2mo ago

European iPhones are more fun now

www.theverge.com European iPhones are more fun now

Inside you, there are two iPhones.

You're viewing a single thread.

110 comments

In two years time Apple, and every other smartphone manufacturer on the EU market for that matter, will be forced to make the battery user replaceable and that one will most likely benefit everyone; unless Apple wants to release two versions of every iPhone to comply with EU regulations which they won't.
- Just like with USB-C, which the EU regulated and now the iPad and IPhone have.
  
  the stupidest thing is iPad had USB-C since 2018! and yet on iPhones they latched on to lightning for another 6 years before EU forced them to standardize
  
  That’s because they’ve been pushing the iPad as a sort of Mac Lite, but they can’t do that unless you can plug peripherals or a thumb drive into it. You can 100% plug a USB-C laptop dock into an iPad, and it’ll work. You can even use a mouse with it if you really want to.
  But they wanted to keep Lightning around as long as possible, because they made a commission on every single lighting cable that was sold; Companies had to license the rights to use the connector, and had to pay Apple for every one they used. That’s why Lightning cables were always a few bucks more expensive than a comparable USB-C cable. That extra few bucks was going straight into Apple’s pocket. It was a huge source of passive income for the company, which they were reluctant to let go of.
  
  They were keeping their promise of 10 years of Lightning ecosystem support. Dropping the old iPod connector was highly controversial.
  
  They were earning millions from lightning royalities
  
  And they promised to do so for at least 10 years.
  
  we promise we'll use the inferior, proprietary connector
  
  we promise we'll use the inferior, proprietary connector
  Honestly Lightning wasn’t inferior when it launched in 2012, two years before the design of USB-C was even published. And in some ways I actually prefer it physically (though obviously I would much rather all my devices use USB-C now as it is a much superior connector).
  Lightning was reversible where Micro-USB was not, and Lightning’s female port is entirely a hole that the entirely-a-prong male plug goes into, whereas with USB (like with most connectors) the female side has something sticking up inside it that slots into the male plug. This means Lightning is much easier to clean, which becomes necessary because phones in people’s pockets collect lint.
  I’m thrilled that iPhone has moved to USB-C, but people forget how much better Lightning was than both the 30-pin iPod connector AND Micro-USB.
  
  Absolutely it was better. But it’s hard to believe that Apple, who was a part of the USB-IF, didn’t know USB-C was in the works. My conspiracy theory is they knew an open standard was imminent and launched lightning to keep getting those MFI licensing checks and purposely made that long of a commitment strictly so, when regulators asked why they hadn’t switched to the new standard yet, they could say it was to “help the environment.”
  
  Absolutely it was better. But it’s hard to believe that Apple, who was a part of the USB-IF, didn’t know USB-C was in the works. My conspiracy theory is they knew an open standard was imminent and launched lightning to keep getting those MFI licensing checks and purposely made that long of a commitment strictly so, when regulators asked why they hadn’t switched to the new standard yet, they could say it was to “help the environment.”
  Oh probably. We know that by the time they finally dropped Lightning, MFi certification was earning them like $4b per year.
  There was even rumor they were going to limit charging speeds over USB-C unless they were detectably “MFi” USB-C cables. Ostensibly to prevent damage to the phone from bad cables, but obviously an attempt to maintain MFi income. I don’t remember if they went through with it.
  
  The two are not mutually exclusive. The downvote button is not an "I don't like this" button.
  
  Phones used to have a round charger socket, a USB socket that could also be used to charge, plus the headphone socket and SD card slot. I'm sure they could have found room for both USB C and Lightning, with all the other things that were removed.
  
  "We promise to keep increasing our profit by overcharging customers for awful cables they can't get anywhere else"
  What a dumb promise
  
  no no no, that was just Apple being brave /s
  
  IPhone 16, with 30% more courage
- When they do come to it. I hope its the easily swappable like the ones in Nokia 3310. Otherwise its pointless imo.
  
  AFAIK, the EU defines "user replaceable" as literally that; you open a hatch, pull the battery out and stick a new one in.
  
  Fuck, let's hope they at least allow screws. Click-in latches are prone to breaking and wearing out
  
  How many often are you planning on replacing the battery in your phone that it would wear out the panel?
  
  The ware would most likely come from someone that has a spare battery that is ready to go. Think of your phone burning 80% of the juice and you’re about to hop on a flight that you’re barely going to make (no time to charge). Slap that stand by battery in and off you go. That’s what I did with my old Nokia or blackberry back in the day. Oh and for my HTC aria.
  
  Sounds stupid, arent there charging ports on planes?
  And other than plane where external battery is an issue, i just have a small brick that connect to my phone by the magnets on the back and wireless charges it, this is only really needed if you are doing something all day on the phone, like going around a city, taking pictures
  
  Yup, I confirm, I've been on a plane with charging ports once. They exist.
  
  Yeah, I just bring a battery bank on longer trips. My battery easily lasts a full day, often two, and my battery bank can recharge my phone like 4 times. So on trips, I put my battery bank in my backpack, so if I ever need to charge, I can.
  
  True there are places to charge on a plane or bus. My example is just what I could come with in terms of just needing instant juice. I like having the option to have power for my phone. Multiple ways to skin a cat. :)
  
  With my N900 I used to travel with 6 to 10 charged batteries to have a few days of runtime. Things got better now with powerbanks - but for something like hiking just carrying a few spares would still be smaller and lighter.
  
  Honestly for hiking I’d suggest a power bank with solar charge capability. One thing to charge them all.
  
  Hust make sure, that you can detach the solar panel. Batteries don’t like the heat and the solar panel most likely lives longer than the power bank, so you want them to be replaceable individually.
  
  The space used by the smallest solar charger I've seen on Amazon seems to be similar to 6 or more batteries in the format the N900 was taking - so if you look at space, slow charging from solar charger, and reliance on sun conditions taking individual batteries seems to be the better option for a few days hike. It's also easier to stow individual batteries to wherever you still have space left.
  
  The n900 was truly the best phone ever to exist and I'm deeply upset about it not having a modern equivalent
  
  Replacing the battery is pretty expensive, so I prefer to optimize my charging patterns so I never ever have to get it replaced. However, if I could do it myself, I might abuse the battery much more. I might even leave my devices plugged in overnight.
  
  Is it though? Batteries themselves are something like $20-60 (e.g. Pixel 8 battery for $43, ebay listing for <$20). The battery is honestly not that expensive, the expensive part is the labor because taking modern phones apart is a massive pain.
  
  It’s about 80-130 € depending on phone model, and that includes work and the battery. If I could just buy a battery online and replace it myself, the prices should be more reasonable. Apparently one day that will actually happen.
  
  And that's the point here. The battery itself isn't the expensive part, it's the expertise and tools needed to do the swap. If phones are required to have user-serviceable batteries, users can just buy the batteries and service it themselves. Many will still go to phone repair places, but prices should come down there as well since it'll take them a lot less time and equipment.
  
  Just realized, there’s also another benefit. You could bring multiple batteries to a trip and not worry about charging. You know, the way you have always done with DSLR cameras.
  
  You could, but it would be a lot easier to just bring a battery bank. That way there's one thing to keep track of, and you can charge multiple times off one bank. I've charged my phone once and my SO's phone twice between recharges without draining the battery bank. Even if swapping batteries was dead simple, the battery bank is simpler.
  That said, having the option is great! I will probably never replace the battery though, since none of the phones I've ever had needed a battery replacement, I usually run out of software updates, shatter a screen, or break the power button long before the battery is a serious issue.
  
  Every time I'm on a longer trip and want to replace a battery with a charged one? Every time I want to be offline but carry a phone for emergencies?
  
  Meh, most iPhones live in a case, it'll be fine
  
  I have a Phone with a click-in latch and nothing wore our over the last 5 years
  
  They should do, although I can't really imagine manufacturers incorporating plastic tabs into their sleek glass-metal sandwiches....
  
  Yeah I don’t miss dripping a HTC phone and watching the pieces scatter.
  
  Unfortunately, they do not define it that way.
  And there are exceptions based on capacity and how long you guarantee the battery capacity will be good for. IIRC, if it still has 70% capacity by 3 years time, it doesn't have to be replaceable at all.
  
  Can you really guarantee that? I mean, it's pretty much dependent on individual usage.
  
  Sure you can. Car manufacturers do it today.
  You will have to define "3 years" as well. It can't be a blanket 3 calendar year thing, it would have to be X number of cycles which the average user would realistically hit with 3 years of usage. Not someone glued to their phone playing games all day that need to charge three times a day.
  
  Yup, probably one charge from 20% to 80% every day or something like that.
  
  And there are exceptions based on capacity and how long you guarantee the battery capacity will be good for. IIRC, if it still has 70% capacity by 3 years time, it doesn't have to be replaceable at all.
  I do not remember reading that, the only exception I remember is for devices that are intended to be used under water, which phones are definitely not
  
  Sounds really good to me!
  
  They'll make the replacement so expensive nobody will do it. And then there will be a new rule mandating it needs to be a reasonable price. Apple will say it's reasomable because it factors in environmental costs, and so the dance continues.
  
  Pretty sure the draft allowed "common tools" or specialised tools if they came in box.
- Everyone will benefit, but have to imagine relatively few will buy tools to actually take advantage of it.
- Hopefully they keep selling a phone with no user replaceable battery. Id rather have the weather proofing than a battery i need to swap out one time after owning the phone for over 4 years.
  
  Why only 4 years? The fairphone 5 is water resistant and has a replacable battery. The Samsung Galaxy S5 was fully waterproof and had a replacable battery.
  
  None of those phones are IP68 rating
  
  IP68 didn't exist when the galaxy S5 came out. The fairphone has a replaceable screen and is made by a tiny company that doesn't have the budget for full waterproof testing. Often phones will have waterproofing but will not spend the money for the expensive testing for certification, see: Pocophone, etc.
  
  Well then I like my phones a little bit more expensive then since they're certified. Gives me peace of mind.
  
  I mean, it still ultimately means nothing if it's not covered by warranty.
  The Sony Xperia phones back in the day were literally advertised as being able to "live underwater"; was there any guarantee that it wouldn't just die in a light shower? lol no
  
  I like how you keep getting down voted even though you have made it clear that it's your own personal choice/bias and acknowledge it's not for everyone.
  I agree both options would be good 👍
  
  How many times has your phone needed the weather proofing in the last 4 years? Mine is 0, at least twice. On the flip side, I have needed a new battery 2 times.
  
  Not a good argument. This is like saying why do we need airbags because I have never used it. We need to have both the features, with water proofing being more critical.
  
  I'm all about replacable batteries but come on. Two times I was out and came back home soaking wet because of rain. Many more times I used my phone in the kitchen or bathroom while water was splashing with no stress, which I wasn't brave enough to do with a non-resistant phones.
  That being said, I'd rather carry an extra battery or two like I used to than carry a power bank.
  
  The soaking rain thing has happened to me with a not particularly water resistant phone and it was fine. The water ratings are more intended for direct splashes and full immersion.
  My opinion is that this is a comfort we can do without, especially given the ecology and consumer rights implications (not that a phone with a user replaceable battery is necessarily porous to water, plenty of phones meet both criteria)
  
  Ive needed the IP68 rating a handful of times. I have needed a new battery zero times on my 4 year old phone. If I need the battery replaced, Ill just take it to apple and have them swap it out.
  
  Its still at 70% usability, which still lasts me all day.
  
  That's the thing though, why is apple the only ones authorized to swap out your battery? That service isn't free, and they're massively overcharging you for it.
  It's also not impossible to build a phone that is water resistant and has a swappable battery, but that's besides the point. Personally I'd rather have a swappable battery.
  
  Maintenance is never free, so im okay with a service fee every four years rather than buy new phones every time they get wet. Im not saying my particular view is right for everyone, but its what I want. I get why people want replaceable batteries. No problem with it. I just would rather not have them. So if there is an option for both models, one with, and one without that feature, this is a win for everyone. If not, and only one or the other is implemented, then its going to suck for whoever is in the party that got left out.
  
  Aren't you being purposefully obtuse by refusing to consider the idea of a battery swappable phone that is IP68 certified? Its almost certainly going to happen with the line of phones in Europe that will have swappable batteries and it's not even that far into the future.
  I think this post is about change moving forward, not making sure our past decisions were sound.
  
  Im refusing to accept the idea because it doesn't exist. Who manufactures one?
  
  Samsung.
  https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover7-12784.php
  
  Oh forgive me. I wasn't aware this device existed. Very good. Unfortunate its an Samsung phone, so it probably doesn't meet the requirements to run GrapheneOS.
  But good to see it can have a replaceable battery and be IP68 rating.
  
  The two features are not mutually esclusive. I owned an S5 which was waterproof and had replaceable battery more than 10 years ago. It did not seems too hard to do
  
  S5 was not IP68
  
  I know. I was only pointing out that you can have a waterproof phone and a replaceable battery. Obviously you need to do better than the S5 but it is nothing impossible, even wanting to keep the audio jack and the USB ports.
  
  I hope they figure it out. Sincerely.

110 comments