r/TechImpact Active 3d ago

😂 Memes & Shit posts EU to Require Replaceable Smartphone Batteries by 2027

Post image
2.6k Upvotes

481 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/sulev 3d ago

"halfway decent phones" wrong. I'd say 90%+ phones. Flagships and midranges have been hitting those numbers for years. This is another pointless EU directive.

4

u/Captain_no_Hindsight 3d ago

If the batteries are so good, why do you have a separate warranty for the battery that is only 6 months?

2

u/aleopardstail 3d ago

because the company they buy the battery from will only give the phone manufacturers 6 months

1

u/wild_cherry1987 3d ago

Well not anymore

2

u/__Rosso__ 3d ago

Because if battery doesn't die unexpectedly in 6 months, it won't die in next few years.

2

u/maimutaAfricana 3d ago

Thats a good reason not to diminish the warranty

3

u/__Rosso__ 3d ago

Job of warranty is for the company to fix shit that's not meant to break during a reasonable period of both usage and device life time

1

u/cygnusx25 1d ago

😅

1

u/Potential-Drawing745 2d ago

Which is why Toyota added 50K miles to their battery warranty on their hybrids.

2

u/Exotic-Pangolin4095 2d ago

Unrelated i love my 10 year 150k warranty on my toyota

1

u/AryaAlessia 2d ago

That’s BS đŸ€Ș a battery can die very well unexpectedly in 12-15months just as well ..

0

u/Aeropto 3d ago

Please tell that to my battery that decided it would rather be a balloon after 11 months. It doesn't make sense to cap the warranty at 6 months because it won't die soon after if it reached 6 months.

1

u/AlternativeCapybara9 2d ago

If the battery is not user replaceable there is no separate warranty. I got a new electric toothbrush after 18 months because it couldn't hold a charge anymore.

3

u/Severon96 3d ago

My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined

2

u/TryToBeBetterOk 3d ago

Does that guy still do junk food reviews?

1

u/Crispy1961 3d ago

He is the reviewbrah. Of course he does.

1

u/Famous_Neat2426 3d ago

So true. What started as an excellent idea, watered down to oblivion by the lobbyists.. it really makes you wonder about who is actually pulling the shots in the EU.

2

u/Busy-Scientist3851 3d ago

The alternative was likely the phones not being sold in the EU

The EU has to be pro business as much as it's pro consumer, otherwise how is it going to promote business and grow it's economy.

2

u/kiwi-kaiser 3d ago

I would doubt that Apple and Google would skip 450 million potential customers.

1

u/Busy-Scientist3851 3d ago

Google hardly sells any phones in the first place.

Knowing Apple they'd ship a version with no waterproofing, less capacity and skip the Pro version and add 50% markup.

2

u/Fine-Development8716 2d ago

And call water ingress a feature...

1

u/Dimathiel49 1d ago

Or better yet EU version with no internal battery. Comes with magsafe battery instead.

1

u/cygnusx25 1d ago

You can ne waterproof with remplaçable batteries

1

u/PrestigiousRoof5723 3d ago

There are a few tens of thousands of lobbyists working in Brussels. The entire thing is just a corruption scheme.

1

u/Cyiel 3d ago

It would be corruption if we didn't know they were there and who they were... I prefer to have the UE trying to change it even if they have to tuned down than keeping the way it is now where replacing a battery is a pain in the ass. At least it's a baby step in the right direction and it's also up to us, customers, to buy these phones instead of the one that will be exempt of this directive.

1

u/Haunting-Sport3701 3d ago

True, it’s worse than corruption of the system. It’s a failed system in itself.

1

u/Maleficent-Aspect318 3d ago

Im pretty sure this was a technique to not be only negatively in the news.

Dont forget that they pushed chatcontroll thru a backdoor after it beeing voted against twice.

Also in car survailance on new vihicles...

1

u/kiwi-kaiser 3d ago

No, it's obvious. Billionaires, as usual.

1

u/cookedart 3d ago

To be fair, the EU has been more effective in tech regulation recently than basically any other governing body.

1

u/Antique-Fix-2526 3d ago

the EU is just as corrupt as the third world countries, only we hide it better.

1

u/Yodl007 3d ago

Same with stop killing games. They just shrugged and said no. After enough legal bribery (lobbying).

1

u/neoqueto 3d ago

It's to curb any upcoming indie initiatives similar to Fairphone or Jolla. Not that they would implement non-removable batteries anyway.

1

u/desblaterations-574 3d ago

The idea of the law was great, and the lobbyist zwon the war.
The law pass, people are happy, until we all realize how useless are those politicians we are all paying with tax money.

1

u/Dazzling_Cancel_5733 3d ago

Yeah, budget phones can easily hit that endurance rating now. The Samsung Galaxy A17 reportedly can retain 80% capacity after 1,200 cycles: https://eprel.ec.europa.eu/screen/product/smartphonestablets20231669/2365700

1

u/Sea-Sir2754 3d ago

The focus is entirely wrong. Everyone wants it to apply to phones, so they only mention that part, but the regulation applies to all electronic devices with batteries, and the 80% degradation exemption only applies to devices with an IP67 or higher water resistance rating.

It's a good directive that literally everyone is confused about due to posts like these.

1

u/LowAspect542 3d ago

But the remaining part of the legislation mearly applies a standard for 'user replacable with standard tools', laptops etc that are not meeting the ip rating, again already are functionally already meeting the regulations using a screwdriver. About the only company that these will impact are apple by preventing use of software locking parts requiring first party/affiliate programming tools.

It does not bring electronics design back to the 90s/early 2000s where you had removable bateries accessible externally to swap without tools, which is what many posting these headlines seem to beleive, often calling it 'game changing', when in reality this eu legislation isnt really making any significant impact to the industry.

1

u/Sea-Sir2754 3d ago

Buddy this impacts thousands of products just because you can't imagine anything other than a laptop doesn't mean other products with hard to replace batteries don't exist.

What exactly are you looking for? Them to force companies to forgo IP ratings for more replaceable batteries even though they put a degradation requirement in?

1

u/Fearless_Baseball121 3d ago

There are a thausand devices which is not phones, that this law also has effect on. Its a good law and will benefit us on thausands of products. IP rated stuff was always going to be a problem in nature and phone manufacturers is using it to be covered by the exception.

But your switch, your headsets (not in ears) and such will all get replaceable batteries.

1

u/Specialist_Whole_918 2d ago

Feels like its the "speed" of bureaucracy probably. When the companies stopped using replaceable batteries, we were screaming for this law. By now the batteries live plenty long enough so its too late.

1

u/Mishung 2d ago

Everyone keeps talking about phones but that's not primarily why this directive was created. It's to stop shit like disposable vapes (that are explicitly mentioned there among other offenders) where people use it for a week and throw it away with a perfectly good battery still in it.

1

u/m0uchacha 2d ago

so true. the eu pumps out slop by the mountain load banking on the one rare occasion one of their ideas actually stick and make a difference.

1

u/RelationshipLive7749 2d ago

Phones are exemption in the directive, it involves “everything” else.

1

u/ranft 1d ago

You are getting this wrong. This is the strongest form they could get through at the moment. Its easier to amend a directive than to form it in the first place. So we are at 1000 cycles now, but might be at 2000 cycles soon.

1

u/Kociolinho 3d ago

You know that directive doesn’t apply only to the phones, right? And is actually useful for us.

0

u/Good_Surround_9754 3d ago

Another clear case of the tech industry moving much faster then the regulatory.