> One exemption says that waterproof devices do not have to feature user-replaceable batteries. That’s something I addressed before. The iPhone isn’t waterproof, but it’s pretty good at surviving after water-related accidents. I wouldn’t want to risk that feature by replacing the battery myself.
> The second exemption is even more interesting. This is the good news I was referring to earlier. Smartphone vendors like Apple can continue using built-in batteries as long as they offer high-quality batteries. The battery should still have 83% health after 500 cycles. Or 80% health after 1,000 cycles.
>(39)
To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability
requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion
and that are intended to be washable or rinseable. This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery. Where the derogation applies, the product should be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals, and not by end-users.
Then it is in Article 11, 2nd paragraph:
>2 By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals:
(a) appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable;
The "operate primarily" as I understand it, may apply only to the new "iPhone Baywatch Edition" ;).
I cannot find anything about the cited second "exemption" about number of cycles.
The other article you just provided clears the matter, the one referenced in the thread seemed to attribute the "exemption" to the "battery regulation" one.
But the "battery regulation" is already approved, while the "Ecodesign" is still only a draft (from what I can understand).
It will be interesting to see how the EU will solve the "overlapping", it seems to me improbable that they will make in September (after the hypothetical approval of the "ecodesign" draft) an amendment to something approved only a few months before.
> it seems to me improbable that they will make in September (after the hypothetical approval of the "ecodesign" draft) an amendment to something approved only a few months before.
Par for the course with the EU especially when it comes to laws dealing with the environments. See for exemple the regulations linked to the green taxonomy where half of the material is still missing despite the law coming into force and where information about how the law should actually be applied are published months late. The EU is kind of a joke sometimes.
Not so easy, according to the new (future) EU Law, you will need to be a licensed lifeguard to be allowed to buy and operate those "special" phones ;).
good. i care much more about my phone being watertight than i care about paying the trivial amount of money for a battery replacement (which so far i have needed to do zero times in my decade of iphone usage). the people who use iphones and people who want these changes forced on iphones just to stick it to apple have zero overlap.
Same... using my phone outdoors a lot, water resistance is way more important than battery replacement.
I'm meticulous about maintaining battery health by using a Chargie device to limit charges to 80%, and a peltier cooled phone holder in the car that keeps it from overheating. Coupled with just not using the phone that much I'm pretty sure I can get 5-10 years of usable life out of the battery, and will probably replace the phone before that anyways.
My point is that the rating can be gamed, and relying on users to do something right is going to turn out badly for the users while the company points at small print.
Doing the same search for the iPhone 14 also results a bunch of articles about how to recover from it and Reddit threads about it being damaged from water.
And the iPhone 14 has had many years of improvements since the S5.
Not the OP, but personally, my phone is my map, music player, camera, and emergency contact. I often take it biking, hiking, swimming, kayaking, etc. It frequently gets wet, whether on accident (flipping the kayak, water bottle leaks) or on purpose (riding through rain, taking underwater photos) etc.
Back in the day they had special ruggedized phones for that use case (they still do) but it's nice just having a regular mass market phone with a good camera and not have to worry about it getting wet.
There are lots of situations where it’s nice to be able to have a phone with you, like going to the beach but still having transit maps to catch the bus back.
Also swimming pools, rivers, rain, snow… you can go lots of places where a phone would most likely or definitely get soaked or submerged, and it’s useful to have a phone with you for payment, maps, messages, everything you normally use it for. Water is the only thing that has killed/broken phones for me in years.
Why watertight is a benefit, I suppose there are other benefits of phone with none-replaceable battery:
1) Require fewer parts, so less expensive to make and more environment friendly
2) Last longer, so replacements come less often, thus more environment friendly
3) Higher recyclable battery rate, since Apple has incentive to recycle the used batteries, consumers less so.
The only benefit battery replaceable phone has is consumers having more control over their purchase and less likely to be screwed over by phone makers or sellers.
> The only benefit battery replaceable phone has is consumers having more control over their purchase and less likely to be screwed over by phone makers or sellers.
User replacable batteries are also user accessible controls to definitely power off the device. Usually devices without a replacable battery often have a secret handshake to power off, but it doesn't always work.
Are you serious? I’m never going back to not watertight. Being able to use my phone in rain or snow, don’t having to worry about something spilling on my pocket, being able to wash dirt off, use it for underwater pictures, don’t get cardiac arrest after jumping into a pool with my phone still in my pocket… it’s just a life with less worry.
I use it as a snorkeling camera. It’s in a ziplock bag, which is enough to keep the capacitive screen usable underwater, but not nearly enough to trust with a $1000 device with all my most important data and capabilities on. If it ruptured I’m fairly confident the phone will be fine, and it definitely gets quite wet in the dive boat.
LOL, HN is really California-centric :) Ever heard of rain? I want to be able to use my phone in a rain, to call a taxi for example. Also, I don't want to worry about accidentally spilling a coffee on it.
FWIW, I live in Palm Springs, California, and in the early years lost phones not from jumping in pools, but from much of the year being 100+ degrees and even a couple minutes holding a phone to my ear and normal sweating would trigger the excessive moisture sensor and kill the device.
Funnily enough the waterproofness of the phone wouldn't be much of an argument if the phone data was easily recoverable / easy to repair / we had the right to repair
Samsung Xcover6 Pro for example is a water proof phone with a user-replaceable battery
https://www.androidpolice.com/samsung-xcover6-pro-review/