• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Replaceable by user” has a lot of wiggle room. It could still be a 20-minute process that risks damaging other parts and requires specialized tools.

    If phones are to keep their water resistance, they almost certainly won’t be tooless, and will involve swapping out gaskets. It’ll be something you can do to replace a failed battery, not a quick swap because you went camping for the weekend and threw an extra battery in the bag since there are no outlets.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Could you read and understand the information behind the link before replying with nonsense?

      FYI: there were waterproof phones before replaceable batteries disappeared. Also the Fairphone for example IPS rated for resistant, so not perfect, but it’s possible.

        • fine_sandy_bottom
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Usually legislation is intentionally vague like that, ultimately courts will decide what that really means in practice.

          It will end up being just reasonable. Any person can have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to replace the battery with a reasonable amount of time and effort, with readily available tools, with a reasonable amount of guidance.

          If you were a judge would you say that it’s reasonable to expect people to be able to replace soldered components on their phones?

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        None of that addresses his point that “removable by the user” is not clearly defined. I didn’t see any definition for it in the link you posted.