Misleading title. Phones can still be glued. Waterproof phones still don’t need to have a user replaceable battery (the battery needs to be replaceable but by professionals).
Do you have a reference for that? From all the documentation I’ve seen elsewhere, that’s not true. There’s no exclusion for waterproof devices, and everything has to be possible with tools a normal person can buy (you might need to go to a local hardware store, but no unique specialist expensive kit).
It’s totally possible to make waterproof phones with removable batteries - Samsung did it with the Galaxy S5 (IP67 - 1 meter under water for 30 minutes) way back in 2014 and there’s lots of other examples. It’s just not quite as cheap as glueing everything together.
Thank you for linking the text. For anyone wondering, here is Ch. 2, Article 11 regarding portable battery replacement:
Article 11
Removability and replaceability of portable batteries
Portable batteries incorporated in appliances shall be readily removable and
replaceable by the end-user or by independent operators during the lifetime of the appliance, if the batteries have a shorter lifetime than the appliance, or at the latest at the end of the lifetime of the appliance.
A battery is readily replaceable where, after its removal from an appliance, it can be substituted by a similar battery, without affecting the functioning or the performance of that appliance.
The obligations set out in paragraph 1 shall not apply where
(a) continuity of power supply is necessary and a permanent connection between the appliance and the portable battery is required for safety, performance,
medical or data integrity reasons; or
(b) the functioning of the battery is only possible when the battery is integrated into the structure of the appliance.
The Commission shall adopt guidance to facilitate harmonised application of the
derogations set out in paragraph 2
“if the batteries have a shorter lifetime than the device” sounds like it could be exploited though, well folks the processor can only last 2 years on these new phones because of (insert random corpo bullshit here)
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.
Thanks! That’s interesting to see, looks like this is an amendment? I’m not totally sure how that bit of the legal process works here.
I’d be surprised if this is intended to apply to mobile phones though - very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion. They’re designed for incidental protection, but the regular day-to-day use case is pretty dry! I’d read that as intended for things like watersports & diving equipment.
It’s not an amendment, this is the actual law as it is adopted. The other document was just the proposal.
very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion
They don’t have to be primarily used in that environment, they have to be designed to be used in that environment. The way this is worded is extremely broad and can basically mean anything you want it to mean. All current waterproof smartphones could fall under this exemption.
I love the EU and regulations like this but it always makes me sad when they make them broad and open to interpretation because that means corporations will find ways to get away with whatever they want.
Honestly, I’d be surprised. Fighting the EU on technicalities when the intention here is so clear is going to be hard work! To even get close to a good case, they’d have to change all the marketing for the device to show it’s clearly being intended as a primarily water-use product. The words “primarily” and “regularly” in there aren’t just decorative, they’d really have to demonstrate that to make it stick! Seems to have more downside than just making the battery removable in the first place.
The full quote also has this bit:
This derogation should only apply when it is not possible, by way of redesign of the appliance, to ensure the safety of the end-user and the safe continued use of the appliance after the end-user has correctly followed the instructions to remove and replace the battery.
Since real phones do already exist that are both waterproof and have removable batteries, I think it’s very hard to plausibly say “it’s impossible to design this in a way the user can safely remove the battery”.
Of course, to know for sure we’ll both just have to wait and see 😄
I will assume that your example is the reason for your your comment, and while I agree this does open the door for exclusion, that is after all a reasonable one.
You cannot have a consumer device at a reasonable price point, designed to provide water resilience, which also contains an open section to the power supply.
You cannot have a consumer device at a reasonable price point, designed to provide water resilience, which also contains an open section to the power supply.
You certainly can. Look up any flagship smartphone and you can see that they provide water resilience and they have a charging port.
I am not saying it cannot be done. I’m saying that most of us are not walking around with $2000 phones, nor do we want to.
As a consumer I want a choice, not a mandate. I am more interested in getting an affordable phone myself then whether or not I can opening it up easily.
But if you want a phone that can do that I believe you have the right to that.
Misleading title. Phones can still be glued. Waterproof phones still don’t need to have a user replaceable battery (the battery needs to be replaceable but by professionals).
Do you have a reference for that? From all the documentation I’ve seen elsewhere, that’s not true. There’s no exclusion for waterproof devices, and everything has to be possible with tools a normal person can buy (you might need to go to a local hardware store, but no unique specialist expensive kit).
The full law is here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2020/0798/COM_COM(2020)0798_EN.pdf. It only mentions ‘water’ 3 times and none of them relate to waterproof phones (they’re talking about batteries of waterbourne transport & environmental impact of water use) so I don’t know where that’s coming from.
It’s totally possible to make waterproof phones with removable batteries - Samsung did it with the Galaxy S5 (IP67 - 1 meter under water for 30 minutes) way back in 2014 and there’s lots of other examples. It’s just not quite as cheap as glueing everything together.
Thank you for linking the text. For anyone wondering, here is Ch. 2, Article 11 regarding portable battery replacement:
“if the batteries have a shorter lifetime than the device” sounds like it could be exploited though, well folks the processor can only last 2 years on these new phones because of (insert random corpo bullshit here)
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0237_EN.html#title2
(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.
Thanks! That’s interesting to see, looks like this is an amendment? I’m not totally sure how that bit of the legal process works here.
I’d be surprised if this is intended to apply to mobile phones though - very few phones are used primarily in an environment of water immersion. They’re designed for incidental protection, but the regular day-to-day use case is pretty dry! I’d read that as intended for things like watersports & diving equipment.
It’s not an amendment, this is the actual law as it is adopted. The other document was just the proposal.
They don’t have to be primarily used in that environment, they have to be designed to be used in that environment. The way this is worded is extremely broad and can basically mean anything you want it to mean. All current waterproof smartphones could fall under this exemption.
I love the EU and regulations like this but it always makes me sad when they make them broad and open to interpretation because that means corporations will find ways to get away with whatever they want.
Honestly, I’d be surprised. Fighting the EU on technicalities when the intention here is so clear is going to be hard work! To even get close to a good case, they’d have to change all the marketing for the device to show it’s clearly being intended as a primarily water-use product. The words “primarily” and “regularly” in there aren’t just decorative, they’d really have to demonstrate that to make it stick! Seems to have more downside than just making the battery removable in the first place.
The full quote also has this bit:
Since real phones do already exist that are both waterproof and have removable batteries, I think it’s very hard to plausibly say “it’s impossible to design this in a way the user can safely remove the battery”.
Of course, to know for sure we’ll both just have to wait and see 😄
I will assume that your example is the reason for your your comment, and while I agree this does open the door for exclusion, that is after all a reasonable one.
You cannot have a consumer device at a reasonable price point, designed to provide water resilience, which also contains an open section to the power supply.
You certainly can. Look up any flagship smartphone and you can see that they provide water resilience and they have a charging port.
They are all closed cover designs though.
I am not saying it cannot be done. I’m saying that most of us are not walking around with $2000 phones, nor do we want to.
As a consumer I want a choice, not a mandate. I am more interested in getting an affordable phone myself then whether or not I can opening it up easily.
But if you want a phone that can do that I believe you have the right to that.
Galaxy S5 did it.
That’s a good point, but it was an expensive phone for the time.
I’m more interested in people have a choice rather than having government bodies dictate.