> Companies like Samsung, Google, Apple, etc., don’t design devices specific to Europe.
I think they actually will do just that. Look at the Wikipedia page for any iPhone and you’ll see that each model has multiple regional SKUs. China has a SIM card tray while the US doesn’t.
I think smartphone makers will make the battery rectangular and put it in a convenient spot and then make a different rear case part just for Europe.
The rest of the world phones will have perhaps the exact same “removable” battery but it will be behind a case that has no door.
The waterproofing in particular makes me think this is likely. Many average consumers care way more about having a device that will survive being dropped in the sink now than they do about replacing an 80% capacity battery in two years.
Samsung S5 was waterproof while having replaceable battery. Technology is certainly there.
But I also question your premise, I don't think it's as clear. I've never dropped my phone in a sink, but had battery issues with basically every phone. Often the battery starts failing much earlier than 80% in two years.
What I've never understood is why all this waterproofing effort is going into making perfectly sealed little boxes when I imagine that a factory applied conformal coating would do a similar job. It seems like they're focused on making the box the electronics are in water proof instead of making the electronics themselves waterproof. Sure, the screen might be a bit harder and you'd need to pay special attention to any connector, maybe re-applying the coating if you remove a connector, but I just don't get it. Does conformal coating not work as well as I imagine it does? Is it too expensive to apply? Does it have some kind of heat dissipation drawback I'm not aware of?
To me it looks like water proofing is being used as an excuse to add built-in obsolescence to products, since I imagine that conformal coating would do the job better. What am I missing?
This is about replacing, and thus having access to, the battery and it's terminals. Water is a conductor. I imagine shorting the battery terminals with water will have disastrous consequences, regardless of if the RAM is encased in epoxy.
It heavily depends on the usage pattern. If you charge in the evening to 100%, let it on the charger overnight and then during the day discharge to 0%, that might kill the battery completely within 2 years.
Keeping it within 20-80% most of the time might keep the battery healthier.
I bought my iPhone XS at launch and it just reached 80%, although on the latest version of iOS 80% doesn't get you as far as it once did. I'm not a super heavy smartphone user though.
Why do people keep mentioning waterproofing? There is exactly nothing preventing a waterproof phone from having a replaceable battery. It's not even hard to do.
The main faucet to your house sits under 60psi water pressure all day, and the moving parts are removable. This is 100 year old technology.
> I think smartphone makers will make the battery rectangular
They are still rectangular. I actually thought they are more irregular, trying to use the available space more efficiently, but e.g. Samsung S23 Ultra battery looks like a normal rectangle.
Their casing is much thinner, though, since they don't have to assume rougher handling by an end consumer.
I wonder if perhaps there will be two batteries of the same shape - the non-replaceable will have a thinner casing, but with a somewhat higher capacity.
A problem with this idea is that batteries became removable to make thinner/smaller/waterproof phones.
Regardless of whether or not you think that's an important thing to design for, these smartphone designers' product orgs. do.
So realistically, given Europe is <10% of the global population (and an increasingly small share of Wealth/GDP), this will just result in EU SKUs that don't get updated very often and are thicker.
Will be interesting to see if this just causes a grey market in less eco-conscious markets, while other places that conform just get known for having bulky phones (a la Japan and faxes).
The EU is home to 447 million rich people who buy lots of smartphones. It's easily the biggest market for high-end smartphones in the world.
Also as a tangent GDP is pretty useless when talking about how much money individuals have to spend on smartphones.
Apple and Samsung each sold 16M devices in 2020 in the EU, and apparently even 40%-50% more in 2022. That's well over $5B. They're not going to walk away from such a market.
Plus, if I understood it properly, India is contemplating a similar law.
Apple is 45% of the US smartphone market, and something like 20% of Europe's. So Apple's sales will not be the best indicator of anything generalizable to all smartphones.
Apple is 33% of Europe's smartphone market, almost the exact same size as Samsung, the #1 player.
Knowing that almost all of Apple's phones are >$800, the fact that 41% of all sales in the EU were >$800 implies that Android isn't some hidden variable here.
I'd also like to point out that unit shipments have been in decline (on a y/y basis) for 10 the last 13 quarters. [0]
At the volumes of those manufacturers, if there's a design they consider somewhat suboptimal that's needed to meet EU requirements, they can pretty much trivially offer a variant for the EU that meets those requirements.
How is this going to affect devices like Airpods, where having replaceable anything would mean increasing the size of the device itself to allow for the physical moving parts for that? Or will companies just stop selling those in Europe?
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
>That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
2024 will be the year that Apple stops selling the iPhone and releases the all new iBattery. It's a special battery that's also a revolutionary communications device!
By 2027 our smartphones will be even more data sucking surveillance monsters so that your last paragraph will save them from having their batteries made replaceable.
> By 2027, all phones released in the EU must have a battery the user can easily replace with no tools or expertise
Hmm. I wish this were worded a bit differently, in that I wouldn't mind having a screwed in compartment if the phone came with a tool that could be used to open the battery compartment. Being able to replace by hand excludes even operations like the sim tray's mechanism. EDIT: This is actually the case. I was quibbling over nothing
I think the rest of the regulation to require recycling seems a good move on the surface.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
There is a link to this document [1], which has article 11:
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
There are exceptions:
> 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;
(b) professional medical imaging and radiotherapy devices, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746.
Does a smartphone qualify under the section (a) exemption? What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?
Interesting. The wording makes it sound like it would apply to controllers as well. So for a system like the Switch, they'd have to make sure that not only the battery of the console is replaceable, but also those of both Joy-Cons.
I'll be interested to know if it applies to things like AirPods, those would be more challenging to redesign with replaceable batteries (though obviously not impossible).
I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the key phrase is "specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment..." That is, a phone designed to be used underwater would be exempt, but a phone that can get wet occasionally - or even be immersed - is not specifically designed to operate underwater.
Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.
> Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.
Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.
Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad.
Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid)
Either they are the customer and must pay it, or if they are legally not, they can be asked for the list of customers so that they can all be fined, which will lead to customers suing them.
Where did you read that? In my experience, when ordering from outside the EU (I only have experience with the US, but I don't think it matters) I'm usually on the hook for import duties and VAT when I receive the package. I have to pay those separately, and not to the retailer but to the delivery company.
The point is that, it's technically the end customer who pays the VAT. The seller collects it, on behalf of the state.
Do you have some links ? For me you can't sell without VAT if the person doesn't have a VAT number. In your exemple they don't seel a good but a service to order the good, VAT still need to be paid.
I don't have a subscription to Le Monde, so can't read the whole article.
IANAL, but the linked EU directive doesn't seem to say that the seller has to charge VAT at the moment of sale, only that VAT is due, even in the case of an intermediary.
I've just done a quick check on the site of B&H, an US-based reputable electronics store. If you try to send something somewhat expensive to France, they have the option of handling import duties and taxes or to handle it yourself.
In defence of us nerds, loopholes are very much a real thing. And I bet lawyers from manufacturers are also looking for a breach through this law, and they may have lobbyists try to insert some. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to try to look for one.
And even if the judge ultimately decides against the manufacturer, it will take willingness to enforce the regulation for that to happen, during which the manufacturer can take cover under the "loophole".
Unfortunately devs already one-weird-tricked the GDPR with the cookie banner malicious compliance. The relevant courts are reacting, but not fast enough and not across the board.
i find the key phrase to be portable battery. what makes one battery portable and another not? electric cars’ batteries are portable aren’t they? just because a battery is light that doesn’t mean it’s portable. the design criteria of many batteries are intentionally permanent, soldered and otherwise permanently affixed, requiring electronic support from the device itself (ie not integrated into the battery) for charge control. are these portable?
"portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;"
What's an LMT or SLI battery? Well:
"light means of transport battery’ or ‘LMT battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 25 kg or less and is specifically designed to provide electric power for the traction of wheeled vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor alone or by a combination of motor and human power, including type-approved vehicles of category L within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and that is not an electric vehicle battery;"
and
"‘starting, lighting and ignition battery’ or ‘SLI battery’ means a battery that is
specifically designed to supply electric power for starting, lighting, or ignition and
that can also be used for auxiliary or backup purposes in vehicles, other means of
transport or machinery;"
>What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water.
Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage.
I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.
It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.
> It's Apple. Expect that. Their USB-C already has been designed to be DIFFERENT than others even thoigh defeating the EU directive intention. Unless EU rewrite a more stringent USB-C requirement, we will get that new USB-C feature "for first time in computing" by Apple for iphone 15 ultra.
How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.
You mean even though Apple already ships iPads with USB C that aren’t “different”? Do you think Apple is going to turn around and make the iPhone USB C port “different” and incompatible with their shipping iPads?
There was a guy in Australia who bought the iPhone XS after Phil Schiller stood on stage at the announcement and said "you can drop it in a pool and be fine". After he accidentally dropped it in a pool and it broke, Apple refused warranty repair. He filed a claim with the New South Wales Fair Trading bureau and they convinced Apple to reimburse him...
My (<2 yr old) series 6 watch now has water damage to the face and digitizer, after doing a swimming workout. It's nominally 50m water resistant, and I went a max of 1.5m. It's had a handful of water experiences, but nothing deeper than a pool and no high speed/pressure type stuff.
It's effectively dead.
Apple wants 359 eur to repair it. The new cost, with charger (39eur) and the braided sport band (100eur) ((which was nice, but stretched and became useless) was 509 eur. So there's effectively a 10 eur difference between the original sale price and the repair price.
There are refurb series 6 gps + cell on the amazon.de for 299 eur, and those include a strap and charger, as well as the cell functionality that I didn't have.
This is within the EU (and Ireland) 2 year limit on defective products, and I originally bought this from Apple directly. So I might have a claim there. On the other hand, I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.
>I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.
This is by far the biggest crime being committed here.
That they have you by the balls for access to essential services as well as your data needed to make the hardware purchase complete.
If they don't want to do the account hosting for some of their customers (because they don't like them for some reason) then they should offer an option to self host alongside a heavily discounted device which is compatible with self hosting. If you've already bought a device and they remove access to services they should be legally obligated to refund the difference. Otherwise they should make the services an explicit part of the purchase contract and be legally obliged to continue providing them.
Part of the apple tax is precisely to cover costs of maintaining the whole integrated ecosystem.
Nobody should feel the need to keep silent over a hardware issue because they may be cut off from essential software and services required to make good use of the hardware.
This is one of the core reasons for why I refuse to buy devices which are forcibly integrated into an ecosystem like this. But anyone who so chooses should not be fucked over by their choice at the whim of a large company.
i'm also in the EU with my main apple id being US based. have you had any other major issues unique to our scenario? aside from having to create a new german account for country-specific apps it's been pretty smooth sailing for me.
Quoted depths are usually for Static Pressure, when the item is not moving against the water.
My Citizen wrist watch is marked as WR 100, i.e. 100m Static Pressure. That can be used for swimming, and I regularly do so. It is now around 25 years old.
A watch marked as water resistant to 50m is only really splash proof, or can be rinsed under a running tap. So it is safe to keep on while washing your hands.
One of my dive computers, intended to be used to around 40m, happens to be marked on the back as water resistant to 80m - but the casing is generally much more robust than in a watch.
I’ve had several 50m water resist watches as a kid, and I always cracked the face, broke the band, or lost them. They never died from water, and I was in water a lot more back then.
50m is approx 5 atm of pressure — essentially waterproof unless you’re doing serious diving.
> > The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
> Another potential loophole?
Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply.
The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data.
This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.
The document it refers to is about "in vitro diagnostic devices" and this includes things like those pregnancy tests with an LCD readout. 2017/746 is about point of care diagnostic devices generally.
I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.
> By 2027, all phones released in the EU must have a battery the user can easily replace with no tools or expertise.
The article is wrong. The rule is that obscure tools must not be required:
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools [...]
The comma placement makes the glue answer a bit strange, but I'm interpreting it to mean glues are no-go unless the manufacturer provides a solvent and re-gluing kit as well. Full text from [1] (emphasis mine):
> A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it.
Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.
Also answers the above question regarding "specialised" - that would be anything not fitting the "commercially available" definition.
1. tools must be commercially available.
2. Tools must not be specialized, unless provided free of charge. (Reminder, part of the idea that the idea is that throwing away batteries is gradually getting outlawed, so end users need to be able to extract the battery before they throw away/recycle/or provide to eWaste facilities the rest of the device.).
3. Tools must not be proprietary.
4. Use of thermal energy cannot be required.
5. Use of solvents cannot be required.
And finally a clarification about the definition of commercially available.
Number 2 seems like it is independent of commercially available. Otherwise the "free of charge" part would make no sense. Furthermore, replacement is actually a secondary motivation of this law. A slightly more primary motivation is to ensure users can remove the batteries before throwing away the device or handing the rest to an eWaste facicity as applicable. I'd assume anything that the average consumer cannot expect to find at a local tool shop would be considered specialized.
Glue is not a tool, since a tool is an object that serves a function and that is not consumed in its operation. Other things that are not tools: lubricants, (some) abrasives, pigments, reagents, solvents.
Probably will be up to the courts to decide, in which case companies can choose to gamble fines and rectification costs should they choose to define 'specialized tools' more strictly than the court they end up facing does.
I had to use special tools to remove the batter from the iPhone 6 I owned, but that was back before they started gluing the battery to the screen. It only took 15-20 minutes. The phones since then have chipsets that will mark as fraudulent batteries any OEM battery. If only I could go back to 2015
I had to use special tools to remove the batter from the iPhone 6 I owned, but that was back before they started gluing the battery to the screen. It only took 15-20 minutes.
Looking at the ifixit guide for iphone 6s[1], it doesn't look like you need any special tools (as defined by the regulation). Sure, they're not exactly tools that a typical person has in their toolbox, but they're all "commercially available". ifixit even offers them for sale in their guide.
Didn't they redesign the interior of the iPhone 14 (normal) to be more easily repairable? Not end user repairable yet, but more than previous designs? I guess they make first steps in that direction.
The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model. Seems like this law is once again a step backwards.
No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
> The 'obscure' tools are like $5 on amazon/temu/alibaba and include exactly what you need to make the job easy for that specific model.
There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult.
> No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
Seems like it's all about tradeoffs. They're trading whatever hypothetical advances you're referring to here for less tech waste and lower consumer costs. They're deciding that it's an area in which manufacturers aren't allowed to innovate, because the innovations are trivial compared to the externalities that they impose.
- Consumers optimize for what looks nicest in the store, and it's easy for the store to bury the nonreplacability of the battery under a thick layer of tech mumbojumbo.
- Most consumers (at least here in Germany) get their phones from their phone plans, so they are limited by what the phone companies offer with their contracts.
You could turn the argument around: clearly consumers do want this tradeoff, because they have decided to vote in governments to legislate for it to be a requirement.
If you think that's an overly simplistic argument, then I invite you to re-evaluate yours.
> There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult.
Looking at the iPhone 14 iFixit kit, the tools are not particularly exotic... pentalobe/tripoint screwdrivers (kinda mandatory for super small screws) and just a bunch of things needed to work with small devices, spudger, tweezers, suction cup, clamp. Stuff that for the most part has been part of fixit kits going back many generations.
A generic toolkit for working w/ most Apple devices shouldn't have a particular high number of parts.
IME pentalobe is superior as far as wear to tooling without the sharp points.
I've stripped a handful of smaller torx heads due to worn bits over the years. Can't recall ever stripping a pentalobe.
I won't argue Apple came up with a new design for security purposes, at least initially. But that doesn't mean they didn't come up with a superior design for tiny bits at the same time.
Yeah, I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant.
But that nomenclature is void if you ask me. I got water on the upper front part of my iPhone XS which is IP whatever and Face ID died. Apple said they wouldn't give me a new one because water resistant doesn't mean they have to replace your phone when something happens.
I feel you - I had actually the same issue with my iphone XS few months ago - I was hiking for few hours inside humid cave. Even though I had phone in waterproof bag my TrueDepth sensor stopped working.
> I always wondered why Apple didn't achieve this at the time and had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant.
They didn't do this for water proof iPhones - that were lame excuses. They removed e.g. the headphone jack early to increase incentives to adopot (the then future) Airpods.
>had to remove headphone port and home button to make it water resistant.
This was an outright lie; some Android manufacturers (I believe it was Samsung and Sony, but maybe others as well) had waterproof phones with headphone jacks and it didn't seem to negatively affect the phone in other ways.
And you conveniently skip the little part about “only if you had the little rubber flap closed covering the jacks and only if you put the battery back in just right”.
And my galaxy s8 has usb-c and is waterproof, so a robust waterproof connector is a solved problem, they even have moisture detection by measuring resistance between a few pins.
I wouldn't think too much cost, since targeting 2027 means it should only affect phones that aren't even designed yet? (At least, I don't think anyone is taking 3-4 years to get a phone to market)
I don't know about Apple, but Samsung seems to have figured that going the other way, from replaceable battery to non-replaceable, made sense. I doubt it would cost them that much in engineering to go back to that.
Because "time to market" is not zero. Manufacturers need time to develop and produce new devices. Plus sell the ones already in the release chain. That's a quite reasonable time frame.
Yes: "Software shall not be used to impede the replacement of a portable battery or LMT battery, or of their key components, with another compatible battery or key components."
My iPhone was also bought in 2018 (iPhone X) but it will be obsolete with the new iOS release.
The iPhone X seems to have aged a lot better than the iPhone 8, which it was released alongside, but it looks like Apple's decided to kill both off at the same time.
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries or LMT batteries shall ensure that those batteries are available as spare parts of the equipment that they power for a minimum of five years after placing the last unit of the equipment model on the market, with a reasonable and non-discriminatory price for independent professionals and end-users.
That seems like a big loop hole: have all repairs done by TimWillFix, which charges the same cost to everybody, including Apple. Apple owns TimWillFix. Done. Prices are non-discriminary and independents get shafted.
It's not about repairs in general and not about independents, it's about replacement batteries. It requires that replacement batteries be easy to replace by the user, and replacement batteries be sold for a reasonable price for at least 5 years. If Apple creates a subsidiary that keeps their batteries in production, more power to them.
The law does not allow that. They must be available at a reasonable price for "for independent professionals and end-users". Several of relatively small number of exceptions to user replaceable batteries still require that independent professionals be able to replace the battery.
It’s unbelievable how people on here are defending manufacturers and designers when we have GoPro which is much more water resistant than most phones out there and has a replaceable battery.
I'm not sure that people are defending the manufacturers so much as taking a cynical view in which they believe that the manufacturers will find a way to not have user-replaceable batteries.
Will iPhones no longer be waterproof? I've actually dropped my iPhone in the ocean a number of times (just in tidal zones, never in deep water) and have washed it off with tap water. It stills works perfectly fine a few years later.
Only is Apple chooses to quit making them waterproof. Plenty of existing devices have user replaceable batteries and are waterproof, for example GoPros.
You do realize we've been making waterproof compact electronic devices for ages, right? I had 50 meter digital watch in 1986 with an easily replaced battery. Why is it so hard for you youngins to imagine modern companies making this work? There are zero tech or material hurdles here. None. Haven't been for 40 or 50 years at least. Jesus.
The key is to not store it on the charger. Only charge it when it is low - that dramatically increases the battery life. I have had sonicare brushes that failed due to metal fatigue with a battery that could still do ~2 weeks between charges.
I am very much wondering how Oura (the smart ring company) will handle this as the thing is very small. Their current design is fully casted, and practically impossible to do any kind of repairs.
Pacemakers at least should be a non-issue since the law specifically exempts devices where continuous power is required for the safety of the user. I think an unpowered pacemaker would definitely jeopardize ones safety. But yeah my mind also immediately went to very small devices like hearing aids.
Maybe this is why Apple is focusing so much on health sensors. It's a bit of a stretch but it could be argued that Apple's fall detection and heart rate monitoring is required for the safety of the user.
Hearing aids already have replaceable batteries, don't they? I guess I don't know the whole market, but you can buy batteries for my brother's heading aids at Walmart. They take a minute or less to replace. Same with my friend's hearing aids.
Hallelujah. I take very good care of my phones, and 4 years in, I have to put a very pristine phone in the drawer, because it can't hold a charge any more.
Law of unintended consequences makes me think this will result in more e-waste as devices with readily removable batteries are more likely to be damaged by drops and liquids. They will also use more materials than devices with permanent batteries. Everything is tradeoffs, and I don't think this law is making the right ones.
you're just making excuses for corporations. casio gave me a water proof digital watch with replaceable batteries almost four decades ago and it had no issues with shock or water damage, ever. this is the silliest argument I've ever heard in defense of megacorps. what a joke.
I've had phones with replaceable batteries and those without. If my current phone were available with and without a replaceable battery (and the related reliability/cost tradeoffs), I'd probably pick the permanent battery.
what tradeoff - like you dont get to choose that replacable battery are just worse because it fits your world view.
You can design replaceable solutions to be as reliable as "permanent" ones. Have it cost 10$ more for the same reliability, you would pick the replacable battery one in a heartbeat.
User-replaceable batteries always have a negative effect on the design of a product. I’d rather see free battery replacements every X years be offered from authorized techs.
I have a hard time trusting that this is for environmental or user friendly reasons. Those may certainly be outcomes, barring better battery tech that obviates needing to care about a removable battery once batteries last decades, but I don't think they're the intended reason for this. I think it's just what they're saying to make it sound more appealing to the end user who may not realize what's actually happening.
The reason I'm skeptical is because this is not happening in isolation from other related things happening in Europe. Consider how France is pushing for authorities to have unprecedented direct access to people's devices in this dystopian push:
This reminds me of when I visited France not long ago. At the airport they started opening my laptop to check it out. I never had that happen at any other airport before. They took it out in front of me and opened it up to look inside it. It was a bizarre experience because that held up the entire flight's departure for no reason. It was an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience. Their general tendency towards authoritarian dystopian types of ideas since then is palpable.
So all of this suggests to me they want to have easy access to consumer hardware for interdiction reasons. It'll be way easier for them to get into devices that are otherwise behind proprietary or less common enclosure mechanisms. It's strange how with the EU it's one step forward for protecting users (I like the spirit of GDPR for example) and then just a giant step backwards with these types of moves. Unless the EU adopts strict user privacy laws at the constitutional level, I don't see why this confluence of variables isn't suggesting an anti user mindset.
If someone with an expertise in these things can offer guidance on why interdiction doesn't work this way and what I'm missing about the risks here, I'd greatly appreciate it!
This is just baseless speculation mixed with personal anecdotes (as if there weren't countless anecdotes about the United States TSA requesting access to personal computing devices). Europe is a big place and it should be no surprise that there are multiple things happening at once.
The push for user replaceable batteries has been ongoing for years now and is not related to whatever Macron's trying to do unilaterally in his own country, which is only one member state of the EU.
Battery replacement for surveillance reasons only makes sense if someone manages to put some kind of tracker in a battery.
Airport authorities can certainly have the tools to open up computers especially, as you mention, because they have the power to delay people's flights. They certainly don't need to do that "without proprietary tools" or in a rush.
On that note, airport security simply opening a computer is usually not a way to hack it, it happens more likely if they want to double check for explosives or other hidden compartments they cannot see on X-Ray (because heavy metals turn black on X-Ray and you can't see what's on the other side).
If the authorities wanted to actually get the contents on your phone or computer, they can (in some places) simply take the phone or computer from you, ask you to give them the password or passcode and then give back the device when they're done cloning it. This has actually happened multiple times in the US (example: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/ill-never-bring-my-phone-o...).
Having access to the hardware without you knowing it only makes sense if the government had to rely on a secret hardware backdoor, but there are easier ways to track you via software, ISP data or simply by forcing you to hand over your device and revealing your password.
On the other hand, this battery replacement argument follows a long history of courts and regulatory authorities around the world slapping vendors for doing what they have been doing for the last decade or so: proprietary connectors, non-replaceable batteries, and so on.
It's not just a European thing. Last year, a Brazilian court fined Apple 19 million USD because they sell phones without chargers, especially given that Apple uses non-standard connectors.
416 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 344 ms ] threadI think they actually will do just that. Look at the Wikipedia page for any iPhone and you’ll see that each model has multiple regional SKUs. China has a SIM card tray while the US doesn’t.
I think smartphone makers will make the battery rectangular and put it in a convenient spot and then make a different rear case part just for Europe.
The rest of the world phones will have perhaps the exact same “removable” battery but it will be behind a case that has no door.
They did just fine with replaceable batteries.
But I also question your premise, I don't think it's as clear. I've never dropped my phone in a sink, but had battery issues with basically every phone. Often the battery starts failing much earlier than 80% in two years.
To me it looks like water proofing is being used as an excuse to add built-in obsolescence to products, since I imagine that conformal coating would do the job better. What am I missing?
The falloff has to be way more than 20% for two years?
Keeping it within 20-80% most of the time might keep the battery healthier.
The main faucet to your house sits under 60psi water pressure all day, and the moving parts are removable. This is 100 year old technology.
They are still rectangular. I actually thought they are more irregular, trying to use the available space more efficiently, but e.g. Samsung S23 Ultra battery looks like a normal rectangle.
Their casing is much thinner, though, since they don't have to assume rougher handling by an end consumer.
I wonder if perhaps there will be two batteries of the same shape - the non-replaceable will have a thinner casing, but with a somewhat higher capacity.
Regardless of whether or not you think that's an important thing to design for, these smartphone designers' product orgs. do.
So realistically, given Europe is <10% of the global population (and an increasingly small share of Wealth/GDP), this will just result in EU SKUs that don't get updated very often and are thicker.
Will be interesting to see if this just causes a grey market in less eco-conscious markets, while other places that conform just get known for having bulky phones (a la Japan and faxes).
Plus, if I understood it properly, India is contemplating a similar law.
Europe is around 45% smaller than US revenue for Apple (and about 25% of overall revenue) and has lost share every year since at least 2018. [0]
The US and Europe see similar volume sales (both way less than Asia).[1]
It's just simply not true that Europe is by any means the largest smartphone market at any segment.
[0]https://www.bamsec.com/filing/32019322000108?cik=320193 [1]https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/global-smartphone-market-20...
Knowing that almost all of Apple's phones are >$800, the fact that 41% of all sales in the EU were >$800 implies that Android isn't some hidden variable here.
I'd also like to point out that unit shipments have been in decline (on a y/y basis) for 10 the last 13 quarters. [0]
[0] https://www.canalys.com/newsroom/europe-smartphone-market-q1...
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
2024 will be the year that Apple stops selling the iPhone and releases the all new iBattery. It's a special battery that's also a revolutionary communications device!
https://www.ifixit.com/News/35377/which-wireless-earbuds-are...
Hmm. I wish this were worded a bit differently, in that I wouldn't mind having a screwed in compartment if the phone came with a tool that could be used to open the battery compartment. Being able to replace by hand excludes even operations like the sim tray's mechanism. EDIT: This is actually the case. I was quibbling over nothing
I think the rest of the regulation to require recycling seems a good move on the surface.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
The EU’s fight for user-replaceable smartphone batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36466153 - June 2023 (328 comments)
EU: Smartphones Must Have User-Replaceable Batteries by 2027 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36394922 - June 2023 (13 comments)
European Union votes to bring back replaceable phone batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36361510 - June 2023 (606 comments)
EU parliament passes law on user replaceable batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36336190 - June 2023 (18 comments)
Non-replaceable battery? Not if this proposed EU law passes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34129250 - Dec 2022 (234 comments)
EU legislation could bring back user replaceable batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34085963 - Dec 2022 (23 comments)
Replaceable batteries are coming back to phones if the EU gets its way - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30867892 - March 2022 (14 comments)
EU to make it mandatory to use customer-replaceable batteries in household items - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30660953 - March 2022 (637 comments)
> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.
There are exceptions:
> 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; (b) professional medical imaging and radiotherapy devices, as defined in Article 2, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2017/745, and in vitro diagnostic medical devices, as defined in Article 2, point (2), of Regulation (EU) 2017/746.
Does a smartphone qualify under the section (a) exemption? What if Apple starts to say that we can rinse off our iPhones any time they get dirty? They already show advertisements in which iPhones get dunked in water.
> The obligations laid down in paragraph 1 shall not apply where continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the product and the respective portable battery is required to ensure the safety of the user and the appliance or, for products that collect and supply data as their main function, for data integrity reasons.
Another potential loophole?
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
EDIT - It appears that page 11 & 12 make it clear that any battery in a smartphone is a "portable battery"
So would this apply to something like the Nintendo Switch, and/or Steam Deck?
Hopefully the regulating body would take a dim view of "one weird trick" type attempts at circumventing the intent of the rule.
Generally the law always does, but nerds love to think that they can find bounds checking violations in the law. In reality some administrative law judge or similar will not actually be impressed.
Recently I read that in France (where I live) there is this rule that all online sellers selling to customers must pay VAT even if abroad.
Someone pulled a trick along the lines of: taking orders from customers then ordering stuff on behalf of the customer, then claim "we don't sell stuff, we just order things on behalf of the customer", and then the other seller is not ordered from by the customer so by the book they are also not concerned by VAT (so in the end no VAT is paid)
And it seems it was confirmed being legal...
The regulators move slowly so it looks like it works for awhile, but someone winds up going bankrupt or to jail eventually.
The point is that, it's technically the end customer who pays the VAT. The seller collects it, on behalf of the state.
https://www.lemonde.fr/les-decodeurs/article/2023/07/11/des-...
They call the intermediate "dropshippers" (even in the French text)
IANAL, but the linked EU directive doesn't seem to say that the seller has to charge VAT at the moment of sale, only that VAT is due, even in the case of an intermediary.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
I've just done a quick check on the site of B&H, an US-based reputable electronics store. If you try to send something somewhat expensive to France, they have the option of handling import duties and taxes or to handle it yourself.
And even if the judge ultimately decides against the manufacturer, it will take willingness to enforce the regulation for that to happen, during which the manufacturer can take cover under the "loophole".
Like you said the courts are just not fast enough
"portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;"
What's an LMT or SLI battery? Well:
"light means of transport battery’ or ‘LMT battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 25 kg or less and is specifically designed to provide electric power for the traction of wheeled vehicles that can be powered by an electric motor alone or by a combination of motor and human power, including type-approved vehicles of category L within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 168/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1, and that is not an electric vehicle battery;"
and
"‘starting, lighting and ignition battery’ or ‘SLI battery’ means a battery that is specifically designed to supply electric power for starting, lighting, or ignition and that can also be used for auxiliary or backup purposes in vehicles, other means of transport or machinery;"
Semi-related: If they somehow use that loophole then they should be obliged to honour warranty claims for water damage.
I'll admit that I don't know about iPhones, but my Pixel 6 was described as being waterproof but experienced water damage after being dropped in a swimming pool (1 metre depth) for a few seconds and Google refused to repair it under warranty.
How do you know that? There is no iPhone from Apple with an USB-C port. You are just speculating based on some rumors.
Also being different would make it would be incompatible with current Macbook and iPad owner's chargers.
My (<2 yr old) series 6 watch now has water damage to the face and digitizer, after doing a swimming workout. It's nominally 50m water resistant, and I went a max of 1.5m. It's had a handful of water experiences, but nothing deeper than a pool and no high speed/pressure type stuff.
It's effectively dead.
Apple wants 359 eur to repair it. The new cost, with charger (39eur) and the braided sport band (100eur) ((which was nice, but stretched and became useless) was 509 eur. So there's effectively a 10 eur difference between the original sale price and the repair price.
There are refurb series 6 gps + cell on the amazon.de for 299 eur, and those include a strap and charger, as well as the cell functionality that I didn't have.
This is within the EU (and Ireland) 2 year limit on defective products, and I originally bought this from Apple directly. So I might have a claim there. On the other hand, I don't want them deleting my apple account in retaliation.
This is by far the biggest crime being committed here.
That they have you by the balls for access to essential services as well as your data needed to make the hardware purchase complete.
If they don't want to do the account hosting for some of their customers (because they don't like them for some reason) then they should offer an option to self host alongside a heavily discounted device which is compatible with self hosting. If you've already bought a device and they remove access to services they should be legally obligated to refund the difference. Otherwise they should make the services an explicit part of the purchase contract and be legally obliged to continue providing them.
Part of the apple tax is precisely to cover costs of maintaining the whole integrated ecosystem.
Nobody should feel the need to keep silent over a hardware issue because they may be cut off from essential software and services required to make good use of the hardware.
This is one of the core reasons for why I refuse to buy devices which are forcibly integrated into an ecosystem like this. But anyone who so chooses should not be fucked over by their choice at the whim of a large company.
Quoted depths are usually for Static Pressure, when the item is not moving against the water.
My Citizen wrist watch is marked as WR 100, i.e. 100m Static Pressure. That can be used for swimming, and I regularly do so. It is now around 25 years old.
A watch marked as water resistant to 50m is only really splash proof, or can be rinsed under a running tap. So it is safe to keep on while washing your hands.
One of my dive computers, intended to be used to around 40m, happens to be marked on the back as water resistant to 80m - but the casing is generally much more robust than in a watch.
50m is approx 5 atm of pressure — essentially waterproof unless you’re doing serious diving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark#Water_res...
> Another potential loophole?
Safety of user is not a concern for cell phone. Because it is possible to make a cell phone where a battery can be swapped a "safety of the appliance" would not apply.
The "collect and supply data as their main function" is intended as a carve out for devices like credit card readers, some of which have anti-tamper circuits will wipe critical data from the device if opened. These work by storing the data in SRAM, and using a battery backup for it (so that a power outage or unplugging it won't wipe it). They have contacts that detect if the case is opened, and that trigger wiping the data.
This was especially important for older mag-stripe readers where one could hypothetically install a skimmer inside the main reader if it continued to work after opening it. Hence, while they can often be disassembled with just commercially available tools, a normal user replacing the battery is not possible, as the factory needs to reprogram it afterwards, and they will insist on inspecting the unit for tampering before they do so. Requiring reprogramming by the manufacturer after battery replacement does not qualify as a replaceable battery under this regulation, so these devices need a carveout.
I think in vivo devices would fall under 2017/745 medical devices.
The article is wrong. The rule is that obscure tools must not be required:
> A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools [...]
> A portable battery should be considered to be removable by the end-user when it can be removed with the use of commercially available tools and without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless they are provided free of charge, or proprietary tools, thermal energy or solvents to disassemble it. Commercially available tools are considered to be tools available on the market to all end-users without the need for them to provide evidence of any proprietary rights and that can be used with no restriction, except health and safety-related restrictions.
Also answers the above question regarding "specialised" - that would be anything not fitting the "commercially available" definition.
[1] https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT...
1. tools must be commercially available. 2. Tools must not be specialized, unless provided free of charge. (Reminder, part of the idea that the idea is that throwing away batteries is gradually getting outlawed, so end users need to be able to extract the battery before they throw away/recycle/or provide to eWaste facilities the rest of the device.). 3. Tools must not be proprietary. 4. Use of thermal energy cannot be required. 5. Use of solvents cannot be required.
And finally a clarification about the definition of commercially available.
Number 2 seems like it is independent of commercially available. Otherwise the "free of charge" part would make no sense. Furthermore, replacement is actually a secondary motivation of this law. A slightly more primary motivation is to ensure users can remove the batteries before throwing away the device or handing the rest to an eWaste facicity as applicable. I'd assume anything that the average consumer cannot expect to find at a local tool shop would be considered specialized.
Anything else like use of knives should be considered special if slots are not designated for them.
Looking at the ifixit guide for iphone 6s[1], it doesn't look like you need any special tools (as defined by the regulation). Sure, they're not exactly tools that a typical person has in their toolbox, but they're all "commercially available". ifixit even offers them for sale in their guide.
[1] https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone+6+Battery+Replacement/29...
No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
There are not enough reasons for every model to need a different specific set of tools. There's one common reason: to make service difficult.
> No consideration at all of tradeoffs, IE how much dust/water proofing do we lose and how much bulk/weight it will add.
Seems like it's all about tradeoffs. They're trading whatever hypothetical advances you're referring to here for less tech waste and lower consumer costs. They're deciding that it's an area in which manufacturers aren't allowed to innovate, because the innovations are trivial compared to the externalities that they impose.
You don't because that's not actually what most consumers want, and thus the misguided need to regulate it.
- Consumers optimize for what looks nicest in the store, and it's easy for the store to bury the nonreplacability of the battery under a thick layer of tech mumbojumbo.
- Most consumers (at least here in Germany) get their phones from their phone plans, so they are limited by what the phone companies offer with their contracts.
You could turn the argument around: clearly consumers do want this tradeoff, because they have decided to vote in governments to legislate for it to be a requirement.
If you think that's an overly simplistic argument, then I invite you to re-evaluate yours.
Looking at the iPhone 14 iFixit kit, the tools are not particularly exotic... pentalobe/tripoint screwdrivers (kinda mandatory for super small screws) and just a bunch of things needed to work with small devices, spudger, tweezers, suction cup, clamp. Stuff that for the most part has been part of fixit kits going back many generations.
A generic toolkit for working w/ most Apple devices shouldn't have a particular high number of parts.
I've stripped a handful of smaller torx heads due to worn bits over the years. Can't recall ever stripping a pentalobe.
I won't argue Apple came up with a new design for security purposes, at least initially. But that doesn't mean they didn't come up with a superior design for tiny bits at the same time.
Samsung Galaxy S5 had:
- easy user removable/swapable battery 2800mah
- external port for microSDXC
- audiojack
- was still IP67 dust/water resistant (up to 1m for 30 min)
- 5.1 inches AMOLED screen
- just 145g weight
- just 8.1 mm thickness
- this was already mass produced in 2014
But that nomenclature is void if you ask me. I got water on the upper front part of my iPhone XS which is IP whatever and Face ID died. Apple said they wouldn't give me a new one because water resistant doesn't mean they have to replace your phone when something happens.
They didn't do this for water proof iPhones - that were lame excuses. They removed e.g. the headphone jack early to increase incentives to adopot (the then future) Airpods.
This was an outright lie; some Android manufacturers (I believe it was Samsung and Sony, but maybe others as well) had waterproof phones with headphone jacks and it didn't seem to negatively affect the phone in other ways.
Also, I can't figure out how there could be more than one way to replace the battery. It's incredibly simple.
Samsung even had a warning display on the phone when you turned it on to make sure the battery was secure.
I wouldn't think too much cost, since targeting 2027 means it should only affect phones that aren't even designed yet? (At least, I don't think anyone is taking 3-4 years to get a phone to market)
Is there any rule against "DRM" like vendor lockin for replacement batteries?
The iPhone X seems to have aged a lot better than the iPhone 8, which it was released alongside, but it looks like Apple's decided to kill both off at the same time.
Of course an iPhone with a replaceable battery can be made while still being waterproof, but that would lose a lot of real estate.
That's a popular claim, but is "this phone has 0.1mm more depth than the other one" seriously a sales argument?
Also, this regulation affects everybody, so it still keeps the playing field even.
The reason I'm skeptical is because this is not happening in isolation from other related things happening in Europe. Consider how France is pushing for authorities to have unprecedented direct access to people's devices in this dystopian push:
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/07/06/france-s...
This reminds me of when I visited France not long ago. At the airport they started opening my laptop to check it out. I never had that happen at any other airport before. They took it out in front of me and opened it up to look inside it. It was a bizarre experience because that held up the entire flight's departure for no reason. It was an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience. Their general tendency towards authoritarian dystopian types of ideas since then is palpable.
So all of this suggests to me they want to have easy access to consumer hardware for interdiction reasons. It'll be way easier for them to get into devices that are otherwise behind proprietary or less common enclosure mechanisms. It's strange how with the EU it's one step forward for protecting users (I like the spirit of GDPR for example) and then just a giant step backwards with these types of moves. Unless the EU adopts strict user privacy laws at the constitutional level, I don't see why this confluence of variables isn't suggesting an anti user mindset.
If someone with an expertise in these things can offer guidance on why interdiction doesn't work this way and what I'm missing about the risks here, I'd greatly appreciate it!
The push for user replaceable batteries has been ongoing for years now and is not related to whatever Macron's trying to do unilaterally in his own country, which is only one member state of the EU.
Airport authorities can certainly have the tools to open up computers especially, as you mention, because they have the power to delay people's flights. They certainly don't need to do that "without proprietary tools" or in a rush.
On that note, airport security simply opening a computer is usually not a way to hack it, it happens more likely if they want to double check for explosives or other hidden compartments they cannot see on X-Ray (because heavy metals turn black on X-Ray and you can't see what's on the other side).
If the authorities wanted to actually get the contents on your phone or computer, they can (in some places) simply take the phone or computer from you, ask you to give them the password or passcode and then give back the device when they're done cloning it. This has actually happened multiple times in the US (example: https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/ill-never-bring-my-phone-o...).
Having access to the hardware without you knowing it only makes sense if the government had to rely on a secret hardware backdoor, but there are easier ways to track you via software, ISP data or simply by forcing you to hand over your device and revealing your password.
On the other hand, this battery replacement argument follows a long history of courts and regulatory authorities around the world slapping vendors for doing what they have been doing for the last decade or so: proprietary connectors, non-replaceable batteries, and so on.
It's not just a European thing. Last year, a Brazilian court fined Apple 19 million USD because they sell phones without chargers, especially given that Apple uses non-standard connectors.