Walmart and Rakuten Announce New Strategic Alliance

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

The tech companies probably make the devices with non-replaceable batteries on purpose as a way to get consumers to buy new devices.

It's called planned obsolescence. I couldn't say for sure that a non-user replaceable battery was designed with that in mind (my guess would be that it shaves a few pennies off their costs), I'm sure they don't mind the side benefit.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

It's called planned obsolescence. I couldn't say for sure that a non-user replaceable battery was designed with that in mind (my guess would be that it shaves a few pennies off their costs), I'm sure they don't mind the side benefit.

A battery compartment is not going to add a significant cost. You just open the compartment, remove the connector from the pins, put the new connector on the pins, put the batter in the slot, put the cover back on and go.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

And with some devices such as a music player, the ability to change the battery means you can have a spare battery for when the one in use is running low. This is especially good when you are traveling and don't have easy access to charge it.

Looking at the proposed bill, it doesn't look as if they are mandating being able to pop the battery out and pop in a new one. It sounds more that if a repair shop or end user can replace the battery with access to any special tools required at the same price an authorized repair shop would pay, the requirements would be met.

See the following for more information: AN ACT Relating to fair servicing and repair of digital electronic products

or the originating page at: HB 2279 - 2017-18

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Looking at the proposed bill, it doesn't look as if they are mandating being able to pop the battery out and pop in a new one. It sounds more that if a repair shop or end user can replace the battery with access to any special tools required at the same price an authorized repair shop would pay, the requirements would be met.

I agree. The bill is intended to make the devices repairable by repair shops, not consumers. Also it says that the battery has to be removable, not replaceable. Nothing says that replacement batteries have to be made available.

From the bill:

Original manufacturers of digital electronic products sold on or after January 1, 2019, in Washington state are prohibited from designing or manufacturing digital electronic products in such a way as to prevent reasonable diagnostic or repair functions by an independent repair provider. Preventing reasonable diagnostic or repair functions includes permanently affixing a battery in a manner that makes it difficult or impossible to remove.

[JSWolf]

If it passes, it means that the KO2 will have to either be scrapped or redesigned as Amazon would not be fitting the bill. Also, Microsoft will have to redisign the Surface Pro and the Surfacebook. Also, any other make of battery powered electronics may have to redesign to meet the new law.

Even if it's not going to be easily user replaceable, third party repair shops will be able to do it and if the companies make the batteries difficult to get, that may violate the law.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If it passes, it means that the KO2 will have to either be scrapped or redesigned as Amazon would not be fitting the bill. Also, Microsoft will have to redisign the Surface Pro and the Surfacebook. Also, any other make of battery powered electronics may have to redesign to meet the new law.

If it passes it will probably only be for new models hitting the market & go into effect after a certain grace period to cover stuff already far along in development, not be retroactive.

[Apache]

If the battery is an odd size made for just for the device it is probably going to cost as much as the device, or close to it.
Apache

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If it passes, it means that the KO2 will have to either be scrapped or redesigned as Amazon would not be fitting the bill. Also, Microsoft will have to redisign the Surface Pro and the Surfacebook. Also, any other make of battery powered electronics may have to redesign to meet the new law.

I've got nothing against the law, but (as far as I can tell) isn't this just a Washington state law? Could it possibly lead to certain products being pulled off of the market in Washington only? Could Washington citizens drive across the border, and buy a KO2 or Surface Pro from Oregon? Would this affect mail order?

[cfrizz]

I agree with Anemic Oak, if this law gets passed that would mean all existing devices would be grandfathered in. It would just mean that all new devices would have to have replaceable batteries.

Once that happens battery makers would quickly start making batteries for the new machines, so that we wouldn't be dependent on the manufacturer to supply the batteries, but of course they would so as to not get shut out.

All of my phones, have replaceable batteries, my Note 2 is 5 years old and still going strong, I've replaced the battery about 3 times.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Given that these tech companies are not going to make devices with a user replaceable battery, the only way to get such is for the government to step in. If it's done correctly, it could be a good thing.

When government says things should be accessible I can see that as a good thing. It's a law to prevent unfairness to those who can't see/hear/etc. It's a discrimination issue. When they legislate fuel efficiency that makes sense because it's a health and public safety issue. But for government to decide on manufacturing policy based on personal preferences there is no way to do that correctly. It's the consumers who get to do that.

The next step might be to tell car makers they can only make red cars. Hmmm! Actually I kinda like that idea.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

It's called planned obsolescence. I couldn't say for sure that a non-user replaceable battery was designed with that in mind (my guess would be that it shaves a few pennies off their costs), I'm sure they don't mind the side benefit.

I'm sure they didn't overlook the fact that it might generate a few more sales a few years down the road but I doubt that's a major factor in a decision to have a built-in battery. I'm guessing that savings, as you suggest, and making the device thinner and lighter, were the deciding factors.

This isn't really a major issue for most devices since most are fairly useless by the time the battery wears out anyway. I used to hate that my tablets didn't have replaceable batteries but after using tablets a few years I realized that long before the batteries go the apps get updated so that they won't run well on older hardware. It's pretty rare for a tablet to be useful 3 years later. Batteries last longer than that in most cases.

But there are some devices where that's just not true and ereaders fall into that group. So do MP3 players. Maybe cameras as well. And it's really nice to be able to carry a spare battery when you might need it.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

A battery compartment is not going to add a significant cost. You just open the compartment, remove the connector from the pins, put the new connector on the pins, put the batter in the slot, put the cover back on and go.

The battery compartment needs a door and some kind of hinge or other way to hold it in place and the necessity of it can limit the design possibilities. I agree with you that replaceable batteries are a good idea. I don't really mind if the device costs a few dollars more to have that or if it's a little thicker. But I'm me and the general public often has other ideas.

Barry

[Dazrin]

Originally Posted by barryem

When government says things should be accessible I can see that as a good thing. It's a law to prevent unfairness to those who can't see/hear/etc. It's a discrimination issue. When they legislate fuel efficiency that makes sense because it's a health and public safety issue. But for government to decide on manufacturing policy based on personal preferences there is no way to do that correctly. It's the consumers who get to do that.

The next step might be to tell car makers they can only make red cars. Hmmm! Actually I kinda like that idea.

Barry

There is a public wellness reason to have replaceable batteries and serviceable equipment - the manufacturing process for electronics and batteries and the items themselves are NOT good for the environment when they are thrown out. They must be properly disposed of to reduce impacts but a lot of the time this does not happen. By requiring electronics to be serviceable (even if not user serviceable) it should help reduce how much electronic waste there is.

At least that's one of the arguments for this type of legislation.

For phones in general - the cost difference between having a socket for the battery and not gluing it in place is fairly minimal and I don't think this will require a user accessible battery, just a serviceable one, so there shouldn't need to be many other changes.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Could Washington citizens drive across the border, and buy a KO2 or Surface Pro from Oregon? Would this affect mail order?

Who knows? I very much doubt it will be enacted, given that Amazon is more than threatening to move it's headquarters out of the state (dual headquarters? not likely for long). Beyond that, Washington State has too many tech jobs to be anything other than one of last states to pass something like this.

By the way, as I read it, it has little to do with batteries. This seems more important:

Each original manufacturer of digital electronic products sold or used in the state must make available for purchase by owners and independent repair providers all diagnostic repair tools incorporating the same diagnostic, repair, and remote diagnostic capabilities that the original manufacturer makes available to its own repair or engineering staff or any authorized repair provider.

The bill does forbid making it "difficult or impossible" to replace the battery. But I think that, in context, this means difficult for someone who is experienced in repair of small electronic devices. In my own opinion, if there's a YouTube showing successful battery replacement, it isn't all that difficult. And there's nothing I can see that would make them manufacture the devices in a way that the waterproofing survives battery replacement. So I'm thinking that the manufacturers could argue that their batteries are already replaceable.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

I agree with Anemic Oak, if this law gets passed that would mean all existing devices would be grandfathered in. It would just mean that all new devices would have to have replaceable batteries.

Once that happens battery makers would quickly start making batteries for the new machines, so that we wouldn't be dependent on the manufacturer to supply the batteries, but of course they would so as to not get shut out.

All of my phones, have replaceable batteries, my Note 2 is 5 years old and still going strong, I've replaced the battery about 3 times.

My phone also has a user replaceable battery. You've got to wonder why if some phones have it, they all don't. Obviously it's not an insurmountable manufacturing obstacle.