Sure, but so far I've replaced my phone screen once and the battery never, I suppose both would be equally easy though. Why is heating a big issue but removing screws not? Shouldn't we mandate user-replaceable screens too? Soon you'll end up regulating all phones to be modular.
I don't really see the value of regulation requiring a certain preference, given that there are tradeoffs. I owned a modular phone previously, and it was, as you say, not as thin and not waterproof, and not dustproof either. Given that it takes like 30 minutes to change the screen or battery on my current phone (which is not modular), I don't see why my preference should be disallowed by EU regulation?
I doubt any EU court will stop you selling a waterproof phone, but they will stop you making your flagship phone waterproof specifically for the purpose of making it hard to repair. They do have common sense, you know.
So what do you want to change, actually? My point is that the waterproof phones I've owned hasn't been hard to repair, because heating a phone to remove some glue, is not hard. The point is that the waterproofing glue, for me, is a worthwhile tradeoff because it adds like 10 minutes to the repair process.
Obviously, if you want to introduce new regulation, it must be because you want to change something, right? Or is the regulation about preventing a hypothetical scenario that's not the case right now?
> I don't really see the value of regulation requiring a certain preference, given that there are tradeoffs.
Reducing the amount of manufacturing for phones, and thus reducing the impact of the species on the environment is an extremely sensible goal, given that basically all resources are limited.
If you can do that while making things cheaper for your populace, then it's a double win.
Seems like we very quickly went from "there are tradeoffs" to "modular phones are objectively the best in all aspects". So, where's your proof of that claim? In my experience (as stated above) it's not the case.
The modular phones I've owned probably used more resources than the non-modular ones, because I needed to repair them more often. But hey, at least the repair was marginally more easy.
And yes, modular phones might have gotten better the last few years. But then you need to show that, not just claim it.
> I would love to just be able to replace a screen easily.
Yes, as I said, I've easily replaced my screen on my phone from 2022 already.
My point is that the definition of "easy" is different for me and GP (is it "easy" to remove and apply glue?). So which definition do we need to write into the law?
People were probably saying "I'd love to avoid tracking cookies on all websites" back before the EU cookie law too, and look at how that turned out.
> People were probably saying "I'd love to avoid tracking cookies on all websites" back before the EU cookie law too, and look at how that turned out.
The problem there was industry lobbying. What the EU should have done was one of two things:
- Forbid third party tracking entirely, completely
- Or mandate that a technical flag (e.g. Do-Not-Track) be respected by law
However the advertising industry would have been decimated (rightly so IMO) and billions of euros are coming from that so they lobbied for this stupid compromise that made things a lot worse.
They are now doing the latter: There will again be a DNT flag under the recent proposals, but it still has to go through rounds of lobbying and watering down.
