Smartphone makers don't bother to comply with EU repairability requirements

I'm not here with a silver bullet or anything, but I'd say the EU's energy efficiency labeling works well and has a fairly low level of being gamed/falsified.

I don't think there's any big reason why the EU couldn't enforce labeling of a similar kind to IFixit's repair-ability scoring[0] for set devices.

On a separate note, the article mentions the lousy attempts some smart phone makers are guilty of with regards to repair instructions:

> Some records even refer customers to Temu or AliExpress for spare parts and repair instructions.

There are at least a lot less smart phone manufacturers than restaurants and cafes (comparing to scores on the doors) - if the EU really wanted to, it wouldn't be a huge resource to produce clear guidance on what expectations are for smart phone spare part provision, and issue fines whenever they're violated (you might think is a bad idea, and too much regulation, but my point is just that it's at least feasible)

[0] https://www.ifixit.com/repairability/smartphone-repairabilit...

Guess that's why the new refits have a giant wall to stop you seeing into the kitchen.

> I'm not sure how to translate this to the smartphone market though

Me neither, The pre-existing ways are independent lab testing ( euro-ncap for cars, or ifixit) or the "you have to pay for testing" like for large white goods. None of those work if they are not enforced though....

In mono/oligo-poly situations there's no really such a thing as "a really hefty fine". Either the cost will be happily trickled to the very public that are being wronged or the fine is effectively unsurvivably hefty, which noone would levy against a too-big-to-fail entity.

Look at the recent fine for Meta for example. Settling a case against one of the core monopolic drivers for a couple percentage points of early revenue is peanuts. I can't believe the exec suite[-s] are thinking anything else than "which anti-consumer behavior can we buy indulgence for?", they would be stupid not to at these discounted rates.

I'm half joking here, but at this point it feels like the only reasonable way to instill some fear against building Torment Nexus and cyberpunk dystopia would be personal criminal liability of the boards and exec suites that is impossible to settle.

I'm not sure how the Scores on the Doors website, which is at least related to TripAdvisor, fits into all of this...

> Some records even refer customers to Temu or AliExpress for spare parts and repair instructions.

> But even for products that are technically compliant, the listed weblink still rarely offers a direct path to parts prices. For major brands such as Apple and Samsung, it can take some clicking around before you find what you need, Right to Repair says.

As an example of sanctions both quick and accurate, X in Brazil. All ISPs blocked it and it was a crime to use X until Elon complied. Of course many people still accessed X through VPNs, but public figures couldn't because they'd be charged.

However, basically the same mechanism lets Spain block Cloudflare on Saturdays, which is bad. Even though I hate Cloudflare, that's worse.

However for point one, the samples I saw were a picture of a minor posted by a minor in a normal situation. Someone would say @grok show me her in a bikini.

for point 2, this is not born out by the examples that I saw.

The bigger point here is that under UK law, there is little distinction between "real" and "fake". Any depiction of a minor engaged in sexual activities is illegal. This was to get round the "oh its photoshoped" defence. In the USA is different, but I have no experience on that point.

The only reason why I know is because a member of staff at a previous company was found to be using his workstation to store and distribute anime shit that depicted this stuff, and the company legal advice was "oh wow you are totally fucked." It was a huge faff to deal with and posed huge risks to everyone involved.

(Depending on your local jurisdiction. But GP said "Online Safety Act" so I'm making an assumption).

Minors were involved and people were generating sexually charged images ("donut glaze" etc). This is why other countries, like South Korea, also went after X under deepfake related regulations.

The company that looks like a medieval food shop with meat warming in the sun and a big sign that says "caveat emptor" and manned by a slave with very dirty hands. The fact that it still operates in the EU is prove that more tough punishments are needed for corporations that push fraud, dangerous products, abuse of monopolistic position, etc. Amazon in a nutshell.

> will it cost me more to comply, or more to ignore?

Is an (unfortunately) American view of things. The vast majority of European businesses I’ve worked with attempt to comply with the _spirit_ of the laws, while my experience with most American companies is they try to skirt the letter of the law to do whatever the hell they want.

I’m not saying one is better, or that all companies in both places are like that. But it rings true in my experience.

I personally happily followed GDPR rules, so did many others. Making it generally a better place. That wasn't because of fines but because we now had a framework to follow to make the world a safer place.

God I wish.

However when your battery is old, and drains fast, it's really nice to be able to order a new one and easily change it by removing 4 screws.

Not having to perform surgery on your phone, heating it to remove glue, etc.

If there is a market for spare batteries, there might be a market for external battery chargers as well > swap battery in the morning instead of charging, place empty battery on charger, repeat the next day

Both types of products from them were recalled after about a month for being fire hazards.

I imagine it's not universal but it really made me question the product category.

> I have no idea why we can’t do this now

For better worse I think the answer is quite simple - a combo of ease of manufacturing, a long term trend of slimmer devices that is broadly supported by customer behaviour, and an extra place to suggest a device upgrade instead of a repair. You’re more than able to get pretty much any smartphone battery replaced with a manufacturer similar spec these days, and people still choose not to do so.

Power density and all of the problems that are fallout from high power density. A modern LiPoly battery contains a lot of energy. It's stored in a chemical that is highly reactive with oxygen, which you happen to be surrounded by at the moment.

Watch some videos on lithium battery fires. Not only do they have extremely hot flames but they spray out molten bits of battery and can't be extinguished with water.

To make a LiPoly battery that can be safely handled by normal people it needs a strong outer casing. A sealed battery in a phone uses the phone's case itself as the battery's protective casing. A user replaceable battery would need its own strong case. The phone then needs to be larger to accommodate the extra volume or have a smaller battery which stores less power than a sealed battery of equivalent volume.

The market has rewarded thinner phones with long lifetimes but also high performance. That triple point is challenging if not impossible to hit without sealed batteries.

Being in favour of the GDPR will bring out downvotes and FUD from the people whose very salaries are dependent on invading your privacy.

- Regulations are binding acts for all member-countries.

- Directives are goals the union should achieve, but actual execution including laws is up to the local countries.

The handicap comes when important actions like this repairability target are defined as a DIRECTIVE, leaving it up to the local country (and all its lobbying influences) to set up the corresponding laws and governance.

This inevitably leads to delays and fragmentation, tainting the result