Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Cellphones EU Hardware

EU Wants Smartphones, Tablets To Be Repairable For At Least 5 Years (pcmag.com) 44

The European Commission is advocating new rules for mobile phone and tablet repairability. PC Magazine reports: Draft proposals published this week would require manufacturers to make at least 15 components available to professional repairers for up to five years after releasing a new phone in the European Union (EU). That means customers would get guaranteed access to replacement batteries, back covers, front- and rear-facing cameras, audio connectors, charging ports, microphones and speakers, SIM and memory card trays, and more.

"The steep increase in the demand for smartphones and tablets, combined [with] their increased functionality, has resulted in increased demand for energy and materials needed to manufacture these devices on the EU market, accompanied by an increase in their associated environmental impacts," Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen wrote in the proposal. "In addition, devices are often replaced prematurely by users and are, at the end of their useful life, not sufficiently reused or recycled, leading to a waste of resources."

If adopted, the initiative would also usher in a new energy label for phones and tablets -- similar to the ones already in place across Europe for TVs and large household items. The labels would indicate an expected battery life, and include details on water and dust protection, and rate the device's resistance to drops and scratches. Those manufacturers, meanwhile, that can't (or won't) supply batteries for five years must instead meet a set of battery endurance tests that certify devices achieve 80% of a rated capacity after 1,000 full-charge cycles. They'll also need to ensure software updates never negatively impact battery life.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Wants Smartphones, Tablets To Be Repairable For At Least 5 Years

Comments Filter:
  • Maybe laws can make keeping old production lines for ancient hardware usable.

    What this will mean is that some hardware will have to be over produced to inventory for future repairs.

    Why are flatscreens excluded? I think those are used longer than mobile phones, plus repairs would be green, saving landfills from e-junk.
    • by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Friday September 02, 2022 @11:56PM (#62848471)

      Or it encourages manufacturers to make modular components.

      None of the mechanical components of a phone have any reason to change from year to year unless there's a flaw in their design. Or wealth-destroying "fashion".

      Very rarely is there a compelling reason to change the mechanical or electrical specs of the electronics. And if this year's circuit board and battery are plug-in replacements for last years, there's no reason to maintain old inventory.

      Really, we solved this with PCs 40+ years ago - maybe there was an argument against modularity in the early fast-changing days of smartphones, but it's been years since there have been significant changes to architecture or form factor, it's long past time for manufacturers to get their acts together.

      • Modular phone exist. They feature one of the following for you as a consumer to choose:
        a) slower older components
        b) significantly larger size
        c) lower battery life.

        Pick one. What you don't get is modularity without compromise, with modern smartphones an exercise in expert Tetris playing cramming components into the most cramped of spaces (these days that includes embedding them within circuit boards too) every mm counts, the exact shape counts, the lack of connectors enabling modularity counts.

        • You don't need fully modular electronics for a large benefit - screen, circuit board, case, battery, etc. are already separate components - and there's no compelling reason to make them a different shape or electrically incompatible in next years model, except to intentionally break backwards compatibility.

          Just leave the shapes alone, and use screws instead of glue, and you could put next years parts into last years phone, no problem.

          As for the more modular phones - I'm a huge fan of the idea, but all the o

          • and there's no compelling reason to make them a different shape or electrically incompatible in next years model,

            Of course their is. Users will demand bigger batteries, better cameras, or other features which have slight impacts into the footprint of individual components, and due to the miniaturisation involved here they will have knock-on effects on literally everything within the phone.

            You clearly have no idea what it takes to design a miniature device, but I mean that was clear when you started talking about a PC. Hint: We have "PCs" that are ultra small as well, and they are not modular for exactly the same reaso

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        Really, we solved this with PCs 40+ years ago - maybe there was an argument against modularity in the early fast-changing days of smartphones, but it's been years since there have been significant changes to architecture or form factor, it's long past time for manufacturers to get their acts together.

        However most people just buy laptops, which are basically as integrated as phones these days. It's at the point where you need to check that the hard drive and RAM aren't soldered onto the main board before you buy these days.

        • Yep, laptops are another symptom of the evil, and a whole different conversation. It seems like Framework is at least on the right path though, we'll see if anyone else gets on board. If someone developed something like a NVME form factor video card for laptops we'd be set.

    • I don't think anyone keeps the production lines going after production end just for spare parts. Spare part needs are fairly well predictable, you just produce enough stock for future needs before production shut down and then regulate with price who is going the get the last ones.
  • Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kurkosdr ( 2378710 ) on Friday September 02, 2022 @09:11PM (#62848241)
    I am genuinely surprised by the bit that says: "They'll also need to ensure software updates never negatively impact battery life.". Someone should tell these people that software vendors can't guarantee their software will even work, much less that it will have guaranteed energy consumption. This is different from preventing manufacturers from intentionally reducing battery life, which is reasonable (much like "defeat devices" are banned in ECUs).

    About the other provisions:
    - Parts availability is necessary to ensure true right to repair (part of Apple's war against independent repair centers is the unavailability of official parts to third parties).
    - Labels with information are always welcome.
    - The whole "80% of a rated capacity after 1,000 full-charge cycles" loophole is silly. For example: Drain your battery to 1%, then plug your phone to the charger, and then start playing a game at the same time (which will cause the phone to heat up massively) and you will cause several cycles' worth of wear in just one cycle. The battery is a consumable and replacements should always be provided for it.
    - No mention of security updates. Why? Just why? If you can force software vendors to make impossible guarantees about energy consumption, can you also force them to patch security vulnerabilities in their crappy software?
    • Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Joce640k ( 829181 ) on Friday September 02, 2022 @09:22PM (#62848255) Homepage

      I am genuinely surprised by the bit that says: "They'll also need to ensure software updates never negatively impact battery life.".

      Simple answer: No software updates. :-)

      • by jiriw ( 444695 )

        Of course, that's fine. It just means you (as a manufacturer) are required to write bug-free software and maintain all external protocols used over the legal* lifetime of the device. Some software for long-maintenance hardware used to be written in that way, then burned into ROM, ergo, software updates were excluded from the start. Unless a major oopsie was found in which case it meant swapping out ROMs. Whether those costs then could be recuperated was and still is, a matter of warranty.

        *which may be a lot

        • First of all, it doesn't mean the manufacturer will have to write bug-free software. The version that ships with the smartphone can have as awful battery consumption as it wants. Or more realistically, as bad as the customer will tolerate.

          Also, not offering upgrades is a great way to induce hardware replacements by selling new software features with new hardware (Nokia actually has done this in the past with some N-series phones, with the "music edition" variants).

          This is not some firmware ROM we are
          • The way I read it:

            meanwhile, that can't (or won't) supply batteries for five years must instead meet a set of battery endurance tests that certify devices achieve 80% of a rated capacity after 1,000 full-charge cycles. [Also, if they can't (or won't) supply batteries for five years] They'll also need to ensure software updates never negatively impact battery life.

            I think they are trying to strongly discourage manufacturers from designing non-replaceable battery designs. If they opt to completely seal their units, they must ensure the battery will last for either the expected lifetime of the phone, and they can't weasel out by saying "The initial software offered 15 hours of talk time. We're sorry that updating the 5G feature set reduced that to just 9 hours."

            After watching JerryRigEverything open the new Samsung Z fold 4, it doesn't appear that e

      • This could as well be an unintended consequence: No software upgrades whatsoever, with EU smartphones being locked out of all upgrades and being stuck with whatever major version of the OS was shipped with the device. It goes without saying that this could actually encourage people to ditch their devices earlier, achieving the opposite result of what this new rule supposedly wants to achieve. Also, having no access to security upgrades is especially bad for smartphones, considering that in Android and iOS y
        • Relax, that is not going to happen. Too extreme.
          • Remember how some US websites complied with the GDPR by blocking all EU users? Again, nobody owes you software updates or software upgrades unless they've specifically promised so. Also, I don't think any software vendor will even try to comply with a regulation that forces them to guarantee that an upgrade to the latest and greatest major OS version will not increase energy consumption. Especially considering that latest and greatest versions typically have more features, so there is usually at least a min
            • No I don't. None of the websites that I frequently use blocked EU members. Think I encountered one news site on one occasion. The EU did a lot more drastic things than this in the past and everything went fine after a while. RoHS comes to mind. Lead free electronics. Big drama back then. Now it is pretty normal, and not only in the EU.

              That is called leadership.
      • Simple answer: No software updates. :-)

        Pretty much like this, with a twist: no feature updates, just security fixes.

        • Simple answer: No software updates. :-)

          Pretty much like this, with a twist: no feature updates, just security fixes.

          That's fine with me, I'll buy it.

        • Which in Android and iOS land essentially means no security updates either, since security updates for a major OS version stop when a newer major OS version becomes available. So to get security updates available for your device you have to update to the newer major OS version available.
    • I would have upped the level to demand user replaceable batteries.
      The battery is the main reason for me to upgrade the phone these days.

      • That fight was kist once glued-shut smartphones with water resistance ratings appeared. Sure, you can make a water-resistant smartphone without glueing the phone shut (with rubber rings and such), but this increases the device's size.
    • I was also reacting to that part, mostly because, my memory is longer than most so, I remember a time when "that fruit company" pushed an update to older phones to extend those phones' battery life. That didn't go over well with the phones' owners

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That part is because Apple screwed up their battery tech and then released an update that crippled affected devices by reducing battery life significantly. Basically they forgot to account for the battery ageing, in particular the fact that it can't deliver as much current as it can when it's brand new. The only way around that is to reduce the current consumption by limiting performance, so affected phones go slower, and by reducing the amount of usable battery capacity to stave off the worst of it.

      To be f

  • "They'll also need to ensure software updates never negatively impact battery life." As I see it, there will be little incentive to approve updated OS features, applications and games that push the phone or tablet with more demanding code as it will likely impact battery life. This is especially the case with games with more advance graphics and action. As a phone manufacturer I would likely either lock down the phone to base installed programs that I can control and certain 3rd party ones that are vetted a
    • Just allow the user to replace the battery.

      Locking down the phone will make it unsellable and impossible to secure with upgrades.

    • by jiriw ( 444695 ) on Friday September 02, 2022 @10:41PM (#62848375) Homepage

      Updating the base operating software and standard features is something completely different from side-loading or (app-shop) installing 3rd party software. The first is a software update, end-users can't very much do without. The other is a consumer choice. No where in the original article/proposal it's assumed manufacturers have to shield clients for their use of 3rd party software. Don't assume legislators don't know the difference (and if you think they can't, I'd like to see some 'exceptional' evidence regarding such claims).

      • Problem is who decides what is a standard feature/application. Take the camera and related software, what happens if a phone manufacturer updates the camera software to create a different format or use a different processing option or adds encryption to the messaging app that uses more processor power. Would that violate the law now. Lots of phones have options that do not make it to out in the initial release and are added later. Would adding a feature that uses more power be a violation. Just look at a fe
        • Problem is who decides what is a standard feature/application.

          The general consensus would be that anything that is preinstalled on the device and cannot be removed would be a standard feature of the device. That's not just true of phones mind you, it applies to pretty much any manufactured product. (Cars, tools, houses, etc.)

          what happens if a phone manufacturer updates the camera software to create a different format or use a different processing option or adds encryption to the messaging app that uses more processor power. Would that violate the law now.

          That would be a feature update, and I'd say it's fine as long as the option to use the older version without unrelated consequences (loss of online connectivity / services, end user support, etc.) remains on the table. A feature update is just t

  • I'm all for this, I'm disgusted by electronics that may as well be potted in a block of epoxy for all the repairability of it, but in order for this to happen the electronics industry is going to have to change how some things are designed so they're actually repairable to begin with.
    • How about first limiting cell phones to 3 total different form factors. That way screens and batteries can be a standard size, and replacements will be available for longer.
  • The goddamn monopolists must be restricted...
  • That's not very long.

    I'd recommend 10 years, with an "out" if the manufacturer agrees to buy the device back at some favorable-to-consumer depreciation rate, one favorable enough to strongly incentivize compliance while giving manufacturers a reasonable way to "buy themselves out" of the rules at a predictable price.

  • EU wants phones to be repairable when they are least likely to need repairs.

  • All current phones in the market are assembled with double sided sticky tape and other adhesives - extremely cheap to slap together, but horrible to repair. It also makes phones fall apart if they get too hot or you try to clean them with alcohol. Just use screws and make the batteries replaceable, like we used to. We have automated assembly machines now that can quickly install the screws, no humans required. I've been developing and manufacturing mobile phones since they had to be installed in the tru

  • If smart people start to address real problems. Yes, I know this is in conflict with the American way of life, but you will benefit as well. The manufacturers will adapt. They could have done these things all along, after all.

A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exceptions of handguns and Tequilla. -- Mitch Ratcliffe

Working...