. Governments need to look out for more interests than just consumers.
    - martin8412 3y ago
      You think consumers won't just throw the old batteries in the bin and let somebody else deal with it?
      - vidarh 3y ago
        If they throw just the battery instead of the whole device in the bin that'll still be an improvement.
        aeternum 3y ago
        Why wouldn't they throw both in the bin?
        vidarh 3y ago
        To keep using the device after replacing the battery. That is the point of these regulations after all. We'll see what the uptake is.
- brandall10 3y ago
  > There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult. Looking at the iPhone 14 iFixit kit, the tools are not particularly exotic... pentalobe/tripoint screwdrivers (kinda mandatory for super small screws) and just a bunch of things needed to work with small devices, spudger, tweezers, suction cup, clamp. Stuff that for the most part has been part of fixit kits going back many generations. A generic toolkit for working w/ most Apple devices shouldn't have a particular high number of parts.
  - kuschku 3y ago
    Why is pentalobe mandatory? Torx works at tiny scale just fine. And it's out of patent by now.
    - brandall10 3y ago
      IME pentalobe is superior as far as wear to tooling without the sharp points. I've stripped a handful of smaller torx heads due to worn bits over the years. Can't recall ever stripping a pentalobe. I won't argue Apple came up with a new design for security purposes, at least initially. But that doesn't mean they didn't come up with a superior design for tiny bits at the same time.
pzo 3y ago
Regarding possible tradeoffs, I'm not buying it. Samsung Galaxy S5 had: - easy user removable/swapable battery 2800mah - external port for microSDXC - audiojack - was still IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) - 5.1 inches AMOLED screen - just 145g weight - just 8.1 mm thickness - this was already mass produced in 2014
- myspy 3y ago
  Yeah, I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. But that nomenclature is void if you ask me. I got water on the upper front part of my iPhone XS which is IP whatever and Face ID died. Apple said they wouldn't give me a new one because water resistant doesn't mean they have to replace your phone when something happens.
  - pzo 3y ago
    I feel you - I had actually the same issue with my iphone XS few months ago - I was hiking for few hours inside humid cave. Even though I had phone in waterproof bag my TrueDepth sensor stopped working.
  - user2342 3y ago
    > I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. They didn't do this for water proof iPhones - that were lame excuses. They removed e.g. the headphone jack early to increase incentives to adopot (the then future) Airpods.
  - qball 3y ago
    >had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. This was an outright lie; some Android manufacturers (I believe it was Samsung and Sony, but maybe others as well) had waterproof phones with headphone jacks and it didn't seem to negatively affect the phone in other ways.
    - scarface_74 3y ago

pessimizer 3y ago

> The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model. There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult. > No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add. Seems like it's all about tradeoffs. They're trading whatever hypothetical advances you're referring to here for less tech waste and lower consumer costs. They're deciding that it's an area in which manufacturers aren't allowed to innovate, because the innovations are trivial compared to the externalities that they impose.

aeternum 3y ago
If consumers cared to make those tradeoffs, you would see phones with removable batteries with the most market share. You don't because that's not actually what most consumers want, and thus the misguided need to regulate it.
- majewsky 3y ago
  Counter-hypotheses: - Consumers optimize for what looks nicest in the store, and it's easy for the store to bury the nonreplacability of the battery under a thick layer of tech mumbojumbo. - Most consumers (at least here in Germany) get their phones from their phone plans, so they are limited by what the phone companies offer with their contracts.
- gsich 3y ago
  This is the wrong conclusion. Lack of products does not equal "the customer doesn't want it". The customer has no choice.
- chimprich 3y ago
  That's such a naive view of how capitalism works. You could turn the argument around: clearly consumers do want this tradeoff, because they have decided to vote in governments to legislate for it to be a requirement. If you think that's an overly simplistic argument, then I invite you to re-evaluate yours.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Yes because out of all of the issues people vote in the government for, replaceable batteries was the one they cared about the most
- lozenge 3y ago
  Consumers get to throw e waste in the bin and let somebody else deal with it. Governments need to look out for more interests than just consumers.
  - martin8412 3y ago
    You think consumers won't just throw the old batteries in the bin and let somebody else deal with it?
    - vidarh 3y ago
      If they throw just the battery instead of the whole device in the bin that'll still be an improvement.
      - aeternum 3y ago
        Why wouldn't they throw both in the bin?
        vidarh 3y ago
        To keep using the device after replacing the battery. That is the point of these regulations after all. We'll see what the uptake is.
brandall10 3y ago
> There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult. Looking at the iPhone 14 iFixit kit, the tools are not particularly exotic... pentalobe/tripoint screwdrivers (kinda mandatory for super small screws) and just a bunch of things needed to work with small devices, spudger, tweezers, suction cup, clamp. Stuff that for the most part has been part of fixit kits going back many generations. A generic toolkit for working w/ most Apple devices shouldn't have a particular high number of parts.
- kuschku 3y ago
  Why is pentalobe mandatory? Torx works at tiny scale just fine. And it's out of patent by now.
  - brandall10 3y ago
    IME pentalobe is superior as far as wear to tooling without the sharp points. I've stripped a handful of smaller torx heads due to worn bits over the years. Can't recall ever stripping a pentalobe. I won't argue Apple came up with a new design for security purposes, at least initially. But that doesn't mean they didn't come up with a superior design for tiny bits at the same time.

pzo 3y ago

Regarding possible tradeoffs, I'm not buying it. Samsung Galaxy S5 had: - easy user removable/swapable battery 2800mah - external port for microSDXC - audiojack - was still IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min) - 5.1 inches AMOLED screen - just 145g weight - just 8.1 mm thickness - this was already mass produced in 2014

myspy 3y ago
Yeah, I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. But that nomenclature is void if you ask me. I got water on the upper front part of my iPhone XS which is IP whatever and Face ID died. Apple said they wouldn't give me a new one because water resistant doesn't mean they have to replace your phone when something happens.
- pzo 3y ago
  I feel you - I had actually the same issue with my iphone XS few months ago - I was hiking for few hours inside humid cave. Even though I had phone in waterproof bag my TrueDepth sensor stopped working.
- user2342 3y ago
  > I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. They didn't do this for water proof iPhones - that were lame excuses. They removed e.g. the headphone jack early to increase incentives to adopot (the then future) Airpods.
- qball 3y ago
  >had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant. This was an outright lie; some Android manufacturers (I believe it was Samsung and Sony, but maybe others as well) had waterproof phones with headphone jacks and it didn't seem to negatively affect the phone in other ways.
  - scarface_74 3y ago