1. If it scales worldwide. There's a decent chance that considering current global geopolitics, China will never allow them in, India and the EU will probably do the same or favor local competitors, Africa/Latin America will probably not have the money to tier 1 markets, which kind of leaves the US + Anglosphere.
2. If it captures most of the transportation market. That's debatable because self-driving tech works even better for trains, trams, subways, buses, etc. And that's before we go into other self-driving car companies.
3. If it becomes truly production ready within the next 10 years or so. By "truly production ready" I mean a Uber/taxi competitor in at least 20 alpha global cities outside of the US. Otherwise yeah, it's going to be a great tech but with a 30+ years ROI.
When I was building the layouts for my e-paper calendars , I needed pixel fonts due to the lack of grayscale on the display. It was surprisingly hard to find them - especially with customers asking for Cyrillic characters.
Where in the market can I buy a thicker phone with a 3.5mm jack that has comparable features to those of best sellers? How can I reveal a preference that isn't offered.
not Mythos, no, but they're probably running some kind of vuln-finding frontier models. maybe GLM or Kimi fine-tuned on a dataset of past CVEs or something.
Aren't today's phone batteries already replaceable with commercially available tools? I can walk into a non-apple store with my iPhone and walk out with a replaced battery 20 minutes later.
This isn't even what drives obsolesce of phones, it's software updates.
If you really want to be able to self-swap your own battery, you can just buy an Android that has a replaceable battery.
Do we need to regulate something that isn't a problem? All regulation has downsides, is it worth paying this price here?
With all due respect, I can buy a kit on iFixit for $55 for an iPhone 16 pro max, including the battery. I’ve replaced my iPhone battery before, aside from the glue being a bit sticky so needing a heat gun it isn’t that difficult.
The people that are scared of using a hairdryer on their iPhone, won't be willing to disassemble it either.
We have got to stop coddling people. We don't need to compromise on everything just so it's fully maintainable and accessible by the lowest common denominator. This law is being designed for a group that frankly does not care either way, but makes the devices worse for them in a practical, day-to-day sense.
It is hard to tell what the EU is actually looking for when you compare against the meter stick of reality.
Even ignoring potential design impacts from transitioning from sealed batteries to ones padded with safety features to avoid harm to someone armed with a conductive screwdriver, I have to imagine there will be quite a few people who do not restore the device to its ip 68 rating.
So you risk people stockpiling batteries in case they need them later, and people who after repair increase the risk of them turning their phone into a pile of e-waste because they thought they could still get it wet. People also won't necessarily know the proper way to dispose of the old battery.
This compared to just having rules about needing to supply batteries which are replaceable by any appropriate state-licensed technician at cost for X number of years, and mandating the old batteries be properly recycled by said technicians.
Starting a fire with a hair dryer, without disassemblibg it, seems almost like a challenge. What are you going to ignite with 80-90°C warm, rapidly cooling air?
And you can do it for much less if you want. I've replaced phone batteries with 6 dollars worth of tools and a hairdryer. You can buy glue or sticky gaskets for next to nothing as well if you care about waterproofing.
Most people are going to give up in 1 minute trying to open a smartphone. I can't imagine most people I know succeeding to replace the battery by themselves.
Which is fine - but the law is the law and will look at what Apple (et al) provide and document.
(Thought Apple's $99 to do the repair themselves isn't terribly bad all things considered; and likely part of their attempt to forestall complaints and litigations).
I've replaced a battery in my 2019 Xiaomi phone for $5 (the costs of the battery), using basic tools - albeit the back was already ungluing itself, making that part easier. At 10x the price, it's hard not to call it a massive markup.
Vendor or even model specific tools plus fighting with glue is not that complicated for someone willing to dedicate the effort, but it won't help recycling economy.
The actual cost breakdown for a battery replacement is:
45 EUR for a new battery
10 EUR for new display adhesive
20 EUR for screwdrivers and a spudger (unless you have them already)
a suction cup and tweezers you probably have at home already
Ignore the 25 EUR clamp and 20 EUR heat pack, I did and they weren't needed at all. So all in all, around 910 USD less than you claimed.
The heat gun discussion in the sibling comments is also completely ridiculous. There must be 100 ways to do it without a heat gun. Put it on the radiator, use a heat pack for muscle soreness, or just borrow a hairdryer.
If somebody's unable to replace their iphone battery because they can't come up with a source of heat, I doubt they'd even be able to replace the batteries in their TV remote.
Does your iPhone maintain its water resistance after this procedure? According to my read, under the EU rule, that's a requirement along with the easy-to-swap batteries.
Myself, I've had bad luck with getting things sealed up just-so in my own phone-repair adventures (which can be validated well-enough in Samsung world by looking at the barometer's reading, squeezing the phone to create some internal pressure, and then watching the rate of change).
I like to think that I have reasonably-decent mechanical inclination, but the luck here has been bad anyway. I really just want to be able to take the battery out, put a new one in, and have it otherwise work exactly like it did an hour ago. Alas.
You talk about "an Android that has a replaceable battery" as if that was something you could just buy at any store at no inconvenience. Sadly the majority of Android phones no longer have user-replaceable batteries, and only a select few models have official replacement parts available.
I'd be happier if this was something the market took care of, but after 10 years of glued-in batteries that you most likely can't even buy, I think it's time for a regulatory nudge.
In a perfect world, sure. But people also want phones these days that are physically durable, have some degree of waterproofing/water resistance, maximum battery life, etc. Many of the demands and expectations of a modern phone aren't easily compatible with a replaceable battery design that can withstand the incompetence of the average end user.
A GoPro fits all of those requirements and has easily replaceable batteries. Now, I understand that the shape and sizes are different. But I wouldn't mind some extra mm of thickness (I already get a pretty big camera bump anyway) if that means I can replace a battery faster.
We don't have a choice in the first place, minding or not. People who would mind missing a 3.5mm jack or replaceable battery have no say anyway, as none of the flagship devices on the market have either.
That only holds if you believe the market has a high level of efficiency.
Maybe if we wait long enough, the distribution of devices being manufactured will match consumer preferences, but I don't believe that to be the case today. The iPhone Mini sold ~millions of units. That may not be enough for Apple, but it's certainly enough to make a profit, yet nobody's building small phones now.
>people also want phones these days that are physically durable,
Anecdotally on this front, I have had to replace the screens of my iphones at least three times in the past (different models). Incidentally, I have never needed to replace the screen of a phone that had a replaceable battery. YMMV, but this seems needlessly defeatist.
>maximum battery life
One could also claim that bespoke charging cables allow for faster charging or longer battery life, but I don't know any iPhone users that are a crying a river for their deprecated non-standard chargers. But again, YMMV I guess.
Can we have this discussion once? In this thread alone, there's like 50 instances of people making this claim and each time it takes about 20 minutes before at least one person replies that it's not the case, after which no refutals are posted. I'm happy to learn it is false if it is (I never had a phone that I trusted to be waterproof to any degree so I don't have first-hand knowledge), but it gets really tiring to read the same information level over and over as a reason for why we can't have nice things
Taking this comment as an example of someone who actually used a battery-swappable phone in rain on a motorcycle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47835184 (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
> (I'm not only taking the person's word for it: the device is also IP certified as waterproof 30 mins at 1m depth)
Many expect phones these days to be the more stringent IP 68, this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
So it is great they got it (somewhat? completely?) restored, but it was a device with less water resistance than many flagships phone today, tested with a lower level of water resistance than it was originally rated for.
Fwiw, I also use devices with no IP certification or claims whatsoever in mild rain. It's not because there's a drop on the plastic case that it'll seize up, so the 5th ingress protection level being minimum for rain... I mean, technically yes, practically... depends if you really mean exposure to proper rain for more than the distance between bus stop and door step, say
Edit: wait,
> this would correspond to a device with the lesser water resistance of IP X7.
If 7 is already considered lesser...
> That phone only needs to be restored to IP X5 to handle usage in rain.
I looked it up and level 3 is rain actually ("spraying water"). How is 7 not sufficient for anything but perhaps full-on diving sessions
You severely underestimate the capabilities of modern electronics manufacturers. Sure, it’s harder to produce something that fits all those capabilities. But it’s totally possible. This is exactly the scenario where government regulation is critical to a well-functioning market.
There is a lot you can do with advanced materials science but as you get close to the high end of capability the cost goes up very rapidly and the ability to scale production is reduced.
Engage with the content of his comment instead of resorting to ad hominem.
He's right - the market wants embedded batteries, although perhaps not directly. Embedded batteries have improved price, battery capacity, water proofing, size, and strength. If the consumer really wanted a removable battery and all that that entails then there would be more phones that offered that. The reality is people misjudge what all that entails. By all means, I would love to just make the iPhone battery directly replaceable without any compromises but that's not reality.
Incorrect. Replaceable battery is a feature that decreases sales. Why would you implement it when battery being weak will cause substantial amount of users to replace phone instead of paying for service to replace the battery ?
If the feature isn't expected and it decrease sales, why would manufacturer put it in ?
And decreasing sales is exactly what the EU wants to accomplish. To stop people buying a whole new phone every couple of years.
Unfortunately I do expect other tricks towards planned obsolescence. Long-term support is now a thing but what they can still do is make phones slower over time. Even Apple did this with the iPhone 6.
Why would they break more often? I don't really see that.
We have thousands of Xcovers (also replaceable) in the factories at work and they break no more often than the regular phones in the office environment. In fact people treat them pretty roughly because they're handling heavy requirement and you know how well people look after equipment they didn't pay for :) They're not perfect but they walk the walk.
Another point: I know several people that have Fairphones where almost every component can be user-replaced and I've held them but I don't see them being any more fragile than any other phone, really. And these are not rugged models.
And a Fairphone battery is 40€. An Xcover battery (including NFC antenna which is weirdly enough in the battery) costs similar. The screen 90€. All a lot cheaper than Apple, probably because there is no labor cost. You can just do it yourself or ask a friend who's handy.
You can buy phones with non-embedded batteries but they suck. That's not a coincidence.
What is your hypothesis for why more phones arent designed with non-embedded, directly replacable batteries? If it's such a highly valued trait in a phone, why doesnt some company just gobble up that market share? Why havent existing solutions sold well? Mine is that consumers dont actually value non-embedded batteries when accounting for all the tradeoffs. What's your hypothesis?
They were given the choice years ago, when some Android phones had removable batteries and touted that as a feature. Nobody seemed to care.
In contrast, users were also given the choice between headphone jack and Bluetooth for years when every phone had both, and clearly chose the jack. BT headphones were rare. But Apple and many other phonemakers figured out they make more money by removing it.
I originally did engage with the comment. Water-resistance absolutely still is physically possible if the replacement battery is waterproof. Water can over time be corrosive at the contacts, but that's a risk for the user. It does not in any way imply that water will enter the internals of the device from the point of contact with the battery. This will require a bit of engineering at the contact to ensure that water doesn't enter the device. As for the size argument, adding 2 mm of thickness is less important than providing five years of extra life.
Wait, are you proposing sealing the phone and sealing the battery separately, but not sealing the contacts between them? That’s… super sketchy for salt water immersion. Unless you add fuses and a BMS and safety mechanisms into the “battery”. In which case wouldn’t customers want to be able to replace the actual battery within the now-a-battery-plus-computer phone accessory once it wears down?
Those are not mutually exclusive at all, and there were waterproof phones with replaceable batteries (without even needing a screwdriver). This is mostly an excuse.
I just don't see why we can't have nice things until proven otherwise (especially considering there is already evidence that this works), rather than have glued-shut devices until proven otherwise (by whom then? Apparently IP and practical experiences aren't enough for you)
I clicked the "parent comment" link all the way to the submission, and opened the submission as well. Nothing mentions IP68. Which "we" is this goalpost coming from?
Plenty of phones that were waterproof and had replacable batteries already. This isn't new or even particularily hard to do.
For a simplest example - somehow my watch is waterproof to 200M down and replacing the battery just takes a tiny screwdriver. Gaskets are not particualarly hard to work with.
you can have both. the waterproof was just an excuse to make you either change the phone or go to a specialised center to change the battery, something that is so incovinient/expensive that people just obsolete their phone instead.
I trust that most batteries from iPhones are currently recycled through proper means either by Apple or third party firms.
I don't know how most people will dispose of user replacement batteries, but I suspect the recycle rates will be lower. If you want to ensure higher rates you also need to do something they do in the USA for car lead acid batteries. Charge a deposit fee on the new battery that is returned only when the battery is turned into a valid recycling entity.
Why do you imply that the phone could no longer be waterproof? Granted, it would take a bit of extra engineering to make it comparably waterproof. There is no reasonable implication that water needs to leak into the internals of the device where it makes contact with the battery.
It's likely impossible to legislate but it would be nice to say "each generation has to have one user-replaceable battery". Everyone who doesn't care (the 99%) can buy the iPhone 19x, and the people who want replaceable batteries can get the iPhone B.
How is it that I owned a fully-submersible phone—with user replaceable battery—over 15 years ago?
You've bought into and are now parroting Apple & Samsung marketing BS.
P.S. it had a headphone jack too. Gaskets over the ports. The headphone jack was the first victim of "but muh waterproof" despite all the other holes and cutouts.
How do you feel about the batteries in electric vehicles?
What about wearable devices like a smartwatch, headphones, smart glasses?
Should all these be consumer-replaceable without tools, regardless of the effect on the other things people value in these devices (waterproofing, size and weight, battery life, etc.)?
FYI I do not work for anything close to the consumer tech industry.
In software architecture, we talk about essential complexity and incidental complexity.
Essential complexity is inherent to the problem being solved; it can't be eliminated through better tools, process, or design. Incidental complexity is anything added by poor choices or flawed tools. Every line in a "hello world" program that isn't something pretty close to `print("hello world")` is incidental complexity.
To change the battery in electric vehicles that follow typical present-day design patterns, it's essential to have a way to get some clearance under the vehicles like a lift, ramps, or a pit, and it's essential to have a lift or jack to support the weight of the battery. Everything else is basic hand tools.
It is not essential to use any proprietary tools or software that isn't onboard the car or battery. Requiring anything like that is incidental, and a regulation could forbid it in the name of right to repair, reducing waste, or maintaining a healthy used car market.
For EVs you need at least a hoist/lifter/crane/other power tool to replace a battery. But sure, there's no actual engineering reason they can't be replaced by the user. Same for the smartwatch - you can replace a battery in most ordinary wristwatches that use them, why not the smart ones? IEMs are usually too small and that's where the engineering limitations might matter. Headphones, no problem.
Says who? Not all devices can have the same level of repairability by laypeople. What if I complained that todays' CPUs are too miniaturized and that in my time I could swap the individual vacuum tubes in case something went wrong?
If CPU failure was a leading cause of device obsolescence, your argument would make sense. Next, the EU or other regulators should explicitly regulate software mechanisms that prevent owners of a device from installing an alternate OS, enabling open source or aftermarket OS developers to support devices that mainstream vendors no longer want to support.
> This isn't even what drives obsolesce of phones, it's software updates.
Agreed, and software-locking parts, like batteries, to only first-party or authorized third-party repair shops is one of those drivers.
I can see the argument for software locking some components (to cut down on theft) even if I don't appreciate or agree with them - it is at least a valid reason from some perspectives.
Batteries are a wear item though, and will have to be replaced periodically until the device is discarded. Software-locking them to only "Apple and people Apple likes" is unconscionable
This is part of a broader push to reign in on batteries not being recycled at the end of their lives.
An easily swappable battery can be processed separately and hopefully become a source of materials that would otherwise need to be mined somewhere far away.
Ultimately the goal is to have a closed-loop economy:
Of course the upsides of regulations are worth it. The downsides might cause slight inconvenience to the manufacturer, so that doesn't really matter.
Your next phone will be heavier, bulkier, more expensive, and less reliable as a result of these regulations. It will also probably not run as long between charges.
If bureaucrats in Brussels were better at designing phones than Apple, wouldn't they be doing just that?
> Your next phone will be heavier, bulkier, more expensive, and less reliable as a result of these regulations.
Huh, phones are getting heavier, bulkier and more expensive already with every new generation? There's no regulation needed for that. Also more fragile because everything is made of glass.
I agree with the overall thrust of your comment, but you’re overstating it a bit. Removable batteries bring benefits, and the tradeoffs aren’t as dire as you make them seem.
It’s ridiculous that regulators are forcing Apple’s hand with design and engineering (I was one of the few against the USB-C switch), but it is also true that Apple is often incapable of making certain kinds of design decisions that have become impossible due to organizational inertia or shareholder-pleasing. Look no further than macOS 26, or the history of bad design decisions on the hardware side.
We very much do compete for resources. People die of famine, thirst, exposure, and other lack-of-resources-related causes every day. That we could theoretically feed everyone doesn't matter when people compete for more than their fair share.
You can claim that and it's a comfortable thing to believe but that does not make it true.
If you want to convince somebody who actually seeks truth, you have to make an argument how any country who has started a war recently has had a net economic profit.
Weord position to defend. So: modern wars are not about resources because there's enough food to feed everybody, those wars that are widely understood to be about resources (oil, land) are "distribution problems" and not about resources, and the only way to prove that they are is to show a country-wide economic benefit to the victor directly related to the war...
Confidently dismissing others based on your own weird definitions and shifting goalposts does not make you seem as knowledgeable as you think.
> those wars that are widely understood to be about resources (oil, land)
The Ukraine war was started because Putin wanted it to be his heritage that Ukraine is part of Russia. The Donbas has some mines but nothing that cannot be found eleswhere in the vast expanse of the Russian empire and nothing that Russia couldn't easily have bought with its oil money.
Can we interpret "abundant" in a Darwinian sense e.g. diversity of life? I would think the industrial farming revolution decreased crop variety over time same for animal lineages aside from the rapid increase in mixed poodle breeds.
Crop variety was decreased by the original farming revolution, about 10k years before the industrial revolution. Rather than eating whatever was available, the large majority of the caloric input of an agricultural society comes from a few staple crops optimized for overwinter storability and producing large yields and thus supporting a large number of people.
The industrial revolution didn’t qualitatively change farming. It just made it possible to have more of it thanks to machine labor. The same goes for the later agricultural revolutions.
This is particularly evident if you had been around rural villages in eastern Europe in the late 00s, particularly those inhabited by elderly people at 70 years old and above.
They were still doing subsistence agriculture to supplement their own income well into the 21th century. Of course they didn't grow enough calorie heavy crops like corn, potatoes or wheat to live entirely off the land, but they had enough food that a bi-monthly shopping trip with their children was enough to get by.
No, they totally grew enough calories for themselves. My grandparents lived like that. They farmed around 15 hectares, which was actually quite a lot. You can easily grew enough calories for your family on 5 hectares, or even less if you have access to modern cultivars and artificial fertilizer. It’s just even poor people like variety, and will trade some of their crops for stuff they cannot make at home efficiently, like sugar, fish, or candy.
To add, I don’t think my ancestor Spaniards for example needed the help of machines to deplete mines in America. They also came already equipped with all kinds of legal systems, including the Requerimiento, which they read out loud to natives in preposterous spectacle.
In general the transition from feudalism to capitalism, including the formation of the legal systems that supported the latter, happened gradually for maybe up to four or five centuries before the steam engine had been invented.
Sure, the Industrial Revolution further accelerated the development of property rights, mercantile, and civil laws, but all in all I don’t think there’s much truth that machines were the primary cause of such developments.
Not really Malthusian. Agricultural societies had adapted to keep the population stable during normal times and bounce back in a generation or two after bad times. Those cultural adaptations stopped working when childhood mortality declined.
Useful land was a scarce resource in more civilized regions, while labor was cheap. Given enough land, subsistence farmers could easily feed themselves outside particularly bad years. But much of the land belonged to local elites, and commoners had to work that land to fund the pursuits of the elites.
I think it is hard to overstate the effect that Waymo will have.
reply