People getting click-baited. The reality is that ALL small wearables are exempted as is also stated in the article. This title is such a trash…
Apple Watch and other wearables gain exemption from EU battery rules
and
That includes smartwatches, smart glasses, fitness trackers, and other small wearable devices.
My opinion is it should not be exempted. Fairbuds and Pebble watch are proof that you can have swappable battery in small devices.
My wife and I both have a smart watch, both are about 1.5 year old and both have batteries that are starting to fail.
Replacing batteries innamart watches would not only be possible, it would be sensible. Then again, the world we currently live in makes no goddamn sense whatsoever, so at least that squares
The only exception I’ve seen, based on a genuine engineering challenge: IP68 and higher ratings. If the device isn’t explicitly rated for water and dust proofing such that it requires specialized tools to disassemble, it should be user replaceable
Not on my watch!!
(As in I don’t own one)
There’s no reason for this other than corruption.
Whatever reason Apple gives is bullshit. They can very much design a watch that allows the user to easily replace the battery.
Just for your information, the article notes this was a change pushed by U.S. officials in the context of the Meta glasses (the ones with always-on cameras), and that is applies to all sorts of wearable electronics (including the Meta glasses).
Of course, it is also in Apple’s benefit to charge users a ridiculous amount of money for repairs, as it is for other big tech giants who produce wearables. No doubt all of them are colluding with the U.S. government, in exchange for money and likely personal data too
”By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the following products incorporating portable batteries may be designed in such a way as to make the battery removable and replaceable only by independent professionals:
(a) appliances specifically designed to operate primarily in an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water, water streams or water immersion, and that are intended to be washable or rinseable;”How is a wristwatch not designed for an environment that is regularly subject to splashing water? I wash my hands several times a day.
I don’t know how you do it, but I do wash my hands without getting my watch wet. Which is good, as not all watches are waterproof. And mine isn’t. :D
Anyway, watches can be waterproof and have replaceable batteries. Like most watches, especially those that are not smartwatches.
Well no that’s their point, the batteries can only be replaceable by an independant professional and not the user, because it’s subject to frequent splashing water, therefore there’s a waterproofing argument & the battery can’t be user-serviceable
I’m not sure why they couldn’t make a user-replaceable waterproof battery but there you go
I don’t think making the battery itself waterproof is necessarily the solution here though: you would need to make the battery user replaceable without sacrificing the waterproofing of the entire device.
There are ways of accomplishing this in devices though: action cameras generally have replaceable batteries with an extra waterproofing gasket for the battery tray. Those are even designed for frequent-ish swaps (though, outside of water).
Ah so making it harder for new companies to develop a product while exempting the biggest offenders. Great.
It shouldn’t be any more difficult than it was when smartphones first appeared and had them - they worked just fine. It was about squeezing customers by forcing them to upgrade when the batteries wore out.
No special treatment for any company!
deleted by creator
What! Change battery on a watch!! No, that’s not possible…
The law that exempts every device that it would apply to…
It does not exempts new devices from small companies, making it more difficult to compete with the tech giants.
Gosh I hate the stranglehold corporate entities have over regulation. Example 3736281928372829177181833271537491613142
I love the smell of regulatory capture in the morning
Honest question, does anyone actually think a user serviceable smart watch is a good idea?
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.
I’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.
I’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. I’m not saying that’s okay, I’m saying that’s physics.
Proof that quartz watches cannot reasonably do it has no bearing on if smart watches can. Quartz watches don’t have a screen, they don’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 that’s a nice goal, I don’t think we are there yet.
Proof that user replaceable is not currently feasible? The batteries in the Apple Watch aren’t even Apple replaceable; if you get a battery “replacement”, they send you a new watch. One would hope Apple recycles the old watches in a responsible manner.
User-replaceable battery, acceptable size and water resistance, smart watch features; you can pick two. I’m not saying that’s okay, I’m saying that’s physics.
How is that physics?
LG G Watch R had all three. I doubt LG can bend the laws of physics.
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.
…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…
This is a gadget you wear in your wrist. Corporate dependence can easily be avoided by simply not buying this.
if you hate capitalism so much, why do you wish to use the fruits of humanity’s technological innovation made by labour, hmmmmmm??? I’m very smart
I’m convinced, O wise one
Is a watch with a replaceable battery a good idea?
Yes.
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 “third party” 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.
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.
zero chance
Swatch Scuba 200, user replaceable battery, up to 200m.
Before the “yes but apple is smarter/bigger battery” whatever excuses you find, this is a solved design problem. You use gaskets instead of glue. Glue is just cheaper.
Are you comparing a quartz analog watch with a smartwatch in a thread about water resistance?
I fail to understand is why you’re defending Apple with so much effort. Apple can and will absolutely comply with this if the EU makes them: they just don’t want to because they’ll lose profits. Why are you defending them?
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.
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.
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
In the '90s my $100 Casio could do the same and the battery was replaceable. Thirty years of technological advancement and now it’s suddenly impossible.
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.
It’s not about it working on the moon, it’s an indication that you never have to worry about water.
You are all so blinded by your hatred for Apple that you can’t see that exempting this category of gadget is reasonable.
sure, there is 20 haters and only you see the truth… or maybe…
70 million Americans voted for Trump. Numbers alone don’t mean shit.
But why? If the people want replaceable batteries, and Apple has more than enough resources, why can’t they do it?
I’m not understanding your position. Its perfectly reasonable for gadgets to be repairable by users. Corporations should not lock this out. What’s difficult to understand?
Nah you just gotta be smart with your design and use a proper gasket. It’s not that hard, it’s just companies don’t want to do it and most users don’t prioritize repairability, unfortunately.
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.
