The EU defines user replaceable as you can remove the batteries with common tools. Common tools is defined as a Phillips or flathead screwdriver. So even Nintendo and their stupid try-force screw thing won’t be acceptable.
If that’s really the definition, it’s an awful definition and exactly why we shouldn’t regulate stuff like this. Torx are objectively better than Philips or flathead in every possible way.
As long as the tool isn’t proprietary it’s acceptable. If I can go to a hardware store and buy the interface tool then it’s fine, but it’s not fine if I have to get it from a special manufacturer or if it’s proprietary.
In the case of Nintendo I gave; Nintendo have their proprietary tri-headed screw. They do not make The tri-headed screwdriver publicly available, of course companies have copied them and so you can get one that way, but they’re not official, so my understanding is that that would not be acceptable. Nintendo would have to officially release the tri-headed screw design, and they’re probably just more likely to switch to a different already public screw design.
I also think they are allowed to just glue the batteries in as long as they have pull tabs. Which is probably the better option.
My point is Apple won’t be allowed to just come up with some brand new screw design that no one else has ever seen before. Unless they open source the screw head. In which case I guess it doesn’t matter. But they’re not going to do that because there would be no point.
Well if you broaden the definition that much, then it sounds like iPhone batteries are already user replaceable since I can easily purchase the necessary tools from iFixIt.
Again, this is not official. Just because somebody has grogged a way too interface with their proprietary screw heads doesn’t mean that the design is public domain, and the requirement is that the tool set is public domain.
Apple’s screw heads are not better than Phillips heads so they’re only doing it to be awkward that’s the point, they’re not allowed to do that anymore. So just because you can technically get the screwdrivers doesn’t make it acceptable.
You’re acting like I’m being unreasonable I’m just telling you what the law is it’s not my fault you haven’t read up on it
That’s the reason I bought a set of screwdrivers for apple and there was also the tri-headed included. It was just 5 bucks and I am really happy with them.
Anyway, I just hope they go further in their law like a replacement without any screws. Why not just use the way a laptop battery will be changed? Just click it out easy.
As someone who works with small electronics, Phillips is NOT perfectly fine at small sizes. Below a PH1, the torque required to unscrew a long thread and the torque required to cam-out and strip the head get very close together.
They’re not allowed to do that. The tool design has to be freely available for any manufacturer to fabricate free of charge, they’re not allowed to try and use this as a profit making exercise.
I don’t know why it is that every single time the EU comes up with a law there’s always people in the comments that say it’s a bad law and that they haven’t thought it out, when they’ve not read the documentation. All of the little tricks that the companies might come up with to turn this to their advantage have already being thought of and protected against. This is exactly what happened with the mandating the USB-C port.
Exactly, the law definitely defines that the tools have to be commonly available with no restrictions or proprietary rights, and that any tools that don’t fit under that definition must be provided free of charge. It also lists a few practices that are outright banned regardless of availability, like needing thermal or chemical tools. They’ve been very thorough.
Laws being made in good faith and corporations taking advantage of ambiguities or loopholes for “compliance” has been the staple of western corporate lore. I’m sure many of those commenters would love replaceable batteries with usb-c port on their phones too.
Sure but if anybody clicks through to read the article they can see the full wording of the law. It goes on for pages and pages it’s far from ambiguous. This isn’t just something they thought above on a random Friday afternoon this is something that’s been worked on for a few years now.
Yes, but then there’s this decades-long tradition of Lemmy/Reddit/Digg/Slashdot/etc users not reading the actual article and comment based only from headlines often crafted to maximize engagement.
Coming soon from Apple. Screws that require a 4D tesseract shaped screwdriver to undo.
But if you can undo them, feel free to change the battery.
The EU defines user replaceable as you can remove the batteries with common tools. Common tools is defined as a Phillips or flathead screwdriver. So even Nintendo and their stupid try-force screw thing won’t be acceptable.
If that’s really the definition, it’s an awful definition and exactly why we shouldn’t regulate stuff like this. Torx are objectively better than Philips or flathead in every possible way.
As long as the tool isn’t proprietary it’s acceptable. If I can go to a hardware store and buy the interface tool then it’s fine, but it’s not fine if I have to get it from a special manufacturer or if it’s proprietary.
In the case of Nintendo I gave; Nintendo have their proprietary tri-headed screw. They do not make The tri-headed screwdriver publicly available, of course companies have copied them and so you can get one that way, but they’re not official, so my understanding is that that would not be acceptable. Nintendo would have to officially release the tri-headed screw design, and they’re probably just more likely to switch to a different already public screw design.
I also think they are allowed to just glue the batteries in as long as they have pull tabs. Which is probably the better option.
My point is Apple won’t be allowed to just come up with some brand new screw design that no one else has ever seen before. Unless they open source the screw head. In which case I guess it doesn’t matter. But they’re not going to do that because there would be no point.
Well if you broaden the definition that much, then it sounds like iPhone batteries are already user replaceable since I can easily purchase the necessary tools from iFixIt.
Again, this is not official. Just because somebody has grogged a way too interface with their proprietary screw heads doesn’t mean that the design is public domain, and the requirement is that the tool set is public domain. Apple’s screw heads are not better than Phillips heads so they’re only doing it to be awkward that’s the point, they’re not allowed to do that anymore. So just because you can technically get the screwdrivers doesn’t make it acceptable.
You’re acting like I’m being unreasonable I’m just telling you what the law is it’s not my fault you haven’t read up on it
That’s the reason I bought a set of screwdrivers for apple and there was also the tri-headed included. It was just 5 bucks and I am really happy with them.
Anyway, I just hope they go further in their law like a replacement without any screws. Why not just use the way a laptop battery will be changed? Just click it out easy.
It’s pre-drilled holes and small screws, Phillips is perfectly fine.
As someone who works with small electronics, Phillips is NOT perfectly fine at small sizes. Below a PH1, the torque required to unscrew a long thread and the torque required to cam-out and strip the head get very close together.
I’m sure apple will happily sell you the proprietary tool to turn their proprietary screws for a very reasonable price.
They’re not allowed to do that. The tool design has to be freely available for any manufacturer to fabricate free of charge, they’re not allowed to try and use this as a profit making exercise.
I don’t know why it is that every single time the EU comes up with a law there’s always people in the comments that say it’s a bad law and that they haven’t thought it out, when they’ve not read the documentation. All of the little tricks that the companies might come up with to turn this to their advantage have already being thought of and protected against. This is exactly what happened with the mandating the USB-C port.
Exactly, the law definitely defines that the tools have to be commonly available with no restrictions or proprietary rights, and that any tools that don’t fit under that definition must be provided free of charge. It also lists a few practices that are outright banned regardless of availability, like needing thermal or chemical tools. They’ve been very thorough.
Laws being made in good faith and corporations taking advantage of ambiguities or loopholes for “compliance” has been the staple of western corporate lore. I’m sure many of those commenters would love replaceable batteries with usb-c port on their phones too.
Sure but if anybody clicks through to read the article they can see the full wording of the law. It goes on for pages and pages it’s far from ambiguous. This isn’t just something they thought above on a random Friday afternoon this is something that’s been worked on for a few years now.
Yes, but then there’s this decades-long tradition of Lemmy/Reddit/Digg/Slashdot/etc users not reading the actual article and comment based only from headlines often crafted to maximize engagement.