15 ms·

There's an exception for batteries that "retain at least 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles." Coincidentally, iPhones and probably other fla

by wmf 6mo ago

There's an exception for batteries that "retain at least 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles." Coincidentally, iPhones and probably other flagships already qualify for this exception.

spockz 6mo ago
That had me thinking as well. What if the manufacturer says that to get to that number you are only allowed to charge it to 80% ever? My iPhone pro battery is at 92% at 417 cycles over 20 months.
- sokoloff 6mo ago
  Do what EVs do: make 100% on the display not 100.0% electro-chemically and 0% not be 0.0% chemically. This is a serious suggestion, as I think it’s actually net beneficial for the consumer.
  - creaturemachine 6mo ago
    There's no coming back from 0% chemically. Running li-ions that low results in physical damage.
  - Semaphor 6mo ago
    This is already the case and has been so for a long time. But it's a trade off between longevity and capacity
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - LeifCarrotson 6mo ago
    The problem is that consumers want to buy a phone with 24 hours of runtime and an EV with 200 miles of range, and they want the phone to be thin and light and the car to be fast and light, and manufacturers want to achieve those capacities with as little electrochemistry as possible. The number of charge cycles at full capacity will be a big deal a year or two in, but on the sales floor it's a secondary concern for typical buyers and sellers. Playing fast and loose with the numbers, I'm sure that if 100% on the display was 80% in the battery and 0% was 20%, you'd have an amazing number of charge cycles. You could program that 40% of unused capacity to be reduced as the battery ages very slowly, and by the time the used capacity is only at 80% of its original revealed capacity you're at many thousands of cycles. But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1. Absent breakthroughs in battery chemistry, this basically regulates the amount of buffer capacity that manufacturers are required to include in their ~~lies~~ marketing materials.
    - sokoloff 6mo ago
      > But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1. But it would also behave on day 1000 just as well as when the user agreed to buy it on day 1, meaning they’re likely still ok with it.
- wmf 6mo ago
  In that hypothetical scenario they should advertise 80% as the full capacity. Competition generally prevents this kind of "underclocking".
- c0n5pir4cy 6mo ago
  So as far as I can tell, they can't do this as it's based on equivalent full-charge cycles - so that's nice at least.
foolfoolz 6mo ago
i’m ok with this and an $80 battery replacement in exchange for better waterproofing
- Pxtl 6mo ago
  Timex has been making iron-man watches held together with Philips-head screws that can withstand 100 meters of water pressure since the mid-1980s. Waterproofing is no excuse for this nonsense.
  - Aurornis 6mo ago
    Watch cases are relatively huge for what needs to be inside them. You can see the difference between an entire smartphone and a simple time keeping device, right? They also don’t have the long aspect ratio of phones (bending moment). This doesn’t compare to phones at all. It’s like trying to compare your TI-83 calculator to a MacBook Pro
    - changoplatanero 6mo ago
      They also don't have speakers, microphones, and charging ports.
      - Pxtl 6mo ago
        My Galaxy Watch disagrees.
    - Pxtl 6mo ago
      Then use more screws. Stud them all the way down the perimeter of the back 1cm apart for all I care. Still better than heat-guns and prying.
      - vile_wretch 6mo ago
        Adding more holes to a surface isn't going to make it more waterproof
doctorpangloss 6mo ago
Apple doesn't comply with regulations that weren't their idea with sincerity.
whazor 6mo ago
Still, the majority of the population would get a phone with replaceable battery.
- thunfischbrot 6mo ago
  In my bubble, some. In the general population? Very very few.
- hamdingers 6mo ago
  All the top smartphone manufacturers hit that bar, at least for their mid and high end phones. The focus on apple is misleading and weird. This will only impact bottom barrel phones.
  - creaturemachine 6mo ago
    Remember ios 10.2.1? Batterygate?
    - hightrix 6mo ago
      That was 10 years ago. Are there any other instances similar that are more recent?
    - jeffbee 6mo ago
      "Remember the time Apple fixed iOS so the iPhone would run instead of crashing under low voltage conditions" remains, to me, the most inexplicable of HN's mass psychoses.
      - alt227 6mo ago
        Remember that they did it secretly and denied it for ages, only to backtrack and use this excuse when it was actually proven they were slowing the devices. Dont let the marketing spin white-wash your long term memory of an event.
  - alt227 6mo ago
    Exactly. Apple and Samsung phones account for 90% of the market and are exempt fro mthis bill. So just how much ewaste will it prevent?
vovavili 6mo ago
I wonder how much did the phone manufacturers spend on lobbying for this.
ThrowawayR2 6mo ago
Doesn't seem like a problem. Assuming the phone needs recharging every 3 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~8.2 years; longer than the OS is likely to be supported. Assuming a recharge every 2 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~5.5 years.
- wolvoleo 6mo ago
  That's a pretty crazy assumption. I have to charge at least once a day on my flagship phone. Granted, I hate big phones so it's a Samsung S25 smallest version but still. I don't know anyone who can get more than a day on a charge.
- drivebyhooting 6mo ago
  My iPhone is less than 1 year old and I have to charge it every day.
  - wildzzz 6mo ago
    I'm guessing they use very conservative usage in their math. I'm on my pixel all day long but I barely use my iPhone 13 more than maybe an hour a day. I can leave it unplugged all weekend and come back Monday with enough charge to get me through the day.
- alt227 6mo ago
  You have a very loose definition of recharge and charge cycle which seems to fit Apples marketing spin like a glove.
SirMaster 6mo ago
Huh, my iPhones have never come close to this. They are always under 80% capacity before 1000 charge cycles.
- jvanderbot 6mo ago
  unfortunately, it will be based on _design_ / _rated_ capacity, probably.
  - rasz 6mo ago
    It will be based on what Apple self reports.
- WesolyKubeczek 6mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- catlikesshrimp 6mo ago
  Watch apple secretly defining 1000 charge cycles as 1500 10%-80% "normal use" days. (Remember the "full charge in 8 minutes fiasco? Well, I searched a reference but I didn't find any :/)
- criddell 6mo ago
  My iPhone 13 Mini is almost 5 years old and well over 1000 charges and the battery health app reports 81% which I believe.
znpy 6mo ago
I wonder who’s gonna verify the claims about holding or not holdings 80% charge after 1000 cycles. And what consequences will there be for whoever lies.
- kjkjadksj 6mo ago
  Reminds me when I tried to warranty a macbook air battery a couple years ago. I was already under 80% within the warranty period per System Profiler. They hook up their diagnostics and turns out, System Profiler is wrong, I was at 81% capacity after 1 year. No repair for me.
manoDev 6mo ago
Yeah, and it's BS because in real usage iPhone batteries almost never reach this lifespan. Apple's lobby made this law ineffective, I hope customers start suing.
protimewaster 6mo ago
Last time this was discussed, it was stated that the text exempting based on cycle counts was removed from the final, adopted version. Is that incorrect?
- criddell 6mo ago
  On the page linked to it mentions the two exceptions that exempt iPhone and other flagship phones - long lifespan (80% after 1000 charges) and waterproof (IP67). The other exemption criteria is for specialized (medical) devices and devices where a removable battery would be unsafe.
  - protimewaster 6mo ago
    It does, but, in the previous HN discussion, there was a link to the what was reportedly the adopted version of the bill, and those exemptions were gone from the text.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
    - criddell 6mo ago
      Somebody pointed me to the latest version of the act and it does have the 80% after 1000 charges text. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02023R1670-20250620 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... This is the text: > the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1 000 full charge cycles and after 1 000 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 % of the rated capacity;
      - protimewaster 6mo ago
        Another user pointed out that there are actually two sets of rules. There's a general one that doesn't have the exemptions, and a tablet and phone specific one that does. It's not clear to me which takes precedence, though, as it sounds like the wording of the phone and tablet-specific rules leaves open the possibility that it can be made more strict by other sets of rules.
bluescrn 6mo ago
displayedBatteryHealthPercent = max(80, actualBatteryHealthPercent); (I suspect the health figures displayed are already somewhat fudged to try and downplay the reality of battery degradation?)
GuB-42 6mo ago
Is there any other details on what it means. There is a difference between: - Having a manufacturer promise that the battery will last with little oversight on how testing is done and no specific warranty. - A lifetime warranty where any battery that gives less than 80% of its rating for 1000 cycles has to be replaced free of charge. With the added obligation that measurements should be user-readable and accurate (no cheating the cycle counter and battery gauge).
- Worf 6mo ago
  > has to be replaced free of charge I assume you mean the battery would have to be replaced free of charge. But what if I don't want to hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation with no oversight of how it will be handled? What if I can't afford to part with that computer? I would be stuck with having to replace that battery on my own since I don't want to risk giving physical access to my computer to untrusted parties. There needs to be a different way to handle this. For example, send me a new battery and the tools needed to replace it, with monetary compensation if certain features would be lost, like waterproofing. Or something else - not sure. But I don't believe in the honor of the people who would service my computer.
  - eszed 6mo ago
    > hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation I'm equally paranoid, so I back up and wipe any device I hand in for repair. > What if I can't afford to part with that computer? No perfect answer for this, but I've always kept my last phone in a drawer in case my current phone breaks. It's saved me a couple of times. Maybe not everything works, but basic calls and texts always have, and I can use a browser for banking and other "complicated" stuff for a few days. I'm OK if the perfect doesn't get in the way of the good - both personally, and in this sort of legislation.
    - Worf 6mo ago
      Without sufficient technical information on how the computer works and without root access, we can't be certain a "wipe" will actually wipe everything. For malware that could be inserted in a targeted manner, even with desktop computers we don't have access the every firmware of every part. When we're talking about mobile "phones", we usually have an interface that tells us "sure, it's wiped", but is it? Without full root to every part of it, can you be certain that it is? When you press "wipe" on an iPhone or a closed Android flagship (or whatever the UI is), what happens exactly on the filesystem that you can't even access fully? Telling people to hand over their devices willy-nilly is far from "good". We shouldn't settle for this. The hardware companies can ship us the tools to replace the battery ourselves. Maybe not "ourselves" - my aunt can ask me to do it for her if she can't do it on her own. But she trusts me more than she does people she's never seen ever. If the tools are expensive, we can ship them back. There are many options so we should discuss them.
nalekberov 6mo ago
1,000 charge cycles is hardly even 4 years. I’m not sure what this regulation is trying to fix. That ultimately means landfills will be filled with more iPhone Ns.
dheera 6mo ago
You can also just redefine the battery capacity so that 100% = former 80% and then add a paid subscription feature to "occasionally overcharge it by 25%" /s
eqvinox 6mo ago
JFTR: achieving that capacity retention is a question of charge settings. Pretty much any Lithium ion battery can achieve it if you don't charge it to the absolute maximum possible each time. It's quite simple. While you can charge a "good old" Lithium ion battery to 4.2V, you already start getting slow degradation at that point. Charging it to 4.1V or 4.05V massively reduces that. But at the same time, those 100 or 150mV are a notable amount of charge, up to 20%. So… yeah. It's a tradeoff. For reference: https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-charging-voltage-impact-the-lifespan-of-lithium-ion-batteries/ https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-charging-voltage-impact-t... https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/196/INR18650_2D00_30Q_5F00_datasheet.PDF https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussion... page 15
- in_cahoots 6mo ago
  If the bill defines a charge cycle as 100->0->100 then the restriction should be more meaningful right? Manufacturers would have to ship a larger battery and cap its capacity to get the same lifespan.
  - Kirby64 6mo ago
    100% and 0% are essentially arbitrary, though. That’s the point. What is 100% for a battery? 4.1V? 4.4V? What’s 0%? 3.0V? 2.5V? Lower?
    - drfloyd51 6mo ago
      And to add to the confusion, the display reads 100% of the current capacity. 100% of 80%.
      - Kirby64 6mo ago
        Irrelevant for state of charge, though. My point is you can define 0 and 100 as specific voltages and arbitrarily make the capacity larger or smaller. LG was notorious for having the top level charge be unusually high for the time (4.45V or something) which meant they had amazing battery life when new, but quickly fell off a cliff as they aged rapidly.
josefx 6mo ago
Didn't Apple once ship a patch to limit CPU performance on iPhones because battery degradation was a widespread issue?
- wmf 6mo ago
  Yes, but batterygate was about degradation of the battery current not capacity. Apple officially acknowledges that battery degradation exists; the only question is whether it's better or worse than 80%.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

by wmf 6mo ago

spockz 6mo ago

That had me thinking as well. What if the manufacturer says that to get to that number you are only allowed to charge it to 80% ever? My iPhone pro battery is at 92% at 417 cycles over 20 months.

sokoloff 6mo ago
Do what EVs do: make 100% on the display not 100.0% electro-chemically and 0% not be 0.0% chemically. This is a serious suggestion, as I think it’s actually net beneficial for the consumer.
- creaturemachine 6mo ago
  There's no coming back from 0% chemically. Running li-ions that low results in physical damage.
- Semaphor 6mo ago
  This is already the case and has been so for a long time. But it's a trade off between longevity and capacity
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- LeifCarrotson 6mo ago
  The problem is that consumers want to buy a phone with 24 hours of runtime and an EV with 200 miles of range, and they want the phone to be thin and light and the car to be fast and light, and manufacturers want to achieve those capacities with as little electrochemistry as possible. The number of charge cycles at full capacity will be a big deal a year or two in, but on the sales floor it's a secondary concern for typical buyers and sellers. Playing fast and loose with the numbers, I'm sure that if 100% on the display was 80% in the battery and 0% was 20%, you'd have an amazing number of charge cycles. You could program that 40% of unused capacity to be reduced as the battery ages very slowly, and by the time the used capacity is only at 80% of its original revealed capacity you're at many thousands of cycles. But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1. Absent breakthroughs in battery chemistry, this basically regulates the amount of buffer capacity that manufacturers are required to include in their ~~lies~~ marketing materials.
  - sokoloff 6mo ago
    > But you'd have a phone or car that weighed 40% more and cost 40% more than one that had no buffer and ran at the bleeding edge on day 1. But it would also behave on day 1000 just as well as when the user agreed to buy it on day 1, meaning they’re likely still ok with it.
wmf 6mo ago
In that hypothetical scenario they should advertise 80% as the full capacity. Competition generally prevents this kind of "underclocking".
c0n5pir4cy 6mo ago
So as far as I can tell, they can't do this as it's based on equivalent full-charge cycles - so that's nice at least.

foolfoolz 6mo ago

i’m ok with this and an $80 battery replacement in exchange for better waterproofing

Pxtl 6mo ago
Timex has been making iron-man watches held together with Philips-head screws that can withstand 100 meters of water pressure since the mid-1980s. Waterproofing is no excuse for this nonsense.
- Aurornis 6mo ago
  Watch cases are relatively huge for what needs to be inside them. You can see the difference between an entire smartphone and a simple time keeping device, right? They also don’t have the long aspect ratio of phones (bending moment). This doesn’t compare to phones at all. It’s like trying to compare your TI-83 calculator to a MacBook Pro
  - changoplatanero 6mo ago
    They also don't have speakers, microphones, and charging ports.
    - Pxtl 6mo ago
      My Galaxy Watch disagrees.
  - Pxtl 6mo ago
    Then use more screws. Stud them all the way down the perimeter of the back 1cm apart for all I care. Still better than heat-guns and prying.
    - vile_wretch 6mo ago
      Adding more holes to a surface isn't going to make it more waterproof

doctorpangloss 6mo ago

Apple doesn't comply with regulations that weren't their idea with sincerity.

whazor 6mo ago

Still, the majority of the population would get a phone with replaceable battery.

thunfischbrot 6mo ago
In my bubble, some. In the general population? Very very few.
hamdingers 6mo ago
All the top smartphone manufacturers hit that bar, at least for their mid and high end phones. The focus on apple is misleading and weird. This will only impact bottom barrel phones.
- creaturemachine 6mo ago
  Remember ios 10.2.1? Batterygate?
  - hightrix 6mo ago
    That was 10 years ago. Are there any other instances similar that are more recent?
  - jeffbee 6mo ago
    "Remember the time Apple fixed iOS so the iPhone would run instead of crashing under low voltage conditions" remains, to me, the most inexplicable of HN's mass psychoses.
    - alt227 6mo ago
      Remember that they did it secretly and denied it for ages, only to backtrack and use this excuse when it was actually proven they were slowing the devices. Dont let the marketing spin white-wash your long term memory of an event.
- alt227 6mo ago
  Exactly. Apple and Samsung phones account for 90% of the market and are exempt fro mthis bill. So just how much ewaste will it prevent?

vovavili 6mo ago

I wonder how much did the phone manufacturers spend on lobbying for this.

ThrowawayR2 6mo ago

Doesn't seem like a problem. Assuming the phone needs recharging every 3 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~8.2 years; longer than the OS is likely to be supported. Assuming a recharge every 2 days, that's 80% capacity remaining after ~5.5 years.

wolvoleo 6mo ago
That's a pretty crazy assumption. I have to charge at least once a day on my flagship phone. Granted, I hate big phones so it's a Samsung S25 smallest version but still. I don't know anyone who can get more than a day on a charge.
drivebyhooting 6mo ago
My iPhone is less than 1 year old and I have to charge it every day.
- wildzzz 6mo ago
  I'm guessing they use very conservative usage in their math. I'm on my pixel all day long but I barely use my iPhone 13 more than maybe an hour a day. I can leave it unplugged all weekend and come back Monday with enough charge to get me through the day.
alt227 6mo ago
You have a very loose definition of recharge and charge cycle which seems to fit Apples marketing spin like a glove.

SirMaster 6mo ago

Huh, my iPhones have never come close to this. They are always under 80% capacity before 1000 charge cycles.

jvanderbot 6mo ago
unfortunately, it will be based on _design_ / _rated_ capacity, probably.
- rasz 6mo ago
  It will be based on what Apple self reports.
WesolyKubeczek 6mo ago
[dead]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
catlikesshrimp 6mo ago
Watch apple secretly defining 1000 charge cycles as 1500 10%-80% "normal use" days. (Remember the "full charge in 8 minutes fiasco? Well, I searched a reference but I didn't find any :/)
criddell 6mo ago
My iPhone 13 Mini is almost 5 years old and well over 1000 charges and the battery health app reports 81% which I believe.

znpy 6mo ago

I wonder who’s gonna verify the claims about holding or not holdings 80% charge after 1000 cycles. And what consequences will there be for whoever lies.

kjkjadksj 6mo ago
Reminds me when I tried to warranty a macbook air battery a couple years ago. I was already under 80% within the warranty period per System Profiler. They hook up their diagnostics and turns out, System Profiler is wrong, I was at 81% capacity after 1 year. No repair for me.

manoDev 6mo ago

Yeah, and it's BS because in real usage iPhone batteries almost never reach this lifespan. Apple's lobby made this law ineffective, I hope customers start suing.

protimewaster 6mo ago

Last time this was discussed, it was stated that the text exempting based on cycle counts was removed from the final, adopted version. Is that incorrect?

criddell 6mo ago
On the page linked to it mentions the two exceptions that exempt iPhone and other flagship phones - long lifespan (80% after 1000 charges) and waterproof (IP67). The other exemption criteria is for specialized (medical) devices and devices where a removable battery would be unsafe.
- protimewaster 6mo ago
  It does, but, in the previous HN discussion, there was a link to the what was reportedly the adopted version of the bill, and those exemptions were gone from the text.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 6mo ago
    Somebody pointed me to the latest version of the act and it does have the 80% after 1000 charges text. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02023R1670-20250620 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A... This is the text: > the battery endurance in cycles achieves a minimum of 1 000 full charge cycles and after 1 000 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 80 % of the rated capacity;
    - protimewaster 6mo ago
      Another user pointed out that there are actually two sets of rules. There's a general one that doesn't have the exemptions, and a tablet and phone specific one that does. It's not clear to me which takes precedence, though, as it sounds like the wording of the phone and tablet-specific rules leaves open the possibility that it can be made more strict by other sets of rules.

bluescrn 6mo ago

displayedBatteryHealthPercent = max(80, actualBatteryHealthPercent); (I suspect the health figures displayed are already somewhat fudged to try and downplay the reality of battery degradation?)

GuB-42 6mo ago

Is there any other details on what it means. There is a difference between: - Having a manufacturer promise that the battery will last with little oversight on how testing is done and no specific warranty. - A lifetime warranty where any battery that gives less than 80% of its rating for 1000 cycles has to be replaced free of charge. With the added obligation that measurements should be user-readable and accurate (no cheating the cycle counter and battery gauge).

Worf 6mo ago
> has to be replaced free of charge I assume you mean the battery would have to be replaced free of charge. But what if I don't want to hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation with no oversight of how it will be handled? What if I can't afford to part with that computer? I would be stuck with having to replace that battery on my own since I don't want to risk giving physical access to my computer to untrusted parties. There needs to be a different way to handle this. For example, send me a new battery and the tools needed to replace it, with monetary compensation if certain features would be lost, like waterproofing. Or something else - not sure. But I don't believe in the honor of the people who would service my computer.
- eszed 6mo ago
  > hand over a computer full of my personal data to a corporation I'm equally paranoid, so I back up and wipe any device I hand in for repair. > What if I can't afford to part with that computer? No perfect answer for this, but I've always kept my last phone in a drawer in case my current phone breaks. It's saved me a couple of times. Maybe not everything works, but basic calls and texts always have, and I can use a browser for banking and other "complicated" stuff for a few days. I'm OK if the perfect doesn't get in the way of the good - both personally, and in this sort of legislation.
  - Worf 6mo ago
    Without sufficient technical information on how the computer works and without root access, we can't be certain a "wipe" will actually wipe everything. For malware that could be inserted in a targeted manner, even with desktop computers we don't have access the every firmware of every part. When we're talking about mobile "phones", we usually have an interface that tells us "sure, it's wiped", but is it? Without full root to every part of it, can you be certain that it is? When you press "wipe" on an iPhone or a closed Android flagship (or whatever the UI is), what happens exactly on the filesystem that you can't even access fully? Telling people to hand over their devices willy-nilly is far from "good". We shouldn't settle for this. The hardware companies can ship us the tools to replace the battery ourselves. Maybe not "ourselves" - my aunt can ask me to do it for her if she can't do it on her own. But she trusts me more than she does people she's never seen ever. If the tools are expensive, we can ship them back. There are many options so we should discuss them.

nalekberov 6mo ago

1,000 charge cycles is hardly even 4 years. I’m not sure what this regulation is trying to fix. That ultimately means landfills will be filled with more iPhone Ns.

dheera 6mo ago

You can also just redefine the battery capacity so that 100% = former 80% and then add a paid subscription feature to "occasionally overcharge it by 25%" /s

eqvinox 6mo ago

JFTR: achieving that capacity retention is a question of charge settings. Pretty much any Lithium ion battery can achieve it if you don't charge it to the absolute maximum possible each time. It's quite simple. While you can charge a "good old" Lithium ion battery to 4.2V, you already start getting slow degradation at that point. Charging it to 4.1V or 4.05V massively reduces that. But at the same time, those 100 or 150mV are a notable amount of charge, up to 20%. So… yeah. It's a tradeoff. For reference: https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-charging-voltage-impact-the-lifespan-of-lithium-ion-batteries/ https://nenpower.com/blog/how-does-charging-voltage-impact-t... https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/196/INR18650_2D00_30Q_5F00_datasheet.PDF https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussion... page 15

in_cahoots 6mo ago
If the bill defines a charge cycle as 100->0->100 then the restriction should be more meaningful right? Manufacturers would have to ship a larger battery and cap its capacity to get the same lifespan.
- Kirby64 6mo ago
  100% and 0% are essentially arbitrary, though. That’s the point. What is 100% for a battery? 4.1V? 4.4V? What’s 0%? 3.0V? 2.5V? Lower?
  - drfloyd51 6mo ago
    And to add to the confusion, the display reads 100% of the current capacity. 100% of 80%.
    - Kirby64 6mo ago
      Irrelevant for state of charge, though. My point is you can define 0 and 100 as specific voltages and arbitrarily make the capacity larger or smaller. LG was notorious for having the top level charge be unusually high for the time (4.45V or something) which meant they had amazing battery life when new, but quickly fell off a cliff as they aged rapidly.

josefx 6mo ago

Didn't Apple once ship a patch to limit CPU performance on iPhones because battery degradation was a widespread issue?

wmf 6mo ago
Yes, but batterygate was about degradation of the battery current not capacity. Apple officially acknowledges that battery degradation exists; the only question is whether it's better or worse than 80%.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]