undefined

points

[-]

It's planned obsolescence through price. Your wife paid >50% of the phone's value just to replace the battery. Many people won't think that's worth it. It could have been a $30 user replaceable battery.

by bitmasher99 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Or she spent 7% of the purchase price of a new device to defer requiring to upgrade for another 3 years.

$100 is worth it, but you can get a good discount by going to that one mall kiosk instead of the Apple Store.

by Alpha30313 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> you can get a good discount by going to that one mall kiosk instead of the Apple Store.

Apple actively impeded third-party repair shops though. Oregon had to outlaw parts pairing for them to change that practice.

by garbagewoman10 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Wow that’s ridiculous compared to a user replaceable battery

by 10 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by AdrianB114 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Imagine you can order a battery from Apple for $20 and you swap it in 1 minute: less money, less time, user satisfaction++.

by DocTomoe10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

But that's not what the regulation is saying, is it?

It says

* replaceable with 'commercially available tools' (which means: Apple could just sell you a 'iphone battery replacment tool kit for 1000 Euros)

* has excemptions for high-cycle / long-lived batteries

* ... nothing about the price of the battery (which can be 1000 Euros)

* ... or that the battery/the battery's form factor can't be trademarked, essentially locking you into 'Apple batteries' and preventing aftermarket ones.

Also, I'd rather have a less bulky phone with fewer mechanical parts that can break as compared to a more user-maintainable. Because of 'high-security' software (think: banking apps, or - I assume - the soon-to-be-released EUId wallet), the thing is basically worthless after four years anyways and needs replacement.

I'd wager that ... nothing at all will change in 2027.