79
Making sense of the EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
79 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37758 readers
676 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
One article about that topic that finally mentions it: There is a descriptive sentence is the resolution that exempts devices with water proofing from it.
As I saw in the past, there were lots of hype posts and what manufacturer X, Y or Z is going to do now. Most of the high-end phones already have an IP-rating, haven't they? Well, there is the answer. They just keep what they have been selling and it already complies with this new resolution.
To quote the actually adopted text:
This is absolutely not the same as having an IP rating. A portable toaster could have an IP rating, but that doesn't mean it's intended to be submersed a lot in its life time.
The difference is that we are talking about mobile phones and tablets here. A manufacturer can easily argue his device is intended for water immersion or intended to be washable. And the exception is fulfilled.
I mean they don't really have to argue to begin with, they just keep selling their IP-rated phones as they are. Only if someone starts a motion that this would not be legal, then they can start the argument I mentioned above. And that's all it takes.
But the text says:
While a phone might be intended to be able to withstand rain and slight immersion, its not intended to be used in such an environment for the majority of its active service. Nobody is actually going to believe that imo.
For some time now the EU has shown a willingness to bite tech companies in such matters. I hope the EU keeps doing that and extends that willingness. But yeah, for now we can only guess. Although I do think manufacturers wont try to weasel out of this, and if they do, i hope they get bitten.
I think it’s telling that most manufacturers won’t do warranty for water damage despite advertising a suitable IP rating. From a legal standpoint that seems to show that the above clauses wouldn’t apply, and if the manufacturer did want to use those clauses to get around the removable battery thing then they’d probably have to start accepting water damage as covered by warranty.