> because this law will force phone manufacturers to compromise the things that most people want

Hopefully this will help bring the headphone jack back.

most of the time I replace my phone because the battery degraded so badly and a replacement is expensive.

Its not enough by itself that the phone has amassed scratches and is 20% slower or has a 30% worse camera optic than the current generation, or that updates will only continue for a year or two more.

But the slowdown (associated with battery degradation btw) and fact that it doesn’t get me through a whole day definitely move the needle into me buying a new phone.

Given that probably one in twenty people you'd meet would have between 5 and 10% of battery left: probably most of those.

(and yes, I know that power banks exist)

I think most people who are capable of figuring out how buying a new phone impacts their financial goals would be in favor of this

Everything you just described as "what people want" translated in my brain to "what they're programmed to want".

Some products on the market are there to address some inherent need or desire people have; some are for more manufactured needs/desires.

To me the intent of this law looks to put a floor on the environmental cost of providing for the manufactured variants.

you act like making batteries disposable will fundamentally alter the usability of the phone.

Right to repair has never been about requirement to repair. Obviously we can't force people to repair their phones instead of buying a new one, because that would involve replacing the market economy with a planned economy. This would be extremely difficult to pull off and would be wildly unpopular.

At the same time, 5.78 billion people have a smartphone worldwide. It is obviously wildly unsustainable to live in a world where 5.78 billion people have to throw away their old phone and buy a new one every 2-3 years. However, phone manufacturers have figured out that if they force people to, they can amass ridiculous levels of wealth because the demand for new phones would be constantly high. So obviously the incentives here are completely wrong. This has happened before with lightbulbs in the 20th century and is a legitimate form of market failure that needs to be resolved, as it wastes a lot of consumer spending to replace what consumers already had (like the parable of the broken window).

For many years since phone manufacturers started gluing phones together with a consumable part inside, consumers have been denied the ability to replace their battery. Where the option does exist, it's often very inconvenient, difficult, or with a price inflated to be nearly as expensive as buying a new one.

Phones stopped advancing significantly many years ago. Phone manufacturers now re-release practically the same phone with slight CPU and camera improvements, something completely unheard of until relatively recently. Lately the main marketing trend for new phones has been AI, but this is a nonsense trend because most of modern AI runs in the cloud, and very few are actually utilizing any local AI features, so the only "AI" thing about the phone is just a preinstalled ChatGPT-like app you can get on any other phone. So clearly they have run out of things to improve, and things to market around. In a normally functioning market, this would mean phones have become a solved technology and we can stop replacing our phones as often, maybe once every 10 years if you're careful with your phone. But this is not what we see precisely because phone manufacturers have been manufacturing problems that are most easily solved by buying a new phone, which they will push people to do whatever way they can for profit. The phone industry has failed to regulate itself, and so this is why we are seeing a push for this type of regulation.

I think most americans are happy to have usb-c on their Iphones.

> If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby what they would change...

... the answer would depend on which street corner you asked.

> people seem so unaware of how idiosyncratic their preferences are

Yes, they are. They also tend to state that "most people" agree with them. This is called subjectivity.

> by the time batteries wear out, most people are going to want a new a phone.

Extreme consumer brain coupled with privilege. Billions of people can’t afford a new phone every couple years, they buy things and use them until they are past the point of repair, only buying a replacement when they have no other choice.

Can you honestly even say this year’s new flagships, or any from the last decade, represent meaningful improvement for most people outside the tech bubble and influencer sphere? Smartphones have been “good enough” for a long time.

Apple is about to deprecate the iphone 11/SE 2020 version. Am gonna repurpose them as webcams given the 12MP camera put in there is arguably better than the brand new ones they put on new macs.

The phone now has a limited lifespan though because of this prior stupidity where eventually am gonna get into spicy pillow territory. At that point the phone prematurely dies.

We are going into a period where we are throwing away devices with 12mp+ cameras, and processors arguably faster than most desktops. It was arguable when the phones were old and legacy, but at this point the cameras on there are stupidly good.

We need these phones to be repurposed for a second life and actually capture their manufacture energy costs.

Frankly, if Apple allowed old iphones to be used for server usage, it is kind of crazy how efficient per dollar that would be.

> this law will make phones _worse_ for most people

I challenge you to give me an example of how this law might result in a phone that is worse for most people.

This law does not require a slide-off phone cover. It does not require a screwed-on backplate. It does not forbid the use of chemical adhesives. It does not stipulate how a phone should or shouldn't be designed.

It basically just requires the manufacturer to offer replacement batteries and to enable the replacement to be done with commercially available tools. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of phones are already compliant, pending availability of a replacement battery from the manufacturer.

I'm quite confident I could replace the battery on my Sony Xperia 1 iii with a heat gun and my basic iFixit toolkit.

"Normal people" (tiresome and unnecessarily reductive meme) do not necessarily care about how it's implemented, but they certainly care about planned obsolescence, which is the target of this law. It just another way to enforce reasonable service life and reduce e-waste. That's the goal of this regulation.

> If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby what they would change about their phone, I think you would be there all day before someone said "I wish I could replace the battery".

If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby if they want their phone to have a replaceable battery, I don't think you would be there very long before receiving a "yes". I think that's a more honest framing of the question.

> I suppose someone will say that this law is necessary for environmental reasons, regardless of people's preferences. But that's nonsense, because the law doesn't actually require people to replace batteries rather than replacing their phone

How could they replace their batteries if they wanted to, unless the manufacturer makes it possible? The goal is not to force individuals to not replace their phones, but rather to provide that as an option at all, for those who want it.

> At the very least we'd need to see some data that shows that most people replace batteries when it is possible to do so.

At the very least, we'd need only data showing that that number is non-zero. From where did you get the idea that we need to prove "most" people would choose to take advantage of this option?

Consumers may not know that a feature is something they want until they don't have it anymore.

Invert the situation. If every iPhone in history had a replaceable battery, until 2027 when the newest iPhone did not have a replaceable battery, I think we can all agree that the uproar would be significant.

bookmarking this to revisit after couple years.

How the hell can we have more data on people replacing their batteries if the batteries are not user replaceable?

Most people want new phones because of shit software updates and marketing not because out of necessity.

Totally agree. It makes you wonder who the EU polled regarding this initiative? Who initiated it and why?

I provide food and services for the homeless in my area working with friends outside of any non-profit. That the phone people get from non-profits become unusable in some number of months is a big complaint. Batteries dying is significant part of this (lack of security updates is another part). Replaceable batteries are something that a lot of people would want (especially the option to have several batteries).

Just as much, there's a certain HN complaint form that basically goes "any complaint about the crap that sold now is just programmer/civil-rights-fan/etc idiosyncrasy, real people want exactly this crap 'cause markets never lie".

This is not about charging your phone.

> If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby what they would change about their phone, I think you would be there all day before someone said "I wish I could replace the battery".

I doubt most people wouldn't even think that this is a thing they can wish for or that this is even within realm of possibility.

It has to be explicitly named as an option - as, I'm afraid, people have forgotten that you can have "nice things".

Also I feel rather uncomfortable every time somebody purports to be representitive of or know that "most people" want.

Following the bottle-cap madness, I don't think any current data shows the actual issue was resolved. Even worse, the effect on marine life is still not measured, and afaik reduction of harm was the primary goal. Instead of brutally high fines on fishing net waste, we got bottle-cap madness.

We have so much experience with scientific method, yet these massive decisions are adhoc, that's how the whole world works. We never tested what would happen by allowing mass production of plastic, or phones, or whatever, so these antipatches are going by the "feels" as well, with no individual taking responsibility for failures.

I think you're plain wrong. I have never talked to anyone in my life about phones who didn't want replaceable batteries and wasn't annoyed by the throwaway culture. It's a top priority for the people I know, though by far not important enough for most of them to go for something like a Fairphone.

However, these preferences don't really matter anyway because nobody is forced to replace the battery and not buy a new phone when their phone has replaceable batteries.

I envision somone keeping a phone long time, not updating it and evtualluy the spying hooks get obsolete and so phone gets more secure, as tech companies move on with new apis and drop support for the old ones. This might be the biggest win. Ms still has customers using win95

> I suppose someone will say that this law is necessary for environmental reasons, regardless of people's preferences.

Welcome to democracy and lawmaking in 2026. We know better than you!

It would take a great deal of lawmaking to make phones more worse, for most people, than phone manufacturers and mobile app developers already do. You want to talk about idiosyncratic preferences, really? Here?

Imagine getting a car without a replaceable battery.

Buddy. You are on the Hacker News. It's like you wanted to get skewered on purpose. Of course we want replaceable batteries! Anyone over the age of 30 will remember the convenience of throwing another charged battery in your car/backpack/briefcase and heading out for the day. Carefree. Also, what a treat to be able to properly restart or power off my phone (no, I mean REALLY power it off) by ripping out the battery!

What's next, having TV remote controls with non-removable rechargeable batteries, for the "convenience"?! Gimme a break. I love tech progress, but leave your hands off my removable batteries! And my 3.5mm audio jack, now that I think about it! :-)

> One of the most frustrating things about HN is that people seem so unaware of how idiosyncratic their preferences are.

Least self-aware HN user out there.

Do you really think the European commission got lobbied hard by HN folks?

This law will make phones better for most people, who would rather keep their phone for a decade rather than having to every three years buy a new phone optimized for some vanity metric that looks good on Engadget reviews.

LOL, please do the experiment for real and be amazed! :D

> If you stood on the street corner and asked every passerby what they would change about their phone, I think you would be there all day before someone said "I wish I could replace the battery".

Not my experience at all. The (few) non-tech people I've talked to about phones soon getting batteries again like it. People believe the idea that non-removable batteries are a conspiracy by the phone companies to sell you more phones the same way cartels manipulated the lightbulb market (Phoebus cartel).

My own hesitation with HM echo chamberification is federation. Nobody cares. And until you can point to a concrete benefit to end users, you should stop and think about why you’re pushing it this hard.

But I don’t think this is the case with phone batteries. I’ve had many conversations with friends and family that came down to replace the battery or upgrade the phone.

I feel the same way about soldered on CPUs, RAM and SSDs in laptops and other computers. The benefits of doing this are marginal at best. We all know the real reason is forced obsolescence.

We all know this is why battery replacement is hard too.

what are you on about? most people i know have 4 year old phones which are just fine and want only the battery changed. my phone was 6 years old this year and it hurt me that I had to change it because of the battery. otherwise it was a perfectly fine phone.

[dead]