▲ 310 ▼ EU: Smartphones Must Have User-Replaceable Batteries by 2027 (www.pcmag.com) submitted 3 years ago by dirkgentle@lemmy.ca to c/technology@beehaw.org 81 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] schnapsidee@feddit.de 4 points 3 years ago (1 child) I mean...you can be pedantic about it, but to me this reads fairly clearly as "If it can't be removed with a screwdriver, it's not allowed." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Markoff@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) The evil is always in details, thats why with their Incandescent light bulb ban, these are now sold as heating devices/lamps, so much for their bans/rules. That's why I pointed out commercially available tools can be at same time specialized tools, they should rather mention something like it must be tools owned by 50% households according stats and do simple survey about screwdrivers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thesanewriter@vlemmy.net 1 point 3 years ago I'm going to be honest, I think that this is a case where companies will always dodge the rules unless the consequences are so severe they're unwilling to risk it. Something like forced downsizing, or a fine proportional to annual revenue. That would make companies significantly more hesitant to try and tread the line. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Markoff@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child) The evil is always in details, thats why with their Incandescent light bulb ban, these are now sold as heating devices/lamps, so much for their bans/rules. That's why I pointed out commercially available tools can be at same time specialized tools, they should rather mention something like it must be tools owned by 50% households according stats and do simple survey about screwdrivers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] thesanewriter@vlemmy.net 1 point 3 years ago I'm going to be honest, I think that this is a case where companies will always dodge the rules unless the consequences are so severe they're unwilling to risk it. Something like forced downsizing, or a fine proportional to annual revenue. That would make companies significantly more hesitant to try and tread the line. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] thesanewriter@vlemmy.net 1 point 3 years ago I'm going to be honest, I think that this is a case where companies will always dodge the rules unless the consequences are so severe they're unwilling to risk it. Something like forced downsizing, or a fine proportional to annual revenue. That would make companies significantly more hesitant to try and tread the line. permalink fedilink source parent