Sooo, who else is not gonna get a new idevice before user-changeable battery support comes along?

ervin

@BiancaNeve said:

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

I think you will find the ‘unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ bullshit refers to the 27 member appointed European Commision and its 32,000 civil servants. Rather than the European Parliament.

That’s less than the UK’s Home Office alone, and just compare what the two bodies are achieving. 💁

I know it was one slightly more credible-sounding variant of the Brexit argument, but I honestly don’t see how that would make the argument any stronger, especially coming from a (then) member state with an entirely unelected House of Lords or royal family. There’s much to criticise about the EU, but the unelected Brussels bureaucrats meme was always just that, a meme. It worked though. 👍

But I do realise that’s not what we are discussing here, apologies for the digression.

ervin

@dendy said:
@ervin

Here is my problem with GDPR. […] Except that. You can’t. You can’t, cause GPT servers are running ourside of EU , so it is agains GDPR. Even through your intention is to do something which will be nefitial literally to all participants, and all parricipants gave you GDPR consent.

Well, what this means is there is currently no way to make sure the use of these servers respect EU laws, and as a result they are not allowed. Sounds pretty logical to me. I accept that you may not consider this (keeping control of EU user data in the EU) a worthwhile goal to pursue, in which case we can agree to disagree.

But as AWS has figured out a way to legally offer its services in the EU by using EU-based servers, I think it’s likely that AI services providers will, too.

NeuM

@ervin said:

@BiancaNeve said:

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

I think you will find the ‘unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ bullshit refers to the 27 member appointed European Commision and its 32,000 civil servants. Rather than the European Parliament.

That’s less than the UK’s Home Office alone, and just compare what the two bodies are achieving. 💁

I know it was one slightly more credible-sounding variant of the Brexit argument, but I honestly don’t see how that would make the argument any stronger, especially coming from a (then) member state with an entirely unelected House of Lords or royal family. There’s much to criticise about the EU, but the unelected Brussels bureaucrats meme was always just that, a meme. It worked though. 👍

But I do realise that’s not what we are discussing here, apologies for the digression.

Not to drag this on further, but I understand the British public had several motivations: Concerns about national sovereignty (immigration was no longer under their Britain's control), Britain would be able to set their own trade deals without the EU and the public rejected the demands of their leaders to remain, not seeing it as being in their own interest.

Now, back to our show.

purpan2

I find it sad that we’re well into the 21st century and > @NeuM said:

@ervin said:

@BiancaNeve said:

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

I think you will find the ‘unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ bullshit refers to the 27 member appointed European Commision and its 32,000 civil servants. Rather than the European Parliament.

That’s less than the UK’s Home Office alone, and just compare what the two bodies are achieving. 💁

I know it was one slightly more credible-sounding variant of the Brexit argument, but I honestly don’t see how that would make the argument any stronger, especially coming from a (then) member state with an entirely unelected House of Lords or royal family. There’s much to criticise about the EU, but the unelected Brussels bureaucrats meme was always just that, a meme. It worked though. 👍

But I do realise that’s not what we are discussing here, apologies for the digression.

Not to drag this on further, but I understand the British public had several motivations: Concerns about national sovereignty (immigration was no longer under their Britain's control), Britain would be able to set their own trade deals without the EU and the public rejected the demands of their leaders to remain, not seeing it as being in their own interest.

Now, back to our show.

Not being British (i think), you might not be aware of the sheer scale of lying that helped secure the Brexit vote. The much vaunted trade deals have been thin on the ground indeed. The bus that toured the country saying that an extra 350 million pounds a week could be spent on the health service - instead, funding has stagnated. The rabble-rousing xenophobic posters showing refugees arriving. It was all bollix. The brexiteers knew it was bollix. The main newspaper supporting Brexit - the Daily Telegraph - yesterday ran an opinion article saying that everone under 50 should consider emigrating from Britain as it’s so economically bad.
That’s Brexit. It’s been rubbish.

Krupa

@purpan2 said:
I find it sad that we’re well into the 21st century and > @NeuM said:

@ervin said:

@BiancaNeve said:

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

I think you will find the ‘unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ bullshit refers to the 27 member appointed European Commision and its 32,000 civil servants. Rather than the European Parliament.

That’s less than the UK’s Home Office alone, and just compare what the two bodies are achieving. 💁

I know it was one slightly more credible-sounding variant of the Brexit argument, but I honestly don’t see how that would make the argument any stronger, especially coming from a (then) member state with an entirely unelected House of Lords or royal family. There’s much to criticise about the EU, but the unelected Brussels bureaucrats meme was always just that, a meme. It worked though. 👍

But I do realise that’s not what we are discussing here, apologies for the digression.

Not to drag this on further, but I understand the British public had several motivations: Concerns about national sovereignty (immigration was no longer under their Britain's control), Britain would be able to set their own trade deals without the EU and the public rejected the demands of their leaders to remain, not seeing it as being in their own interest.

Now, back to our show.

Not being British (i think), you might not be aware of the sheer scale of lying that helped secure the Brexit vote. The much vaunted trade deals have been thin on the ground indeed. The bus that toured the country saying that an extra 350 million pounds a week could be spent on the health service - instead, funding has stagnated. The rabble-rousing xenophobic posters showing refugees arriving. It was all bollix. The brexiteers knew it was bollix. The main newspaper supporting Brexit - the Daily Telegraph - yesterday ran an opinion article saying that everone under 50 should consider emigrating from Britain as it’s so economically bad.
That’s Brexit. It’s been rubbish.

Yup, all of this and much more besides.

dendy

@NeuM said:
Whenever we see governments setting new rules which make no sense and harm consumers by raising prices, follow the money and ask yourself who benefits.

Right on the spot !

AlmostAnonymous

@happybear190 said:
@dendy libertarians often struggle with the idea of roads.

On your two points above (the lazy recruiter, the business owner whose profit margins are eaten into by their workers need to pay rent and eat): why is your convenience more important than the rights of the majority of EU citizens?

Why is you having a sleeker tablet more important than avoiding catastrophic climate crisis?

What in your mind are "the REAL problems of the EU" that you mention in your first post?

I might be a progressive cause my logic is failing…..
(I have no idea what your going on about roads)

Gavinski

@Krupa said:

@purpan2 said:
I find it sad that we’re well into the 21st century and > @NeuM said:

@ervin said:

@BiancaNeve said:

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

I think you will find the ‘unelected Brussels bureaucrats’ bullshit refers to the 27 member appointed European Commision and its 32,000 civil servants. Rather than the European Parliament.

That’s less than the UK’s Home Office alone, and just compare what the two bodies are achieving. 💁

I know it was one slightly more credible-sounding variant of the Brexit argument, but I honestly don’t see how that would make the argument any stronger, especially coming from a (then) member state with an entirely unelected House of Lords or royal family. There’s much to criticise about the EU, but the unelected Brussels bureaucrats meme was always just that, a meme. It worked though. 👍

But I do realise that’s not what we are discussing here, apologies for the digression.

Not to drag this on further, but I understand the British public had several motivations: Concerns about national sovereignty (immigration was no longer under their Britain's control), Britain would be able to set their own trade deals without the EU and the public rejected the demands of their leaders to remain, not seeing it as being in their own interest.

Now, back to our show.

Not being British (i think), you might not be aware of the sheer scale of lying that helped secure the Brexit vote. The much vaunted trade deals have been thin on the ground indeed. The bus that toured the country saying that an extra 350 million pounds a week could be spent on the health service - instead, funding has stagnated. The rabble-rousing xenophobic posters showing refugees arriving. It was all bollix. The brexiteers knew it was bollix. The main newspaper supporting Brexit - the Daily Telegraph - yesterday ran an opinion article saying that everone under 50 should consider emigrating from Britain as it’s so economically bad.
That’s Brexit. It’s been rubbish.

Yup, all of this and much more besides.

Absolutely

Wyvern

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

The EU parliament is elected, but those who actually create the laws, the EU Commission, is not. They're usually failed politicians who are sent to Brussels and got out of the way. They create legislation, the EU parliament debates and votes on it. It's one of the many reasons the majority of Britons voted to leave. No EU country is sovereign any longer. It's all a mirage. Any law an EU member wishes to create has to comply with EU law, which is supreme in every member state.

As said during the 2016 referendum campaign, the EU is a government looking for a country.

SevenSystems

@ervin said:

@SevenSystems said:

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

Thanks for the self-correction. AFAIK, the mass use of this "unelected Brussels bureaucrats" BS originates with pro-brexit propaganda but it is surprisingly pervasive.

Well, from what I understand, the EU commission actually isn't elected in the same way as the parliament is, so one could probably argue that EU decision-making has less democratic legitimacy than national governments. But I really an no expert, as I said.

As for your preference of private companies accessing your data (and by the way, those companies are really unelected! 😉), that's absolutely compatible with GDPR. They just can't do it without asking you first and telling you how they would do it. What's your argument for that being a bad thing? Genuine question.

Nah they are actually VERY elected! With our money 😄 as soon as we stop buying their products, they'll fly out of their "parliament" real soon!

My argument basically aligns with what @dendy said in more detail -- the burden of regulation, especially from the EU, has become essentially impossible to deal with for any small business, and, as he rightly said, this actually shifts power from "the people" to "the 'evil' corporations", something that the EU keeps babbling about it wants to avoid!

Krupa

@Wyvern said:

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

The EU parliament is elected, but those who actually create the laws, the EU Commission, is not. They're usually failed politicians who are sent to Brussels and got out of the way. They create legislation, the EU parliament debates and votes on it. It's one of the many reasons the majority of Britons voted to leave. No EU country is sovereign any longer. It's all a mirage. Any law an EU member wishes to create has to comply with EU law, which is supreme in every member state.

As said during the 2016 referendum campaign, the EU is a government looking for a country.

That’s pretty much how every government creates legislation. Policy experts in government departments draft up laws and the papers that lead to laws. This is guided by the elected politicians who generally aren’t expert enough to make the laws themselves, they are then advised by their own experts, and take a view based on what they see as being best for their constituents. It’s a method tried and proven in every functional democracy across the globe.

Wyvern

@Krupa said:

@Wyvern said:

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:

@ecou said:

I am talking about laws like the batteries law or standizing cable port. Right to repair and such. I have no ideas what those GDPR or MCU laws are about.

GDPR is for protecting the data of consumers, MiCA is an attempt to regulate cryptocurrencies and stop money laundering. If someone has an issue with how these have been implemented I can understand their position... But if they think that these regulations aren't necessary then they live on another planet.

I'd rather have private companies accessing my personal data than omnipotent unelected government-like entities detached from reality!

EDIT: Sorry I'm not that versed in politics. It seems like the European Parliament is actually democratically elected, so I'll take "unelected" back!

The EU parliament is elected, but those who actually create the laws, the EU Commission, is not. They're usually failed politicians who are sent to Brussels and got out of the way. They create legislation, the EU parliament debates and votes on it. It's one of the many reasons the majority of Britons voted to leave. No EU country is sovereign any longer. It's all a mirage. Any law an EU member wishes to create has to comply with EU law, which is supreme in every member state.

As said during the 2016 referendum campaign, the EU is a government looking for a country.

That’s pretty much how every government creates legislation. Policy experts in government departments draft up laws and the papers that lead to laws. This is guided by the elected politicians who generally aren’t expert enough to make the laws themselves, they are then advised by their own experts, and take a view based on what they see as being best for their constituents. It’s a method tried and proven in every functional democracy across the globe.

Disagree. The EU parliament cannot itself create any laws or even the policies. That comes from the commission. The most powerful politician in the EU is Ursula Von Der Leyen, a failed German politician. Who elected her? There's nothing democratic about the EU Commission.

Krupa

I thought all this dumb shit was done with. Try and effing read a bit beyond tabloid bullshit please. Sorry to be rude but this idiocy has trashed the politics of my country for a generation.

In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

SevenSystems

@Krupa said:
In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

I'm not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory that Apple makes batteries non-replaceable because they're evil and want to sell more phones (sorry for the rudeness).

Making batteries replaceable just creates a large amount of technical difficulties. Among them:

• Bulkier phone because of the need for contacts, compartment with guides, lid, etc.
• Decreased reliability because of contact corrosion (there is no way to make the contacts not exposed to the elements when the battery is swapped)
• Much harder to make the phone waterproof (which all current iPhones are, thankfully!)
• More sophisticated software needed because people can and will put in third-party batteries
• Increased fire hazard due to the above
• Increased hardware requirements because the charging circuitry and voltage regulator(s) need to account for different batteries
• If recognition and adaption to different battery types is not implemented and third-party batteries are simply refused by iOS, then people will cry "VENDOR LOCK-IN!!! EVIL!!!"

etc...

happybear190

@SevenSystems

I don't think that it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that Apple wants to sell more phones. Apple isn't a charity or a research institute, it's a business. Businesses make decisions to squeeze the consumer all the time. And there is nothing particularly remarkable or "evil" about it. It's just short-sighted and only focused on profits.

You don't seem convinced that this will significantly reduce e-waste... But imagine for a second that it does: do any of the technical difficulties you have listed about outweigh the good that will be done by reducing waste?

michael_m

I have never had the battery in an iDevice reach anywhere near the point of needing to be replaced, and can’t think of anyone else I know who has had the issue.

The only times I have seen anything online regarding battery issues is clickbait YouTubers complaining about supposed Apple conspiracy theories. Certainly not large numbers of users with dead battery issues.

Seems like a fix for a non-existent problem to me.

ecou

@SevenSystems said:

@Krupa said:
In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

I'm not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory that Apple makes batteries non-replaceable because they're evil and want to sell more phones (sorry for the rudeness).

Making batteries replaceable just creates a large amount of technical difficulties. Among them:

• Bulkier phone because of the need for contacts, compartment with guides, lid, etc.
• Decreased reliability because of contact corrosion (there is no way to make the contacts not exposed to the elements when the battery is swapped)
• Much harder to make the phone waterproof (which all current iPhones are, thankfully!)
• More sophisticated software needed because people can and will put in third-party batteries
• Increased fire hazard due to the above
• Increased hardware requirements because the charging circuitry and voltage regulator(s) need to account for different batteries
• If recognition and adaption to different battery types is not implemented and third-party batteries are simply refused by iOS, then people will cry "VENDOR LOCK-IN!!! EVIL!!!"

etc...

I am not saying it's a Conspiracy but they are taking the easy route.

How thin do we need a phone to be ? My Samsung waterproof Galaxy S5 with replaceable battery was 8.1 mm. The iPhone 14 is 7.8mm.

Btw my S5 from 2014 is still being used by my coworker. It still works great.

It also had a SD card port and a headphone jack.

SevenSystems

@happybear190 said:
@SevenSystems

I don't think that it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that Apple wants to sell more phones. Apple isn't a charity or a research institute, it's a business. Businesses make decisions to squeeze the consumer all the time. And there is nothing particularly remarkable or "evil" about it. It's just short-sighted and only focused on profits.

You don't seem convinced that this will significantly reduce e-waste... But imagine for a second that it does: do any of the technical difficulties you have listed about outweigh the good that will be done by reducing waste?

My experience is similar to @michael_m -- in general, the lifetime of the battery aligns pretty well with the lifetime of the overall device. I really don't think all the valley girls would suddenly keep their old banged up phones for 15 years and swap the battery 3 times. People want shiny new phones all the time. I'm not saying that's good, but that's the way it is. I don't think waste would be reduced significantly (which would obviously be a good thing if it were the case.)

SevenSystems

@ecou said:

@SevenSystems said:

@Krupa said:
In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

I'm not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory that Apple makes batteries non-replaceable because they're evil and want to sell more phones (sorry for the rudeness).

Making batteries replaceable just creates a large amount of technical difficulties. Among them:

• Bulkier phone because of the need for contacts, compartment with guides, lid, etc.
• Decreased reliability because of contact corrosion (there is no way to make the contacts not exposed to the elements when the battery is swapped)
• Much harder to make the phone waterproof (which all current iPhones are, thankfully!)
• More sophisticated software needed because people can and will put in third-party batteries
• Increased fire hazard due to the above
• Increased hardware requirements because the charging circuitry and voltage regulator(s) need to account for different batteries
• If recognition and adaption to different battery types is not implemented and third-party batteries are simply refused by iOS, then people will cry "VENDOR LOCK-IN!!! EVIL!!!"

etc...

I am not saying it's a Conspiracy but they are taking the easy route.

How thin do we need a phone to be ? My Samsung waterproof Galaxy S5 with replaceable battery was 8.1 mm. The iPhone 14 is 7.8mm.

Btw S5 from 2014 is still being used by my coworker. It still works great.

It also had a SD card port and a headphone jack.

OK, you made a fair assessment regarding ONE of the points above. Fair play! I agree that phones are ridiculously thin and "thin-ness" is not a valuable goal on its own, I'd also rather have thrice the battery capacity and 3 headphone jacks! 😉

ecou

@michael_m said:
I have never had the battery in an iDevice reach anywhere near the point of needing to be replaced, and can’t think of anyone else I know who has had the issue.

The only times I have seen anything online regarding battery issues is clickbait YouTubers complaining about supposed Apple conspiracy theories. Certainly not large numbers of users with dead battery issues.

Seems like a fix for a non-existent problem to me.

I said earlier in this discussion that my 2017 iPad pro will need battery very soon. This model is still very capable and updated by Apple. If you search this forum others with 2017 iPad had to replace their battery even sooner than mine.

michael_m

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:
@SevenSystems

I don't think that it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that Apple wants to sell more phones. Apple isn't a charity or a research institute, it's a business. Businesses make decisions to squeeze the consumer all the time. And there is nothing particularly remarkable or "evil" about it. It's just short-sighted and only focused on profits.

You don't seem convinced that this will significantly reduce e-waste... But imagine for a second that it does: do any of the technical difficulties you have listed about outweigh the good that will be done by reducing waste?

My experience is similar to @michael_m -- in general, the lifetime of the battery aligns pretty well with the lifetime of the overall device. I really don't think all the valley girls would suddenly keep their old banged up phones for 15 years and swap the battery 3 times. People want shiny new phones all the time. I'm not saying that's good, but that's the way it is. I don't think waste would be reduced significantly (which would obviously be a good thing if it were the case.)

The oldest iDevice we have in our house is my daughter’s 2013 iPad. She still uses it, and its biggest issues are apps that don’t work on an older version of iOS as the hardware will no longer allow updates, and limited memory. Battery might no hold its charge for as long as it used to, but it’s certainly nowhere near dead.

ecou

@SevenSystems said:

@ecou said:

@SevenSystems said:

@Krupa said:
In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

I'm not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory that Apple makes batteries non-replaceable because they're evil and want to sell more phones (sorry for the rudeness).

Making batteries replaceable just creates a large amount of technical difficulties. Among them:

• Bulkier phone because of the need for contacts, compartment with guides, lid, etc.
• Decreased reliability because of contact corrosion (there is no way to make the contacts not exposed to the elements when the battery is swapped)
• Much harder to make the phone waterproof (which all current iPhones are, thankfully!)
• More sophisticated software needed because people can and will put in third-party batteries
• Increased fire hazard due to the above
• Increased hardware requirements because the charging circuitry and voltage regulator(s) need to account for different batteries
• If recognition and adaption to different battery types is not implemented and third-party batteries are simply refused by iOS, then people will cry "VENDOR LOCK-IN!!! EVIL!!!"

etc...

I am not saying it's a Conspiracy but they are taking the easy route.

How thin do we need a phone to be ? My Samsung waterproof Galaxy S5 with replaceable battery was 8.1 mm. The iPhone 14 is 7.8mm.

Btw S5 from 2014 is still being used by my coworker. It still works great.

It also had a SD card port and a headphone jack.

OK, you made a fair assessment regarding ONE of the points above. Fair play! I agree that phones are ridiculously thin and "thin-ness" is not a valuable goal on its own, I'd also rather have thrice the battery capacity and 3 headphone jacks! 😉

The S5 was smaller than the current phones with a 2800mAh battery. The increase size of modern phone would fit the bigger 3,279mAh of the iPhone 14.

I believe I also debunked the Decreased reliability and waterproof problem. 😉

happybear190

@SevenSystems

Lots of people the world over would be very happy with a 15 year old phone if it held charge and could call/text/email. This could be for financial or ethical reasons.

Regarding your other points about replaceable batteries: none of them were a particularly big deal when replaceable batteries were the norm.

ecou

@michael_m said:

@SevenSystems said:

@happybear190 said:
@SevenSystems

I don't think that it is a conspiracy theory to suggest that Apple wants to sell more phones. Apple isn't a charity or a research institute, it's a business. Businesses make decisions to squeeze the consumer all the time. And there is nothing particularly remarkable or "evil" about it. It's just short-sighted and only focused on profits.

You don't seem convinced that this will significantly reduce e-waste... But imagine for a second that it does: do any of the technical difficulties you have listed about outweigh the good that will be done by reducing waste?

My experience is similar to @michael_m -- in general, the lifetime of the battery aligns pretty well with the lifetime of the overall device. I really don't think all the valley girls would suddenly keep their old banged up phones for 15 years and swap the battery 3 times. People want shiny new phones all the time. I'm not saying that's good, but that's the way it is. I don't think waste would be reduced significantly (which would obviously be a good thing if it were the case.)

The oldest iDevice we have in our house is my daughter’s 2013 iPad. She still uses it, and its biggest issues are apps that don’t work on an older version of iOS as the hardware will no longer allow updates, and limited memory. Battery might no hold its charge for as long as it used to, but it’s certainly nowhere near dead.

I agree about those older device. My 2012 iPad 3 battery still holds a decent charge. But as you stated are pretty useless specially with my cracked screen.

RajahP

@ehehehe said:
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230609IPR96210/making-batteries-more-sustainable-more-durable-and-better-performing

I am! This seems like good news. Current designs like the one below looks like the charging/everything port could also be replaced. That means most parts that break (except for buttons) could be replaced. Maybe even third parties will bring back the minijack or even more ports? Give me a thicc, chunky, solid ipad, i am strong enough to hold it. Hate the square pro/air design, it feels soo flimsy compared to the old "rounded" design related to bending, and also more prone to breaking from falls. And screen edges are there to be hold, i don't wanna smudge my screen more just because of aestethics.

They will of course find another way to bleed us customers in the end, but with ipads now mostly having a lifespan of five or more years, this could still be really good.

Nice.. don’t know why they won’t allow memory upgrade also.. for idevices..

dendy

@SevenSystems said:

@Krupa said:
In response to the opening question, I’m really bloody happy that replaceable batteries are coming back, it always hacked me off that I didn’t have that choice.

I'm not a huge fan of the conspiracy theory that Apple makes batteries non-replaceable because they're evil and want to sell more phones (sorry for the rudeness).

Making batteries replaceable just creates a large amount of technical difficulties. Among them:

• Bulkier phone because of the need for contacts, compartment with guides, lid, etc.
• Decreased reliability because of contact corrosion (there is no way to make the contacts not exposed to the elements when the battery is swapped)
• Much harder to make the phone waterproof (which all current iPhones are, thankfully!)
• More sophisticated software needed because people can and will put in third-party batteries
• Increased fire hazard due to the above
• Increased hardware requirements because the charging circuitry and voltage regulator(s) need to account for different batteries
• If recognition and adaption to different battery types is not implemented and third-party batteries are simply refused by iOS, then people will cry "VENDOR LOCK-IN!!! EVIL!!!"

etc...

soluion would optionality… one model which complies with this nonsense, with higher price to cover all additional expenses, other model classic with fixed battery like now.

I’ll be glad to pick the one with fixed battery from all reason mentioned above + more. Who wants possibility to replace battery, can pay more for this privilege.. Problem solved.

purpan2

It seems it’s not just the EU, but anywhere there are rules the tech companies don’t like. Here they are threatening to leave the UK…
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66304002

dendy

@purpan2 said:
It seems it’s not just the EU, but anywhere there are rules the tech companies don’t like. Here they are threatening to leave the UK…
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-66304002

Let’s look more in detail why:

“ One clause that has proved particularly controversial is a proposal that encrypted messages, which includes those sent on WhatsApp, can be read and handed over to law enforcement by the platforms they are sent on, if there is deemed to be a national security or child protection risk.”

Well, so big brother wants to spy on citisens even more, to have total controll what people think. Reasoning behing such moves is really just “blah blah” - real motivation is just to have total control over popularion. CDBC’s are anothe tool for that. 1984 in making.

Gavinski

@michael_m said:
I have never had the battery in an iDevice reach anywhere near the point of needing to be replaced, and can’t think of anyone else I know who has had the issue.

The only times I have seen anything online regarding battery issues is clickbait YouTubers complaining about supposed Apple conspiracy theories. Certainly not large numbers of users with dead battery issues.

Seems like a fix for a non-existent problem to me.

I've definitely had issues. My 2nd gen ipad Pro had a battery life of maybe half or less what it originally had within a few years of purchase. Not good enough

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.