It had been in the works for a while, but now it has formally been adopted. From the article:

The regulation provides that by 2027 portable batteries incorporated into appliances should be removable and replaceable by the end-user, leaving sufficient time for operators to adapt the design of their products to this requirement.

    • Magikjak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those batteries are readily removable and replaceable by the end-user at any time during the lifetime of the product. That obligation shall only apply to entire batteries and not to individual cells or other parts included in such batteries.

      A portable battery shall be considered readily removable by the end-user where it can be removed from a product with the use of commercially available tools, without requiring the use of specialised tools, unless provided free of charge with the product, proprietary tools, thermal energy, or solvents to disassemble the product.

      Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those products are accompanied with instructions and safety information on the use, removal and replacement of the batteries. Those instructions and that safety information shall be made available permanently online, on a publicly available website, in an easily understandable way for end-users.

      • AnonymousLlama@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        without requiring the use of specialized tools

        That’s a big one. Nice to see it covered. Negates any silly “well you just need to buy our $200 disassemble kit” nonsense you know would have been there otherwise

      • Bobert@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can’t see anything that would force them to change the status quo.

        https://a.co/d/c6zxBQu

        Boom, $20, every tool needed. Hits the commercially available clause. You don’t have to have a heat gun (it certainly helps). If people want to fight it, then you’re going to have a weaker screen because the glue loosens easier with heat because the alternative is a glue that is weaker at regular temps. IP ratings are included now, they’ll be a price point after this if that issue is forced. Should it be? No, removable batteries with IP68 are made right now, but when has a manufacturer ever needed a halfway decent excuse to raise prices?

        Edited: spoke before I researched. Don’t be like me.

    • quazar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, this would cover screens as well? (that is what apple does (at least in the u.s.) to their laptop screens.)

    • eth0p@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Impede the replacement of” and “compatible battery” has a lot of room for interpretation. I hope they’re defined explicitly somewhere, or else we’re going to find implementations that effectively restrict non-OEM batteries while still adhering to the letter of the law.

      For example, all batteries lacking a cryptographically-verified “certification” handshake could have safety restrictions such as:

      • Limited maximum amperage draw, achieved by under-clocking the SoC and sleeping performance cores.

      • Lower thermal limits while charging the device, meaning fast charging may be limited or preemptively disabled to ensure that the battery does not exceed an upper threshold of you-might-want-to-put-it-in-the-fridge degrees.

      • Disabling wireless charging capabilities, just in case magnetic induction affects the uncertified battery full of unknown and officially-untested components.

      • A pop-up warning the user every time the device is plugged into or unplugged from a charger.

      All of that would technically meet the condition insofar that it’s neither impeding the physical replacement nor rendering the device inoperable, but it would still effectively make the phone useless unless you pay for a (possibly-overpriced) OEM part.

      If they explicitly defined “Impede the replacement of” as “prevent replacement of or significantly alter user experience as a result of replacing,” and “compatible battery” as “electrically-compatible battery” all those cases would be covered.

      Might be a bit of cynical take, but I don’t have too much faith in the spirit of the law being adhered to when profits are part of the equation.