EU Wants Removable Batteries In iPhones

MojoKid writes "Current regulation, introduced with the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) in July of 2006, primarily sought to prevent the unnecessary use of toxic metals in batteries as well as making it easier to recycle and dispose of used batteries. The updated 'New Batteries Directive,' as discussed in New Electronics by Gary Nevision, would go much further. Article 11 of the directive, as currently written, would require that devices must be made in such a way as to allow batteries, either for replacement or at end of life for disposal to be 'readily removed.' Of course, Apple's iPhones and iPods wouldn't meet this requirement, as it stands. It's obvious that an iPhone battery replacement program could be considered a cash cow for Apple as well."

Comments

Mooo

[LMacG]

You mean this iPhone battery replacement program?

$85.95! That's a lot of milk.

Re:Mooo

[Anonymous Coward]

When the battery costs 12$ to buy yeah, I'd say 74$ in profit for replacing the battery is a lot of milk.

Re:Mooo

[who knows my name]

This is positive legislation. It is going to ensure that customers have cheaper and competitive ways to replace batteries.

Re:Mooo

[AnswerIs42]

$15.. do it yourself. I have changed out the batteries in three IPods already.

Re:Back handed protectionism

[LynnwoodRooster]

A lot of times I'd agree with you (the EU is HIGHLY protectionist) but in this case it doesn't work. Go to any cell phone outlet in Asia - look at even the Chinese-only or Korean-only cell phones. ALL have removable batteries. Samsung, Motorola, LG, Palm, RIM, pretty much everyone uses replaceable batteries. Except Apple.

Re:400 recharges

[Altus]

Fractional charges only count as fractional charges. If your iphone is at 80% and you plug it into your computer and it charges up to 100% that is only 1/5th of a charge. You can do that 5 more times before you have even used a single recharge.

Re:cash cow how?

[0100010001010011]

Could you please point me to the model you have? I can only find 4-8GB flash players. One review even has It's bulky for a flash player. as a "The Bad".

I just went to Insignia's website and found 2 models. A 4GB MP3 player and an 8GB Video/MP3 player. (Aside from their website seemingly written by 2 completely different groups, both had different units, 4GB in metric, 8GB in English)

4GB
Dimensions:
15mm X 46mm X 102mm (.59" X 1.8" X 4.0")
Weight: 0.068 kg (2.4 oz)

8GB
Dimensions:
10.16mm X 40.65 mm X 83.83mm (0.4" X 1.6" X 3.3")
Weight: 0.060kg (2.1 oz.)

This is the specs for the current Nano (which comes in 8 or 16 GB).
Dimensions:
6.2mm X 38.7mm X 90.7mm (0.24" X 1.5" X 3.6")
Weight:
0.037 grams (1.3 ounces)

And here's a "big ole" iPod Classic.
Dimensions:
10.5 mm X 61.8 mm X 103.5 mm (0.41" X 2.4" X 4.1")
Weight: .140 kg (4.9 ounces)

So by "not making the device any larger" you mean making the device larger? Not to mention the for the difference between the Nano and the Insignia, you could go up to a Classic and have 15X the storage space.

Re:Why apple doesn't do this...

[2nd Post!]

I believe it. 10 years of Apple products is more than convincing:
iPod->iPod touch (notice how thin it got)
iBook->MacBook Air (notice how small/thin it got)

And you use the word "anticompetitive" in a funny way. You make it sound like Apple's business motive is making money off battery replacements. Apple sells iPods/Macs/iPhones, not batteries. The battery is an incidental, and probably even less profitable than the iTunes store.

The thin design has multiple benefits for Apple:

Higher product density (therefore higher profits per cubic foot storage)
Smaller products are cheaper to ship (lower costs per cubic foot shipping)
Smaller products require less packaging (lower cost per unit)
Smaller products require less material (lower cost per unit)

So there are many reasons beyond design or anticompetitive to make things small/thin