3 ms·

> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble mi

> I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance My wristwatch from 50 years ago can be submerged to a depth of 300 feet. I am sure companies that can assemble microchips have no trouble figuring out the technology from half a decade ago when they have to. > I hope this doesn't affect water-resistance, which I (and everyone I know) care much more about a hypothetical replacable battery I have not taken my phone diving yet, but I (and friends/relatives) have had phones which would have lived another year or two if the battery was easier to replace. > battery that we won't probably ever need in the lifetime of the device. The goal of the law is to reduce e-waste. It would be nice if all aspects which dictate the lifetime of a device (e.g. software updates) were extended as far as possible.

can16358p 2y ago
It's not only about diving though, any drop into sea or pool might be affected, and even if you aren't submerging you'll have the peace of mind of using the phone near a body of water. Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%. I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).
- asadotzler 2y ago
  And when the phone is 4 years old and won't make a full day without a second charge (as opposed to just overnight) then you'll probably simply replace it despite it being good for another 4 years, easily, if it had a new battery. That may be fine for you, but not all of us are so filthy rich. "What's with the US government mandating seat belts in foreign cars sold here!!! How dare they! Instead of requiring seat belts, the US government should offer tax breaks to auto makers who do offer seat belts. Surely that's the right way to incentivize them." "What's with the US's 'Tylenol bill' that requires tamper proof cases on over the counter medications to prevent another cyanide murder case like the one in 1982? How dare the US government interfere in the design of drug makers' product packaging. Instead of enforcement, they should have just given a big fat tax break any of over the counter medication producers that voluntarily decided to offer tamper proof containers. That would surely be in the public's best interest, right?" Your arguments are weak, my friend. Do better.
  - frumper 2y ago
    If you have an iPhone and want a new battery, it doesn’t cost much to have Apple replace the battery for you. It’s much cheaper than buying a new phone.
- VagabundoP 2y ago
  How about an opt out for a cost neutral swap by phone makers? So Apple will swap out the battery for free, keeping your waterproofness and you just pay for the material cost of a battery or supply your own. Then they can design how they want. There's extra costs on them, but tough shit.
xlii 2y ago
Personal anecdote: I had to replace 3 smartphones out of my pocket because they fallen into nice, soft snow (over the years). Different manufacturers, same answer: water damage - you’re on your own bud! On the other hand I had 0 problems replacing dying or faulty battery. I also side on waterproofing side of things.

can16358p 2y ago

It's not only about diving though, any drop into sea or pool might be affected, and even if you aren't submerging you'll have the peace of mind of using the phone near a body of water. Regarding the battery, my phone is also almost 2 years old and I haven't even noticed a decrease in capacity in practical real world even though the battery capacity is reduced to 85%. I'm okay with reducing e-waste of course, but I'm not okay with EU dictating companies about their product design. Instead of enforcement, there should be incentivization (e.g. if you make battery replaceable, lowered taxing etc).

asadotzler 2y ago
And when the phone is 4 years old and won't make a full day without a second charge (as opposed to just overnight) then you'll probably simply replace it despite it being good for another 4 years, easily, if it had a new battery. That may be fine for you, but not all of us are so filthy rich. "What's with the US government mandating seat belts in foreign cars sold here!!! How dare they! Instead of requiring seat belts, the US government should offer tax breaks to auto makers who do offer seat belts. Surely that's the right way to incentivize them." "What's with the US's 'Tylenol bill' that requires tamper proof cases on over the counter medications to prevent another cyanide murder case like the one in 1982? How dare the US government interfere in the design of drug makers' product packaging. Instead of enforcement, they should have just given a big fat tax break any of over the counter medication producers that voluntarily decided to offer tamper proof containers. That would surely be in the public's best interest, right?" Your arguments are weak, my friend. Do better.
- frumper 2y ago
  If you have an iPhone and want a new battery, it doesn’t cost much to have Apple replace the battery for you. It’s much cheaper than buying a new phone.
VagabundoP 2y ago
How about an opt out for a cost neutral swap by phone makers? So Apple will swap out the battery for free, keeping your waterproofness and you just pay for the material cost of a battery or supply your own. Then they can design how they want. There's extra costs on them, but tough shit.

xlii 2y ago

Personal anecdote: I had to replace 3 smartphones out of my pocket because they fallen into nice, soft snow (over the years). Different manufacturers, same answer: water damage - you’re on your own bud! On the other hand I had 0 problems replacing dying or faulty battery. I also side on waterproofing side of things.