4 ms·

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 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
    [deleted]
  - criddell 5mo 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 5mo 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.
IshKebab 5mo ago
Yeah I found the exception for waterproof devices (which isn't any waterproof devices; arguably phones wouldn't count). But there doesn't appear to be anything about cycle counts: > To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
jorams 5mo ago
The batteries regulation[1] doesn't contain such an exemption. The legal argument that iPhones may be exempt goes like this: - The batteries regulation is a general regulation and article 11 specifically says the following: > This paragraph shall be without prejudice to any specific provisions ensuring a higher level of protection of the environment and human health relating to the removability and replaceability of portable batteries by end-users laid down in any Union law on electrical and electronic equipment as defined in Article 3(1), point (a), of Directive 2012/19/EU. - There is a different regulation, the ecodesign regulation for smartphones and tablets[2], that is more specific and therefore might supersede the batteries regulation on this front, which says: > (ii) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may provide the battery or batteries referred to in point (i)(a) only to professional repairers if manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives ensure that the following requirements are met: > (a) after 500 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 83 % of the rated capacity; > (b) 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; > (c) the device meets IP67 rating. [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1542#art_11 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1670#anx_II https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
- peterlada 5mo ago
  This is solid. I like it.
- motbus3 5mo ago
  I can strongly state that it is 100% possible to do ip67 with removable batteries in the sense people general mean. That said, I am afraid how one can play with the definition of removable. Everything is removable given enough force.
  - FeepingCreature 5mo ago
    EU courts generally frown on such shenanigans.

criddell 5mo 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 5mo 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 5mo ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 5mo 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 5mo 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.

IshKebab 5mo ago

Yeah I found the exception for waterproof devices (which isn't any waterproof devices; arguably phones wouldn't count). But there doesn't appear to be anything about cycle counts: > To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.

jorams 5mo ago

The batteries regulation[1] doesn't contain such an exemption. The legal argument that iPhones may be exempt goes like this: - The batteries regulation is a general regulation and article 11 specifically says the following: > This paragraph shall be without prejudice to any specific provisions ensuring a higher level of protection of the environment and human health relating to the removability and replaceability of portable batteries by end-users laid down in any Union law on electrical and electronic equipment as defined in Article 3(1), point (a), of Directive 2012/19/EU. - There is a different regulation, the ecodesign regulation for smartphones and tablets[2], that is more specific and therefore might supersede the batteries regulation on this front, which says: > (ii) manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives may provide the battery or batteries referred to in point (i)(a) only to professional repairers if manufacturers, importers or authorised representatives ensure that the following requirements are met: > (a) after 500 full charge cycles the battery has, in a fully charged state, a remaining capacity of at least 83 % of the rated capacity; > (b) 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; > (c) the device meets IP67 rating. [1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1542#art_11 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... [2]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32023R1670#anx_II https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

peterlada 5mo ago
This is solid. I like it.
motbus3 5mo ago
I can strongly state that it is 100% possible to do ip67 with removable batteries in the sense people general mean. That said, I am afraid how one can play with the definition of removable. Everything is removable given enough force.
- FeepingCreature 5mo ago
  EU courts generally frown on such shenanigans.