3 ms·

This is a waste of money. All flagship phones have hit the requirements so do not need to make them removable. It might impact some of the budget garbage but no

by infecto 6mo ago

This is a waste of money. All flagship phones have hit the requirements so do not need to make them removable. It might impact some of the budget garbage but not yet clear. All this will do is increase compliance costs.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> All flagship phones have hit the requirements Lots of non-flagship phones making e-waste. This is a sensibly-tailored regulation, targeting the problem instead of specifying a solution because some bureaucrat likes replaceable batteries.
- infecto 6mo ago
  Nobody has quantified what lots means. Which is my issue. The article just says many. Lots and many do not make great legislation.
danaw 6mo ago
based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate. for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles
- drstewart 6mo ago
  The bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.
  - danaw 6mo ago
    many others in the comments have this same issue (and the internet at large). my point is just that it's not obvious that apple has met this claim with real world devices. it will be seen how the actual requirements will be validated, likely in a way that favors the "best case" scenario for apple.
    - infecto 6mo ago
      Doubtful if only because that would fall under warranty then. There is a financial incentive for that to not happen. I imagine this is a situation where the complaints seem a lot more frequent because it’s a complaint. The mass of phones that don’t have an issue will not show up in public forum data.
      - danaw 6mo ago
        since these companies know this data perhaps they need to be audited to see what the ground truth reality is
- infecto 6mo ago
  What makes it not accurate? With the 15, apple was already making claims about 80% at 1000 cycles. Battery degradation has too many variables for you to make your claim and even in perfect situation, it’s not a linear degradation by cycle. My 17 is at 100 cycles with 100% health. Back to my original claim. Most manufacturers already meet the exception. Some of the low end garbage phones may not but it’s unclear how meaningful of the market share that will be.
  - danaw 6mo ago
    making claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators
    - infecto 6mo ago
      Which will align with how manufacturers have been measuring it. The EU years ago already set battery standards for energy ratings. This won’t come as a surprise.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > What makes it not accurate? You’ve concluded because you don’t have the data nobody has the data and thus the legislation “is a waste of money.” Your ask for data is warranted. Your premature conclusion is inaccurate, or at least unsustained.
    - infecto 6mo ago
      That cuts both ways. Pointing out uncertainty doesn’t by itself invalidate the direction of the argument. My point was about incentives and scope: the exemption looks broad enough that most major OEMs can comply without going to removable batteries, especially at the high end where cycle-life claims are already trending toward the threshold. If that holds, the regulation mostly adds compliance cost while only forcing changes on a narrower slice of lower-end devices. If you think that’s wrong, the useful counter is data: what share of shipped units in the EU would actually fail the exemption and be forced into redesign? Without that, saying the conclusion is “unsustained” isn’t doing much more than asserting the opposite.
InfinityByTen 6mo ago
I'm not sure I have a way to fact-check this, but the link claims > That is significantly more than many batteries on the market today can achieve (often around 500–800 cycles).
- infecto 6mo ago
  Which is really my issue with this type of legislation. If they had it clearly estimated it would be incredible because you can measure the impact but as it stands it could go either way.

by infecto 6mo ago

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> All flagship phones have hit the requirements Lots of non-flagship phones making e-waste. This is a sensibly-tailored regulation, targeting the problem instead of specifying a solution because some bureaucrat likes replaceable batteries.

infecto 6mo ago
Nobody has quantified what lots means. Which is my issue. The article just says many. Lots and many do not make great legislation.

danaw 6mo ago

based on many comments in this thread your statement is not accurate. for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles

drstewart 6mo ago
The bar clearly won't be "any random person's phone meeting this criteria", so what your specific phone does doesn't really matter.
- danaw 6mo ago
  many others in the comments have this same issue (and the internet at large). my point is just that it's not obvious that apple has met this claim with real world devices. it will be seen how the actual requirements will be validated, likely in a way that favors the "best case" scenario for apple.
  - infecto 6mo ago
    Doubtful if only because that would fall under warranty then. There is a financial incentive for that to not happen. I imagine this is a situation where the complaints seem a lot more frequent because it’s a complaint. The mass of phones that don’t have an issue will not show up in public forum data.
    - danaw 6mo ago
      since these companies know this data perhaps they need to be audited to see what the ground truth reality is
infecto 6mo ago
What makes it not accurate? With the 15, apple was already making claims about 80% at 1000 cycles. Battery degradation has too many variables for you to make your claim and even in perfect situation, it’s not a linear degradation by cycle. My 17 is at 100 cycles with 100% health. Back to my original claim. Most manufacturers already meet the exception. Some of the low end garbage phones may not but it’s unclear how meaningful of the market share that will be.
- danaw 6mo ago
  making claims is not the same a real world outcomes. the real question will be how these claims are audited by regulators
  - infecto 6mo ago
    Which will align with how manufacturers have been measuring it. The EU years ago already set battery standards for energy ratings. This won’t come as a surprise.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > What makes it not accurate? You’ve concluded because you don’t have the data nobody has the data and thus the legislation “is a waste of money.” Your ask for data is warranted. Your premature conclusion is inaccurate, or at least unsustained.
  - infecto 6mo ago
    That cuts both ways. Pointing out uncertainty doesn’t by itself invalidate the direction of the argument. My point was about incentives and scope: the exemption looks broad enough that most major OEMs can comply without going to removable batteries, especially at the high end where cycle-life claims are already trending toward the threshold. If that holds, the regulation mostly adds compliance cost while only forcing changes on a narrower slice of lower-end devices. If you think that’s wrong, the useful counter is data: what share of shipped units in the EU would actually fail the exemption and be forced into redesign? Without that, saying the conclusion is “unsustained” isn’t doing much more than asserting the opposite.

InfinityByTen 6mo ago

I'm not sure I have a way to fact-check this, but the link claims > That is significantly more than many batteries on the market today can achieve (often around 500–800 cycles).

infecto 6mo ago
Which is really my issue with this type of legislation. If they had it clearly estimated it would be incredible because you can measure the impact but as it stands it could go either way.