The European Commission has revised its battery regulations to exempt devices such as the Apple Watch from requirements that batteries be removable and replaceable by users.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
I have an open source smart watch with a rating to 30m with a user replaceable battery. Apple is cheaping out and planned obsolescing.
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?
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.
Just saying… that it might be an indicator to check if you are the blind one here. In reality the truth may be somewhere in the middle.
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.