Removable batteries in smartphones will be mandatory in the EU starting in 2027

https://www.ecopv-eu.com/en/blog-en/replaceable-smartphone-batteries-2027-eu-regulation/

by rdeboo • 3 months ago

573 532 3 months ago

...and Apple will be exempt due to a loophole in the law (80% after 1k cycles) making the law utterly pointless.

close042• 3 months ago

This makes no sense but I still see it mindlessly repeated to exhaustion. That mention is in no way Apple specific, it’s a quality of the battery itself. Any manufacturer is in the same position, not like Apple has a monopoly on batteries that hold 80% charge after 1000 cycles.

xp844• 3 months ago

I don’t understand how this could be measured fairly though. What kind of cycles? What temperatures was it exposed to? Charged fast or slow? This is an incomplete set of criteria, which seems designed specifically to be meaningless / gameable.

To me this seems like saying you can sell a car with a sealed gas tank as long as it “gets 40 miles per gallon.” And GM gets to decide the test course for measuring MPG, which will be a 2-mile slightly downhill coast with no stopping. Surprise! All our cars get 40-60MPG!

The unspoken implication here is that if your phone still retains 80% after 1000 cycles, then it’s probably so old and obsolete by then that battery replacement would be a silly waste of time, so why burden people with these “onerous rules” in that case.

But in reality, nothing about that metric, even if it’s true, means that customers don’t need to replace their batteries. My iPhone 15 Pro Max is in dire need of a battery replacement, at 82% after only 714 cycles. Aside from the battery, I have literally zero motivation to replace this phone. The phone manufacturers hate the idea that the battery might get replaced, because in this day and age it’s pretty much the only reason a 2 to 3-year-old phone (especially a flagship) isn’t extremely adequate for 99% of the population.

micromacrofoot3• 3 months ago

not really! at the very least it requires more thought around battery quality

the choice for budget devices is now

1. better battery

2. removability (likely more expensive and complicates water-tightness )

alt22720• 3 months ago

The supposed aim of this is to reduce e-waste. But when 90% of smartphones sold are iPhones and Samsung Galaxies which are exempt it makes this bill completely pointless, as the ewaste it will save is a small fraction of a percentage of the total.

vlovich123• 3 months ago

Yup, that’s a pretty wild loophole. I think they’re targeting the lower end of the market probably to reduce most of the ewaste.

mx7zysuj4xew• 3 months ago

I keep hearing this over and over, but it's neglected to add that it sets a minimum durability requirement which applies only for a very small niche of ruggedized waterproof devices

Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries

0xffff22• 3 months ago

Unless your device complies to MIL-STD-810G CN1 and has the certification to back it up your product will be required to add user replaceable batteries

Can you provide your source for this? If nothing else, it's very surprising to me that an EU regulation uses a US standard as the baseline!

Edit: Having done a bit of reading on the standard, it also seems like the regulation needs quite a bit of detail if it really does rely on the MIL-STD, since the standard only defines test procedures, not pass/fail criteria?

criddell5• 3 months ago

Are you sure the loophole exists?

AFAIK, this is the regulation:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj/eng

I don't see that exemption listed. The other ones are, but not that one.

0xffff22• 3 months ago

Take this with a mountain of salt since I've not at all an expert, but with a little help from AI, it seems like the exemption lives in 2023/1670 [0]. The LLM claims that this and the regulation you link are interconnected, with the recital of 2023/1542 explicitly linking them.

0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

gonzalohm• 3 months ago

The link is not working for me, but I hope they have defined what "removable" means (removable without special tools) If not, a lot of companies are going to argue that they already make removable batteries

aniviacat• 3 months ago

If a special tool is required for replacement, the manufacturer must provide it free of charge.

ortusdux• 3 months ago

IIRC, screwdrivers and prying tools are not considered special. Removal cannot require solvents or heat, but I believe those pull tab glue pads are allowed.

mkozlows• 3 months ago

https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/21/23079058/apple-self-servi...

79-pound hyper-elaborate repair kit. Expensive for them to send out, but since only two people will ever want them to, probably amortizes well.

alt22720• 3 months ago

Also, removeable by who? Its all very well saying its removeable, but thats useless if only possible by a skilled techinician with tools. I dont see the term 'user-removable' anywhere.

close042• 3 months ago

I think this was discussed recently on HN. It’s not a bad idea. There’s nothing about this that “ruins” anything else. This is not specific for phones even if everyone focuses on them. The usual arguments are waterproofing and thinness but we can still have them with removable batteries.

wmf3• 3 months 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.

spockz3• 3 months 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.

sokoloff3• 3 months 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.

wmf3• 3 months ago

In that hypothetical scenario they should advertise 80% as the full capacity. Competition generally prevents this kind of "underclocking".

c0n5pir4cy• 3 months 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• 3 months ago

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

Pxtl5• 3 months 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.

joe_mamba4• 3 months ago

My low-cost plastic Casio watch based on a very old design is waterproof and battery can be swapped out by undoing 4 philips screws, no glue. Its buttons can also be operated under water while staying waterproof.

What is this whicraft?

ratiolat2• 3 months ago

IP68, replaceable battery, phone jack, 5G: https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover6_pro-11600.php

GoToRO• 3 months ago

There is not waterproofing, on any phone. Yes, when you buy it, no after 3 years when the glue that waterproofs no longer sticks due to ageing.

HumblyTossed3• 3 months ago

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Also, it's water - resistance.

doctorpangloss• 3 months ago

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

whazor• 3 months ago

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

thunfischbrot• 3 months ago

In my bubble, some. In the general population? Very very few.

hamdingers• 3 months 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.

vovavili• 3 months ago

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

ThrowawayR2• 3 months 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.

wolvoleo3• 3 months 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• 3 months ago

My iPhone is less than 1 year old and I have to charge it every day.

alt22720• 3 months ago

You have a very loose definition of recharge and charge cycle which seems to fit Apples marketing spin like a glove.

SirMaster• 3 months ago

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

jvanderbot• 3 months ago

unfortunately, it will be based on _design_ / _rated_ capacity, probably.

catlikesshrimp3• 3 months 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 :/)

criddell5• 3 months 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• 3 months 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.

kjkjadksj3• 3 months 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.

manoDev4• 3 months 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.

protimewaster7• 3 months 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?

criddell5• 3 months 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.

IshKebab• 3 months 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.

jorams3• 3 months 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=CEL...

[2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...

bluescrn• 3 months 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-423• 3 months 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).

Worf3• 3 months 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.

nalekberov• 3 months 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• 3 months 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%"

eqvinox• 3 months 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-t...

https://e2e.ti.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussion... page 15

in_cahoots• 3 months 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.

tngranados• 3 months ago

I suppose they can advertise a 0.9x Wh battery and include a 1x Wh battery instead, which is fine for me. If the battery is going to degrade hard just give me one that only reaches 90% max.

drfloyd512• 3 months ago

4.05V is 94% of 4.2V. Does that translate to having 94% capacity longer. For a total capacity over time greater than maxing to 100% with an 20% falloff?

d-man• 3 months ago

Every 10% you don’t charge roughly doubles your battery life, scroll down to “The 80% Question”. This applies to Apple batteries, but I suspect most other recent battery are in the same ballpark.

https://randsinrepose.com/guides/apple-charging/apple-chargi...

lelanthran• 3 months 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.

Thats great news - manufacturers who want to ship sealed phones have to charge intelligently.

In fact, I'd take this constraint:

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

even further: retain at least 80% of capacity of 5k charges and commit with escrow money to maintain the software for 10 years. If the manufacturer is unable to commit, with money, to a 10 year support cycle, then the must provide at least ability to root the phone without needing manufacturer consent.

It would be nice if manufacturers stopped shipping disposable phones...

josefx• 3 months ago

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

wmf3• 3 months 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%.

_diyar• 3 months ago

Rule does not apply to gadgets that already retain 80% charge capacity at 1k charge cycles.

What is the share of the smartphone market that this applies to?

hedora• 3 months ago

0%.

Wait, that’s not true: In true regulatory capture fashion, I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.

seszett• 3 months ago

I’ll bet the exemption requires some sort of testing/certification that makes it significantly more expensive for smaller firms to bring devices to market.

Maybe that would be the case in the US but since that is the EU it will likely be some kind of self-certification where the manufacturer swears that they're not lying, and if enough people complain then maybe one of the national regulators will look into it and ask the manufacturer to do better.

dgellow• 3 months ago

Might be a good idea to verify before sharing misinformation

reaperducer• 3 months ago

Recently my 2021 macBook gave me an alert that its battery was not charging past 80%. I took it to the Apple Store and because it had only been through 971 charge cycles, the battery was replaced for free.

mpalczewski• 3 months ago

My iphone 15 pro max. manufactured in Aug 2023. 536 cycles. is at 84%. I doubt it will make it to 1k at above 80%.

gyomu• 3 months ago

Huh interesting datapoint. I just checked on mine, also August 2023 15PM, and 86% @ 707 cycles here. I’m pretty careless with charging it whenever is convenient/letting it drain to 0% while traveling/etc as well.

msh• 3 months ago

My 15 pro max is at 649 cycles and 91%

xp844• 3 months ago

We have similar phones. I’m now at 82% at 714 cycles. In real life, our devices wouldn’t qualify but I’m sure Apple will be allowed to write the testing methodology in a way that’ll be nice and gentle.

fragmede2• 3 months ago

iPhone Air. 225 cycles, started use in October 2025, 99%

detourdog7• 3 months ago

My iPhone 14 Pro is at 88% but I have no charging cycle count.

xp844• 3 months ago

You can bet it will be measured in such a way that the major companies’ devices will qualify. And that it will have little bearing on the retained charge amount you’ll have in real life use. I’m at 82% and 714 cycles. But it’s a joke to suggest that all cycles are equal. Some people never go outside the 20-80 band, others charge to 100% and keep it there all day, then burn it down to 10%. Both of those generate “cycles” but are very far apart.

cuu508• 3 months ago

Do we know if and how cycles are defined in the regulation?

spockz3• 3 months ago

My initial reaction as an EU citizen is “oh hell no” because it gave me flashbacks to removable covers with clips that broke my nails. But after reading the article where it mentions that the battery is also considered removable if standard tools should be used, I’m quite okay with it. I welcome getting more rugged and durable devices.

xp844• 3 months ago

Serious question: how are you worse off with a cover that breaks your nails vs. the status quo: a cover that’s glued on and a battery that’s glued in? If they did bring that back, couldn’t you just not open the cover and be just as happy?

spockz3• 3 months ago

The covers were typically flimsy and used flimsy hooks in addition to the flimsy push pin. Actually most of my annoyance stems from the hooks breaking easily and the covers not closing flush. I would not want to return to that time where dropping a phone leads to covers flying around.

It is my assumption that any cover that still requires screws that it will be both more sturdy and easier to close flush.

The current status quo of having sleek devices while having batteries relatively easily replaced yourself or even quite cheaply in every phone shop. I’m not so bothered by the status quo.

elzbardico7• 3 months ago

IGNORE: duplicated

emsign• 3 months ago

So in order to save your nails you rather buy a new device? Makes total sense.

Fraterkes• 3 months ago

Not perfect, but the “80% capacity after 1000 cycles” part at least creates some decent incentives imo.

daoboy• 3 months ago

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47834195

IndrekR• 3 months ago

Was discussed recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47834195

thewavelength3• 3 months ago

I just called the shop to replace the perfectly fine e-Call battery in my soon four year old Hyundai car. 250€ to change a battery that has a ten year lifespan. I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer (not the one by law). Why is this stuff not considered as well?

Also curious whether the "specialized devices" exemptions are AND requirements. Even if those are AND, wouldn’t smartphone manufacturers try to satisfy all three of them?

jorams3• 3 months ago

I am not allowed to replace it on my own as it would invalidate the five year long guarantee provided by the manufacturer. Why is this stuff not considered as well?

They're the ones paying for repairs, so it doesn't seem that unreasonable? That said: If you can prove the car is being maintained according to the manufacturer's specifications they can't require you to go to a brand dealership. That's just not necessarily easy to prove.

kjkjadksj3• 3 months ago

Recalls don’t require you to have had maintained the car at the dealership previousy

thewavelength3• 3 months ago

TIL. Thanks for letting me know.

tgsovlerkhgsel2• 3 months ago

Why are you replacing it if it is perfectly fine?

thewavelength3• 3 months ago

Because I lose the manufacturer-provided five-year-guarantee if I don't.

Pxtl5• 3 months ago

The introduction of glue into the assembly of consumer electronics is a crime against humanity and the Earth. If Timex could make iron-man watches 100-meter waterproof with Phillips-head jeweler's screws back in the '80s, there's no good reason smartphones and laptops can't. And there's a whole host of bad reasons to eschew screws.

echoangle4• 3 months ago

Of course you can build a waterproof smartphone with screws (except the screen has to be bonded to the glass for capacitive touch to work and the glass to the frame so there’s still some glueing involved), but it would probably have 1cm bezels around the screen.

extraduder_ire2• 3 months ago

the screen has to be bonded to the glass for capacitive touch to work and the glass to the frame so there’s still some glueing involved

Why? That might make alignment easier, but I don't think the screen plays any role in the touchscreen digitiser working. I've even seen videos of them still working when separated from the display.

Aurornis9• 3 months ago

As others have mentioned this is for phones with batteries that can’t survive a reasonable number of cycles.

That’s a reasonable exemption, in my opinion. I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.

I do wish one manufacturer would make a flagship phone with replaceable battery so all of the uncompromising replaceable battery fans could have a phone that fits their niche demands rather than trying to force everyone else to pay the extra costs (price, size, water intrusion, structural rigidity) that would come with laws forcing all phones to have removable batteries.

mrandish• 3 months ago

This regulation isn't primarily for fans of replaceable batteries, it's driven by general concerns about e-waste. It's unclear how much it might actually reduce e-waste in practice but it will certainly increase compliance costs.

detourdog7• 3 months ago

At least it's a performance standard. If the Government is going to regulate consumer products I would rather it be performance standards than implementation details. If a device doesn't meet performance standards it can trigger warranty requirements.

mossTechnician3• 3 months ago

Many flagship phones promise 7 years of security updates now. 3-4 years means the battery will only last for half that time, and heavy users (1 cycle per day) will hit that quota in under 2.75 years.

IanCal• 3 months ago

Importantly “last” means that it will have at least 80% battery capacity left.

elzbardico7• 3 months ago

Then the law should just make sure that there's a second source at least for the batteries, that technicians have free access to disassembly instructions, and that it can be done without undue effort or risk.

Requiring common tools or technical skills for replacing something that last 4 years is not a hassle to justify enshitiffying phones design as long as you're not vendor locked for such replacement, and a technician can do it in a reasonable amount of time, with reasonable tool and without the risk of degrading the functionality of the device doing so.

Aurornis9• 3 months ago

The battery doesn't cease functioning after 3-4 years. The benchmark says it should have 80% capacity.

It's also not really that expensive to have phone batteries replaced. Apple will do it for $120 including the battery for their flagship models that cost over $1000. Cheaper for lower end models.

I can't take any arguments seriously that claim these phones are becoming e-waste after 2.75 years. Battery replacement is a common process.

alt22720• 3 months ago

a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.

This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote. After a day of taking photos in the wild its nice to be able to just chuck in a fresh batttery and off you go.

I feel like this feature of phones was not only lost, but pretty much forgotten about after smartphones stopped including user replaceable batteries.

detourdog7• 3 months ago

You can keep several power bricks that will charge any USB-C device now.

SauntSolaire7• 3 months ago

Replaceable batteries are one thing, but truly hot swappable batteries like you're asking for will absolutely effect the waterproofing and add a lot of weight/size. Is there a reason you can't just bring a battery pack in your rucksack? They make magnetic ones you can slap on the back and be on your way.

elzbardico7• 3 months ago

External battery banks are a far superior solution now that almost everything has standardized on USB and we have power banks supporting high speed charging.

They can be charged with the same power adapter you use to charge your phone, without the need of an extra docking thing.

They can be used to charge any USB-chargeable device.

They are not tied to your specific model, and thus you're not vendor locked with them, making them cheaper and easier to find anywhere in the world.

They come in multiple capacities, allowing you to plan in advance your energy needs and choose the right size bank for your situation.

They are far more sturdier than any modern battery, which makes them more resistant to puncture and bending.

They don't have external contacts that could potentially short in contact with conductive surfaces.

Aurornis9• 3 months ago

This is not just about battery replacement. I used to keep several fully charged batteries stocked in my rucksack whenever I went hiking or anywhere else that was remote.

There are several high end phones with removable batteries. You should buy one of them if this feature is important to you.

This movement to force everyone's phones to pay the costs of removable batteries to address these really niche use cases is not great.

manoDev4• 3 months ago

I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery

This is a BS excuse. Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.

pembrook• 3 months ago

Lots and lots of gadgets with removable batteries and waterproof design as evidence.

And this is a BS rebuttal. None of them achieve the same miniaturization and water tightness as iPhone.

This law is basically government being co-opted by a tiny vocal minority to force their unpopular opinions onto the rest of the public.

If any modest percentage of the market cared about replaceable batteries above all else in their phones, the market would already be packed with removable battery phone options.

mort963• 3 months ago

Should we not expect phones to last more than 3-4 years? We aren't in the exponential performance growth and requirements part of the smartphone world anymore, a 5-7 year old phone can be a perfectly functional device. Isn't it unfortunate that a perfectly good phone gets turned to e-waste years before it has to, just because a consumable part of it happens to be non-replaceable?

rootusrootus5• 3 months ago

Isn't it unfortunate that a perfectly good phone gets turned to e-waste years before it has to

This does not happen. There is a thriving market for used phones, many of which have had the battery replaced.

bigbuppo5• 3 months ago

I don’t want to pay the extra penalties of reduced structural rigidity and water tightness for a battery that I don’t need to replace for 3-4 years anyway.

What are you doing to your phone that needs all that? Using it as a hammer? Temporary support while building a tunnel?

IAmBroom6• 3 months ago

Dropping it by accident. I sometimes venture away from the carpeted floor of my computer.

tgsovlerkhgsel2• 3 months ago

The big question is, what happens when the manufacturer claims it can survive a reasonable number of cycles, then it turns out it can't. By the time this becomes obvious, the phones will be out of warranty.

Will the manufacturer simply be prohibited from selling those phones (which are probably no longer sold by that time anyways), will they be fined a "cost of doing business" level fine, or will customers have an actual remedy (e.g. full refund even after the 2 year warranty period)?

sokoloff3• 3 months ago

What is a “special tool”? A Philips screwdriver is pretty clearly not, but is a T-5 Torx? A security T-5? A Tri-wing? A Pentalobe?

layer8• 3 months ago

Any tool you can’t get at a random local hardware store.

sschueller• 3 months ago

Why does the Pentalobe exist in the first place?

spiritplumber• 3 months ago

in one product design i did, unironically because the customer thought that six-star screws were antisemitic

espadrine• 3 months ago

A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge […] to disassemble it.
Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj

daemonologist• 3 months ago

"Special tool" is not used in the actual regulation; the requirement is that replacement must be possible with basic tools, defined:

(50) 'basic tools' means a screwdriver for slotted heads, a screwdriver for cross recess screws, a screwdriver for hexalobular recess heads [Torx], a hexagon socket key, a combination wrench, combination pliers, combination pliers for wire stripping and terminal crimping, half round nose pliers, diagonal cutters, multigrip pliers, locking pliers, a prying lever, tweezers, magnifying glass, a spudger and a pick;

(Excepted devices can require "commercially available tools" which is defined exactly as you'd expect.)

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1670/oj

matchbok38• 3 months ago

While sounding nice in theory, these sorts of regulations will certainly curtail innovation while providing very, very little value elsewhere.

If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't.

mossTechnician3• 3 months ago

Which flagship phones with replaceable batteries can customers buy?

Samsung was the last major brand in the US to have one, and they made the choice to remove it.

matchbok38• 3 months ago

Not sure. But there are plenty of flip phones with removable batteries.

lightedman6• 3 months ago

"Which flagship phones with replaceable batteries can customers buy?"

Most of the Kyocera Duraforce line has this ability.

spankibalt5• 3 months ago

"If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't."

For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about. Furthermore, speaking purely for myself, a removable battery is not a must but a nice-to-have. A lot of slabs that have removable batteries are out of the game for entirely different reasons.

matchbok38• 3 months ago

So really it's not about phones having a removable battery, but a whole host of other features plus a removable battery. Which is just untenable from a regulatory POV.

echoangle4• 3 months ago

For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about.

Not really. If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers did a market analysis and decided it’s not even worth it to offer that. So either their analysis is extremely wrong and it actually would sell, or the consumers don’t want to buy it that bad.

brettermeier• 3 months ago

I absolutely would buy a Samsung Smartphone with replacable battery. The last one which had this was the S5 I think...

pydry• 3 months ago

...is what people said when they brought in the mandate for usb charging but it didnt.

It turns out market consolidation is usually the biggest innovation killer.

gizajob• 3 months ago

Even with a battery that can be replaced using a tiny screwdriver, this still doesn’t make it DIY for probably 80-90% of smartphone users.

gf000• 3 months ago

That's not the point. It being done in a local shop for a few bucks with no small letter text saying that "we may break your screen in half because this thing can't be repaired properly". It mentions that it should not use glue, not need solvent and only commercially available tools may be usable (or they have to be provided next to the phone).

LeifCarrotson2• 3 months ago

I want removeable batteries in my phone, largely because it means I don't have to buy them a lot!

I ran my LG G5 with replaceable batteries from 2016 through 2021, at which point there were no affordable replaceable-battery phones left. I bought quite a few replacement batteries, even trying aftermarket batteries with varying levels of success after the OEM LG ones were discontinued.

That is, of course, a problem for manufacturers that want to sell a lot of phones.

ninalanyon• 3 months ago

Innovation generally happens because of some kind of impediment to doing things the old way. So this is more likely drive innovation than curtail it.

hashmap2• 3 months ago

that isnt how markets really work. you could say that if apple had two otherwise identical iphones except one has removable battery and one doesn't. but the enshittification cycle works via a ratcheting effect. once you achieve a certain level of dominance and lock-in, you can start getting away with all kinds of anti-consumer strategies to make more money and not get punished for it, and your competitors will follow suit. as long as you can ratchet above whatever detrimental thing you want to get away with is you'll probably be fine.

you can look at the lightning connector as an example. if you said "if people wanted usb connectivity they wouldn't buy iphones", nobody would take you seriously. and when apple was forced to switch, it absolutely didnt tank their sales because people just loved the lightning connector so much. the bad thing went away and it was great.

matchbok38• 3 months ago

If Apple could make money from removable batteries, meaning there was a market for it and people wanted it over some other alternative, are you suggesting they are not smart enough to do the research and work necessary to accomplish that?

The reality is people don't want it, at all. At least not enough to warrant action. So the story ends there.

Also, the lighting connector is better than USB in every way. Mandating an inferior technology is an odd choice.

ben-schaaf6• 3 months ago

If people wanted removable batteries in their phones, they would buy them a lot. They don't.

This argument gets thrown about every time companies make anti-consumer changes, and it completely ignores the information asymmetry and other dynamics at play. When I go to the store to buy a new phone, where does it list on the box how repairable the device is? Where does it show how expensive the repair will be? If I'm locked in the apple ecosystem, where do I buy an iPhone with a replaceable battery?

Your assumption that the market is driven by informed consumer choices presupposes that every buyer is an expert.

matchbok38• 3 months ago

None of that really matters, though. Most people are not repairing anything they own. It is cheaper to replace.

That may be good or bad, I do not know.

charcircuit• 3 months ago

If you go and buy an iPhone they advertise how expensive AppleCare is.

catdog3• 3 months ago

Nonsense. It just mandates easier repairability and spare parts availability, not ad-hoc replacement. Also this does not apply if the battery is able to retain 80% of its original capacity after 1,000 charge cycles so "innovative" manufacturers just need to use high quality batteries.

somethingsome• 3 months ago

It would be nice to have mandatory SD cards..

WesolyKubeczek• 3 months ago

SD cards and phone jacks!

cmiles82• 3 months ago

Headline is misleading as the loopholes written into the regulation will likely end up exempting many/most phones

protimewaster7• 3 months ago

Didn't they remove many of the exemptions in the final, adopted bill?

cmiles82• 3 months ago

Not really… the rules were heavily influenced by big tech in a way that basically exempts many devices. For example iPhone 15 onwards already meets the defined standard and thus doesn’t need a user replaceable battery.

So the headline is misleading. Removable batteries aren’t mandatory. They’re only mandatory if the battery fails to meet certain performance standards.

vardump2• 3 months ago

80% after 1000 cycles. I hope that doesn’t mean faking battery health instead.

estimator72922• 3 months ago

When has a legally mandated metric ever been gamed into a loophole? /s

palata• 3 months ago

Would be easy to say "if the software says "< 80%" after 1000 cycles, the warranty applies and the manufacturer has to replace it for free.

I guess the law won't say that though.

subhobroto2• 3 months ago

I'm not a fan of regulation in general but over the last decade it has been extremely frustrating with the removal of replaceable SD cards and batteries from Androids.

I never put my phones in my back pocket nor do I wear butt hugging leggings, so having a thick phone stick out my ass and make it look bad isn't on my list of worries. I end up purchasing thick waterproof cases for these slim phones anyways.

What's most confusing is the premium phones lack replaceable SD cards and batteries - it's like they are trying to take the worst ideas from the Apple ecosystem and simply don't understand why some people use Androids.

Surprisingly, it's the cheaper models that carry replaceable SD cards and batteries - I would have imagined the opposite!

I often go on trips and hikes with poor cellular coverage and having some SD cards with useful information or being able to swap them out as the camera gets full is really helpful. Attaching drives over the USB port isn't really practical.

When I do have cellular coverage, I might have to rapidly download a LOT of data, which overheats the phone and discharges the battery. With a replaceable battery, this isn't even an issue.

The benefits of replaceable batteries cannot be overstated when you're not on the grid or take great care of the phone where they last more than a few years. I can have a few batteries charged, during the day using solar that I can then just swap them in as evening sets in, instead of having to plug the phone into a powerbank and pray it doesn't shut off as I keep using it.

catdog3• 3 months ago

I think in general not being able to replace the battery toolless is quite an acceptable compromise nowadays. The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space which can be used for more capacity instead. You have (sometimes quite insane) fast charging and also powerbanks which support it. Also quality batteries can be quite durable.

The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.

subhobroto2• 3 months ago

Good points, but from a chemistry perspective, fast charging is detrimental to the battery. It would be more efficient to have two or three batteries standard charged to 70% that you can swap in as you go than have one that you need to repeatedly fast charge.

I argue that easier they make for user to swap batteries themselves, higher the demand for the batteries will be, thus lower their price.

The needed mechanism and the protective shell the replaceable battery needs definitely takes up space

This is true

The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.

I think when a manufacturer isn't designing to allow a regular customer (the owner) to be able to replace the battery themselves, using glue and restricting spare parts is a natural consequence of financial realities: Most people are not going to take a $500 phone that has been used a few years to a shop that will need to charge $100+ in just labor to swap out a battery. So there's no incentive to have a bunch of spare batteries.

I'm a huge fan of user replaceable batteries because in addition of obvious benefits, you can also just remove the battery and power it simply off USB-C when running something heavy on the phone for extended periods of time. A battery used in that scenario wouldn't just overheat itself but stop the phone from cooling off too.

dmos62• 3 months ago

I've a plan: 2027 I'm buying a Motorola with first-party support for GrapheneOS and a replaceable battery. Things are looking up!

dddw• 3 months ago

Yes! Hope they deliver some decent enough device

cyklosarin• 3 months ago

There is almost zero chance that the Motorola phones will come with a replaceable battery and likely fall under the exemption anyways. The GOS supported phones will all be flagship level devices (i.e. Signature/RAZR).

k12sosse2• 3 months ago

Why not anything that has a battery? Why just cellphones?

M2Ys4U• 3 months ago

The regulation does cover everything that uses batteries.

infecto7• 3 months 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.

JumpCrisscross3• 3 months 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.

infecto7• 3 months ago

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

danaw4• 3 months 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• 3 months 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.

infecto7• 3 months 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.

InfinityByTen• 3 months 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).

infecto7• 3 months 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.

everdrive• 3 months ago

The number of people worried about a slightly thicker phone are absolutely baffling to me. I honestly think there is no hope for us broadly. Normally I'd say that people cannot deal with minor inconveniences -- but this does not even register as an inconvenience.

From my view, this is a _perceived_ downgrade in luxury status. Not even a real downgrade in luxury status -- and not a downgrade in convenience whatsoever.

JumpCrisscross3• 3 months ago

this does not even register as an inconvenience

You don’t have any idiosyncratic product preferences?

alt22720• 3 months ago

Not ones where design decisions reduce features for no other reason.

SauntSolaire7• 3 months ago

I would also consider swapping a battery once every four years a minor inconvenience.

retired3• 3 months ago

A slightly thicker back so that in four years time it will take me 5 minutes versus 60 minutes to change the battery? Yes, that sounds like something I am not interested in.

bakugo• 3 months ago

It's even crazier when you consider how many people buy their fancy thin iPhones and then immediately slap some ugly and/or bulky case on them.

ThomPete2• 3 months ago

This is just flat out wrong. Making it removable means making it less effective, meaning using more materials etc.

What is much more concerning is that you seem to be totally fine with the government deciding how something should be designed for not reason what so ever.

MattGaiser• 3 months ago

Because the reason for it is not valued by most of us. I do not care about a removable battery. I do not care. I value it at zero. So yes, I do not want to be inconvenienced for something I value at zero.

umanwizard5• 3 months ago

The number of people who profess to care about user-replaceable batteries is absolutely baffling to me.

It would save you an $80 trip to the Apple Store (or non-Apple equivalent) every three or four years. What am I missing?

HumblyTossed3• 3 months ago

Well ... I don't have an Apple Store anywhere near me, so ... Or anything else, really.

And having multiple batteries would enable me to swap the battery and charge the expended one in near real time. No cord, no puck, nothing. And if the phone had an internal 100 or so mah battery also, I wouldn't even have to restart the phone!

But other than that, I don't really care.

HumblyTossed3• 3 months ago

How tf did phones even become a "luxury" status symbol? They're just portable computers that also happen to be covered in nasty germs. People are freaking weird.

nine_k2• 3 months ago

Anything can become a status symbol; humans love showing off. An expensive high-tech piece that's thinnest in the world? Yes please. Shoes or neckties seem to be even less probable status symbols, but.

dec0dedab0de• 3 months ago

I want my phone 5 times thicker, just put as many batteries as you can fit in there.

nine_k2• 3 months ago

I'd like a thicker, smaller phone (like 5") which can actually be operated with one hand. Ideally it should also be durable enough to not need a protective cover.

(My Kyocera Duraforce came close; too bad it was locked to AT&T.)

romperstomper• 3 months ago

And make all these batteries compatible among all smartphone brands

SauntSolaire7• 3 months ago

The size and shape of the battery depends on the size and shape of the phone, as well as the internal structure (which is highly variable). At that point you might as well just legislate that everyone build iPhone 17's.

clever-leap• 3 months ago

Does this need a law? Most phones have replaceable battery.

al_borland3• 3 months ago

Easy replacement: Batteries must be replaceable using standard tools (e.g., screwdrivers).
No barriers: The use of adhesives that can only be removed with heat or solvents is prohibited.
Tools: If a special tool is required for replacement, the manufacturer must provide it free of charge.
Spare parts guarantee: Replacement batteries must be available to end users at a reasonable price for at least 5 years.

When it comes to most phones I've seen...

Easy replacement: Currently, special tools are needed to heat the glue holding on the screen, picks to pry it up, and then there are various ways to release the glue holding in the battery.

No barriers: Currently, there are adhesives used for both the screen and battery. Depending on the phone this may require a solvent, heat, or electrical release... maybe a combination of these.

Tools: Currently, tools are not provided with the phone and kits need to be purchased in addition to the battery to complete the repair.

Spare parts guarantee: I think this is very hit and miss based on the manufacturer, but I suspect most replacement batteries people are buying are not coming from the OEM.

kandros• 3 months ago

Absolutely trash aftermarket batteries that are e-waste in 6 months here we come!

poisonborz2• 3 months ago

Classic EU move, the last-minute 1000-cycle exemption undercuts the entire regulation.

elzbardico7• 3 months ago

Looks like saner minds prevailed. Almost nobody needs or wants that. Having to pay a street corner repair shop to replace a battery only after 3 or 4 years of usage is completely worth a price to pay for having thinner batteries.

poisonborz2• 3 months ago

HN / pro user forums alone are a massive indicator of the need for this. Same argument could be made in the form of almost nobody needs or wants "thinner batteries". Not many are going for the street corner for this, and it is insane that people are throwing away 2-3-4 year old perfectly capable high end devices. Not just because of battery but lack of support and closed ecosystem. The industry is incentivised to go towards unrepairable throwaway products you are forced to renew. The madness needs to stop.

protimewaster7• 3 months ago

The previous discussion of the bill on HN noted that the newest version of the bill is the one without the exemption. Is that incorrect?

levocardia• 3 months ago

Would have been even more classic EU to not add the exception and have all Europeans stuck with a slower, bulkier, and more expensive "EU edition" of a phone.

tamimio• 3 months ago

I want a phone with li-ion 18650! Because having a replaceable batteries won’t prevent the manufacturer from increasing those batteries prices so it’s equal to non replaceable ones. It would be great to have 18650 as a standard in all electronics, so you just carry dozens of them when you go out and you are set up for the weekend, no recharging, maybe even add hot swap too.

HunOL• 3 months ago

All new phones sold in the EU already include information on declared battery life and the number of charge cycles before reaching 80% battery health. The vast majority of phones will meet this requirement.

proee• 3 months ago

Smartwatches should also be on the list. My Apple Watch 8 is at 76% maximum capacity. Apparently it costs $99 to have Apple replace the battery, which is probably not worth it.

haritha-j• 3 months ago

Agreed. $100 to replace a battery that must cost them maybe $10 is criminal. Source: https://counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/bom-analysis-ap...

matthewmorgan• 3 months ago

Another anti poor person law

zuzululu2• 3 months ago

so more regulations to raise prices extract tax revenues by EU

elzbardico7• 3 months ago

Unless you have giant hands, with modern screen sizes, thinner devices are not merely a luxury. For people that have active outdoor lives, water resistance is also non-negotiable.

The only thing that you should care about if you are being pratical and not just an annoying nagging geek, is that you are not forced to use an authorized reseller to buy a replacement battery, and that batteries can be bought from third party suppliers.

Having to have a corner-shop cheap technician doing it once every 3 years is an acceptable trade-off in exchange to get thinner and water-resistant devices.

raxxorraxor• 3 months ago

I do rowing and sailing as a sport as well as wind surfing. I want to be able to simply replace the battery of my devices as well as connect them with a cable. There are of course trade-offs here, but also very viable benefits.

And no, I never lost a phone to water damage but I can assure you that my devices are far from water-proof. They have quite a bit of wear. Mostly from an active outdoor life...

I don't care about some inferiority complex against geeks to accept shitty degradable devices.

phplovesong• 3 months ago

EU is awesome!

yason• 3 months ago

In principle, this is the kind of right sentiment but for the wrong things.

I can't remember a phone that died because of the battery since the era of Ni-Cd cells in early cell phones. I don't think I've never discarded a phone with a li-ion battery because of the battery. It's always physical breakage or getting too slow to be usable, because of age.

Sure, I don't spend a cycle per day. Not even every other day. That's probably rare, I get that. But much rather than because of dying batteries I'd like EU to mandate

- the phone should come with full keys so that I can own the machine if I want to - or at the very least the hardware must become unlockable once the support period ends - individual components should be made available for independent repairs - repairs must not need software pairing of hardware components on unlocked devices

because of right to own and right to repair which shouldn't be "rights" but nonnegotiable traits of physical properties like they used to be.

dml21352• 3 months ago

getting too slow to be usable

Not sure what the behavior is like on Android, but iOS will throttle performance if your battery has degraded past a certain state. So I'm sure that there are many iPhone users that are replacing their phone due to what they think is poor performance related to the age of the phone, when it's really due to the age of the battery.

boxed• 3 months ago

I think the iPhone will warn you if your battery performance is significantly degraded?

bobro• 3 months ago

I’ve definitely replaced iphones because the battery wasn’t holding a charge. My understanding is that this is a pretty common issue, no?

rootusrootus5• 3 months ago

That is your choice, however. Plenty of people choose to pay for a new battery rather than drop hundreds of dollars on a new phone. Apple still offers battery service for $69 for the iPhone 6, a phone released 12 years ago. You could have a new battery put in it today and then go a few more years. Nobody is forcing you to buy a whole new phone.

criddell5• 3 months ago

I wish the EU would tackle standardization of tool batteries. It's so stupid that every brand has their own battery system.

illusive4080• 3 months ago

I wish they would stop trying to over regulate everything. If you want to use your tool battery in another brand just get an adapter.

scottbez12• 3 months ago

I wouldn’t recommend this outright without recommending some research first. Some brands put the over-discharge protection into the tools instead of the batteries, so using one of those batteries in other tools may permanently kill the battery pack.

shmeeed2• 3 months ago

The Power for All Alliance exists, just buy into their system.

cbeach3• 3 months ago

This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.

If I want a thicker, clunkier, less waterproof phone with a user-replaceable battery, I can already buy a Fairphone or a Samsung Galaxy XCover6 Pro, or whatever.

The reason people buy iPhones and flagship Samsung phones is they want the benefits that come from a design that doesn't have to make sacrifices to accomodate a user-replaceable battery.

ezst2• 3 months ago

This should be for the market to decide, not EU bureaucrats.

Ohh sweet summer child... We are in an era of obscene consolidation, in pretty much every sector, wealth is being consolidated to degrees unseen before, oligopolies enshrine their dominance via regulatory capture and a plethora of unfair practices. There's just no competition left to suggest that "markets can decide" of anything beneficial for our skinny bottom lines..

cbeach3• 3 months ago

    * Samsung Electronics
    * Apple
    * Xiaomi
    * Oppo (includes OnePlus)
    * Vivo
    * Huawei
    * Honor
    * Motorola Mobility
    * realme
    * Google
    * Sony
    * Nokia
    * Asus
    * Nothing
    * HTC
    * ZTE
    * Fairphone
    * LG Electronics

But yeah, "no competition left," okay..

izacus2• 3 months ago

Do you still believe in free markets? What other things? Santa? The Easter Bunny?

They're not real you know.

ThomPete2• 3 months ago

So now the EU want to design phones too. What could possible go wrong.

waiwai933• 3 months ago

I think it may help to clarify that there are two Regulations which seem to have been muddled in the comments:

* Regulation 2023/1670 provides, inter alia, that smartphone manufacturers must make replacement batteries available to consumers, except where the 80%/1000 cycle criteria is met, in which case replacement batteries can be made only available to professional repairers. There is also a requirement for it being able to replace the battery but this does permit use of non-trivial tools under certain circumstances.

* Regulation 2023/1542 provides that portable batteries (not limited to smartphones) must be readily end-user replaceable if they meet certain criteria unless the strict waterproofing/medical industry criteria are met.

andy_ppp• 3 months ago

Controversial I know, but EU regulations are largely reasonable and mostly come down to good practices. For example I was part of a team building a crewing application for container ships and largely I agree with almost all of the conclusions we came to in making the app GDPR compliant.

shevy-java• 3 months ago

Right to repair for the win.

euburrocrat• 3 months ago

Regulatory Superpower

I am european and proud.. but what has europe created in the last 20 years worth of mention

zuzululu2• 3 months ago

I can't really think of a single product or service that is from Europe. I can think of several things that are American and a couple from Korea and Japan. Even China.

I don't think this trajectory is going to change, rather Europe seems to be doubling down on whatever hasn't been working. Sucks for young Europeans.

gojomo• 3 months ago

Ooh, can the batteries also trigger pop-up consent dialogs?

inagiledev• 3 months ago

I tend to find these days that OS version obsolescence and charge port damage happen far sooner than the battery losing significant capacity

ars2020• 3 months ago

I like the idea in principle, but I hope the implementation does not just result in thicker phones with worse water resistance and higher prices.

The real win would be if batteries are replaceable without specialized tools, parts are available for several years, and manufacturers are not allowed to use software pairing to block third-party repair.

Otherwise we may technically get “replaceable batteries”, but not the practical right to keep a phone alive longer.

throwaway20372• 3 months ago

Can I play devil's advocate for a moment? Imagine that Apple decides to protest this new rule. They say: We will stop stelling iPhones in the EU. However, you can buy from non-EU countries (US, Canada, AUS/NZ, UK, etc.), and we will ship to you, or you can use a third party shipper. I know, I know, HN crowd loves to play legal games like this ("this one weird trick...") -- they rarely work in the Real World.

Real legal question: What prevents this "legal hack"?

654wak654• 3 months ago

Possible EU tariffs on electronics could have some effect.

IMO Nothing legal would need to be done. I think practical reasons like shipping time, shipping cost, and the annoyance of using a phone from one region with telecoms in another region would drastically reduce sales. Also you're not going to get 1st party support and that effects Apple devices more than others.

isodev• 3 months ago

This is not possible. Any product sold in the EU, regardless of where it is shipped from, must comply with EU rules and standards (e.g., safety, environmental, digital market rules…). Customs can and do block non-compliant imports.

If Apple wants to keep any of their other services and products, they will also be subject to consumer protection regulation meaning they can’t geoblock consumers and they have to ensure their unsafe products don’t end up with EU citizens.

LaffertyDev• 3 months ago

Customs can and do block non-compliant imports.

Software people (generally) have a limited idea of just how complex and rigid customs enforcement can be. Moving physical product between countries is actually a very hard problem.

pona-a• 3 months ago

Loosing their #2 market instead of absorbing a modest compliance cost?

jillesvangurp• 3 months ago

Legal hacks like this could work if you don't care about your market share and using dodgy import constructions. That likely won't fly if you are Apple and selling in the EU through an EU based legal entity for compliance reasons already.

The simple issue is that the EU market is a rather large market that Apple can't really afford to lose a major portion of. Iphones are a good chunk of their revenue and a lot of that is EU customers. Also, most iphone users get their phones via their mobile subscription and don't buy direct from Apple. Those phones would have to comply with local rules.

When the EU says our way or the highway, the highway could be rather costly. As others are suggesting, all Apple needs to do is certify their phones water proof and/or put a slightly better battery in their phones (> 1000 cycles). That sounds like it should be doable for them.

They'll probably emphasize their awesome new batteries and water proofing of their devices in the usual announcements later this year and that will be it. Expect that to be something you hear a lot about in phone announcements from other manufacturers in the next half year. And maybe some vendors will actually do the other thing, which would be implement actually easy to swap batteries. It might a good way to differentiate in the market. And lots of Android phone makers struggle with that right now.

kgwxd• 3 months ago

A better law would be standardized batteries only. Being hard/impossible to replace is only part of the problem. When third-party "compatible" batteries are the only option available 3 years after release, this will just make it easier for people to turn their phones into bombs.

It be nice if this was true of laptops as well, along with a requirement that they can run plugged in, with no battery installed, so people don't have to keep their puffy proprietary battery even though it can't hold a charge any more.

syntax-sailor• 3 months ago

I'm still mad about not being able to buy a phone with an external RF connector.

mamman777• 3 months ago

By then who knows maybe China's nuclear battery will be available to the public.

Removable batteries in smartphones will be mandatory in the EU starting in 2027

Related Stories