109
Apple Watch among wearables exempted from EU user-replaceable battery rules (9to5mac.com)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by [M] to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -25 points 1 week ago* (4 children)

Honest question, does anyone actually think a user serviceable smart watch is a good idea?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 31 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    ...yes? I do. For... what I would have thought, up until a few seconds ago, were overwhelmingly obvious reasons including, but not limited to: reducing our dependence on major corporations whose only concern is maximising profit, respecting human dignity, reducing the amount of our ever-diminishing natural resources being squandered, saving a bit of money...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 12 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    I think that a user serviceable smart watch is a good idea. I want the freedom to service my devices. If a user does not feel comfortable in changing the battery they can go to the Apple Store. A user that chooses third party replacement parts has the same risk of a user buying a โ€œthird partyโ€ smartwatch. I have just replaced the battery of my Sony headphone. It was trivially easy and saved a good headphone from the junkyard. I see no reason why reducing the freedom of the consumer should be a good thing. Serviceable devices should be always the default position. It was the default in the past.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -18 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    You can swim with an Apple Watch (and other such devices.) Hell, you can dive up to 100m with the Ultra. Many mechanical watches, and even some dive watches, can't survive at that depth.

    There is zero chance you can have that type of waterproofing being user serviceable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 24 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    zero chance

    Swatch Scuba 200, user replaceable battery, up to 200m.

    Before the โ€œyes but apple is smarter/bigger batteryโ€ whatever excuses you find, this is a solved design problem. You use gaskets instead of glue. Glue is just cheaper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Are you comparing a quartz analog watch with a smartwatch in a thread about water resistance?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 20 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yes and it's completely valid to do so. The electronics of a quartz watch will fail if subjected to water just like the more complicated IC in an apple watch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Yes, that's true. But you have a profound misunderstanding of the size differences between a quartz watch movement and the internals of a smart watch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    The size is irrelevant, as is the complexity of the electronics/internals. Whether it is mechanical or quartz, lcd or oled, all that is relevant is the seal, either water is kept out at pressure by a seal or it is not.

    In reality, the vast majority of dive watches are never used for anything deeper than a swimming pool or snorkel depth. So the pressure load on the seal is rarely anywhwre close to pressured anyway and its really not hard to replace a rubber gasket seal properly

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 13 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Okay, well, maybe the people who aren't expecting their watches to work both on the Moon and at the bottom of the ocean can be allowed to swap batteries without asking a corporation for permission.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    Itโ€™s not about it working on the moon, itโ€™s an indication that you never have to worry about water.

    You are all so blinded by your hatred for Apple that you canโ€™t see that exempting this category of gadget is reasonable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    sure, there is 20 haters and only you see the truth... or maybe....

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 week ago

    I'd be more comfortable exempting a Garmin on the premise that it can be used 100m than I would an Apple Watch, because they have marketed their products specific to individual sports.

    Apple has marketed their watch as general, everyday use. The average person does not dive 100m everyday.

    I acknowledge there is a slippery slope with my argument. And that it could lead to more electronic waste. But at it's core, not being abused by companies, the rule should be that it has to be proven necessary for its advertised use cases. Reducing unnecessary features is a good thing towards reducing waste.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

    Yes. Nowadays smart watch live only about 2 - 3 years and its mainly because the battery then doesn't last a day or any decent amount. Imagine milions and millions of e-waste that doesn't need to exist. I have a perfectly good Garmin watch that are almost unusable because of the battery now.. after 2.5 years. Why wouldn't we want swappable batteries? This has existed before. Even in watches. There are small smart gadgets with swappable battery. And it can give the product 2 - 3 times longer lifespan. Or maybe more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Iโ€™m not going to disagree with you on the e-waste issue. I think every effort should be made to reduce e-waste, and smart watches are definitely e-waste.

    Iโ€™m saying the uncomfortable truth is that smart watches currently have the following constraint. User-replaceable battery, acceptable size and water resistance, smart watch features; you can pick two. Iโ€™m not saying thatโ€™s okay, Iโ€™m saying thatโ€™s physics.

    Proof that quartz watches cannot reasonably do it has no bearing on if smart watches can. Quartz watches donโ€™t have a screen, they donโ€™y have smart watch features (radios, etc). A battery in a quartz watch is a fraction of the power capacity of that in a smart watch. Hell, the entire movement of a quartz watch is smaller than just the battery in a smart watch. You cannot compare the two.

    You can make the argument that smart watches should have user replaceable batteries. I agree they should. You can think that we can accomplish all three things I mentioned above now, and while I think thatโ€™s a nice goal, I donโ€™t think we are there yet.

    Proof that user replaceable is not currently feasible? The batteries in the Apple Watch arenโ€™t even Apple replaceable; if you get a battery โ€œreplacementโ€, they send you a new watch. One would hope Apple recycles the old watches in a responsible manner.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    User-replaceable battery, acceptable size and water resistance, smart watch features; you can pick two. Iโ€™m not saying thatโ€™s okay, Iโ€™m saying thatโ€™s physics.

    How is that physics?

    LG G Watch R had all three. I doubt LG can bend the laws of physics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Quick side question, would you go swimming with your phone in your pocket? Your answer (and mine) is probably not, right?

    The LG G Watch R had a rating of IP67, which is less waterproof than current phones. That is to say, no, it's not effectively waterproof.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [โ€“] 2 points 1 week ago

    I did swim with my previous phone multiple times. There is no reason not to. Until my screen was cracked and I didn't realize it until it was too late (tiny fracture). There is no reason to fear swimming with IP68 (most phones are actually rated for > than 1m) rated phones unless front or back is cracked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 1 point 1 week ago

    I agree with what you say in all but the last paragraph. Apple is no proof. The reason why they replace the whole watch is because its cheaper to do that rather than pay a technician to do the swap. We have all technologies needed to make it work, but its currently cheaper not to. If there is a legislation, suddenly the companies will be forced to make the battery swaps cheaper. Without it, there is no incentive for company like Apple, products of which people will keep buying no matter what.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent