(Leaked) EU Considering Bringing Back Removable Batteries?

[dalekphalm]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

 sorry I need to work on my explanations.

Yes manufacture.

you use the percentage from manufacture cost and then apply it to the total cost.

That's incredibly arbitrary. Why that formula? Why not 8%? Why not 20%?

[ARikozuM]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Sure, but that's a dangerous precedent to set. I think government regulating a specific profit margin is a dangerous game to play.

 

Sure, in very specific circumstances, it might be prudent (or even necessary) for a market to operate fairly.

 

But here? Why let government force a set profit margin on replacement batteries? What's next? Forcing profit margins on the whole phone?

I wouldn't argue for only 10%. I'd argue for something around 40%-50% which is around standard margins (they do have to make money to cover the tech's lost income). Too high and they effectively snuff out repair shops, DIY, through a monopoly of parts use and only contribute to e-waste. Too low and we end up losing out jobs like the Apple genius. 

[GDRRiley]

55 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

That's incredibly arbitrary. Why that formula? Why not 8%? Why not 20%?

it kinda is. The point was to take into account that there are other costs other than manufacturing and to allow OEMs to still profit of the replacements at a similar rate than originally purchased device and cover the cost of storage/keeping lines open for a number of years.

is it perfect no but it was my idea a decent one.

 

EDIT:

it also stops someone making their own device from parts for less if the supplier has a large markup.

For apple I wouldn't expect it to stop any of the clone batteries.

It also though should be linked to not allow higher prices than manufacture replacement.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

I wouldn't argue for only 10%. I'd argue for something around 40%-50% which is around standard margins (they do have to make money to cover the tech's lost income). Too high and they effectively snuff out repair shops, DIY, through a monopoly of parts use and only contribute to e-waste. Too low and we end up losing out jobs like the Apple genius. 

Even then, 40% or 50%? Who decides?

 

The point being that the cost of replacement parts is a factor that a prospective buyer must factor in when making a purchase decision.

 

Same with cars. If I'm looking at a Toyota vs a BMW - if I look hard enough, I can probably find a used BMW that costs the same as a Toyota of comparable type (maybe not as new, but it'll have higher luxury or performance in comparison).

 

But the cost of replacement parts and repairs on a BMW cost more than a Toyota.

 

So in the case of Phones, a manufacturer should have the choice to price their replacement parts however they want. If they cost too much, that's incentive for a competitor to sell cheaper parts (The "Toyota" of smartphones), so as to steal marketshare from their more expensive-to-repair competitor.

 

Why take away that market freedom? If an Apple battery costs more than a Samsung battery, that's more incentive to buy a Samsung.

[ARikozuM]

19 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Even then, 40% or 50%? Who decides?

Why take away that market freedom? If an Apple battery costs more than a Samsung battery, that's more incentive to buy a Samsung.

The problem with equating BMW and Toyota to Apple is that Toyota and BMW are effectively forced, at least in the US, to allow licensing of various parts for OEM and non-OEM manufacturers to produce specific parts for the allotted life time (10 years [warranty period]). Apple does not allow that, and even when batteries are mailed without trademarks they call on Customs to seize those shipments and destroy them. 

 

Edit: I don't know who would be responsible for the margin agreement, but it would make more sense than having only Apple selling the battery for the cost of a new phone. 

 

2nd edit: In the case of Toyota, they license out parts and also dump whatever number of parts they have onto the market at service life's end.  

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

The problem with equating BMW and Toyota to Apple is that Toyota and BMW are effectively forced, at least in the US, to allow licensing of various parts for OEM and non-OEM manufacturers to produce specific parts for the allotted life time (10 years). Apple does not allow that, and even when batteries are mailed without trademarks they call on Customs to seize those shipments and destroy them. 

 

Edit: I don't know who would be responsible for the margin agreement, but it would make more sense than having only Apple selling the battery for the cost of a new phone. 

 

It really is a hard case, how do you regulate a market so that consumers aren't being arse raped while at the same time not interfering with a companies right to protect its own IP?

 

I like the idea of not extending IP protections to generic replacement parts that are subject to wear and tear (i.e batteries, connectors and screens), which should allow anyone to make a replacement part but they must however stipulate it is a generic replacement and not genuine.   

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It really is a hard case, how do you regulate a market so that consumers aren't being arse raped while at the same time not interfering with a companies right to protect it own IP?

 

I like the idea of not extending IP protections to generic replacement parts that are subject to wear and tear (i.e batteries, connectors and screens), which should allow anyone to make a replacement part but they must however stipulate it is a generic replacement and not genuine.   

I think the solution is to strip IP protection should the holder try to snuff all competition. If we're to expect that competition reduces the prices and increases quality of goods, I think that's fair enough. Oversimplifying? Yes. It's a complicated subject and I can only follow my rule of "bigger, less protection and smaller, more protection". Otherwise I have to leave it to someone who deals with this everyday.

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Sure, but that's a dangerous precedent to set. I think government regulating a specific profit margin is a dangerous game to play.

 

Sure, in very specific circumstances, it might be prudent (or even necessary) for a market to operate fairly.

 

But here? Why let government force a set profit margin on replacement batteries? What's next? Forcing profit margins on the whole phone?

Monopoly. There is no competition/economy openness if the battery is impossible for third parties to make/replace (even if you own the chemical tech, putting in a lesser battery should be possible, everything is just voltage/amps out etc).

 

Thus, the pushing and pulling between the two options, complete control, or complete freedom.

 

PS, similar to what MR Moose said. Even if Apple own the patent on iPhone screens, how and why should they stop a third company making patterned/similar/fitting screens that use a different tech/process/factory from working/being installed/being repaired? I agree there are times when Apples IP is stolen/trademark used when not owned/etc. But other times Apple comes down as a ton of bricks on those doing the right thing (other companies are available as examples of this too  ).

[kaiju_wars]

On 2/28/2020 at 12:37 PM, dalekphalm said:

While I get the intention of a law like this, frankly, any user now-a-days who wants to replace their battery (whether it's "user removable" or not), can.

 

Even with iPhones. Hell, if you live in the US, Apple will replace the battery for you for $49 USD (for most models - the X/11 series both cost more at $69 USD). That includes their labour to do the swap in an Apple Store.

 

Most phone repair shops (basically any mall) may even do it for less.

 

Or you could do it yourself. It's not that difficult.

 

Point being is that the vast majority of people are not going to bother buying a new battery, even if they can just take the back cover off. If they want to go down that route, it's already relatively inexpensive to do.

 

TL;DR, I highly doubt this will actually reduce e-waste to any significant degree.

Speaking on this, (though a few days late).  My mom replaced the battery on her old 6 Plus by herself.  She can barely use her PC (even though she games on it, funnily enough).  She can't figure out how to use a 3DS to play Animal Crossing, but she was able to replace the battery on her old iPhone.  

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, kaiju_wars said:

Speaking on this, (though a few days late).  My mom replaced the battery on her old 6 Plus by herself.  She can barely use her PC (even though she games on it, funnily enough).  She can't figure out how to use a 3DS to play Animal Crossing, but she was able to replace the battery on her old iPhone.  

I'm not sure that's still the case though. Are the latest ones not glued together? And don't get me started on the welded in camera on the 10/11!!! 

For anyone saying "that's easy", well, my note 3 has something for you:

 

 

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

I'm not sure that's still the case though. Are the latest ones not glued together? And don't get me started on the welded in camera on the 10/11!!! 

For anyone saying "that's easy", well, my note 3 has something for you:

 

 

The later iPhones, from 7 onwards, do have a seal stuck in place that makes opening them harder but it is still not too hard. You can buy replacement seals but I would not rely on the water sealing afterwards.

 

The batteries themselves have two clever strips that bond it to the frame.You cannot pull the battery off the frame as it seems, and effectively is, glued on. Pull the glue strips and the stretch out releasing the battery. From then on the replacement is simple, as long as you have the right screwdriver and good eyesight to see the screws. 

 

One thing of not, if you do replace the battery in an iPhone, at least here in the UK you cannot then use that phone as a trade in on a new one via the apple trade in scheme.

[tridy]

As about whether it is easy or hard, anything that involves a heat gun, adhesive and glass is NOT easy! While trying to change the battery, one is risking breaking the glass, especially when doing it for the first time.

 

The prices for Apple services when changing the batteries is quite higher in Sweden, for instance.

 

Has the world changed and it is possible to officially buy a battery for iPhone (or any Apple spare part)? Wouldn't that be the step 1?

[Donut417]

1 minute ago, tridy said:

Has the world changed and it is possible to officially buy a battery for iPhone (or any Apple spare part)?

No and thats not likely to happen. 

[Guest]

On 2/29/2020 at 9:45 AM, mr moose said:

Why is everyone so overcome by the need to have their phone water proof?  I mean how many people really need to go swimming with their phone?  Watches I can understand, but for majority of people a normal ip5 rated phone is more than fine. 

Apparently, just a few years back one big retailer was rejecting over 90% of warranty claims due to "water damage". It got to the point where sweat would change the colour of those silly indicator dots. 

 

I had one rejected for just that, but a drop of bleach on the dot and a visit to a different store fixed that.

 

There is also quite a hign number of mobile phones dropped down the bog. I suppose that is a reason people like the thought of waterproofing. Whether that covers urine in the mouthpiece I am not so sure...

[dalekphalm]

16 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

The problem with equating BMW and Toyota to Apple is that Toyota and BMW are effectively forced, at least in the US, to allow licensing of various parts for OEM and non-OEM manufacturers to produce specific parts for the allotted life time (10 years). Apple does not allow that, and even when batteries are mailed without trademarks they call on Customs to seize those shipments and destroy them. 

I don't actually think what you're saying is correct. At least, not entirely.

 

First and foremost, in the US (various states aside), there is no law stipulating that something must have a warranty. However, if it does have a warranty, it must abide by certain basics.

 

One of those basics is that a car manufacturer must provide spare parts for a period up to the end of the warranty period. That's important - this 10 year figure keeps getting tossed about a lot, but there's no basis to it that I can find.

 

Most cars come with a 4 or 5 year warranty (extended warranties also exist, but I'm curious as to how that affects things - and even in that case, most extended warranties don't go beyond 7 or 8 years max).

 

And lastly, I cannot find any source that says Toyota and BMW are "effectively forced" to allow licensing to various parts. They don't have to do any such thing - Tesla is an example of this. They simply have to provide spare parts for a certain period - they can make them themselves if they so wish, or they can license those parts out.

 

Due to the nature of the Car Repair industry, most manufactures license parts out simply because it's easier for them to do that. There's no legal requirement though, as far as I can tell.

 

Source:

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/14049/are-auto-manufacturers-required-under-us-federal-law-to-provide-parts-for-a-set

16 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Edit: I don't know who would be responsible for the margin agreement, but it would make more sense than having only Apple selling the battery for the cost of a new phone. 

Apple does not sell the battery for the cost of a new phone though - granted, they only "sell" the battery if you also buy the service - but the service (which includes the battery) is under $100.

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Monopoly. There is no competition/economy openness if the battery is impossible for third parties to make/replace (even if you own the chemical tech, putting in a lesser battery should be possible, everything is just voltage/amps out etc).

Does this matter though? There's competition in the phone itself - you can decide to buy a different smartphone entirely, one that includes vast and cheap accessibility to spare parts.

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Thus, the pushing and pulling between the two options, complete control, or complete freedom.

 

PS, similar to what MR Moose said. Even if Apple own the patent on iPhone screens, how and why should they stop a third company making patterned/similar/fitting screens that use a different tech/process/factory from working/being installed/being repaired? I agree there are times when Apples IP is stolen/trademark used when not owned/etc. But other times Apple comes down as a ton of bricks on those doing the right thing (other companies are available as examples of this too  ).

I wouldn't be opposed to having the EU force licensing for stuff like the battery and screen - or explicitly allow generic third party parts that are compatible so long as they don't violate any IP.

 

For example: Putting in a shittier third party screen should be okay, so long as that screen doesn't violate Apple's IP.

5 hours ago, tridy said:

As about whether it is easy or hard, anything that involves a heat gun, adhesive and glass is NOT easy! While trying to change the battery, one is risking breaking the glass, especially when doing it for the first time.

 

The prices for Apple services when changing the batteries is quite higher in Sweden, for instance.

I checked it out, and "quite higher" is a bit of a stretch.

For older devices: 579 Kr = $60.87 USD - that's about $10 USD higher than the US Market

Newer devices: 819 Kr = $86.07 USD - that's about $17 USD higher.

I assume both of the Kr figures already include VAT, which actually makes it extremely comparable to USD pricing, once you factor in any sales tax (remember, in US and Canada, the price you see is always before taxes).

5 hours ago, tridy said:

Has the world changed and it is possible to officially buy a battery for iPhone (or any Apple spare part)? Wouldn't that be the step 1?

No, you cannot buy spare parts for most Apple devices - though in the case of the battery, you can get Battery Service which includes the battery.

[RonnieOP]

6 hours ago, tridy said:

As about whether it is easy or hard, anything that involves a heat gun, adhesive and glass is NOT easy! While trying to change the battery, one is risking breaking the glass, especially when doing it for the first time.

 

The prices for Apple services when changing the batteries is quite higher in Sweden, for instance.

 

Has the world changed and it is possible to officially buy a battery for iPhone (or any Apple spare part)? Wouldn't that be the step 1?

Your risking breaking the glass everytime you hold the phone in your hand.

 

On a lot of phone taking off the back glass is pretty simple. Use a heat gun and a guitar pick and take your time.

 

Its like building a pc. It looks a lot harder then it actually is.

 

 

[tridy]

20 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I assume both of the Kr figures already include VAT, which actually makes it extremely comparable to USD pricing, once you factor in any sales tax (remember, in US and Canada, the price you see is always before taxes).

You are right. Including tax, they are comparable. I forgot about "before the taxes".

[dalekphalm]

Just now, tridy said:

You are right. Including tax, they are comparable. I forgot about "before the taxes".

It's a rather deceptive thing about North American pricing. It makes everything USD, in particular, look cheaper than it really is.

 

Granted, some US States don't have sales tax, and as far as I'm aware, there isn't a Federal sales tax. So most states will have a tax that is far less than 20% VAT, and some will even have none at all.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Phill104 said:

Apparently, just a few years back one big retailer was rejecting over 90% of warranty claims due to "water damage". It got to the point where sweat would change the colour of those silly indicator dots. 

 

I had one rejected for just that, but a drop of bleach on the dot and a visit to a different store fixed that.

 

There is also quite a hign number of mobile phones dropped down the bog. I suppose that is a reason people like the thought of waterproofing. Whether that covers urine in the mouthpiece I am not so sure...

That is a consumer law issue.   Those wet indicators have been proven to be change color due to moisture in the air and they know it.   I'd like to see the statistics on the number of phones dropped in toilets.   What's a high number for that?

 

[FakeCIA]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That is a consumer law issue.   Those wet indicators have been proven to be change color due to moisture in the air and they know it.   I'd like to see the statistics on the number of phones dropped in toilets.   What's a high number for that?

 

I'm proud to say I have never dropped my phone in a toilet.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, FakeCIA said:

I'm proud to say I have never dropped my phone in a toilet.

I've had a few close calls, where my phone was in a loose sweater pocket and fell *almost* into the toilet, but never actually dunked it.

 

I do drop mine all the time, but it's in a case and has a tempered glass screen protector, so I've never broken a phone due to dropping it.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, FakeCIA said:

I'm proud to say I have never dropped my phone in a toilet.

Neither have I,   I did speak to a phone insurance rep who told me once they hear that a lot,  but it's because the insurance will pay for a phone dropped in a toilet and not for a phone left on a car roof.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Neither have I,   I did speak to a phone insurance rep who told me once they hear that a lot,  but it's because the insurance will pay for a phone dropped in a toilet and not for a phone left on a car roof.

Both my wife and one of my daughters has done it. In fact that daughter has done it a few times as well as broken around 11 screens (which is why I got adept at changing them) but I do forgive here as she ahead absence seizures. She has now grown out of that so the drops have stopped. A few at were have had toilet damage too. I do wonder what the real stats are.

 

I do agree on the dots hence me calling them silly. They became an excuse more than anything for a few years.

[Donut417]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

And lastly, I cannot find any source that says Toyota and BMW are "effectively forced" to allow licensing to various parts.

No one is forced. Because I have had car issues before where the part from the manufacture was the only part available. As in no 3rd party parts existed. 

[dalekphalm]

7 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

No one is forced. Because I have had car issues before where the part from the manufacture was the only part available. As in no 3rd party parts existed. 

I agree that no one is forced. But that's not what @ARikozuM was claiming. He said that OEM's were effectively forced to license to third party parts manufacturers - this is not true as far as I can tell.