Inside of a smartphone and its battery
Photo: Unsplash

According to Android Authority, the European Council agreed to make official the new regulation requiring all smartphones sold in the EU to have replaceable batteries by 2027. Once Parliament approves and signs alongside the European Council, no manufacturer will be allowed to sell mobile phones unless they have a set of batteries that can be removed and replaced.

The article explains, “This new law states, specifically, that users should be able to replace a battery in their phone without any special expertise or tools. Being that almost all smartphones today are designed like a ‘glass sandwich’ that relies on extensive use of adhesives, the very fundamentals of how companies design phones will need to change.”

What does this mean for the United States and the rest of the world? We won’t know for sure until the change starts taking place, but it seems highly likely this will affect all mobile technology product lines across the globe.

Unless Apple, for example, is willing to split their iPhones and iPads into specific “EU Models” with replaceable batteries, all of their products will soon be forced to comply with this involuntary redesign.

The reason for this law is “to create a circular economy for batteries. A ‘circular economy’ refers to a manufacturing model in which the resources put into it are recycled or reused as much as possible. In a perfect world, the resources needed to create a smartphone would be sourced 100% from older smartphones, so nothing new would ever need to be used. Obviously, the 100% figure would be practically impossible, but getting much closer to 100% is a very realistic goal.”

Other rules contained in this new law will require these additional changes by 2027:

  • OEMs must collect 63% of portable batteries that would go to a landfill.
  • Lithium waste recovery should be at 50% initially, and later at 80% by 2031.
  • Industrial, SLI, and EV batteries have to be made up of certain percentages of recycled content. 
  • Nickel-cadmium batteries must have a recycling efficiency target of 80% by 2025, while other batteries will need to be at 50%.

In a discussion of smartphones’ impact on the planet, ZDNET said, “All these smartphones generate 146 million tons of CO2 or equivalent emissions (CO2e), Deloitte’s Technology, Media, and Telecommunications division estimated in its comprehensive TMT Predictions 2022 report. Meanwhile, the internal components of smartphones can be made of toxic metals, making them difficult to safely dispose of.”

Companies like Apple began ditching removable batteries in favor of waterproofing and manufacturing lighter, more compact designs, according to TechEngage. 

Mashable points out that while Android decided to distinguish itself from Apple by providing removable batteries, that has long since changed. Furthermore, removable batteries have been a reason for design limitations like the need to use cheaper plastic materials as opposed to metal and glass. 

MakeUseOf explains that batteries are still dangerous and pose a risk of fire and explosion after overheating. As a result, manufacturers created a smartphone’s chassis design to be a barrier of protection.

It’s safe to assume that smartphone manufacturers can’t be too happy about this development in the EU. Everything from IP68 waterproof ratings to thin, sleek, and premium-feeling designs will be disrupted. Or, this might be the catalyst that sparks a new revolution in smart device designs.

BrainTrust

“Hopefully, manufacturers can recommend a better solution to achieve the intended objectives that doesn’t compromise the design of phones. Let’s not go backwards on innovation.”

David Naumann

Marketing Strategy Lead – Retail, Travel & Distribution, Verizon


Discussion Questions

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: Do you think this is the right move to help increase the sustainability factor of smart devices? How do you think major smartphone companies will handle this new development?

Poll

What type of battery do you prefer for your smartphone?

View Results

Loading ... Loading …

Leave a Reply

21 responses to “Smartphone Design Devolving Due to Replaceable Batteries?”

  1. Lucille DeHart Avatar
    Lucille DeHart

    The impact remains to be seen. As with most initiatives, the consumer will vote with their wallets. If the removable battery is cost neutral and makes economic sense for the mobile companies and is good for the environment, that would be a win-win-win. But if it is only an environmental move and other variables have not been addressed, such as cost, longevity, profit impact, it may be premature.

  2. Bob Amster Avatar
    Bob Amster

    While the ecological intent is a noble one, the practical aspects are a big question. There are many pros for maintaining the current design, all pointed out in the article. But there are also some negative outcomes such as weight, waterproofing, durability of the rest of the device and more. Wait and see what the creative minds in this field invent to counter the negative consequences in favor of a mostly recyclable device.

    1. David Naumann Avatar
      David Naumann

      It seems a bit restrictive to require device designs for consumers to remove the battery to improve the compliance with recycling and reusing batteries. Most consumers trade-in their old phones and the retailers are probably more likely to recycle the battery than relying on consumers for recycling. Hopefully, manufacturers can recommend a better solution to achieve the intended objectives that doesn’t compromise the design of phones. Let’s not go backwards on innovation.

  3. Neil Saunders Avatar
    Neil Saunders

    No, this is not right. Other than on ground of critical safety, it is not the job of government to dictate to manufactures how they need to make phones – or, indeed, any other device. Unfortunately, the European Union is inherently interventionist and has a habit of interference in all kinds of areas. The net result will be less innovation, worse design, and probably higher costs as companies have to adjust to new rules. Over the past 10 years, companies like Apple have transformed all our lives for the better – they did it without the help of politicians poking their noses in!

    1. Ryan Mathews Avatar
      Ryan Mathews

      Neil,

      Ensuring a sustainable environment IS a matter of critical safety. If we don’t do that everything is else is moot.

      If the history of commerce teaches us anything it is that businesses rarely voluntarily mitigate environmental damage unless it gets in the way of increasing profitability and generally only responds to environmental challenges when forced to by consumers, the media, regulation, or legislation.

      Digital devices have increased global greenhouse gas emissions by almost four percent and that’s not beginning to take into account tangential environmental damage. So, if government doesn’t step in then where is the incentive to change?

      As for the argument that disposable batteries – which phones all originally had – will stifle innovation and set design back a century or two, I think that’s fairly unlikely. I can see it now, “Apple iPhone 345 — the Save the Planet Model available for preorder. Just $1,900 to keep you in touch with a sustainable world.”

      1. Neil Saunders Avatar
        Neil Saunders

        I disagree, Ryan. There is far too much legislation that is passed under the auspices of protecting the environment. Not all of it is necessary and much is heavy-handed and badly thought through. This case is a prime example. Most people don’t upgrade phones because the battery fails, they do so because they want a new model. So, this law doesn’t and won’t reduce consumption levels. If a battery does fail it can already be replaced albeit, in the case of Apple, with either specialist tools or by taking it to a store. That might be a bit of a hassle, but the reason for this is because Apple has determined that people value things like a a thin profile and waterproofing, etc. – which required a closed unit – over being able to replace the battery. And when it comes to recycling and reducing environment impact, Apple is already doing a lot including using parts from old phones, disposing of batteries in a sustainable way, etc. Of course, this raises another question: if people are able to easily replace phone batteries themselves, how many will end up in general trash rather than being properly disposed of and how will that impact the environment?

      2. Ryan Mathews Avatar
        Ryan Mathews

        Well, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree about whether or not there is “far too much” environmental protection legislation, especially if we are talking about effective legislation. The world is facing a – quite literally – existential environmental crisis today, one that is on track to make a significant part of the world dangerous to live in if not in our lifetimes surely in the lifetimes of our children. Obviously, one can’t know an unknowable, but there are at least two sides to the argument around battery styles and purchase behavior. It really comes down to marketing. If, say Apple, were to tout a new higher-priced model with a replaceable battery as “Earth Friendly” and encourage consumers to hold on to their phones for, say, three years, purchases might decrease without necessarily impacting margins and overall brand loyalty might increase. We simply don’t know. As to the battery disposal problem which – as you correctly note is a huge problem already. But, whether I dispose of one phone and two replaceable batteries every three or four years or two phones, each with one permanent battery, over the same period of time, the number of batteries going into say a landfill is the same.

      3. Neil Saunders Avatar
        Neil Saunders

        Yes, we shall have to agree to respectfully disagree. I am not opposed to environmental measures, but they need to be well thought through and credible. This one, in my view, is not: it’s an example of politicians doing something to be seen to do something, and to the detriment of consumers. If phone over-consumption is an issue, then batteries are really not the cause of it. It mostly comes down to companies launching new devices each year and encouraging consumers to upgrade. And I am not sure that regulating that in and of itself is possible or desirable as it would involve some extremely onerous government intervention.

  4. John Lietsch Avatar
    John Lietsch

    I’m not sure that this is the right move to increase the sustainability factor of smart devices because I don’t have the data that supports that a majority or a significant portion of new phones are purchased because of a battery failure. In fact, I believe most owners of cell phones in the United States own their cell phones for less than three years suggesting that there are other reasons people switch phones (like hype or new features). But maybe there’s other elements in this regulation about buying new clothes or car leasing or buying cars that weigh more than 3,000 lbs. (like Teslas). We should all be thinking “sustainable thoughts” and replaceable batteries is a good idea but I don’t think it’s a game changer.

  5. Keith Anderson Avatar
    Keith Anderson

    When thoughtfully designed, regulations like this can improve outcomes for both consumers and manufacturers. Europe is moving much faster than most parts of the world on regulation in areas like circularity, emissions reporting and disclosure, product labeling, and related areas.

    In many areas, more regulation is inevitable as industry hustles to decarbonize. Brands should should be active participants in providing input before rules are finalized, and ultimately need to find ways to adapt to change in the most commercially and operationally viable ways.

  6. Gary Sankary Avatar
    Gary Sankary

    There is a growing movement around the “right to repair.” As consumers become more concerned about the impact on the environment of the products they purchase, the ability to repair, extend, and reuse products is getting more traction. Sometimes, government regulations are needed to nudge businesses to do the right thing. Given decades of deliberate designs to force customers to buy new phones rather than be able to repair their existing devices, it is great for the bottom line but not so great for consumers and the environment. The EU has been very responsive to consumer protections and creating regulations to support environmental responsibility for companies doing business within their borders. Here in the US, politics and lobbyists will determine if we take similar actions to protect consumers.

  7. Shelley E. Kohan Avatar
    Shelley E. Kohan

    These new regulations will prompt major smartphone companies to innovate better solutions and fuel efforts to work towards a more circular economy. The larger positive impact on the environment should be considered and if we do not allow some government regulation; the impact could be dire. Hot off the press, A.I. companies in the U.S. have agreed to put safeguards around generative AI technology developments. Legal and regulatory frameworks can be positive and protect consumers and the environment. Simply put, new regulations promote further innovations.

  8. Ryan Mathews Avatar
    Ryan Mathews

    It is “a” move to help mitigate the environmental damage created by smart phones. Full stop. This does not, as the question suggests, impact all smart devices – just mobile phones.

    The fact is that, in toto, the Digital Age is an environmental nightmare from the amount of energy used to mine cryptocurrency to what some call the world’s collective digital carbon footprint [increase in greenhouse gas emissions] now calculated at ~4% and rising. And, that’s not even addressing the negative environmental impacts associated with natural resource depletion or the non-biodegradable materials, toxins, and heavy metals, used in the production of digital devices.

    Of course there are also some environmental offsets, but the point is the manufacturers of these devices are aware of all this and still eliminated replaceable batteries.

    As for the endgame, there is bound to be a good deal of negotiation around the implementation of these new rules, but it’s likely that compliance to global standards will likely prove the only path open to manufacturers.

    What any of this has to do with the headline is beyond me. Nobody is seriously suggesting that mobile telephony has to devolve to accommodate replaceable batteries.

    1. Neil Saunders Avatar
      Neil Saunders

      If we’re looking at carbon footprints, you might want to ask the European Union why they still insist on having its parliament switch between Strasbourg and Brussels on a regular basis, while most parliamentary staff are based in Luxembourg. All that travel. All that carbon. All that cost. Maybe they’re planning to offset it by telling us all what type of phones we must have…

      1. Ryan Mathews Avatar
        Ryan Mathews

        Neil,

        What can I say? One wrong doesn’t negate one right.

        Yes the EU, and every other governmental body on Earth, burns more resources than it should. It’s just like all those executives who fly private jets in and out of Davos so they can discuss sustainability at the World Economic Forum.

        If you are arguing that people and governing bodies are guilty of rank hypocrisy, you certainly won’t get any argument from me.

  9. Peter Charness Avatar
    Peter Charness

    80% of batteries recycled by 2031? I’d be curious to know what the current rate of recycle is for all the batteries in devices that are replaceable today. I am rather skeptical that of all cellphones that are eventually bought with replaceable batteries, what percent will actually ever be “replaced” and of that segment, how many of those old batteries will eventually be properly disposed of to permit recycling.

    1. Ryan Mathews Avatar
      Ryan Mathews

      Charles,

      While precise numbers are hard to pin down, most estimated agree that globally, only five percent (yes, only 5%) of batteries are recycled. Obviously moving from ~5% to 80% in roughly eight years is a pretty aggressive goal.

  10. Craig Sundstrom Avatar
    Craig Sundstrom

    I think this article could have benefitted a lot from actually asking manufactures what they thought of it, and what their plan were…as opposed to taking the “safe” route of assuming. Certainly the tone here was negative, those dumb bureacrats! – and that may well be a consensus view, but it would be great to hear the Other Side. I’m certainly no expert, so I’m not going to add to the ignorance by offering my opinion on the merits, or lack of same, of the move.

    1. Ryan Mathews Avatar
      Ryan Mathews

      Craig,

      I agree, especially about the fashionably facile de facto default of, “those dumb bureaucrats,” or, “Regulation bad. Free market good.”

      This is a complex problem that extends way beyond the battery itself. Deserves much more fact, and much less assumption.

      1. Craig Sundstrom Avatar
        Craig Sundstrom

        Thanks Ryan,
        I often cringe when this panel of experts – whose expertise is related to sales/marketing – is asked to evaluate matters that mostly draw from law and/or science…frequently with little more to go on than the material provided in the post (OTOH we can’t just live on Amazon threads alone!)
        To be fair to Mr. Limmer, I think he made some effort at balance but I still felt like I was reading one of those old Caterpillar ads, where the opposition got one or two sentences, while the sales pitch got a hundred.

  11. Ricardo Belmar Avatar
    Ricardo Belmar

    I thought the EU’s move to enforce USB-C ports on all mobile devices and thus lock consumers into a design that now cannot be innovated without EU regulators approving was sheer insanity – this now takes the prize! Dictating such a core design element in the design of smartphones negates all the progress manufacturers have made in innovating to deliver better overall products over time for consumers. Yes, it is important that we take action to improve the sustainability of products, but this is not the way. Design should be left to the designers, not the legislators who have zero expertise in such matters. I suppose the EU will now decide to tell the fashion industry which fabrics they are permitted to use and in what quantities in each piece of apparel they produce in the name of sustainability. Could that have a positive effect on the environment, sure, it might. But is it the best way to do so? Definitely not.

    Can manufacturers find ways to adopt a removable battery design (which of course implies the use if added materials in the overall design of the phone to house a removable part, not very sustainable) that overcomes the limitations in previous designs that led them to integrate fixed batteries. Probably, given enough time, but at unknown cost. Can they do it by the arbitrary deadline imposed by the EU? We shall see, but I sincerely doubt it. It’s too severe a shift so I expect we will see manufactures produce EU versions of products for a period of time resulting in inferior designs for EU residents. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate action despite the noble cause used to justify it.

21 Comments
oldest
newest
Lucille DeHart
Lucille DeHart
20 days ago

The impact remains to be seen. As with most initiatives, the consumer will vote with their wallets. If the removable battery is cost neutral and makes economic sense for the mobile companies and is good for the environment, that would be a win-win-win. But if it is only an environmental move and other variables have not been addressed, such as cost, longevity, profit impact, it may be premature.

Bob Amster
Bob Amster
20 days ago

While the ecological intent is a noble one, the practical aspects are a big question. There are many pros for maintaining the current design, all pointed out in the article. But there are also some negative outcomes such as weight, waterproofing, durability of the rest of the device and more. Wait and see what the creative minds in this field invent to counter the negative consequences in favor of a mostly recyclable device.

David Naumann
David Naumann
  Bob Amster
20 days ago

It seems a bit restrictive to require device designs for consumers to remove the battery to improve the compliance with recycling and reusing batteries. Most consumers trade-in their old phones and the retailers are probably more likely to recycle the battery than relying on consumers for recycling. Hopefully, manufacturers can recommend a better solution to achieve the intended objectives that doesn’t compromise the design of phones. Let’s not go backwards on innovation.

Neil Saunders
Neil Saunders
20 days ago

No, this is not right. Other than on ground of critical safety, it is not the job of government to dictate to manufactures how they need to make phones – or, indeed, any other device. Unfortunately, the European Union is inherently interventionist and has a habit of interference in all kinds of areas. The net result will be less innovation, worse design, and probably higher costs as companies have to adjust to new rules. Over the past 10 years, companies like Apple have transformed all our lives for the better – they did it without the help of politicians poking their noses in!

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
  Neil Saunders
20 days ago

Neil,

Ensuring a sustainable environment IS a matter of critical safety. If we don’t do that everything is else is moot.

If the history of commerce teaches us anything it is that businesses rarely voluntarily mitigate environmental damage unless it gets in the way of increasing profitability and generally only responds to environmental challenges when forced to by consumers, the media, regulation, or legislation.

Digital devices have increased global greenhouse gas emissions by almost four percent and that’s not beginning to take into account tangential environmental damage. So, if government doesn’t step in then where is the incentive to change?

As for the argument that disposable batteries – which phones all originally had – will stifle innovation and set design back a century or two, I think that’s fairly unlikely. I can see it now, “Apple iPhone 345 — the Save the Planet Model available for preorder. Just $1,900 to keep you in touch with a sustainable world.”

Neil Saunders
Neil Saunders
  Ryan Mathews
20 days ago

I disagree, Ryan. There is far too much legislation that is passed under the auspices of protecting the environment. Not all of it is necessary and much is heavy-handed and badly thought through. This case is a prime example. Most people don’t upgrade phones because the battery fails, they do so because they want a new model. So, this law doesn’t and won’t reduce consumption levels. If a battery does fail it can already be replaced albeit, in the case of Apple, with either specialist tools or by taking it to a store. That might be a bit of a hassle, but the reason for this is because Apple has determined that people value things like a a thin profile and waterproofing, etc. – which required a closed unit – over being able to replace the battery. And when it comes to recycling and reducing environment impact, Apple is already doing a lot including using parts from old phones, disposing of batteries in a sustainable way, etc. Of course, this raises another question: if people are able to easily replace phone batteries themselves, how many will end up in general trash rather than being properly disposed of and how will that impact the environment?

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
  Neil Saunders
20 days ago

Well, we will have to respectfully agree to disagree about whether or not there is “far too much” environmental protection legislation, especially if we are talking about effective legislation. The world is facing a – quite literally – existential environmental crisis today, one that is on track to make a significant part of the world dangerous to live in if not in our lifetimes surely in the lifetimes of our children. Obviously, one can’t know an unknowable, but there are at least two sides to the argument around battery styles and purchase behavior. It really comes down to marketing. If, say Apple, were to tout a new higher-priced model with a replaceable battery as “Earth Friendly” and encourage consumers to hold on to their phones for, say, three years, purchases might decrease without necessarily impacting margins and overall brand loyalty might increase. We simply don’t know. As to the battery disposal problem which – as you correctly note is a huge problem already. But, whether I dispose of one phone and two replaceable batteries every three or four years or two phones, each with one permanent battery, over the same period of time, the number of batteries going into say a landfill is the same.

Neil Saunders
Neil Saunders
  Ryan Mathews
20 days ago

Yes, we shall have to agree to respectfully disagree. I am not opposed to environmental measures, but they need to be well thought through and credible. This one, in my view, is not: it’s an example of politicians doing something to be seen to do something, and to the detriment of consumers. If phone over-consumption is an issue, then batteries are really not the cause of it. It mostly comes down to companies launching new devices each year and encouraging consumers to upgrade. And I am not sure that regulating that in and of itself is possible or desirable as it would involve some extremely onerous government intervention.

John Lietsch
John Lietsch
20 days ago

I’m not sure that this is the right move to increase the sustainability factor of smart devices because I don’t have the data that supports that a majority or a significant portion of new phones are purchased because of a battery failure. In fact, I believe most owners of cell phones in the United States own their cell phones for less than three years suggesting that there are other reasons people switch phones (like hype or new features). But maybe there’s other elements in this regulation about buying new clothes or car leasing or buying cars that weigh more than 3,000 lbs. (like Teslas). We should all be thinking “sustainable thoughts” and replaceable batteries is a good idea but I don’t think it’s a game changer.

Keith Anderson
Keith Anderson
20 days ago

When thoughtfully designed, regulations like this can improve outcomes for both consumers and manufacturers. Europe is moving much faster than most parts of the world on regulation in areas like circularity, emissions reporting and disclosure, product labeling, and related areas.

In many areas, more regulation is inevitable as industry hustles to decarbonize. Brands should should be active participants in providing input before rules are finalized, and ultimately need to find ways to adapt to change in the most commercially and operationally viable ways.

Gary Sankary
Gary Sankary
20 days ago

There is a growing movement around the “right to repair.” As consumers become more concerned about the impact on the environment of the products they purchase, the ability to repair, extend, and reuse products is getting more traction. Sometimes, government regulations are needed to nudge businesses to do the right thing. Given decades of deliberate designs to force customers to buy new phones rather than be able to repair their existing devices, it is great for the bottom line but not so great for consumers and the environment. The EU has been very responsive to consumer protections and creating regulations to support environmental responsibility for companies doing business within their borders. Here in the US, politics and lobbyists will determine if we take similar actions to protect consumers.

Shelley E. Kohan
Shelley E. Kohan
20 days ago

These new regulations will prompt major smartphone companies to innovate better solutions and fuel efforts to work towards a more circular economy. The larger positive impact on the environment should be considered and if we do not allow some government regulation; the impact could be dire. Hot off the press, A.I. companies in the U.S. have agreed to put safeguards around generative AI technology developments. Legal and regulatory frameworks can be positive and protect consumers and the environment. Simply put, new regulations promote further innovations.

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
20 days ago

It is “a” move to help mitigate the environmental damage created by smart phones. Full stop. This does not, as the question suggests, impact all smart devices – just mobile phones.

The fact is that, in toto, the Digital Age is an environmental nightmare from the amount of energy used to mine cryptocurrency to what some call the world’s collective digital carbon footprint [increase in greenhouse gas emissions] now calculated at ~4% and rising. And, that’s not even addressing the negative environmental impacts associated with natural resource depletion or the non-biodegradable materials, toxins, and heavy metals, used in the production of digital devices.

Of course there are also some environmental offsets, but the point is the manufacturers of these devices are aware of all this and still eliminated replaceable batteries.

As for the endgame, there is bound to be a good deal of negotiation around the implementation of these new rules, but it’s likely that compliance to global standards will likely prove the only path open to manufacturers.

What any of this has to do with the headline is beyond me. Nobody is seriously suggesting that mobile telephony has to devolve to accommodate replaceable batteries.

Neil Saunders
Neil Saunders
  Ryan Mathews
20 days ago

If we’re looking at carbon footprints, you might want to ask the European Union why they still insist on having its parliament switch between Strasbourg and Brussels on a regular basis, while most parliamentary staff are based in Luxembourg. All that travel. All that carbon. All that cost. Maybe they’re planning to offset it by telling us all what type of phones we must have…

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
  Neil Saunders
20 days ago

Neil,

What can I say? One wrong doesn’t negate one right.

Yes the EU, and every other governmental body on Earth, burns more resources than it should. It’s just like all those executives who fly private jets in and out of Davos so they can discuss sustainability at the World Economic Forum.

If you are arguing that people and governing bodies are guilty of rank hypocrisy, you certainly won’t get any argument from me.

Peter Charness
Peter Charness
20 days ago

80% of batteries recycled by 2031? I’d be curious to know what the current rate of recycle is for all the batteries in devices that are replaceable today. I am rather skeptical that of all cellphones that are eventually bought with replaceable batteries, what percent will actually ever be “replaced” and of that segment, how many of those old batteries will eventually be properly disposed of to permit recycling.

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
  Peter Charness
20 days ago

Charles,

While precise numbers are hard to pin down, most estimated agree that globally, only five percent (yes, only 5%) of batteries are recycled. Obviously moving from ~5% to 80% in roughly eight years is a pretty aggressive goal.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom
20 days ago

I think this article could have benefitted a lot from actually asking manufactures what they thought of it, and what their plan were…as opposed to taking the “safe” route of assuming. Certainly the tone here was negative, those dumb bureacrats! – and that may well be a consensus view, but it would be great to hear the Other Side. I’m certainly no expert, so I’m not going to add to the ignorance by offering my opinion on the merits, or lack of same, of the move.

Ryan Mathews
Ryan Mathews
  Craig Sundstrom
20 days ago

Craig,

I agree, especially about the fashionably facile de facto default of, “those dumb bureaucrats,” or, “Regulation bad. Free market good.”

This is a complex problem that extends way beyond the battery itself. Deserves much more fact, and much less assumption.

Craig Sundstrom
Craig Sundstrom
  Ryan Mathews
20 days ago

Thanks Ryan,
I often cringe when this panel of experts – whose expertise is related to sales/marketing – is asked to evaluate matters that mostly draw from law and/or science…frequently with little more to go on than the material provided in the post (OTOH we can’t just live on Amazon threads alone!)
To be fair to Mr. Limmer, I think he made some effort at balance but I still felt like I was reading one of those old Caterpillar ads, where the opposition got one or two sentences, while the sales pitch got a hundred.

Ricardo Belmar
Ricardo Belmar
19 days ago

I thought the EU’s move to enforce USB-C ports on all mobile devices and thus lock consumers into a design that now cannot be innovated without EU regulators approving was sheer insanity – this now takes the prize! Dictating such a core design element in the design of smartphones negates all the progress manufacturers have made in innovating to deliver better overall products over time for consumers. Yes, it is important that we take action to improve the sustainability of products, but this is not the way. Design should be left to the designers, not the legislators who have zero expertise in such matters. I suppose the EU will now decide to tell the fashion industry which fabrics they are permitted to use and in what quantities in each piece of apparel they produce in the name of sustainability. Could that have a positive effect on the environment, sure, it might. But is it the best way to do so? Definitely not.

Can manufacturers find ways to adopt a removable battery design (which of course implies the use if added materials in the overall design of the phone to house a removable part, not very sustainable) that overcomes the limitations in previous designs that led them to integrate fixed batteries. Probably, given enough time, but at unknown cost. Can they do it by the arbitrary deadline imposed by the EU? We shall see, but I sincerely doubt it. It’s too severe a shift so I expect we will see manufactures produce EU versions of products for a period of time resulting in inferior designs for EU residents. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate action despite the noble cause used to justify it.