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
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...
https://randsinrepose.com/guides/apple-charging/apple-chargi...
- 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...
The other exemption criteria is for specialized (medical) devices and devices where a removable battery would be unsafe.
> 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.
What is this whicraft?
Also, it's water - resistance.
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).
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.
This will only impact bottom barrel phones.
(I suspect the health figures displayed are already somewhat fudged to try and downplay the reality of battery degradation?)
And what consequences will there be for whoever lies.
This is a serious suggestion, as I think it’s actually net beneficial for the consumer.
/s
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
This is a BS excuse. 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.
What are you doing to your phone that needs all that? Using it as a hammer? Temporary support while building a tunnel?
This does not happen. There is a thriving market for used phones, many of which have had the battery replaced.
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.
It would save you an $80 trip to the Apple Store (or non-Apple equivalent) every three or four years. What am I missing?
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.
You don’t have any idiosyncratic product preferences?
(My Kyocera Duraforce came close; too bad it was locked to AT&T.)
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.
What is the share of the smartphone market that this applies to?
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.
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.
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.
Samsung was the last major brand in the US to have one, and they made the choice to remove it.
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.
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.
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.
It turns out market consolidation is usually the biggest innovation killer.
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.
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?
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.
0: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
the choice for budget devices is now
1. better battery
2. removability (likely more expensive and complicates water-tightness )
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.
> That is significantly more than many batteries on the market today can achieve (often around 500–800 cycles).
for example my iphone 15 pro is at 83% with 654 cycles. clearly it will drop below 80% in less than 1000 cycles
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.
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?
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.
Real legal question: What prevents this "legal hack"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> (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.)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They're not real you know.
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..
* Samsung Electronics
* Apple
* Xiaomi
* Oppo (includes OnePlus)
* Vivo
* Huawei
* Honor
* Motorola Mobility
* realme
* Google
* Sony
* Nokia
* Asus
* Nothing
* HTC
* ZTE
* Fairphone
* LG Electronics
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.
The real problem I think is the hostility towards repair, glue everywhere, no spare parts, etc.
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.
So the headline is misleading. Removable batteries aren’t mandatory. They’re only mandatory if the battery fails to meet certain performance standards.
I guess the law won't say that though.
> 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.
I am european and proud.. but what has europe created in the last 20 years worth of mention
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.
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.
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.
* 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.
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.
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.