Technology

37702 readers

482 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

Making sense of the EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries (www.theverge.com)

submitted 1 year ago by alyaza@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 00@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

To quote the actually adopted text:

(38) […] 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, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it […]

(39) 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.

This is absolutely not the same as having an IP rating. A portable toaster could have an IP rating, but that doesn't mean it's intended to be submersed a lot in its life time.

[–] Chup@feddit.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The difference is that we are talking about mobile phones and tablets here. A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.

I mean they don't really have to argue to begin with, they just keep selling their IP-rated phones as they are. Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that's all it takes.

[–] 00@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.

But the text says:

to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance

While a phone might be intended to be able to withstand rain and slight immersion, its not intended to be used in such an environment for the majority of its active service. Nobody is actually going to believe that imo.

Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that's all it takes.

For some time now the EU has shown a willingness to bite tech companies in such matters. I hope the EU keeps doing that and extends that willingness. But yeah, for now we can only guess. Although I do think manufacturers wont try to weasel out of this, and if they do, i hope they get bitten.

[–] Kelsenellenelvial@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

I think it’s telling that most manufacturers won’t do warranty for water damage despite advertising a suitable IP rating. From a legal standpoint that seems to show that the above clauses wouldn’t apply, and if the manufacturer did want to use those clauses to get around the removable battery thing then they’d probably have to start accepting water damage as covered by warranty.