EU Approves New Regulations That Require ... To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries

[Carlos E.R.]

Finally! :-)

<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>

EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries


Various technology companies such as Apple and Samsung will have to
drastically change the design of their future products thanks to the
adoption of new regulations from the EU. According to the latest
announcement, there will be strict rules in place, requiring operators
to verify the source of raw materials for batteries placed on the market
while letting users easily replace those cells too without requiring
much effort.
The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but
companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes

Keeping sustainability in mind, the European Union has laid out rules
which apply to all batteries, such as waste portable ones, industrial
ones, and others. Not surprisingly, these rules will affect the way
Apple, Samsung, and countless others do business, likely forcing them to
change the design of their products without going against the rules
while also offering the same premium feel. These technology companies
have not spoken about the regulations, but the EU’s mandate might likely
be challenged in the near future.

... continue reading at the link.


Source:
<https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/07/10/council-adopts-new-regulation-on-batteries-and-waste-batteries/>



Council of the EU Press release 10 July 2023 10:30

Council adopts new regulation on batteries and waste batteries


The Council today adopted a new regulation that strengthens
sustainability rules for batteries and waste batteries. The regulation
will regulate the entire life cycle of batteries – from production to
reuse and recycling – and ensure that they are safe, sustainable and
competitive.


The regulation of the European Parliament and the Council will apply to
all batteries including all waste portable batteries, electric vehicle
batteries, industrial batteries, starting, lightning and ignition (SLI)
batteries (used mostly for vehicles and machinery) and batteries for
light means of transport (e.g. electric bikes, e-mopeds, e-scooters).



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 11:23 schrieb Carlos E.R.:

>
> Finally! :-)
>
> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>
> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries

Finally!

> The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but
> companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes

How to you come to this speculative conclusion?

> Keeping sustainability in mind, the European Union has laid out rules
> which apply to all batteries, such as waste portable ones, industrial
> ones, and others. Not surprisingly, these rules will affect the way
> Apple, Samsung, and countless others do business, likely forcing them to
> change the design of their products without going against the rules
> while also offering the same premium feel. These technology companies
> have not spoken about the regulations, but the EU’s mandate might likely
> be challenged in the near future.

Sorry, this is nonsense.

> Council of the EU Press release 10 July 2023 10:30
>
> Council adopts new regulation on batteries and waste batteries
>
>
> The Council today adopted a new regulation that strengthens
> sustainability rules for batteries and waste batteries. The regulation
> will regulate the entire life cycle of batteries – from production to
> reuse and recycling – and ensure that they are safe, sustainable and
> competitive.
>
>
> The regulation of the European Parliament and the Council will apply to
> all batteries including all waste portable batteries, electric vehicle
> batteries, industrial batteries, starting, lightning and ignition (SLI)
> batteries (used mostly for vehicles and machinery) and batteries for
> light means of transport (e.g. electric bikes, e-mopeds, e-scooters).

That leaves not may questions open.

--
Faber est suae quisque fortunae

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-23 11:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 23.07.23 um 11:23 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>
>> Finally! :-)
>>
>> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>>
>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
>
> Finally!
>
>> The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but
>> companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes
>
> How to you come to this speculative conclusion?

I don't, that's the writer at the website, some "Omar Sohail".

But I highly suspect it is true :-p

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burns]

Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Finally! 🙂

>
> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>
> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries

Well, it's not quite final yet is it?

Just another stage of the ballet between the Parliament, Commission,
Council and Presidency ... I expect it will eventually become a
resolution and get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
obviously!) but some proposals such as whether to abandon summertime
clock changes, get to this point and then stall for years ...

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 12:16 schrieb Carlos E.R.:

I don't.
Time for consultations and opinions is over. Now starts the period of
implementation. For everybody irrespective of the name of the company.

Times are changing: Non-compliance will cause extremely negative
reactions on all fronts.

;-)

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 12:21 schrieb Andy Burns:

> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> Finally! 🙂
>>
>> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>>
>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
>
> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?

What was so difficult to understand?

Council of the EU Press release 10 July 2023 10:30

Council adopts new regulation on batteries and waste batteries


The Council today adopted a new regulation that strengthens
sustainability rules for batteries and waste batteries. The regulation
will regulate the entire life cycle of batteries – from production to
reuse and recycling – and ensure that they are safe, sustainable and
competitive.

> Just another stage of the ballet between the Parliament, Commission,
> Council and Presidency ... I expect it will eventually become a
> resolution and get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
> obviously!) but some proposals such as whether to abandon summertime
> clock changes, get to this point and then stall for years ...

Anglo-Saxons have no understanding of the processes. This will be
community law and overrides all locals laws.
It is law as of now. The effects of such a farreaching law will take
about 2-3 years to become really visible effects. Manufacturers need a
certain time to adjust the designs.

The clever ones see it as huge chance.

[Andy Burns]

Jörg Lorenz wrote:

> schrieb Andy Burns:
>
>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
>>
>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>
> What was so difficult to understand?

Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 12:59 schrieb Andy Burns:

Google exists. I'm not your nanny.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 12:21 schrieb Andy Burns:

> get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
> obviously!)

The UK has no say as far as community law is concerned. I even doubt
that the UK as a country is invited in the consultation-process.
Affected UK-companies and economic organisations probably yes if they
have material business on the Continent.

[Carlos E.R.]

You have the official EU press release, which includes a link to the PDF
of the regulation.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[AJL]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:23:54 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> Finally! :-)

>
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offe

r-easy-to-replace-batteries/>

> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And
Countless
> Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries

So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
broke into 2 or 3 pieces?

BTW am trying out an old Groundhog newsreader on a newer Fire HD10+
tablet. And transmit...

[VanguardLH]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:23:54 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Finally! :-)
>
>>
> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offe
> r-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>
>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And
> Countless
>> Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
>
> So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
> broke into 2 or 3 pieces?

That would have to be an ancient portable phone to break into pieces
when dropped. I've accidentally dropped both dumb and smart phones, and
damage, if any, was to the screen. I've managed to NOT buy any
smartphones with sealed batteries (designed to be user non-servicable),
and the backside did not fly off when dropped.

Batteries are chemical, so they will wear out. The phone makers know
this, so their warranties are shorter than when the battery is expected
to sufficient wane in capacity, and when short up-time spurs the user to
look at buying another phone instead of just getting another battery.

You could carry around a power pack to recharge your phone when an
outlet is unlikely available, or unknown if there'll be one, but then
you'd have to lug around a charger. A flat battery is much easier to
carry than either a power pack or charger.

Rather than fragility, what you lose with a user serviceable battery is
water resistance, but only because the phone makers didn't seal the
battery compartment, so when opening the back the phone remains sealed.
I have flashlights that remain water-tight despite their batteries are
replaceable.

Phone makers didn't seal their phones to make them water resistant, but
they certainly used that excuse. They did so to keep users from easily
replacing the batteries when they were dying off. Obviously they want
users to buy more phones than buying more batteries.

[Wally J]

"Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote

> that's the writer at the website, some "Omar Sohail".
>
> But I highly suspect it is true

You are correct.

Apple's strategy has always been to "shape the consumer's choices" from the
start, when Apple got away with no portable memory slots in iPhones.

Apple's strategy of suffocating the gullible consumer so that they can only
get air from Apple extended to the choice of applications Apple allows.

Apple makes of their money by slowly strangling consumers' choices, such as
when Apple "courageously" eliminated industry standard headphone hole.

Apple's strategy of kneecapping everything their rather ignorant consumers
can do extended to not only gluing the battery solidly but registering it.

Slowly but surely Apple's strategy of incapacitating customers equates to
profits because Apple then gives them an easy (always expensive) way out!

We hurt you for your own good, Apple says.

Meanwhile Tim Cook is laughing all the way to the bank.
Even Apple Marketing outright says it thinks its customers are stupid.

And they are.

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 23.07.23 um 17:35 schrieb AJL:

>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>> Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
>
> So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it broke
> into 2 or 3 pieces?

That would be a big improvement over the current situation, where it
shatters into an unrecoverable clump of glass shards held together with
glue.

With the biggest mass concentration (the battery) splitting apart on
impact, the chances of survival for the other parts should be
significantly higher.

[Oscar Mayer]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:59:50 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

>>>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>>>> Others To Offer ¡Easy to Replace¢ Batteries
>>>
>>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>>
>> What was so difficult to understand?
>
> Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?

Please do us all a favor and plonk Alan & Joerg.
They are here merely for their own sick amusement.

They deny everything they've never read.
Which is pretty much everything.

Case in point is you can give them that article a thousand times.
And they will NEVER click on the links to read it.
Just watch.

They use this forum for their amusement.
Anything they can argue, they will.
Every post from them subtracts value.

Best to plonk both of them, IMHO.
At least do it so the rest of us don't have to see their drivel.

[Incubus]

The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is that
they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They want ewaste.

Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500 phone.
Instead of a new $50 battery.

Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM.
So someone else makes money on that $50 battery.

That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace it.
Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs follow suit.

[AJL]

VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL wrote:

>> Carlos E.R. wrote:

>>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And
>>> Countless Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries

>> So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
>> broke into 2 or 3 pieces?

> That would have to be an ancient portable phone to break into pieces
> when dropped.

Yup. As I said, in the good -OLD- days...

> I've accidentally dropped both dumb and smart phones, and damage, if
> any, was to the screen.

Me too. And when the batteries popped out for me there was no damage,
just the hassle of picking up the parts and fitting them all back
together again. And it didn't happen that often (for me)...

> I've managed to NOT buy any smartphones with sealed batteries
> (designed to be user non-servicable),

All I've had is sealed phones in recent years. I did replace one sealed
phone's battery (blew up like a balloon) with parts and instructions I
got from the Internet.

> Batteries are chemical, so they will wear out. The phone makers
> know this, so their warranties are shorter than when the battery is
> expected to sufficient wane in capacity, and when short up-time spurs
> the user to look at buying another phone instead of just getting
> another battery.

So far I've not ever needed to buy a new phone because of a weak battery
(knocks on wood). It was because I WANTED a new phone...

> You could carry around a power pack to recharge your phone when an
> outlet is unlikely available, or unknown if there'll be one, but
> then you'd have to lug around a charger.

> A flat battery is much easier to carry than either a power pack or
> charger.

Chuckle. A 'flat' battery also means a dead battery... :-)

> Rather than fragility, what you lose with a user serviceable battery
> is water resistance, but only because the phone makers didn't seal
> the battery compartment, so when opening the back the phone remains
> sealed. I have flashlights that remain water-tight despite their
> batteries are replaceable.

I don't think I care that much about waterproof flashlights as
flashlights are relatively cheap to replace (as compared to phones)...

> Phone makers didn't seal their phones to make them water resistant,
> but they certainly used that excuse. They did so to keep users from
> easily replacing the batteries when they were dying off. Obviously
> they want users to buy more phones than buying more batteries.

Perhaps. So far it hasn't worked with me. I always just wanted a new
phone when I bought one, not because it stopped working. I'm GUESSING
most folks are the same way...

[AJL]

I guess I needed a smiley on my post, huh... :-) :-) :-)

[VanguardLH]

https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/
Has no hyperlink to a .pdf file that would cite the number of the law.

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/07/10/council-adopts-new-regulation-on-batteries-and-waste-batteries/
Has, at the bottom, a link to:
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT/en/pdf

The various designations at the top of the document are not titled. I
am not familiar with reading EU regulations. I don't live in one of the
27 European countries (member states) that are members of the EU nor do
I manufacture anything to be distributed to an EU market. Which of
those 6 designations is the regulation enumeration.

Since the PDF mentions documents dated back to 2006, 2008, and 2019, is
they new regulation really just an amendment to preexisting regulations?

The article also mentions the phone makers will be required to collect
the waste batteries. Here where I am, only alkaline batteries can be
disposed of in the trash bins. Lithium, NiMH, NiCAD, and other battery
chemistries have to be dumped at the local hazardous recycle center
where even there are separate stalls for type of drop-off, like a stall
for batteries, a stall for phosphorous (fluorescent light, CRTs), oil,
home-use chemicals, and so on. Our local laws already require proper
disposal of hazardous materials, and those include all the types of
batteries mentioned in the article. No need for a phone maker to
collect batteries from users who already have hazardous waste recycle
centers. Cost, for me, is $10 per load (I stock up hazardous items to
take in one load, as does everyone else I see going there). However, I
don't see mention in the new regulation of price fixing to the phone
makers to them to provide mailers for users to send them waste lithium
batteries.

What's the chance that the phone makers that still want to maintain a
market in the EU will come out with EU-compliant phones (with
replaceable batteries) that will be only available through sales outlets
in the EU? That is, the EU can flex their legislative muscle, but their
regulations are unenforceable outside their influence. Companies that
want to sell inside the EU could just provide EU-only products.
EU-compliant phones with replaceable batteries might not be available
elsewhere.

While I can find market share of Android and iOS phones by country, I
didn't bother to total up the market shares of the 27 EU member states
versus everywhere else to see how important are phone sales there to the
phone makers. That is, how much would they lose to say FU to the EU by
not selling there. Or how much more would it be to manufacture
compliant phones, but sell those only in the EU.

[Andy Burns]

Peter wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>

> I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
> in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.

I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
but often you don't get delivered what it says on the tin, how is
"right to repair" shaping-up?

[Alan]

On 2023-07-23 09:54, Wally J wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote
>
>> that's the writer at the website, some "Omar Sohail".
>>
>> But I highly suspect it is true
>
> You are correct.
>
> Apple's strategy has always been to "shape the consumer's choices" from the
> start, when Apple got away with no portable memory slots in iPhones.

They "got away" with it for one reason:

Consumers bought them in huge numbers.

>
> Apple's strategy of suffocating the gullible consumer so that they can only
> get air from Apple extended to the choice of applications Apple allows.

Apple's app store and the ease it brought to the process of adding
applications to one's device were a huge selling point.

>
> Apple makes of their money by slowly strangling consumers' choices, such as
> when Apple "courageously" eliminated industry standard headphone hole.

It's not an "industry standard".

And the word is "jack", not "hole".

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-23 19:24, VanguardLH wrote:
> "Carlos E.R." <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-07-23 12:59, Andy Burns wrote:
>>> Jörg Lorenz wrote:
>>>
>>>> schrieb Andy Burns:
>>>>
>>>>> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
>>>>>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>>>>
>>>> What was so difficult to understand?
>>>
>>> Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?
>>
>> You have the official EU press release, which includes a link to the PDF
>> of the regulation.
>
> https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/
> Has no hyperlink to a .pdf file that would cite the number of the law.

I never said it was here. I said in "the official EU press release", of
which I pasted a bit in the OP, and the link.

> https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/07/10/council-adopts-new-regulation-on-batteries-and-waste-batteries/
> Has, at the bottom, a link to:
> https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT/en/pdf
>
> The various designations at the top of the document are not titled. I
> am not familiar with reading EU regulations. I don't live in one of the
> 27 European countries (member states) that are members of the EU nor do
> I manufacture anything to be distributed to an EU market. Which of
> those 6 designations is the regulation enumeration.

I have no idea, I don't read legalesse. It is probably «REGULATION (EU)
2023/…»

My guess is, publishing in the journal print is pending, number is pending.

>
> Since the PDF mentions documents dated back to 2006, 2008, and 2019, is
> they new regulation really just an amendment to preexisting regulations?
>
> The article also mentions the phone makers will be required to collect
> the waste batteries. Here where I am, only alkaline batteries can be
> disposed of in the trash bins. Lithium, NiMH, NiCAD, and other battery
> chemistries have to be dumped at the local hazardous recycle center
> where even there are separate stalls for type of drop-off, like a stall
> for batteries, a stall for phosphorous (fluorescent light, CRTs), oil,
> home-use chemicals, and so on. Our local laws already require proper
> disposal of hazardous materials, and those include all the types of
> batteries mentioned in the article. No need for a phone maker to
> collect batteries from users who already have hazardous waste recycle
> centers. Cost, for me, is $10 per load (I stock up hazardous items to
> take in one load, as does everyone else I see going there). However, I
> don't see mention in the new regulation of price fixing to the phone
> makers to them to provide mailers for users to send them waste lithium
> batteries.

But this is Europe, and here manufacturers charge an amount at time of
selling that pays the recycling at end of life of whatever product.
That's the law.

You buy a car, you are paying the recycling in advance.

>
> What's the chance that the phone makers that still want to maintain a
> market in the EU will come out with EU-compliant phones (with
> replaceable batteries) that will be only available through sales outlets
> in the EU? That is, the EU can flex their legislative muscle, but their
> regulations are unenforceable outside their influence. Companies that
> want to sell inside the EU could just provide EU-only products.
> EU-compliant phones with replaceable batteries might not be available
> elsewhere.

There is no intention whatsoever to enforce our regulations outside of
the EU. That's the USA who loves to do that. With force of weapons some
times.

> While I can find market share of Android and iOS phones by country, I
> didn't bother to total up the market shares of the 27 EU member states
> versus everywhere else to see how important are phone sales there to the
> phone makers. That is, how much would they lose to say FU to the EU by
> not selling there. Or how much more would it be to manufacture
> compliant phones, but sell those only in the EU.

They would lose a lot. A small manufacturer can be content by selling
only in Korea, or USA, or China. Samsung? No way. They will comply,
eventually.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Alan]

So you can't quote the regulation number.

Got it.

[Alan]

On 2023-07-23 10:02, Peter wrote:

> Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>>
>> Just another stage of the ballet between the Parliament, Commission,
>> Council and Presidency ... I expect it will eventually become a
>> resolution and get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
>> obviously!) but some proposals such as whether to abandon summertime
>> clock changes, get to this point and then stall for years ...
>

> I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
> in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.
>

> The thinking is that the consumer is "smart" enough not to purchase a
> device which slowly removes all the functionality & raises the price.
>
> For some strange reason, there are consumers willing to purchase phones at
> higher prices without even the most basic of hardware functionality today.
>
> So these consumer protection laws help even those stupid people get more
> phone for the money, instead of less for more money as the trend is now.

Go away, Arlen.

[Alan]

Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
buying a new one.

<https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>

That webpage is hard to square with your claim.

[VanguardLH]

I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
batteries. Just because the battery is replaceable does not mandate the
phone is not water resistent. I think I'll hold off replacing my phone
with a newer model until this legal stuff works itself out. I much
prefer replaceable batteries instead of scrapping the entire device.

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 18:41 schrieb VanguardLH:

Nobody reads your milelong sermons.

--
Alea iacta est

[VanguardLH]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> I always just wanted a new phone when I bought one, not because it
> stopped working. I'm GUESSING most folks are the same way...

Average lifespan of ownership is just 2.65 years for smart phones.
Seems about how long before you become comfortable and informed on all
the features and usage of a phone. The batteries are designed to last 3
to 8 years depending on design. Have you owned your smart phones for
over 4 years when the battery has waned in capacity? Not dead, but
insufficient remaining capacity (coulombs) to use the phone for a day.

I'm still using a smart phone bought in 2018, but it has replaceable
batteries, and I have needed to replace them: capacity wanes over time,
they get pregnant from outgassing (even seen this damage with other
users where the case split apart the case from the internal pressure of
a bulging battery), plus I buy spares for toting for backup power, or
for when the currently installed battery's up-time begins to wane below
/using/ (not stowing in a pocket) the phone for about half a day.

Phone makers expect users to ditch old phones after 2 years. They
offter trade-ins. The devices go out of warranty. A new version of the
OS comes along. More gizmos or features in the newer phones. Apps that
stop supporting older OS versions. And consumers that are well trained
in the "newer is better" mantra.

As market saturation peaks, there are less sales unless impetus is found
to get owners to dispose of their existing usable devices.

https://www.wallstreetmojo.com/market-saturation/

In the USA, saturation is about 86%. Only 14% of Americans don't own a
smart phone. That's a shrinking market for new users to spur sales.

https://www.zippia.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/us-smartphone-ownership-over-time.jpg

This means more gimmicks have to get added to get existing consumers to
replace their functional devices. As saturation peaks, the competition
becomes more intense with less profit margin causing smaller companies
to withdraw from the market: LG, for my phone, bowed out of the mobile
market in 2019; also see:

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/technology/10-companies-that-hung-up-on-the-mobile-phone-business-1.1198272

Saturation and attrition are why Samsung and Apple became the leading
phone makers.

https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share
(I didn't bother to check worldwide market share per brand.)

[VanguardLH]

Jörg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch> wrote:

> Nobody reads your milelong sermons.

No one gives a gnat's fart about your unhelpful and uninformative
responses. Nor about your exceedinly short attention span that
precludes you from reading anything over a dozen words. Bet you
couldn't manage to get the end of this retort, either.

[VanguardLH]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> Incubus wrote:
>
>> The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is
>> that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They
>> want ewaste.
>>
>> Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500
>> phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
>>
>> Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM. So
>> someone else makes money on that $50 battery.
>>
>> That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
>> it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
>> follow suit.
>
> Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
> buying a new one.
>
> <https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
>
> That webpage is hard to square with your claim.

Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.

The web site you referenced is for sending a phone back to Apple to get
its battery replaced, not about buying a new phone. Don't know which
Apple phone you have, so I picked the iPhone 8 to use their cost
estimator. They came up with $69, but then add in your shipping cost to
them.

You can buy an iPhone 8 battery for $10, but you'll have to do the
replacement (open the case, remove old battery, install new battery,
reseal the case). So, for the extra $59, you're paying for some
low-tech expertise just to swap batteries.

Even with the $69 battery swap service by Apple, that's is still cheaper
than buying a new iPhone 8 although the price has come way down on
getting an iPhone 8. With replaceable batteries, that $69 service cost
would come down to the $10 replaceable battery, so still a lot cheaper
cost if the battery were user serviceable.

[AJL]

On 7/23/2023 2:37 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

>> I always just wanted a new phone when I bought one, not because it
>> stopped working. I'm GUESSING most folks are the same way...

> Average lifespan of ownership is just 2.65 years for smart phones.

I got my Galaxy S10+ in Sep 2019. So almost 4 years for me.

> The batteries are designed to last 3 to 8 years depending on design.

So far there's no NOTICEABLE battery deterioration.

> Have you owned your smart phones for over 4 years when the battery
> has waned in capacity?

Not yet, But I'm close. I'll report back...

> Not dead, but insufficient remaining capacity (coulombs) to use the
> phone for a day.

That probably depends on the use. I'm a very light user. YMMV.

> I'm still using a smart phone bought in 2018, but it has replaceable
> batteries, and I have needed to replace them:

I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it
wasn't all that hard IMO.

> they get pregnant from outgassing (even seen this damage with other
> users where the case split apart the case from the internal pressure
> of a bulging battery),

Yup. That's what happened to mine. Blew up like a balloon cracking the
case open.

> I buy spares for toting for backup power, or for when the currently
> installed battery's up-time begins to wane below /using/ (not
> stowing in a pocket) the phone for about half a day.

Depends on the usage. The phones in my house can go for a couple of days
each if necessary with our light use. YMMV...

> Phone makers expect users to ditch old phones after 2 years. They

> offer trade-ins. The devices go out of warranty. A new version of

> the OS comes along. More gizmos or features in the newer phones.
> Apps that stop supporting older OS versions. And consumers that are
> well trained in the "newer is better" mantra.

Yep. Isn't capitalism wonderful. Course some (most?) of my retirement
investment income comes from such shenanigans so I'm not complaining...

> In the USA, saturation is about 86%.

I'm surprised it's that low.

> Saturation and attrition are why Samsung and Apple became the leading
> phone makers.

I figured it's because folks just liked their phones. That's why there's
both a Samsung and an iPhone living in my house... ;)

[nospam]

In article <rmx8xf64...@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> Average lifespan of ownership is just 2.65 years for smart phones.
> Seems about how long before you become comfortable and informed on all
> the features and usage of a phone. The batteries are designed to last 3
> to 8 years depending on design.

using your numbers, the phone will generally be replaced *before* the
battery fails, therefore there is no advantage for an easy to swap
battery. an internal battery improves reliability and provides longer
run time, with no downside.

consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
phones and many other devices with internal batteries, which can be
replaced with a few tools, it just takes a little longer, for something
that's done maybe once in the device's lifetime.

[nospam]

In article <4a8navea...@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >> That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
> >> it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
> >> follow suit.
> >
> > Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
> > buying a new one.
> >
> > <https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
> >
> > That webpage is hard to square with your claim.
>
> Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.

people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
are going to spend $500 for a new phone.

> The web site you referenced is for sending a phone back to Apple to get
> its battery replaced, not about buying a new phone. Don't know which
> Apple phone you have, so I picked the iPhone 8 to use their cost
> estimator. They came up with $69, but then add in your shipping cost to
> them.

an iphone 8 is six years old. paying $69 for a new battery is foolish.

> You can buy an iPhone 8 battery for $10, but you'll have to do the
> replacement (open the case, remove old battery, install new battery,
> reseal the case). So, for the extra $59, you're paying for some
> low-tech expertise just to swap batteries.

except that they do it properly and provide a warranty for their work,
and in the event they break anything in the process, they fix it.

you could do it yourself for less, but if you make a mistake and make
things worse, it will cost a lot more than $69 to remedy it.

[Chris]

Andy Burns <use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
>>
>> I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
>> in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.
>
> I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,

Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
battery wore out.

Those that tried online had all sorts of problems with crappy third party
batteries so the best option was to get an "official" one from the OEM.
However, they only manufactured them for the lifetime of the phone so when
the model was replaced you couldn't get replacement batteries.

I don't see how the new regs will do anything different to what we had
historically nor improve on the current system.

[Woozy Song]

nospam wrote:

>> Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
>> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
>
> people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
> are going to spend $500 for a new phone.

The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery, which is partly
why Apple raised the price to a hundred bucks as of March of this year.

Apple is increasing battery replacement service charges
https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/03/apple-is-increasing-battery-replacement-service-charges-for-out-of-warranty-devices/

Apple would vastly prefer you buy a new phone & contributing to ewaste.
In fact, that's why Apple makes it so hard to replace an iPhone battery.

[Woozy Song]

Everyone else has long ago put Joerg into their killfile except you.

[Xavier Aguirre]

On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 19:22:49 -0400, nospam wrote:

> consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
> phones and many other devices with internal batteries

Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.

[nospam]

In article <u9kgad$csgu$1...@dont-email.me>, Woozy Song

<suzy...@outlook.com> wrote:

> >> Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
> >> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
> >
> > people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
> > are going to spend $500 for a new phone.
>
> The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery,

demonstrably false. apple offers both a battery replacement service as
well as tools to do it yourself for those so inclined. there are also
third party service options as well as off-brand batteries for those
who want to go that route. apple has no issues with *any* of it.

it's also irrelevant. someone who is going to spend $50 to replace a
battery is not deciding between that and a new phone that's 10x more
money.

> which is partly
> why Apple raised the price to a hundred bucks as of March of this year.

nope. that's not why, nor is it even correct. apple raised the price by
$20. a lot of things went up in price in the last year or two, and it's
not just apple.

> Apple would vastly prefer you buy a new phone

*every* company would vastly prefer you buy a new whatever they make as
often as possible. that doesn't mean people actually do that.

[nospam]

In article <u9kf60$cp2e$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
>
> Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
> think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
> battery wore out.

same for many other devices.

[nospam]

In article <u9kgme$ctgo$1...@dont-email.me>, Xavier Aguirre

<aguirr...@unr.edu> wrote:

>
> > consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
> > phones and many other devices with internal batteries
>
> Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.

first of all, the batteries aren't glued in, and second, sales of
devices (not just phones) with internal batteries are much higher than
those with snap-off covers because they're thinner, more reliable and
have longer run times, all features customers want, versus being able
to change the battery maybe once in 5 years of ownership (which they
can still do if they want, it just takes slightly longer, not a big
deal for something done on rare occasion).

[VanguardLH]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it
> wasn't all that hard IMO.

It's not difficult, but most users won't attempt it. Biggest problem is
damaging the water-resistent seal around the backplate. However, a dead
phone is worse than one that loses its water resistence. Often you can
find a Youtube video on your brand and model on how to dismantle the
phone to replace the battery.

[Wally J]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote

>>> consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
>>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
>>
>> Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
>
> first of all, the batteries aren't glued in,

Which shows you've never replaced a sealed in battery.
It's not the battery, per se - but the entire process of sealing it in.
And then undoing all that just to get it back out again.

[AJL]

On 7/23/23 8:31 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
>AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it
>> wasn't all that hard IMO.
>
>It's not difficult, but most users won't attempt it.

Agreed. That's probably why there are stores in my area that replace
batteries. I think most folks with a one year old phone with a popped
battery like mine would likely go to a store instead of buying a whole new
phone.

Or send it in for repair. But that takes lots more time away from using the
phone.

>Often you can
find a Youtube video on your brand and model on how to dismantle the
>phone to replace the battery.

That would help. My battery came with complete instructions including
diagrams. A!so the tools needed. I think most non-tech folks could do it
but as was mentioned a few posts ago the danger of permanently damaging the
phone is considerable...

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 24.07.23 um 03:37 schrieb nospam:

That has absolutely nothing to do with the new regulation. The new
regulations wants to ensure a circular, sustainable and controlled
system for battery raw materials.

--
Alea iacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 23.07.23 um 23:42 schrieb VanguardLH:

Did I tread on your toes?

--
Alea iacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 24.07.23 um 02:27 schrieb Woozy Song:

You didn't do it either. Otherwise you would not have written this
answer. You have abolutely no clue how to filter.

--
Alea iacta est

[Jörg Lorenz]

Am 24.07.23 um 02:24 schrieb Woozy Song:

Troll.

--
Alea iacta est

[The Real Bev]

On 7/23/23 8:31 PM, VanguardLH wrote:

I watched the video and paid a guy $60 (including battery) to do the
work. I have a heat gun and screwdrivers and stuff, but I'm fairly
clumsy and figured that the $60 was well spent.

--
Cheers, Bev
His men would follow him anywhere, but only out of morbid curiosity.

[Woozy Song]

nospam wrote:

>> The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery,
>
> demonstrably false. apple offers both a battery replacement service as
> well as tools to do it yourself for those so inclined.

Case in point, Apple was forced to open those service options, which is a
testament to the power of the EU over Apple (just as the EU forced Apple to
ditch it's proprietary ridiculously non-standard lightning connector).

> there are also
> third party service options as well as off-brand batteries for those
> who want to go that route. apple has no issues with *any* of it.

Case in point is that Apple requires them to use Apple equipment which
costs thousands of dollars to set up the battery registration process.

> it's also irrelevant. someone who is going to spend $50 to replace a
> battery is not deciding between that and a new phone that's 10x more
> money.

Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to
make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones.

[Alan]

On 2023-07-23 14:54, VanguardLH wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Incubus wrote:
>>
>>> The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is
>>> that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They
>>> want ewaste.
>>>
>>> Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500
>>> phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
>>>
>>> Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM. So
>>> someone else makes money on that $50 battery.
>>>
>>> That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
>>> it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
>>> follow suit.
>>
>> Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
>> buying a new one.
>>
>> <https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
>>
>> That webpage is hard to square with your claim.
>
> Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
>
> The web site you referenced is for sending a phone back to Apple to get
> its battery replaced, not about buying a new phone. Don't know which
> Apple phone you have, so I picked the iPhone 8 to use their cost
> estimator. They came up with $69, but then add in your shipping cost to
> them.

Except you don't have to ship it to them.

Apple has these "stores", you see.

>
> You can buy an iPhone 8 battery for $10, but you'll have to do the
> replacement (open the case, remove old battery, install new battery,
> reseal the case). So, for the extra $59, you're paying for some
> low-tech expertise just to swap batteries.
>
> Even with the $69 battery swap service by Apple, that's is still cheaper
> than buying a new iPhone 8 although the price has come way down on
> getting an iPhone 8. With replaceable batteries, that $69 service cost
> would come down to the $10 replaceable battery, so still a lot cheaper
> cost if the battery were user serviceable.

Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...

[Alan]

How do they do that?

How is the method of battery replacement going to change anything?

[VanguardLH]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> Except you don't have to ship it to them.
> Apple has these "stores", you see.

The density of Apple stores is dismal.

272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.

https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/

Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all focused
around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there. The mailing cost
to send in your phone (which means you lose use of it until the get
around to replacing the battery and shipping it to you) is far cheaper
than having to drive many hundreds of miles to a store.

> Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15

BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.

Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or hoped,
many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone to Apple.
What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when you get it back?

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 23.07.23 um 19:14 schrieb Incubus:

> The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is that
> they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They want ewaste.

No, there are also other reasons:

- Using sticky tape instead of screws reduces production cost.

- Without the need to make the battery accessible, there is more freedom
for the construction, e.g. the battery may be sandwiched between the
screen and other components.

- A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass
construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.

- Without a removable battery, there is less chance for the customer to
fall victim to low-quality 3rd party batteries, which results in less
service calls.

> Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500 phone.
> Instead of a new $50 battery.

A small LiPo battery as used in smartphones costs less then $10.
The rest is trading margin and/or installation costs, regardless whether
you buy the battery from the OEM or someone else. Not much to gain or
loose here for the OEM.

[Carlos E.R.]

I do not change my ebook reader just because the battery wears out. Why
would I? I'm just reading books, not playing with a tablet. I only need
it to display the books.


Now, if they offer me a replacement with replaceable batteries
(preferably AAA), I will consider buying a new one.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-23 23:04, VanguardLH wrote:
> I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
> batteries. Just because the battery is replaceable does not mandate the
> phone is not water resistent. I think I'll hold off replacing my phone
> with a newer model until this legal stuff works itself out. I much
> prefer replaceable batteries instead of scrapping the entire device.

You may have to wait 5 years... The regulation doesn't take effect
immediately.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Andy Burns]

VanguardLH wrote:

> I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
> batteries.

It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-24 03:37, nospam wrote:

No.

We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the
features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no
option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.


And yes, batteries are glued in.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[nospam]

In article <u9l3rq$igso$1...@dont-email.me>, Woozy Song

<suzy...@outlook.com> wrote:

> Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to
> make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones.

nope. in fact, it's become easier with recent models.

[nospam]

In article <u9kt4p$7f5q$1...@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J

<walte...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> >>> consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
> >>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
> >>
> >> Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
> >
> > first of all, the batteries aren't glued in,
>
> Which shows you've never replaced a sealed in battery.

which shows you are wrong yet again.

[nospam]

In article <1xn3rxfg...@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>

wrote:

> > Except you don't have to ship it to them.
> > Apple has these "stores", you see.
>
> The density of Apple stores is dismal.
>
> 272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
> yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.

you're incorrectly assuming an evenly distributed population. more
populated areas will have more stores (not just apple stores) and less
populated areas have fewer stores.

you're also incorrectly assuming that a battery swap must be done at an
apple store. it can be done at any of numerous third party providers,
of which there are *many*.

[nospam]

In article <1m62pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
> >> think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
> >> battery wore out.
> >
> > same for many other devices.
>
> I do not change my ebook reader just because the battery wears out. Why
> would I? I'm just reading books, not playing with a tablet. I only need
> it to display the books.

ebook readers use very little power so it will be a long time until it
wears out to the point of the battery needing to be replaced.

when that happens, you can replace the battery if you prefer, but by
that time, there will be more capable models with more features.

> Now, if they offer me a replacement with replaceable batteries
> (preferably AAA), I will consider buying a new one.

you might, but most people don't want an ebook reader that's thick
enough for aaa batteries, or the hassle of dealing with them, along
with much shorter run times.

[nospam]

In article <n072pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>> consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
> >>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
> >>
> >> Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
> >
> > first of all, the batteries aren't glued in, and second, sales of
> > devices (not just phones) with internal batteries are much higher than
> > those with snap-off covers because they're thinner, more reliable and
> > have longer run times, all features customers want, versus being able
> > to change the battery maybe once in 5 years of ownership (which they
> > can still do if they want, it just takes slightly longer, not a big
> > deal for something done on rare occasion).
>
>
> No.
>
> We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the
> features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no
> option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.

first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once
in the device's lifetime.

most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.

that means having an easily replaceable battery is of no benefit since
it's not something they'll end up doing in normal use.

> And yes, batteries are glued in.

which phones glue in the battery?

iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
seen, nobody else does either.

[nospam]

In article <ki78ot...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns

<use...@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
> connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?

that would greatly limit what device makers can design.

[Oscar Mayer]

There are two ecological angles on the sought after requirement that phone
batteries be user replaceable simply by popping them out and a new one in.

The first is that this feature alone will cause tremendously less ewaste in
that fewer phones need to be manufactured (probably by 50% to 75% or more).

The other is that recycling of the battery will be made more efficient
(because it won't be mangled up with the rest of the phone's recycling).

Of course, those certain OEMs who wrongfully tout their ewaste record will
_hate_ the fact that this one feature alone will tremendously cut ewaste.

Because they are a hollow horn.
They love ewaste.

Because ewaste is why they are the most profitable companies on earth.

[Andy Burns]

nospam wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
>> connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
>
> that would greatly limit what device makers can design.

Depends how many sizes are in the series ...

[Woozy Song]

nospam wrote:

>> Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to
>> make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones.
>
> nope. in fact, it's become easier with recent models.

Apple's history tells a different story when you account for all models.

The iPhone only Apple can really repair
https://www.ifixit.com/News/45921/is-this-the-end-of-the-repairable-iphone

[Java Jive]

Not just batteries in phones, I've mentioned other examples before, such
as fans in laptops. Being an item with moving parts that wear out, they
often start making an unacceptable din long before the rest of the
laptop starts to die. It would make a lot of sense for them to be
standard parts that would fit in any laptop, perhaps slotting into
something like a drive bay.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> would fit in any laptop, perhaps slotting into something like a drive bay

Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?

[Java Jive]

I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg

[Alan]

On 2023-07-24 00:04, VanguardLH wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Except you don't have to ship it to them.
>> Apple has these "stores", you see.
>
> The density of Apple stores is dismal.

The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.

>
> 272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
> yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.
>
> https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
>
> Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all focused
> around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there. The mailing cost
> to send in your phone (which means you lose use of it until the get
> around to replacing the battery and shipping it to you) is far cheaper
> than having to drive many hundreds of miles to a store.
>
>> Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
>
> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15

You have GOT to be joking.

>
> BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
> high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
> replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
> I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
> outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
> to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.

Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?

>
> Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or hoped,
> many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone to Apple.
> What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when you get it back?

My turnaround time was a few hours after I dropped it off.

:-)

[Alan]

Hear we go again...

[Alan]

You're not familiar with Betterige's Law of Headlines, are you?

And that article is nearly 3 years old.

[Andy Burns]

Java Jive wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
>
> I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
>   www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg

Yes, I've had floppy/HD/battery modules that insert into an optical bay,
but my current laptops only have M.2 slots.

[Java Jive]

The principle's exactly the same, a standard interface. I'm sure you
wouldn't want to be dismantling an entire laptop just to change an M.2
SSD, any more than I want to dismantle one to change the fans, which is
what I have to do at present for the machines that have the above linked
drive bay.

[Alan]

On 2023-07-24 11:03, Java Jive wrote:
> On 24/07/2023 18:04, Andy Burns wrote:
>> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
>>>
>>> I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
>>>    www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg
>>
>> Yes, I've had floppy/HD/battery modules that insert into an optical
>> bay, but my current laptops only have M.2 slots.
>
> The principle's exactly the same, a standard interface.  I'm sure you
> wouldn't want to be dismantling an entire laptop just to change an M.2
> SSD, any more than I want to dismantle one to change the fans, which is
> what I have to do at present for the machines that have the above linked
> drive bay.
>

You get that such systems already exist, right?

PEOPLE DON'T BUY THEM.

Not in any significant number anyway.

[Ken Blake]

Wear?

[VanguardLH]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Except you don't have to ship it to them.
>>> Apple has these "stores", you see.
>>
>> The density of Apple stores is dismal.
>
> The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.

Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided it
was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're now
trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.

You sound like the low-brow sales rep at one of the cellular carriers
claiming they have 100% coverage -- under limiting criteria that is not
mentioned. That is, they have great coverage in the areas they cover.

I'm sure glad gas stations are better distributed than Apple stores.
Gee, I can only drive around in areas of a vast majority of PEOPLE.
Cars wouldn't been far less used and purchased if that were true.

>> 272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
>> yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.
>>
>> https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
>>
>> Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all focused
>> around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there. The mailing cost
>> to send in your phone (which means you lose use of it until the get
>> around to replacing the battery and shipping it to you) is far cheaper
>> than having to drive many hundreds of miles to a store.
>>
>>> Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
>>
>> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15
>
> You have GOT to be joking.

Nope. If you're too lazy to determine counterfeit from genuine, or to
bother using eBay's Seller Protection, yep, you're stuck with an Apple
store sticking in whatever they're using at the time, and paying for it.

>> Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or
>> hoped, many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone to
>> Apple. What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when you get
>> it back?
>
> My turnaround time was a few hours after I dropped it off.

Lucky you have an Apple store nearby. So, you don't have experience
with having to mail in your phone to Apple to get them to replace the
battery to tell us their turn-around time. I don't buy multiple phones
with multiple carriers to have one in reserve when I have to send one in
for repair. Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that I'd have to buy a
spare to overcome the usage outage. Oh wait, I can buy a battery for a
hell of lot less, and do it myself. But then folks visiting here don't
comprise the the typical consumer.

[Alan]

On 2023-07-24 11:28, VanguardLH wrote:
> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>
>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Except you don't have to ship it to them. Apple has these
>>>> "stores", you see.
>>>
>>> The density of Apple stores is dismal.
>>
>> The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
>
> Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided
> it was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're
> now trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.

You seem very fond of straw man arguments, don't you?

>
> You sound like the low-brow sales rep at one of the cellular
> carriers claiming they have 100% coverage -- under limiting criteria
> that is not mentioned. That is, they have great coverage in the
> areas they cover.
>
> I'm sure glad gas stations are better distributed than Apple stores.
> Gee, I can only drive around in areas of a vast majority of PEOPLE.
> Cars wouldn't been far less used and purchased if that were true.

Sorry, but that doesn't follow.

Your implicit argument is that the number of Apple Stores forms an
impediment to a large portion of their customers.

And that requires taking distribution of their customers into consideration.

>
>>> 272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states.
>>> Count yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your
>>> state.
>>>
>>> https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
>>>
>>> Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all
>>> focused around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there.
>>> The mailing cost to send in your phone (which means you lose use
>>> of it until the get around to replacing the battery and shipping
>>> it to you) is far cheaper than having to drive many hundreds of
>>> miles to a store.
>>>
>>>> Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
>>>
>>> https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15
>>
>> You have GOT to be joking.
>
> Nope. If you're too lazy to determine counterfeit from genuine, or
> to bother using eBay's Seller Protection, yep, you're stuck with an
> Apple store sticking in whatever they're using at the time, and
> paying for it.

Because discovering you got a counterfeit and then returning it is
customer friendly, right?

>
>>> Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or
>>> hoped, many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone
>>> to Apple. What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when
>>> you get it back?
>>
>> My turnaround time was a few hours after I dropped it off.
>
> Lucky you have an Apple store nearby. So, you don't have experience
> with having to mail in your phone to Apple to get them to replace
> the battery to tell us their turn-around time. I don't buy multiple
> phones with multiple carriers to have one in reserve when I have to
> send one in for repair. Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that
> I'd have to buy a spare to overcome the usage outage. Oh wait, I can
> buy a battery for a hell of lot less, and do it myself. But then
> folks visiting here don't comprise the the typical consumer.

I simply note you've completely snipped this:

>> BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
>> high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
>> replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
>> I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
>> outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
>> to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
>
> Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?

Is there some reason you don't want to address this question?

[Alan]

Yeah, yeah... 😜

[VanguardLH]

Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.ex...@snafu.de> wrote:

> - A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
> removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass
> construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.

I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone. It's for looks, not durability. Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.

Just what /functionality/ does an all-glass case lend to a smartphone?

One cited advantage is glass is more transparent to RF than aluminum.
That's quite evident anytime you add a case around the phone that is
metallic, or even has the mylar coating to make it shiny. Bars go down.
Is glass more transparent to RF than, say, plastic?

Ah, glass is more scratch resistant. Considering phone owners get rid
of their phones, on average, after 2.65 years, who cares about scratches
in a plastic backplate? However, it isn't your keys that scratch glass.
It's the lint in your pocket that has silica.

Glass is better for wireless charging then a metal backplate. Why do
they (e.g., Corning) keep comparing glass to metal? What non-glass
phone cases are using metal for the backplate? They spend all that
effort to design a phone with its various radios only to add shielding
with matal cases that block RF?

Glass makes the phone look pretty. I has a nicer feel to the hand than
plastic. Glass adds heft to the device which makes users think the
phone is more robust, like mouse manufacturers that add weights inside
to give it more heft. Nothing to do with being better for phone
operation. Considering how damn expensive are smartphones, many users
encapsulate their phone inside an armor case made of silicone and
plastic, so say goodbye to the glass look and feel. Glass is more
fragile and more frangible than plastic. Not only can the front side
(screen) get shattered, so can the backside.

Being trendy doesn't mandate being smart. It's about markekting, and
how susceptible are consumers.

> - Without a removable battery, there is less chance for the customer to
> fall victim to low-quality 3rd party batteries, which results in less
> service calls.

Which also means when the chemistry begins to fade (capacity wanes) or
fails (battery goes dead), consumers are more likely to buy another
phone than take their old one to a shop to pay for repair service.
Phone makers want consumers to see phones as consumable products, not as
repairable products.

When you buy a flashlight with replaceable batteries, when do you
replace the flashlight? When the batteries die, or when the flashlight
fails (also assuming the bulb is not replaceable)? It'd be the latter.
With rechargeable flashlights having sealed batteries, consumers don't
bother to replace the batteries, but instead buy a new flashlight.
Built-in obsolesence. Great for revenue. Bad for the environment.

For those that end up replacing their phones after 2-3 years, they don't
care about the serviceable versus non-serviceable battery argument. The
weak or dead battery will be someone else's problem. For those that
keep their phones until forced to discard them (e.g., when 2G got
dropped, discontinued support meaning no more OS updates meaning apps
eventually won't work on old phones), they run into the limited lifespan
of the chemistry for batteries, and would to easily replace the
batteries than dismantling the phone, or paying the labor overhead of a
shop doing the repair.

As for more integral design of the battery within the confines of the
phone to increase up-time, there isn't much that cannot also be done
with replaceable batteries, but the phone makers are more inclined to
get consumers buying more phones than more batteries. Instead of using
glass to add heft to the phone, make the backplate the battery to make
it larger and add more heft with more up-time.

[Bodger]

On 7/23/2023 5:23 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> Finally! :-)
>
> <https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
>
> EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
>
I await the regulations outlining what is "easy". Is it "skilled
highly-dexterous technician easy" or is it "clumsy technophobe Aunt Edna
who cannot change a light bulb for herself easy"? Over the years I've run
into too many people who couldn't figure out how to change the AA cells in
the TV remote without several false starts.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-24 14:57, nospam wrote:
> In article <1m62pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
>>>> think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
>>>> battery wore out.
>>>
>>> same for many other devices.
>>
>> I do not change my ebook reader just because the battery wears out. Why
>> would I? I'm just reading books, not playing with a tablet. I only need
>> it to display the books.
>
> ebook readers use very little power so it will be a long time until it
> wears out to the point of the battery needing to be replaced.

I already had to replace the battery of mine.

The exact battery was impossible to find. I had to buy a similar one,
then remove the electronics on the original and solder them on the new
battery.

> when that happens, you can replace the battery if you prefer, but by
> that time, there will be more capable models with more features.

Actually, no.

It is just a book, it doesn't need features.

There is only one feature that would make me want to buy a new reader:
colour epaper.

>
>> Now, if they offer me a replacement with replaceable batteries
>> (preferably AAA), I will consider buying a new one.
>
> you might, but most people don't want an ebook reader that's thick
> enough for aaa batteries, or the hassle of dealing with them, along
> with much shorter run times.

Depends. We might.

There are already dozens of different models of ereaders. Just one more.
I would like a metal one, solid.


Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old. We book
hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly, not having to buy a new
reader every 6 years, for a price that destroys the economic advantage
of buying ebooks vs paper books.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 2023-07-24 14:57, nospam wrote:

> In article <n072pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
>>>>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
>>>>
>>>> Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
>>>
>>> first of all, the batteries aren't glued in, and second, sales of
>>> devices (not just phones) with internal batteries are much higher than
>>> those with snap-off covers because they're thinner, more reliable and
>>> have longer run times, all features customers want, versus being able
>>> to change the battery maybe once in 5 years of ownership (which they
>>> can still do if they want, it just takes slightly longer, not a big
>>> deal for something done on rare occasion).
>>
>>
>> No.
>>
>> We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the
>> features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no
>> option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.
>
> first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
> longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once
> in the device's lifetime.
>
> most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
> promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.

I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
friends or relatives doing the same.

I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.

>
> that means having an easily replaceable battery is of no benefit since
> it's not something they'll end up doing in normal use.
>
>> And yes, batteries are glued in.
>
> which phones glue in the battery?
>
> iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
> seen, nobody else does either.

The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok,
some type of sticky tape or foam.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

[AJL]

On 7/24/23 11:28 AM, VanguardLH wrote:

>I don't buy multiple phones
>with multiple carriers to have one in >reserve when I have to send one in
>for repair.

I keep a old prior phone around for just such emergencies.

>Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that > I'd have to buy a
>spare to overcome the usage outage.

My current spare is an iPhone. Still works. It'll hold me for a few days...

[AJL]

On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote

>I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
>any portable phone.

Agreed.

>Another reason
>users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.

Not if they're smart and use a protective case...

[Mickey D]

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 20:45:31 -0000 (UTC), AJL wrote:

>>I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
>>any portable phone.
>
> Agreed.

The only people for who an all-glass phone is a "smart idea" are those who
want to sell you a new phone when it breaks the first time you drop it.

[Carlos E.R.]

Why then have a glass back at all?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[VanguardLH]

Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-07-24 11:28, VanguardLH wrote:
>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Except you don't have to ship it to them. Apple has these
>>>>> "stores", you see.
>>>>
>>>> The density of Apple stores is dismal.
>>>
>>> The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
>>
>> Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided
>> it was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're
>> now trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.
>
> You seem very fond of straw man arguments, don't you?

To you, an counterpoint is a strawman argument.

> Your implicit argument is that the number of Apple Stores forms an
> impediment to a large portion of their customers.

Look at the map. Get the population of those cities. Then compare to
the total population of the nation. You can view the stats from
different perspectives, but all of them will show dismal coverage.

> And that requires taking distribution of their customers into
> consideration.

And what I said in what you claimed was a strawman argument regarding
profitability of brick-and-mortar stores. And also why Apple offers
mail-in service to counter their low store presence. They aren't going
to open more stores to cover where it isn't profitable, so that fallback
to mail-in replacement.

> I simply note you've completely snipped this:
>
>>> BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
>>> high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
>>> replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
>>> I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
>>> outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
>>> to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
>>
>> Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?
>
> Is there some reason you don't want to address this question?

What question? I learned to trim my posts a long time ago. If not
pertinent to the discussion, don't quote it. In fact, quoting anything
of the parent post is a politeness extended to users that cannot follow
context through the posts, and would like some context within a post.
No one has to quote anything from the parent post at all.

I brought up that point to show there are places that perhaps you
consider more reliable (yet you don't know from where they get the
batteries) to placate your sensibility of buying online. However, even
BatteriesPlus does not sell OEM-manufactured batteries. Phone makers
aren't in the battery manufacturing business. They contract from
someone that is a battery manufacturer. Most batteries from
BatteriesPlus are from whomever they chose to contact the products, and
the brand they sell are often their own brand from who knows what
manufacturer.

Is there something else about BatteriesPlus that you want to discuss but
overtly avoided in your prior reply?

[VanguardLH]

I don't move off my phone until forced, like when the carriers dropped
2G. I still sometimes miss my old Moto flip dumb phone. My current
phone only goes up to 4G, not the 5G. So, when the carriers decide to
drop anything lower than 5G then I'm stuck getting a new phone. For me,
my old phones were killed off.

Perhaps I may buy a new phone, but still waiting for more bang-for-the-
buck, especially considering the high prices, while keeping my old phone
if it is still usable then. However, I really don't care for paying for
multiple carriers, or multi-phone plans, for a phone that will
predominantly reside in a drawer and powered off for months or years.
Alternatively, I could get a pair of phones where I could swap the SIM
card (providing the carrier wasn't blocking a model using its IMEI), or
both used eSIM. But if it's an expense you're willing to pay, yeah,
having a spare phone makes sense. It would eliminate usage outage
should the phone get lost, broke, or stolen -- or having to ship in to
get the battery replaced (if I didn't do it myself).

[VanguardLH]

AJL <noe...@none.com> wrote:

> VanguardLH wrote

>
>> Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because
>> the glass shattered.
>
> Not if they're smart and use a protective case...

Addressed when I mentioned protecting that expensive phone with an armor
case which obviates the argument of how more pretty is a glass case.
Buy a pretty glass-cased phone, but then cover it up with an armor case.

[AJL]

On 7/24/2023 12:36 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.

I'm currently reading an ebook over a hundred years old. Does that count?

> We book hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly,

My ebooks from Amazon and Google are permanent for me (and family). I
now have well over a thousand available to read at any time. They are
transferable to my heirs but may not be available in 2 centuries like
yours. Probably won't bother me much by then though...

> not having to buy a new reader every 6 years,

Not sure I understand why. My ebooks can be read anytime on most any
device. And also in any browser...

> for a price that destroys the economic advantage of buying ebooks vs
> paper books.

Probably my cheapest ebook reader was my Amazon Fire 7 tablet at $29US
(think its $59 now - damn that inflation). Course the Fire 7 also did
everything Android and it has color just like you want...

[AJL]

Good question. But many do so if you want the phone for its other
properties than a case is prudent...

[nospam]

In article <10ksxk89iv8t5$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> >> The density of Apple stores is dismal.
> >
> > The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
>
> Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided it
> was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're now
> trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.

companies, not just apple, have little reason to open stores where
there are no customers.

> You sound like the low-brow sales rep at one of the cellular carriers
> claiming they have 100% coverage -- under limiting criteria that is not
> mentioned. That is, they have great coverage in the areas they cover.
>
> I'm sure glad gas stations are better distributed than Apple stores.
> Gee, I can only drive around in areas of a vast majority of PEOPLE.
> Cars wouldn't been far less used and purchased if that were true.

except they aren't better distributed.

just like any other store, they are where people are.

in rural areas, it's not unusual to go 50-100 miles on the highway
without seeing *any* gas station (or anything else), with signs warning
drivers to be sure they have sufficient fuel.

meanwhile, in urban areas, there are *many* gas stations, often next to
each other to handle the demand.

[nospam]

In article <lf03pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> There are already dozens of different models of ereaders. Just one more.
> I would like a metal one, solid.

you might, but there needs to be far more than just you to justify
manufacturing a new product.

> Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.

actually, they don't. paper deteriorates, especially if it's handled by
humans.

it needs to be kept in a climate controlled environment, in a sealed
enclosure filled with an inert gas, as is often the case with museums.

> We book
> hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly, not having to buy a new
> reader every 6 years, for a price that destroys the economic advantage
> of buying ebooks vs paper books.

ebooks will last forever, without any degradation whatsoever and can be
copied an unlimited number of times, with no generational loss.

the device used to read them will change as technology progresses,
whether it's a kindle, ipad, laptop, desktop or maybe some future ar/vr
ebook goggle not yet invented.

[nospam]

In article <nn03pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

> >> We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the
> >> features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no
> >> option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.
> >
> > first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
> > longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once
> > in the device's lifetime.
> >
> > most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
> > promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.
>
> I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
> friends or relatives doing the same.
>
> I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.

one of those is far more common than the other.

> >> And yes, batteries are glued in.
> >
> > which phones glue in the battery?
> >
> > iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
> > seen, nobody else does either.
>
> The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok,
> some type of sticky tape or foam.

sticky tape is not glue.

it's also the exception.

[nospam]

In article <gw59yw6m0zik$.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH>
wrote:

> > And that requires taking distribution of their customers into
> > consideration.
>
> And what I said in what you claimed was a strawman argument regarding
> profitability of brick-and-mortar stores. And also why Apple offers
> mail-in service to counter their low store presence. They aren't going
> to open more stores to cover where it isn't profitable, so that fallback
> to mail-in replacement.

no, the fallback are third party stores that can replace the battery
(and other repairs). you are incorrectly assuming an apple store is the
only option. that is false.

mail-in is an option for those who are truly in the middle of nowhere,
but there aren't very many people that fit that category. device repair
isn't the only thing for which they have to travel a distance. food,
clothing, etc. are also not nearby.

[nospam]

In article <hf63pjx...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.

<robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> Why then have a glass back at all?

glass is rf transparent, which is a significant advantage for a mobile
device with multiple radios. recent formulations are less likely to
shatter.

metal is durable, however it blocks rf, which is why there are plastic
antenna apertures, which adds to the cost (and also limits the range).

plastic is rf transparent, however, it cracks easily and feels cheap.

everything has tradeoffs.

transparent aluminum has not yet been invented :)

[Hergen Lehmann]

Am 24.07.23 um 20:56 schrieb VanguardLH:

> Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.ex...@snafu.de> wrote:
>
>> - A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
>> removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass
>> construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.
>
> I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
> any portable phone. It's for looks, not durability. Another reason
> users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.

In my opinion, it's a completely stupid fashion trend. In the end, the
fragility and slipperiness of glass encourages me to keep the phone in a
protective rubber sleeve all the time, which completely hides the looks.

Others glue some ugly-looking holding rings (how are theses things
officially called?) to the back of their phone in order to avoid
constantly dropping them.

Great.

> Just what /functionality/ does an all-glass case lend to a smartphone?

Compared to metal, glass has the advantage of being dirt cheap and
neutral towards electromagnetic fields. Functions like NFC and wireless
charging are almost impossible with a metal back, and in the era of
all-metal bodies even the high end phones of a certain US brand ended up
having reception problems if not held "correctly".

> One cited advantage is glass is more transparent to RF than aluminum.
> That's quite evident anytime you add a case around the phone that is
> metallic, or even has the mylar coating to make it shiny. Bars go down.
> Is glass more transparent to RF than, say, plastic?

No. But plastic is perceived as being cheap, although difference in
production cost compared to glass is probably close to zero.

> Ah, glass is more scratch resistant. Considering phone owners get rid
> of their phones, on average, after 2.65 years, who cares about scratches
> in a plastic backplate? However, it isn't your keys that scratch glass.
> It's the lint in your pocket that has silica.

Back in the plastic era, some OEMs did even offer interchangeable
backcovers in many different designs to choose from...

>> - Without a removable battery, there is less chance for the customer to
>> fall victim to low-quality 3rd party batteries, which results in less
>> service calls.
>
> Which also means when the chemistry begins to fade (capacity wanes) or
> fails (battery goes dead), consumers are more likely to buy another
> phone than take their old one to a shop to pay for repair service.

I've replaced faded smartphone and tablet batteries several times in the
past, both replaceable ones and supposed-to-be non-replaceable ones. I
ended up being disappointed every single time. New counterfeit china
batteries barely reached the capacity of the worn original one, and
original replacement batteries are usually half-dead after being in
storage for several years.

If used correctly, modern LiPo batteries easily last 5 years without
losing too much capacity, which is a reasonable lifespan for an IT
device. After that time, you'll run into problems due to outdated
software anyway.

> Phone makers want consumers to see phones as consumable products, not as
> repairable products.

Yes, but the main problem here is the lack of software updates, not the
battery.
The latter is more of an ecological problem, because having completely
different materials glued together makes recycling and/or proper
disposal really hard.

> When you buy a flashlight with replaceable batteries, when do you
> replace the flashlight? When the batteries die, or when the flashlight
> fails (also assuming the bulb is not replaceable)? It'd be the latter.

Last time i bought a new flashlight was because i wanted an
USB-rechargeable one. Having only one type of power source and one type
of emergency backup (in form of a Power Bank) for all electronic devices
makes things so much easier during travel.

The time before, i replaced all my flashlights, because the modern
LED-based ones are soooo much brighter than the old incandescent ones,
while having much lower power consumption at the same time.

So it the end, even for such a simple device the driving factor was
neither wear nor batteries, but Featurism.

[VanguardLH]

Mickey D <mickeyda...@ptd.net> wrote:

> AJL wrote: (added the missing attribution line)

>
>> VanguardLH (not AJL) wrote:
>>
>>> I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone,
>>> or any portable phone.
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> The only people for who an all-glass phone is a "smart idea" are those
> who want to sell you a new phone when it breaks the first time you
> drop it.

I have read where Corning has their Gorilla v6 glass that is supposed to
withstand 15 drops from 1 meter height. It's getting better, but it's
still glass.

I have seen where users cut their fingers trying to use a cracked
screen. Wouldn't the same be true for their palms while holding a
cracked case? While glass is tempered to decrease frangability, is it
also safety glass to prevent shards from going into your eyes?

I've never been motivated to buy a glass-cased smartphone. I usually
shop based on specs. If I narrowed down my wishlist to a few phones,
the ones with glass cases would get dropped (pun intended).

Having a glass backplate is also something to consider if you intend to
keep the phone for several years, and intend to replace the battery
yourself. I suspect any twisting of the glass backplate would crack the
glass, so you'd have to add safety glasses to your toolkit. Replacing a
shattered glass backplate means you don't care about further shattering
of the old broken one since you're putting on a new one, but if
replacing the battery then you don't want to add the risk of shattering
the glass backplate to get at the battery.

How much does it cost to get a replacement glass backplate?

From what I've seen in Youtube videos, removing a glass backplate is
more difficult than a plastic one. A big concern, if your phone has it,
is of damaging the wireless charging pad. Glass backplates look to be
much more firmly affixed to the phone.

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=iphone+8+back+glass+replacement

Doesn't seem expensive to replace the glass backplate, but looks like
you want to get a kit to make sure you dismantle without further damage.
A lot of users get putoff in seeing how a non-glass backplate gets
removed from a water-resistent smartphone. They'd be further put off
seeing how well affixed is a glass backplate. All that effort just
because the phone makers couldn't or wouldn't design a water-resistent
phone with replaceable batteries. Does anyone care if the battery
itself is or is not protected from water?

[nospam]

In article <2k83pj-6...@hergen.spdns.de>, Hergen Lehmann

<hlehmann.ex...@snafu.de> wrote:

> > Just what /functionality/ does an all-glass case lend to a smartphone?
>
> Compared to metal, glass has the advantage of being dirt cheap and
> neutral towards electromagnetic fields. Functions like NFC and wireless
> charging are almost impossible with a metal back, and in the era of
> all-metal bodies even the high end phones of a certain US brand ended up
> having reception problems if not held "correctly".

that wasn't due to an all metal body and is something that affects all
phones and other devices with radios. nobody can beat the laws of
physics.