• notepass@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If I remember correctly: If it is watertight, replaceable batteries are not required. EZ way to skirt around this stuff.

    • AnonStoleMyPants@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah.

      To ensure the safety of end-users, this Regulation should provide for a limited derogation for portable batteries from the removability and replaceability requirements set for portable batteries concerning appliances that incorporate portable batteries and that are specifically designed to be used, for the majority of the active service of the appliance, in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion and that are intended to be washable or rinseable.

      From here: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2023-0237_EN.html#title1:~:text=(39)   To,by end-users

      So watertight is definitely enough of a reason.

      • _haha_oh_wow_@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Except this is a bullshit exception because not only is it 100% possible to make waterproof devices with replaceable batteries, they have existed for years already. There is absolutely no technical reason for this, and the exception probably only exists because the corporations influenced the legislators to effectively gut the law.

      • scarilog@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think a phone counts as that since it’s not something that’s expected to be regularly subject to water

    • _haha_oh_wow_@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s really stupid, waterproof phones with replaceable batteries are certainly possible and have been done before.

    • Bardfinn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you want a phone that self destructs when it gets wet? Apple engineers have thought this through.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We had phones with replaceable batteries for a long time. Many of them were waterproof, but none of them exploded on contact with water.

      • Osa-Eris-Xero512@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes they have, which tells me no engineers were consulted for this statement. Waterproofing and replaceable batteries is a trivial combination.

        • 🦘min0nim🦘@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is simply not the case. Saying it’s ‘trivial’ is like saying it’s trivial to travel to Mars because we’ve sent things there before. Reliably sealing anything with a joint is far from trivial.

        • Bardfinn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is this subreddit run by samshit employees or something? Nobody did waterproofing well before Apple started the trend.

      • _haha_oh_wow_@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Waterproof phones with replaceable batteries are most certainly possible and have existed for over a decade at least. Sorry, but that argument is total bullshit.