Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes
Keeping sustainability in mind, the European Union has laid out rules
which apply to all batteries, such as waste portable ones, industrial
ones, and others. Not surprisingly, these rules will affect the way
Apple, Samsung, and countless others do business, likely forcing them to change the design of their products without going against the rules
while also offering the same premium feel. These technology companies
have not spoken about the regulations, but the EU’s mandate might likely
be challenged in the near future.
Council of the EU Press release 10 July 2023 10:30
Council adopts new regulation on batteries and waste batteries
The Council today adopted a new regulation that strengthens
sustainability rules for batteries and waste batteries. The regulation
will regulate the entire life cycle of batteries – from production to
reuse and recycling – and ensure that they are safe, sustainable and competitive.
The regulation of the European Parliament and the Council will apply to
all batteries including all waste portable batteries, electric vehicle batteries, industrial batteries, starting, lightning and ignition (SLI) batteries (used mostly for vehicles and machinery) and batteries for
light means of transport (e.g. electric bikes, e-mopeds, e-scooters).
On 2023-07-23 11:45, Jörg Lorenz wrote:
Am 23.07.23 um 11:23 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Finally!
The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but
companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes
How to you come to this speculative conclusion?
I don't, that's the writer at the website, some "Omar Sohail".
But I highly suspect it is true :-p
Carlos E.R. wrote:
Finally! 🙂
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
Just another stage of the ballet between the Parliament, Commission,
Council and Presidency ... I expect it will eventually become a
resolution and get signed into individual country laws (not the UK obviously!) but some proposals such as whether to abandon summertime
clock changes, get to this point and then stall for years ...
Am 23.07.23 um 11:23 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Finally!
The new EU regulations are designed with sustainability in mind, but
companies like Apple will likely attempt to resist these changes
How to you come to this speculative conclusion?
Finally! 🙂
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Jörg Lorenz wrote:
schrieb Andy Burns:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
What was so difficult to understand?
Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?
get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
obviously!)
schrieb Andy Burns:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
What was so difficult to understand?
Jörg Lorenz wrote:
schrieb Andy Burns:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
What was so difficult to understand?
Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?
Finally! :-)
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung AndCountless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:23:54 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offe r-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung AndCountless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
broke into 2 or 3 pieces?
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it broke
into 2 or 3 pieces?
That would be a big improvement over the current situation, where it
shatters into an unrecoverable clump of glass shards held together with
glue.
With the biggest mass concentration (the battery) splitting apart on
impact, the chances of survival for the other parts should be
significantly higher.
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it broke
into 2 or 3 pieces?
Am 23.07.23 um 17:35 schrieb AJL:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it broke
into 2 or 3 pieces?
That would be a big improvement over the current situation, where it
shatters into an unrecoverable clump of glass shards held together with
glue.
With the biggest mass concentration (the battery) splitting apart on
impact, the chances of survival for the other parts should be
significantly higher.
AJL wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And
Countless Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
broke into 2 or 3 pieces?
That would have to be an ancient portable phone to break into pieces
when dropped.
I've accidentally dropped both dumb and smart phones, and damage, if
any, was to the screen.
I've managed to NOT buy any smartphones with sealed batteries
(designed to be user non-servicable),
Batteries are chemical, so they will wear out. The phone makers
know this, so their warranties are shorter than when the battery is
expected to sufficient wane in capacity, and when short up-time spurs
the user to look at buying another phone instead of just getting
another battery.
You could carry around a power pack to recharge your phone when an
outlet is unlikely available, or unknown if there'll be one, but
then you'd have to lug around a charger.
A flat battery is much easier to carry than either a power pack or
charger.
Rather than fragility, what you lose with a user serviceable battery
is water resistance, but only because the phone makers didn't seal
the battery compartment, so when opening the back the phone remains
sealed. I have flashlights that remain water-tight despite their
batteries are replaceable.
Phone makers didn't seal their phones to make them water resistant,
but they certainly used that excuse. They did so to keep users from
easily replacing the batteries when they were dying off. Obviously
they want users to buy more phones than buying more batteries.
Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-07-23 12:59, Andy Burns wrote:
Jörg Lorenz wrote:
schrieb Andy Burns:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless >>>>>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
What was so difficult to understand?
Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?
You have the official EU press release, which includes a link to the PDF
of the regulation.
https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/
Has no hyperlink to a .pdf file that would cite the number of the law.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/07/10/council-adopts-new-regulation-on-batteries-and-waste-batteries/
Has, at the bottom, a link to: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-2-2023-INIT/en/pdf
The various designations at the top of the document are not titled. I
am not familiar with reading EU regulations. I don't live in one of the
27 European countries (member states) that are members of the EU nor do
I manufacture anything to be distributed to an EU market. Which of
those 6 designations is the regulation enumeration.
Since the PDF mentions documents dated back to 2006, 2008, and 2019, is
they new regulation really just an amendment to preexisting regulations?
The article also mentions the phone makers will be required to collect
the waste batteries. Here where I am, only alkaline batteries can be disposed of in the trash bins. Lithium, NiMH, NiCAD, and other battery chemistries have to be dumped at the local hazardous recycle center
where even there are separate stalls for type of drop-off, like a stall
for batteries, a stall for phosphorous (fluorescent light, CRTs), oil, home-use chemicals, and so on. Our local laws already require proper disposal of hazardous materials, and those include all the types of
batteries mentioned in the article. No need for a phone maker to
collect batteries from users who already have hazardous waste recycle centers. Cost, for me, is $10 per load (I stock up hazardous items to
take in one load, as does everyone else I see going there). However, I
don't see mention in the new regulation of price fixing to the phone
makers to them to provide mailers for users to send them waste lithium batteries.
What's the chance that the phone makers that still want to maintain a
market in the EU will come out with EU-compliant phones (with
replaceable batteries) that will be only available through sales outlets
in the EU? That is, the EU can flex their legislative muscle, but their regulations are unenforceable outside their influence. Companies that
want to sell inside the EU could just provide EU-only products.
EU-compliant phones with replaceable batteries might not be available elsewhere.
While I can find market share of Android and iOS phones by country, I
didn't bother to total up the market shares of the 27 EU member states
versus everywhere else to see how important are phone sales there to the phone makers. That is, how much would they lose to say FU to the EU by
not selling there. Or how much more would it be to manufacture
compliant phones, but sell those only in the EU.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
that's the writer at the website, some "Omar Sohail".
But I highly suspect it is true
You are correct.
Apple's strategy has always been to "shape the consumer's choices" from the start, when Apple got away with no portable memory slots in iPhones.
Apple's strategy of suffocating the gullible consumer so that they can only get air from Apple extended to the choice of applications Apple allows.
Apple makes of their money by slowly strangling consumers' choices, such as when Apple "courageously" eliminated industry standard headphone hole.
Am 23.07.23 um 12:59 schrieb Andy Burns:
Jörg Lorenz wrote:
schrieb Andy Burns:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless >>>>> Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
What was so difficult to understand?
Then if it's final, you'll be able to quote the EC regulation number?
Google exists. I'm not your nanny.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
Just another stage of the ballet between the Parliament, Commission,
Council and Presidency ... I expect it will eventually become a
resolution and get signed into individual country laws (not the UK
obviously!) but some proposals such as whether to abandon summertime
clock changes, get to this point and then stall for years ...
I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.
The thinking is that the consumer is "smart" enough not to purchase a
device which slowly removes all the functionality & raises the price.
For some strange reason, there are consumers willing to purchase phones at higher prices without even the most basic of hardware functionality today.
So these consumer protection laws help even those stupid people get more phone for the money, instead of less for more money as the trend is now.
On 2023-07-23, Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
broke into 2 or 3 pieces?
That would be a big improvement over the current situation, where it
shatters into an unrecoverable clump of glass shards held together
with glue.
With the biggest mass concentration (the battery) splitting apart on
impact, the chances of survival for the other parts should be
significantly higher.
The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They want ewaste.
Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM.
So someone else makes money on that $50 battery.
That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs follow suit.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 11:23:54 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Finally! :-)<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offe
r-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung AndCountless
Others To Offer Easy to Replace Batteries
So back to the good old days that when you dropped your phone it
broke into 2 or 3 pieces?
That would have to be an ancient portable phone to break into pieces
when dropped. I've accidentally dropped both dumb and smart phones, and damage, if any, was to the screen. I've managed to NOT buy any
smartphones with sealed batteries (designed to be user non-servicable),
and the backside did not fly off when dropped.
Batteries are chemical, so they will wear out. The phone makers know
this, so their warranties are shorter than when the battery is expected
to sufficient wane in capacity, and when short up-time spurs the user to
look at buying another phone instead of just getting another battery.
You could carry around a power pack to recharge your phone when an
outlet is unlikely available, or unknown if there'll be one, but then
you'd have to lug around a charger. A flat battery is much easier to
carry than either a power pack or charger.
Rather than fragility, what you lose with a user serviceable battery is
water resistance, but only because the phone makers didn't seal the
battery compartment, so when opening the back the phone remains sealed.
I have flashlights that remain water-tight despite their batteries are replaceable.
Phone makers didn't seal their phones to make them water resistant, but
they certainly used that excuse. They did so to keep users from easily replacing the batteries when they were dying off. Obviously they want
users to buy more phones than buying more batteries.
Incubus wrote:
The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is
that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They
want ewaste.
Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500
phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM. So
someone else makes money on that $50 battery.
That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
follow suit.
Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
buying a new one.
<https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
That webpage is hard to square with your claim.
I always just wanted a new phone when I bought one, not because it
stopped working. I'm GUESSING most folks are the same way...
Nobody reads your milelong sermons.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
I always just wanted a new phone when I bought one, not because it
stopped working. I'm GUESSING most folks are the same way...
Average lifespan of ownership is just 2.65 years for smart phones.
The batteries are designed to last 3 to 8 years depending on design.
Have you owned your smart phones for over 4 years when the battery
has waned in capacity?
Not dead, but insufficient remaining capacity (coulombs) to use the
phone for a day.
I'm still using a smart phone bought in 2018, but it has replaceable
batteries, and I have needed to replace them:
they get pregnant from outgassing (even seen this damage with other
users where the case split apart the case from the internal pressure
of a bulging battery),
I buy spares for toting for backup power, or for when the currently
installed battery's up-time begins to wane below /using/ (not
stowing in a pocket) the phone for about half a day.
Phone makers expect users to ditch old phones after 2 years. They
offer trade-ins. The devices go out of warranty. A new version of
the OS comes along. More gizmos or features in the newer phones.
Apps that stop supporting older OS versions. And consumers that are
well trained in the "newer is better" mantra.
In the USA, saturation is about 86%.
Saturation and attrition are why Samsung and Apple became the leading
phone makers.
That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
follow suit.
Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
buying a new one.
<https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
That webpage is hard to square with your claim.
Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
The web site you referenced is for sending a phone back to Apple to get
its battery replaced, not about buying a new phone. Don't know which
Apple phone you have, so I picked the iPhone 8 to use their cost
estimator. They came up with $69, but then add in your shipping cost to them.
You can buy an iPhone 8 battery for $10, but you'll have to do the replacement (open the case, remove old battery, install new battery,
reseal the case). So, for the extra $59, you're paying for some
low-tech expertise just to swap batteries.
Peter wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
I for one, appreciate the authoritarian rule of the EU & UK in so much as
in the United States, they give the monopolies much more autonomy.
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
but often you don't get delivered what it says on the tin, how is
"right to repair" shaping-up?
Average lifespan of ownership is just 2.65 years for smart phones.
Seems about how long before you become comfortable and informed on all
the features and usage of a phone. The batteries are designed to last 3
to 8 years depending on design.
Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
are going to spend $500 for a new phone.
Nobody reads your milelong sermons.
No one gives a gnat's fart about your unhelpful and uninformative
responses. Nor about your exceedinly short attention span that
precludes you from reading anything over a dozen words. Bet you
couldn't manage to get the end of this retort, either.
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a >> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
are going to spend $500 for a new phone.
The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery,
which is partly
why Apple raised the price to a hundred bucks as of March of this year.
Apple would vastly prefer you buy a new phone
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the battery wore out.
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it wasn't all that hard IMO.
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
first of all, the batteries aren't glued in,
VanguardLH wrote:
Nobody reads your milelong sermons.
No one gives a gnat's fart about your unhelpful and uninformative
responses. Nor about your exceedinly short attention span that
precludes you from reading anything over a dozen words. Bet you
couldn't manage to get the end of this retort, either.
Everyone else has long ago put Joerg into their killfile except you.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it
wasn't all that hard IMO.
It's not difficult, but most users won't attempt it.
Often you canfind a Youtube video on your brand and model on how to dismantle the
phone to replace the battery.
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
Nobody reads your milelong sermons.
No one gives a gnat's fart about your unhelpful and uninformative
responses. Nor about your exceedinly short attention span that
precludes you from reading anything over a dozen words. Bet you
couldn't manage to get the end of this retort, either.
nospam wrote:
Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a >>> new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
people who would spend $50 on a replacement battery aren't the ones who
are going to spend $500 for a new phone.
The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery, which is partly why Apple raised the price to a hundred bucks as of March of this year.
Apple is increasing battery replacement service charges https://techcrunch.com/2023/01/03/apple-is-increasing-battery-replacement-service-charges-for-out-of-warranty-devices/
Apple would vastly prefer you buy a new phone & contributing to ewaste.
In fact, that's why Apple makes it so hard to replace an iPhone battery.
In article <u9kf60$cp2e$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
battery wore out.
same for many other devices.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
I once replaced a sealed phone's battery. Only took about an hour and it
wasn't all that hard IMO.
It's not difficult, but most users won't attempt it. Biggest problem is damaging the water-resistent seal around the backplate. However, a dead phone is worse than one that loses its water resistence. Often you can
find a Youtube video on your brand and model on how to dismantle the
phone to replace the battery.
The last thing Apple wants you to do is replace a battery,
demonstrably false. apple offers both a battery replacement service as
well as tools to do it yourself for those so inclined.
there are also
third party service options as well as off-brand batteries for those
who want to go that route. apple has no issues with *any* of it.
it's also irrelevant. someone who is going to spend $50 to replace a
battery is not deciding between that and a new phone that's 10x more
money.
Except you don't have to ship it to them.
Apple has these "stores", you see.
Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Incubus wrote:
The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is
that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They
want ewaste.
Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500
phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
Worse... the $50 battery doesn't usually even come from the OEM. So
someone else makes money on that $50 battery.
That's the ONLY reason that manufacturers make it so hard to replace
it. Apple is the best at creating ewaste but the big Android OEMs
follow suit.
Except that replacing a battery on an iPhone costs a LOT less than
buying a new one.
<https://support.apple.com/iphone/repair/battery-replacement>
That webpage is hard to square with your claim.
Um, reread Allan's post. "... more money for the OEMs because you buy a
new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery." He said what you imply.
The web site you referenced is for sending a phone back to Apple to get
its battery replaced, not about buying a new phone. Don't know which
Apple phone you have, so I picked the iPhone 8 to use their cost
estimator. They came up with $69, but then add in your shipping cost to them.
You can buy an iPhone 8 battery for $10, but you'll have to do the replacement (open the case, remove old battery, install new battery,
reseal the case). So, for the extra $59, you're paying for some
low-tech expertise just to swap batteries.
Even with the $69 battery swap service by Apple, that's is still cheaper
than buying a new iPhone 8 although the price has come way down on
getting an iPhone 8. With replaceable batteries, that $69 service cost
would come down to the $10 replaceable battery, so still a lot cheaper
cost if the battery were user serviceable.
Am 24.07.23 um 03:37 schrieb nospam:
In article <u9kf60$cp2e$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't >>> think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the >>> battery wore out.
same for many other devices.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the new regulation. The new regulations wants to ensure a circular, sustainable and controlled
system for battery raw materials.
The only reason manufacturers make it hard to replace the battery is that they do not want you to fix that iPhone or Android phone. They want ewaste.
Ewaste means more money for the OEMs because you buy a new $500 phone. Instead of a new $50 battery.
In article <u9kgme$ctgo$1@dont-email.me>, Xavier Aguirre <aguirrexavier@unr.edu> wrote:
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make
phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
first of all, the batteries aren't glued in, and second, sales of
devices (not just phones) with internal batteries are much higher than
those with snap-off covers because they're thinner, more reliable and
have longer run times, all features customers want, versus being able
to change the battery maybe once in 5 years of ownership (which they
can still do if they want, it just takes slightly longer, not a big
deal for something done on rare occasion).
Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones.
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make >>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
first of all, the batteries aren't glued in,
Which shows you've never replaced a sealed in battery.
I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable batteries. Just because the battery is replaceable does not mandate the phone is not water resistent. I think I'll hold off replacing my phone
with a newer model until this legal stuff works itself out. I much
prefer replaceable batteries instead of scrapping the entire device.
Except you don't have to ship it to them.
Apple has these "stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.
In article <u9kf60$cp2e$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing,
Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't
think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the
battery wore out.
same for many other devices.
Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to >> make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones.
nope. in fact, it's become easier with recent models.
Andy Burns wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable batteries.
VanguardLH wrote:
I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
batteries.
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
would fit in any laptop, perhaps slotting into something like a drive bay
nospam wrote:
Case in point is that Apple has always done everything they possibly can to >>> make it harder and more expensive to replace the battery on their iPhones. >>nope. in fact, it's become easier with recent models.
Apple's history tells a different story when you account for all models.
The iPhone only Apple can really repair https://www.ifixit.com/News/45921/is-this-the-end-of-the-repairable-iphone
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Except you don't have to ship it to them.
Apple has these "stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.
https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all focused
around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there. The mailing cost
to send in your phone (which means you lose use of it until the get
around to replacing the battery and shipping it to you) is far cheaper
than having to drive many hundreds of miles to a store.
Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15
BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or hoped,
many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone to Apple.
What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when you get it back?
Andy Burns wrote:
Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg
Java Jive wrote:
would fit in any laptop, perhaps slotting into something like a drive bay
Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
VanguardLH wrote:
I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
batteries.
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
On 24/07/2023 18:04, Andy Burns wrote:
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:Yes, I've had floppy/HD/battery modules that insert into an optical
Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg >>
bay, but my current laptops only have M.2 slots.
The principle's exactly the same, a standard interface. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be dismantling an entire laptop just to change an M.2
SSD, any more than I want to dismantle one to change the fans, which is
what I have to do at present for the machines that have the above linked drive bay.
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg
Yes, I've had floppy/HD/battery modules that insert into an optical bay,
but my current laptops only have M.2 slots.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:47:59 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-24 05:22, Andy Burns wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
I'm hoping this will prod phone makers to go back to user replaceable
batteries.
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
Hear we go again...
Wear?
VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Except you don't have to ship it to them.
Apple has these "stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states. Count
yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your state.
https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all focused
around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there. The mailing cost
to send in your phone (which means you lose use of it until the get
around to replacing the battery and shipping it to you) is far cheaper
than having to drive many hundreds of miles to a store.
Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15
You have GOT to be joking.
Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or
hoped, many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone to
Apple. What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when you get
it back?
My turnaround time was a few hours after I dropped it off.
- A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.
- Without a removable battery, there is less chance for the customer to
fall victim to low-quality 3rd party batteries, which results in less
service calls.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Except you don't have to ship it to them. Apple has these
"stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided
it was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're
now trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.
You sound like the low-brow sales rep at one of the cellular
carriers claiming they have 100% coverage -- under limiting criteria
that is not mentioned. That is, they have great coverage in the
areas they cover.
I'm sure glad gas stations are better distributed than Apple stores.
Gee, I can only drive around in areas of a vast majority of PEOPLE.
Cars wouldn't been far less used and purchased if that were true.
272 Apple stores in the USA as of June 2023 across 45 states.
Count yourself lucky there is, at least, 1 Apple store in your
state.
https://www.scrapehero.com/location-reports/Apple-USA/
Many states only have 1 store. Mine has 3, but they're all
focused around a metropolis, and for no cities outside there.
The mailing cost to send in your phone (which means you lose use
of it until the get around to replacing the battery and shipping
it to you) is far cheaper than having to drive many hundreds of
miles to a store.
Give me an example of one of these supposed $10 batteries...
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=iphone+8+battery&_sop=15
You have GOT to be joking.
Nope. If you're too lazy to determine counterfeit from genuine, or
to bother using eBay's Seller Protection, yep, you're stuck with an
Apple store sticking in whatever they're using at the time, and
paying for it.
Since the density of Apple stores is nowhere what you thought or
hoped, many if not most Apple users will have to ship their phone
to Apple. What's the turnaround time from when you ship to when
you get it back?
My turnaround time was a few hours after I dropped it off.
Lucky you have an Apple store nearby. So, you don't have experience
with having to mail in your phone to Apple to get them to replace
the battery to tell us their turn-around time. I don't buy multiple
phones with multiple carriers to have one in reserve when I have to
send one in for repair. Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that
I'd have to buy a spare to overcome the usage outage. Oh wait, I can
buy a battery for a hell of lot less, and do it myself. But then
folks visiting here don't comprise the the typical consumer.
BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship
to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?
In article <1m62pjxj6u.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
I do think that having "easily" replaceable batteries is a good thing, >>>>Personally, I don't. I remember the days before sealed phones and I don't >>>> think I knew bought a replacement battery. Phones were changed before the >>>> battery wore out.
same for many other devices.
I do not change my ebook reader just because the battery wears out. Why
would I? I'm just reading books, not playing with a tablet. I only need
it to display the books.
ebook readers use very little power so it will be a long time until it
wears out to the point of the battery needing to be replaced.
when that happens, you can replace the battery if you prefer, but by
that time, there will be more capable models with more features.
Now, if they offer me a replacement with replaceable batteries
(preferably AAA), I will consider buying a new one.
you might, but most people don't want an ebook reader that's thick
enough for aaa batteries, or the hassle of dealing with them, along
with much shorter run times.
Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
In article <n072pjxvtg.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
consumers have voted with their wallets which is why manufacturers make >>>>> phones and many other devices with internal batteries
Nobody ever bought a smartphone _because_ it had a glued-in battery.
first of all, the batteries aren't glued in, and second, sales of
devices (not just phones) with internal batteries are much higher than
those with snap-off covers because they're thinner, more reliable and
have longer run times, all features customers want, versus being able
to change the battery maybe once in 5 years of ownership (which they
can still do if they want, it just takes slightly longer, not a big
deal for something done on rare occasion).
No.
We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the
features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no
option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.
first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once
in the device's lifetime.
most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.
that means having an easily replaceable battery is of no benefit since
it's not something they'll end up doing in normal use.
And yes, batteries are glued in.
which phones glue in the battery?
iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
seen, nobody else does either.
I don't buy multiple phones
with multiple carriers to have one in >reserve when I have to send one in
for repair.
Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that > I'd have to buy a
spare to overcome the usage outage.
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.
On 7/24/23 11:28 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
I don't buy multiple phones
with multiple carriers to have one in >reserve when I have to send one in >>for repair.
I keep a old prior phone around for just such emergencies.
Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that > I'd have to buy a
spare to overcome the usage outage.
My current spare is an iPhone. Still works. It'll hold me for a few days...
On 2023-07-24 11:28, VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Except you don't have to ship it to them. Apple has these
"stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided
it was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're
now trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.
You seem very fond of straw man arguments, don't you?
Your implicit argument is that the number of Apple Stores forms an
impediment to a large portion of their customers.
And that requires taking distribution of their customers into
consideration.
I simply note you've completely snipped this:
BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very
high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if
I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship >>> to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?
Is there some reason you don't want to address this question?
Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.
We book hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly,
not having to buy a new reader every 6 years,
for a price that destroys the economic advantage of buying ebooks vs
paper books.
VanguardLH wrote
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because
the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart
phone, or any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones
because the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided it
was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're now
trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.
You sound like the low-brow sales rep at one of the cellular carriers claiming they have 100% coverage -- under limiting criteria that is not mentioned. That is, they have great coverage in the areas they cover.
I'm sure glad gas stations are better distributed than Apple stores.
Gee, I can only drive around in areas of a vast majority of PEOPLE.
Cars wouldn't been far less used and purchased if that were true.
AJL wrote: (added the missing attribution line)
VanguardLH (not AJL) wrote:
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone,
or any portable phone.
Agreed.
The only people for who an all-glass phone is a "smart idea" are those
who want to sell you a new phone when it breaks the first time you
drop it.
Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
- A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass
construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone. It's for looks, not durability. Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.
Just what /functionality/ does an all-glass case lend to a smartphone?
One cited advantage is glass is more transparent to RF than aluminum.
That's quite evident anytime you add a case around the phone that is metallic, or even has the mylar coating to make it shiny. Bars go down.
Is glass more transparent to RF than, say, plastic?
Ah, glass is more scratch resistant. Considering phone owners get rid
of their phones, on average, after 2.65 years, who cares about scratches
in a plastic backplate? However, it isn't your keys that scratch glass.
It's the lint in your pocket that has silica.
- Without a removable battery, there is less chance for the customer to
fall victim to low-quality 3rd party batteries, which results in less
service calls.
Which also means when the chemistry begins to fade (capacity wanes) or
fails (battery goes dead), consumers are more likely to buy another
phone than take their old one to a shop to pay for repair service.
Phone makers want consumers to see phones as consumable products, not as repairable products.
When you buy a flashlight with replaceable batteries, when do you
replace the flashlight? When the batteries die, or when the flashlight
fails (also assuming the bulb is not replaceable)? It'd be the latter.
I have read where Corning has their Gorilla v6 glass that is supposed to withstand 15 drops from 1 meter height. It's getting better, but it's
still glass.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:28 AM, VanguardLH wrote:
I don't buy multiple phones with multiple carriers to have one
in
reserve when I have to send one in for repair.
I keep a old prior phone around for just such emergencies.
Guess if I had an Apple phone (yuck) that > I'd have to buy a
spare to overcome the usage outage.
My current spare is an iPhone. Still works. It'll hold me for a
few days...
I don't move off my phone until forced,
My current phone only goes up to 4G, not the 5G.
So, when the carriers decide to drop anything lower than 5G then I'm
stuck getting a new phone.
For me, my old phones were killed off.
However, I really don't care for paying for multiple carriers, or
multi-phone plans,
for a phone that will predominantly reside in a drawer and powered
off for months or years.
Alternatively, I could get a pair of phones where I could swap the
SIM card (providing the carrier wasn't blocking a model using its
IMEI), or both used eSIM.
But if it's an expense you're willing to pay, yeah, having a spare
phone makes sense. It would eliminate usage outage should the phone
get lost, broke, or stolen -- or having to ship in to get the
battery replaced (if I didn't do it myself).
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Having a battery popping the case open forced me to quit using it.
Am 24.07.23 um 20:56 schrieb VanguardLH:
Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
- A removable back cover needs to be more sturdy, so it can survive
removal by an untrained person. The current fashion to use an all-glass
construction would probably not have happened with removable batteries.
Just what /functionality/ does an all-glass case lend to a smartphone?
Compared to metal, glass has the advantage of being dirt cheap and
neutral towards electromagnetic fields. Functions like NFC and wireless charging are almost impossible with a metal back, and in the era of
all-metal bodies even the high end phones of a certain US brand ended up having reception problems if not held "correctly".
Phone makers want consumers to see phones as consumable products, not as
repairable products.
Yes, but the main problem here is the lack of software updates, not the battery.
The latter is more of an ecological problem, because having completely different materials glued together makes recycling and/or proper
disposal really hard.
When you buy a flashlight with replaceable batteries, when do you
replace the flashlight? When the batteries die, or when the flashlight
fails (also assuming the bulb is not replaceable)? It'd be the latter.
Last time i bought a new flashlight was because i wanted an
USB-rechargeable one. Having only one type of power source and one type
of emergency backup (in form of a Power Bank) for all electronic devices makes things so much easier during travel.
The time before, i replaced all my flashlights, because the modern
LED-based ones are soooo much brighter than the old incandescent ones,
while having much lower power consumption at the same time.
So it the end, even for such a simple device the driving factor was
neither wear nor batteries, but Featurism.
Which phones come with
metal cases? Not the aftermarket case covers you can snap onto a phone
to make it look pretty, but the original packaging of the phone. You
need those radios inside the phone to get a good signal whenever they
can, not attenuate the signals by sandwiching a metal shield between
antenna and transmitter.
If metal were a common case material, you'd see lots of folks spinning
in a circle trying to get the screen-side of their phone pointed in a direction to get a stronger signal.
Like buying a car you really REALLY want despite it has no spare tire.
Then one day you realize how important is a spare, but you don't have
one. Used to be you got a full-size spare. Now they stuff in one of
those crappy emergency under-sized under-rated limited-distance spares, because it weighs less so the car maker can bloat their fuel efficiency,
are cheaper than full sized spares, and use less space.
I still buy a
full-sized spare, remove the crap emergency spare, and remove the
organizer tray they stuff atop the spare under the floor panel. I want
a full spare more than organizing a bunch of knick knacks.
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-24 11:28, VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Except you don't have to ship it to them. Apple has these
"stores", you see.
The density of Apple stores is dismal.
The stores are where the vast majority of the PEOPLE are.
Ah, so PEOPLE don't count if not in the cities where Apple decided
it was profitable to have a brick-and-mortar store. Uh huh. You're
now trying to save face on your statement that was misleading.
You seem very fond of straw man arguments, don't you?
To you, an counterpoint is a strawman argument.
Your implicit argument is that the number of Apple Stores forms an
impediment to a large portion of their customers.
Look at the map. Get the population of those cities. Then compare to
the total population of the nation. You can view the stats from
different perspectives, but all of them will show dismal coverage.
And that requires taking distribution of their customers into
consideration.
And what I said in what you claimed was a strawman argument regarding profitability of brick-and-mortar stores. And also why Apple offers
mail-in service to counter their low store presence. They aren't going
to open more stores to cover where it isn't profitable, so that fallback
to mail-in replacement.
I simply note you've completely snipped this:
BatteriesPlus has the battery for $59, but they are notorious for very >>>> high prices. However, sometimes they're the only place I can find a
replacement battery (for more than just smartphones). In any case, if >>>> I'm buying a replacement battery, I'm doing the work, so the usage
outage is however it takes me to do the replacement, no how long to ship >>>> to Apple, until they do the replacement, and the shipping back to me.
Where is the nearest Apple Store TO YOU?
Is there some reason you don't want to address this question?
What question?
I learned to trim my posts a long time ago. If not
pertinent to the discussion, don't quote it. In fact, quoting anything
of the parent post is a politeness extended to users that cannot follow context through the posts, and would like some context within a post.
No one has to quote anything from the parent post at all.
I brought up that point to show there are places that perhaps you
consider more reliable (yet you don't know from where they get the
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because
the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Addressed when I mentioned protecting that expensive phone with an armor
case which obviates the argument of how more pretty is a glass case.
Buy a pretty glass-cased phone, but then cover it up with an armor case.
Java Jive wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Looking at my home and work laptops, what's a drive bay?
I'm sure you must have seem something like this before:
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/20230724_165424_Dell_Precision_M6300_HD_Bay.jpg
Yes, I've had floppy/HD/battery modules that insert into an optical bay,
but my current laptops only have M.2 slots.
no, the fallback are third party stores that can replace the battery
(and other repairs). you are incorrectly assuming an apple store is the
only option. that is false.
I have read where Corning has their Gorilla v6 glass that is supposed to
withstand 15 drops from 1 meter height. It's getting better, but it's
still glass.
do that with a metal phone and it will dent.
do that with a plastic phone and it will crack or shatter.
nothing is perfect.
it's also a contrived scenario to test durability, not an example of
normal use.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
I have read where Corning has their Gorilla v6 glass that is supposed to >>> withstand 15 drops from 1 meter height. It's getting better, but it's
still glass.
do that with a metal phone and it will dent.
do that with a plastic phone and it will crack or shatter.
nothing is perfect.
it's also a contrived scenario to test durability, not an example of
normal use.
There's no advantage, to the user, of the glass back - only to Apple.
The main reason Apple put in the glass back was a strategic calculus that people would be afraid it would break - so they'd buy Apple insurance.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
no, the fallback are third party stores that can replace the battery
(and other repairs). you are incorrectly assuming an apple store is the
only option. that is false.
It's always the case that nospam doesn't know what he's talking about
when it comes to the many sleazy tricks Apple does to discourage repair.
Apple Is Locking iPhone Batteries to Discourage Repair https://www.ifixit.com/News/32343/apple-is-locking-batteries-to-iphones-now
"By activating a dormant software lock on their newest iPhones, Apple is effectively announcing a drastic new policy: only Apple batteries can go in iPhones, and only they can install them."
There's no advantage, to the user, of the glass back - only to Apple.
The main reason Apple put in the glass back was a strategic calculus that people would be afraid it would break - so they'd buy Apple insurance.
For an emergency flashlight on a trip (other than those I carry in
the car and the toolkit in the car), my power bank for my smartphone
has an LED light. So, I've got that to use in the hotel room as a flashlight. Well, I put a shortie flashlight in my travel kit, too.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:41, VanguardLH wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because
the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Addressed when I mentioned protecting that expensive phone with an armor >>> case which obviates the argument of how more pretty is a glass case.
Buy a pretty glass-cased phone, but then cover it up with an armor case.
But the advantage of a glass case is not just aesthetics.
The professed advantages of wireless charging and more transparent for
RF reception is almost aways when comparing glass against metal. Who
uses metal for a phone case (the one integral to the phone, not one you
snap onto the phone to make it look pretty or colorful). The backplate
is either plastic or glass, not metal, and plastic is transparent to RF,
too. If plastic backplates were not RF transmissive, users would've
long ago been popping off the backplates to carry their phones half-nude
to reduce signal attenuation.
On 7/24/2023 3:46 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
Having a battery popping the case open forced me to quit using it.
Had both a friend and aunt where their cases split open due to a
pregnant battery. My aunt's screen was also damaged from the
pressure.
Mine (actually the wife's) apparently popped open suddenly at a family gathering. It was fine when we arrived and first noticed when she got it
out of her purse an hour or so later. It swelled a good half inch
popping the case open. I carried it home and later around the house on a cookie tin because I was scared of fire until the new battery came in
the mail in 3 days.
For my buddy, he was luckier as we were able to snap the case halves
back together.
Me too. No other damage.
Since the backside of phones are predominantly flat, one test to
check for a pregnant battery is to lay the phone on a flat surface
on its backside and see if you can spin it. If it spins, the
backplate has bulged outward from a pregnant battery. A flat phone
that spins is in trouble.
I'm not sure the spin test applies with a glass-backed phone spun on
a glass table. There's less friction to begin with. However, the
phone should have a sudden stop, not just slowing down its spin
rate.
I'm not going to waste my time taking off the case for a spin test. It's
only happened once to me in decades. What are the chances? YMMV...
On 2023-07-24 14:41, VanguardLH wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because
the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Addressed when I mentioned protecting that expensive phone with an armor
case which obviates the argument of how more pretty is a glass case.
Buy a pretty glass-cased phone, but then cover it up with an armor case.
But the advantage of a glass case is not just aesthetics.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
I'm not going to waste my time taking off the case for a [fat
battery] spin test. It's only happened once to me in decades. What
are the chances? YMMV...
You mean to remove an armor case?
Often I don't know my phone's battery got pregnant until I remove the
armor case to replace the battery.
for me, another indication the battery could be swelling is low
capacity on a full charge.
Another is feeling the temperature on the back of the phone during
charging (if you're normal charging, not fast charging).
On 2023-07-24 20:51, VanguardLH wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:41, VanguardLH wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:But the advantage of a glass case is not just aesthetics.
VanguardLH wrote
Another reason users end up replacing their working phones because >>>>>> the glass shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Addressed when I mentioned protecting that expensive phone with an armor >>>> case which obviates the argument of how more pretty is a glass case.
Buy a pretty glass-cased phone, but then cover it up with an armor case. >>>
The professed advantages of wireless charging and more transparent for
RF reception is almost aways when comparing glass against metal. Who
uses metal for a phone case (the one integral to the phone, not one you
snap onto the phone to make it look pretty or colorful). The backplate
is either plastic or glass, not metal, and plastic is transparent to RF,
too. If plastic backplates were not RF transmissive, users would've
long ago been popping off the backplates to carry their phones half-nude
to reduce signal attenuation.
You really haven't ever met a straw man argument you didn't love, have you?
VanguardLH wrote:
For an emergency flashlight on a trip (other than those I carry in
the car and the toolkit in the car), my power bank for my smartphone
has an LED light. So, I've got that to use in the hotel room as a
flashlight. Well, I put a shortie flashlight in my travel kit, too.
My phone has a built in flashlight. Not yours? Time to upgrade... ;)
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
My phone has a built in flashlight. Not yours? Time to upgrade...
;)
Yes, my phone has a light necessary for use with the camera but can
be used independently. It's an LED light, but still consumes energy
Be an interesting test to see how much faster a battery drains when
using its camera light as a flashlight,
like leaving the phone unused but powered on without using the LED on
the phone to see how long is the up-time versus the same test with
the LED left continously on.
There's also the life expectancy of the LED to consider (perhaps 50K
hours although it could be only 10K hours). That's about 5.7 years,
another failure cause to replace the phone (but long after the
average 2.65 years of ownership).
Also to consider is how fast you can turn on the light. Take out
your phone, unlock it, and then find to use the app or shortcut to
turn on the light.
Take out a flashlight, and press a button.
There's no advantage, to the user, of the glass back - only to Apple.
there absolutely is an advantage to users for using rf transparent
materials, such as glass.
The main reason Apple put in the glass back was a strategic calculus that
people would be afraid it would break - so they'd buy Apple insurance.
nope.
the problem is that many batteries overstate their health status so
that they appear to be better than they actually are. providing false information is not helpful to the user, so unless the battery can be authenticated as genuine, that information (and only that information)
is not displayed. *everything* else works as expected.
You really haven't ever met a straw man argument you didn't love, have you?
You left responses wide open with your vague comment "not just
aesthetics". You deliberately omitted being specific, so any response
would be appropriate. You deserved what you got for being vague.
AJL wrote:
On my Galaxy S10+ I just swipe down from the top of the lock screen
(locked or not) and I have access to 12 phone functions one of which
is the flashlight.
I lied. After I swiped down on the lock screen for 12 phone functions I discovered I could swipe left for 2 more screens and an all screen total
of 29 phone functions. Weird to own a phone for almost 4 years and just
now discover that, huh. Thanks Vanguard...
In my opinion, it's a completely stupid fashion trend. In the end, the fragility and slipperiness of glass encourages me to keep the phone in a protective rubber sleeve all the time, which completely hides the looks.
Am 24.07.23 um 23:55 schrieb Hergen Lehmann:
In my opinion, it's a completely stupid fashion trend. In the end, the
fragility and slipperiness of glass encourages me to keep the phone in a
protective rubber sleeve all the time, which completely hides the looks.
A phone is a tool. WTF cares. A bumper protects a device that cost
somewhere around $1000.
On my Galaxy S10+ I just swipe down from the top of the lock screen
(locked or not) and I have access to 12 phone functions one of which
is the flashlight.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
There's no advantage, to the user, of the glass back - only to Apple.
there absolutely is an advantage to users for using rf transparent
materials, such as glass.
The only reason Apple added the glass was to make the iPhone more fragile.
If glass was so great over plastic then Netgear would make a glass router.
sms wrote:
What I really liked about the old Thinkpads and Dell Latitudes, and
Compaq business machines were the docks that you just dropped the laptop
onto and all the connections were made for the charger and peripherals,
including monitors, keyboards, and mice.
few people did that too. otherwise, it would still be offered.The modern equivalent is Thunderbolt4, plugging a single type-C cable
In article <ki78otF1ro8U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart phone, or >>>> any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass
shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
On 7/24/2023 12:36 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.
I'm currently reading an ebook over a hundred years old. Does that count?
We book hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly,
My ebooks from Amazon and Google are permanent for me (and family). I
now have well over a thousand available to read at any time. They are transferable to my heirs but may not be available in 2 centuries like
yours. Probably won't bother me much by then though...
not having to buy a new reader every 6 years,
Not sure I understand why. My ebooks can be read anytime on most any
device. And also in any browser...
for a price that destroys the economic advantage of buying ebooks vs
paper books.
Probably my cheapest ebook reader was my Amazon Fire 7 tablet at $29US
(think its $59 now - damn that inflation). Course the Fire 7 also did everything Android and it has color just like you want...
In article <nn03pjxq7p.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones with the >>>> features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We have no >>>> option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.
first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once
in the device's lifetime.
most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.
I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
friends or relatives doing the same.
I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.
one of those is far more common than the other.
And yes, batteries are glued in.
which phones glue in the battery?
iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
seen, nobody else does either.
The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok,
some type of sticky tape or foam.
sticky tape is not glue.
it's also the exception.
The only reason Apple added the glass was to make the iPhone more fragile.
If glass was so great over plastic then Netgear would make a glass router.
In article <lf03pjxq7p.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
There are already dozens of different models of ereaders. Just one more.
I would like a metal one, solid.
you might, but there needs to be far more than just you to justify manufacturing a new product.
Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.
actually, they don't. paper deteriorates, especially if it's handled by humans.
it needs to be kept in a climate controlled environment, in a sealed enclosure filled with an inert gas, as is often the case with museums.
We book
hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly, not having to buy a new
reader every 6 years, for a price that destroys the economic advantage
of buying ebooks vs paper books.
ebooks will last forever, without any degradation whatsoever and can be copied an unlimited number of times, with no generational loss.
the device used to read them will change as technology progresses,
whether it's a kindle, ipad, laptop, desktop or maybe some future ar/vr
ebook goggle not yet invented.
In article <43q4pjxkvs.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.
I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
friends or relatives doing the same.
I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.
one of those is far more common than the other.
Source? :-)
industry sales data.
The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok,
some type of sticky tape or foam.
sticky tape is not glue.
it's also the exception.
All I opened had it. Yes, sticky tape counts as glue.
it doesn't.
In article <koq4pjxpup.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.
actually, they don't. paper deteriorates, especially if it's handled by
humans.
it needs to be kept in a climate controlled environment, in a sealed
enclosure filled with an inert gas, as is often the case with museums.
Well, I do have paper books that are over 2 centuries old, and I have
none of those controlled environments. Nor did my ancestors.
be careful. paper degrades and there are *no* backups. any damage is
not reversible. a fire or flood and it's completely gone.
We book
hoarders want our ebooks to last similarly, not having to buy a new
reader every 6 years, for a price that destroys the economic advantage >>>> of buying ebooks vs paper books.
ebooks will last forever, without any degradation whatsoever and can be
copied an unlimited number of times, with no generational loss.
Talking of the device, not the media.
the content is what matters.
the device for how it's read (or heard or viewed, for other content
types) is just a tool.
And the current law is the media rights to die with the owner, anyway.
only if there's drm.
without drm, there is no issue.
the device used to read them will change as technology progresses,
whether it's a kindle, ipad, laptop, desktop or maybe some future ar/vr
ebook goggle not yet invented.
Technology has not progressed in ebooks since invented.
yes it has, and will continue to progress.
<https://bookscouter.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-ebooks/>
Technology has not progressed in ebooks since invented.
On my Galaxy S10+ I just swipe down from the top of the lock screen
(locked or not) and I have access to 12 phone functions one of which
is the flashlight.
I lied. After I swiped down on the lock screen for 12 phone functions I discovered I could swipe left for 2 more screens and an all screen total
of 29 phone functions. Weird to own a phone for almost 4 years and just
now discover that, huh. Thanks Vanguard...
On 2023-07-24 23:58, nospam wrote:
In article <nn03pjxq7p.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
We buy phones with non replaceable batteries because the phones
with the
features and brands we want don't have replaceable batteries. We
have no
option, unless replaceable battery is a priority for the buyer.
first of all, the batteries *are* replaceable, it just takes a little
longer, which is not a big deal for something that *might* be done once >>>> in the device's lifetime.
most people get a new phone because of the new features or a
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery.
I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
friends or relatives doing the same.
I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.
one of those is far more common than the other.
Source? :-)
And yes, batteries are glued in.
which phones glue in the battery?
iphones don't glue in the battery, and from the repair guides i've
seen, nobody else does either.
The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok,
some type of sticky tape or foam.
sticky tape is not glue.
it's also the exception.
All I opened had it. Yes, sticky tape counts as glue.
Am 24.07.23 um 14:57 schrieb nospam:
In article <ki78otF1ro8U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
How would you know?
On 2023-07-25 14:39, nospam wrote:
In article <koq4pjxpup.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Paper books last centuries. I do have books 2 centuries old.
actually, they don't. paper deteriorates, especially if it's handled by >>>> humans.
it needs to be kept in a climate controlled environment, in a sealed
enclosure filled with an inert gas, as is often the case with museums.
Well, I do have paper books that are over 2 centuries old, and I have
none of those controlled environments. Nor did my ancestors.
be careful. paper degrades and there are *no* backups. any damage is
not reversible. a fire or flood and it's completely gone.
I am aware. Also the house gets destroyed. And the computer and the
backups.
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart
phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass
shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 23:24:20 -0700, AJL wrote:
screenOn my Galaxy S10+ I just swipe down from the top of the lock
which(locked or not) and I have access to 12 phone functions one of
functions Iis the flashlight.
I lied. After I swiped down on the lock screen for 12 phone
screen totaldiscovered I could swipe left for 2 more screens and an all
and justof 29 phone functions. Weird to own a phone for almost 4 years
tilesnow discover that, huh. Thanks Vanguard...
But wait... there's more.
Not only can any app developer create his own set of quick setting
https://developer.android.com/develop/ui/views/quicksettings-tilesmore of
Depending on the Android version, the Developer options unlocks
those quick settings tiles which show up when you happen to swipedown.
https://developer.android.com/studio/debug/dev-options
The modern equivalent is Thunderbolt4, plugging a single type-C cable
into the laptop supplies ~100W of power and connects dual monitors,
multigig ethernet and a whole host of USB peripherals ...
I have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know
friends or relatives doing the same.
I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.
Am 24.07.23 um 14:57 schrieb nospam:
In article <ki78otF1ro8U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
All device makers seem to have agreed on the "brick with rounded edges" design. The only substantial design difference between smartphones these
days is the size of the screen and the shape of the camera protrusion on
the back.
Even the internal circuit layout is more or less fixed. There has to be
a PCB with the data/charge connector and the main microphone at the
bottom, a second PCB with all RF-related stuff and the main SoC at the
top (where the antennas have the best chance to remain unobstructed when handling the device) and the battery finds its place somewhere inbetween.
This design standard is easily compatible with a few standard battery
sizes matching typical screen sizes.
The loss of flexibility mourned by you is not utilized my the
manufacturers anyway.
In article <ki78otF1ro8U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
The only reason Apple added the glass was to make the iPhone more fragile.
nobody makes something *more* fragile.
If glass was so great over plastic then Netgear would make a glass router.
nearly all routers have *external* antennas, plus routers are not
subject to the same stresses as a mobile device.
He applied logic to the issue.
Force everyone to use standard components and no one will be allowed to
find anything better.
Am 25.07.23 um 19:45 schrieb Alan:
He applied logic to the issue.
Force everyone to use standard components and no one will be allowed
to find anything better.
Yes, the standardization of AA and AAA size batteries, 9V blocks, plus a
few coin cells has completely hampered the electronics industry for many decades now. We would have scheduled flights to alpha centauri these
days, if each manufacturer would only have introduced new battery sizes
with each new device.
Heck, there used to be a lot more standardized sizes and the industry
didn't even need them in the end!
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
According to a leading U.S. consumer magazine the top three reasons, in
order, why consumers replace their phone are:
1. Broken screen
What about the broken glass back for those fragile phones with glass backs?
2. Battery no longer holds enough charge
This is due to the inherent chemical degradation due to charge/discharge cycles where even Apple says you've lost 20% of capacity after 500 cycles.
Therefore...
The most important specification is to get a phone with five, six, or even seven amp hours of initial capacity.
What's the capacity on an iPhone?
You don't want to look that up because it's the worst in the industry!
Every Apple battery is GARBAGE compared to any decent $20 Android battery.
On 25.7.2023 22:07, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
You don't want to look that up because it's the worst in the industry!And yet Apple's PHONES (an entire system of battery capacity and energy
Every Apple battery is GARBAGE compared to any decent $20 Android battery. >>
usage) have some of the longest run times in the entire industry.
He wasn't talking about daily run time you moron.
The apple batteries have the shortest overall battery life in the phone industry because they're always about half the size of normal batteries.
Apple put those low-life batteries in the iPhone to hasten replacements. Apple has no magic on battery chemistry that the others don't also have.
Since all batteries degrade by charge/discharge cycles and since there is a drop-dead voltage degradation point for all batteries, it's basic science that Apple batteries (which are half the size of normal batteries) will always degrade sooner than Android batteries (which are twice the
capacity).
Don't you remember Apple pushing those battery degradation limits too far
and then, as a result, Apple was successfully sued by just about everyone?
The main reason Apple uses half-sized batteries is to lower overall life.
Am 24.07.23 um 14:57 schrieb nospam:
In article <ki78otF1ro8U2@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
It might be helpful if there were a standard series of batteries and
connectors, rather than every phone having a unique battery?
that would greatly limit what device makers can design.
All device makers seem to have agreed on the "brick with rounded edges" design. The only substantial design difference between smartphones these
days is the size of the screen and the shape of the camera protrusion on
the back.
On 2023-07-25 11:48, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
Yes, the standardization of AA and AAA size batteries, 9V blocks, plus
a few coin cells has completely hampered the electronics industry for
many decades now. We would have scheduled flights to alpha centauri
these days, if each manufacturer would only have introduced new
battery sizes with each new device.
If those batteries had been mandated standards, then all current cell
phones would be forced to use them...
Heck, there used to be a lot more standardized sizes and the industry
didn't even need them in the end!
You really can't see it, can you?
Am 25.07.23 um 21:03 schrieb Alan:
On 2023-07-25 11:48, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
Yes, the standardization of AA and AAA size batteries, 9V blocks,
plus a few coin cells has completely hampered the electronics
industry for many decades now. We would have scheduled flights to
alpha centauri these days, if each manufacturer would only have
introduced new battery sizes with each new device.
If those batteries had been mandated standards, then all current cell
phones would be forced to use them...
There are standardized sizes for rechargeable batteries too.
Yes, this includes LiPo pouch cells as used in smartphones. The makers
of many expensive, cutting-edge specialty devices use these, because low quantities don't justify custom batteries. The makers of chinese novelty gadgets use them too, because they are dirt cheap. Camera/Camcorder manufacturers usually have custom sizes, but reuse the same size over
many product generations.
The phone industry is about the only part of the electronics industry
which has large enough quantities to allow for playing around with
custom batteries for every single device.
Heck, there used to be a lot more standardized sizes and the industry
didn't even need them in the end!
You really can't see it, can you?
Yes i can see, why they use custom batteries.
It is to implement guaranteed obsolescence, because fresh original
batteries aren't sold anymore and chinese counterfeit ones are complete
crap.
This design standard is easily compatible with a few standard battery
sizes matching typical screen sizes.
The loss of flexibility mourned by you is not utilized my the
manufacturers anyway.
And you can see the future, can you?
Am 25.07.23 um 20:47 schrieb Alan:
This design standard is easily compatible with a few standard battery
sizes matching typical screen sizes.
The loss of flexibility mourned by you is not utilized my the
manufacturers anyway.
And you can see the future, can you?
Yes, i can see that there are international manufacturer associations
and standardization committees, which can push out amendments to
existing standards within a few months, and even completely new
standards within a few years.
It has happened to USB many times now, it has happened to the mobile networking standards several times, and it will certainly also happen to standardized batteries.
Smartphones as a mass market wouldn't even exist without standards,
which guarantee that every phone brand interoperates with every network worldwide.
Well-accepted industry standards don't obstruct innovation!
They BOOST it by avoiding the massive overhead caused by compatibility
issues and repeated re-invention of the wheel.
They also BOOST it by encouraging technology transfer. You know what
happens in those standardization committees every day? Yes, the
participating manufacturers are presenting their newest innovations,
hoping that some of them will make their way into the standard as a
mandatory component, so they can cash in on the patents afterwards.
In article <21v4pjxk5b.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
most people get a new phone because of the new features or aI have indeed replaced phones because of failing battery, and I know >>>>>> friends or relatives doing the same.
promotional deal from the carrier, not because of a failing battery. >>>>>>
I have also replaced phones because I needed some new feature.
one of those is far more common than the other.
Source? :-)
industry sales data.
Source? :-)
Actual link, please.
do you really think people buy more replacement batteries than they do phones?
<https://www.zippia.com/advice/us-smartphone-industry-statistics/>
Between 1.2 and 1.5 billion smartphones are sold per year on average,
with 2022 being a slower year. For instance, in 2019 over 1.5 billion
smartphones were sold and distributed worldwide. That same year,
more than 40% of people in the world had access to a smartphone.
The two devices on which I replaced the batteries, it was glued. Ok, >>>>>> some type of sticky tape or foam.
sticky tape is not glue.
it's also the exception.
All I opened had it. Yes, sticky tape counts as glue.
it doesn't.
Yes it does. For us, it is the same thing.
then why the distinction? you even said it was not glue, but instead
some type of sticky tape or foam. if it's the same thing, there's no
need for different words.
The battery needs "methods"
to extract, it is not pick with the fingers, easily.
everything has methods.
glue usually needs heat to soften the glue so that the battery can be removed, but not too hot to where the battery is damaged, which does
*not* like heat. after replacement, it needs to be re-glued.
sticky tape is different and much easier.
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart
phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass
shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart
phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass
shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
Am 25.07.23 um 19:45 schrieb Alan:
He applied logic to the issue.
Force everyone to use standard components and no one will be allowed to
find anything better.
Yes, the standardization of AA and AAA size batteries, 9V blocks, plus a
few coin cells has completely hampered the electronics industry for many decades now. We would have scheduled flights to alpha centauri these
days, if each manufacturer would only have introduced new battery sizes
with each new device.
Am 25.07.23 um 21:03 schrieb Alan:
You really can't see it, can you?
Yes i can see, why they use custom batteries.
It is to implement guaranteed obsolescence, because fresh original
batteries aren't sold anymore and chinese counterfeit ones are complete
crap.
On 2023-07-25 14:58, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
Yes i can see, why they use custom batteries.
It is to implement guaranteed obsolescence, because fresh original
batteries aren't sold anymore and chinese counterfeit ones are complete
crap.
No, you incredible simpleton!
I think I worry more about breaking the screen cause I could cover the back with a case. Oh wait, I already did...
On 2023-07-26 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart
phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass
shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
Some do, sure...
So what?
Companies build what consumers want...
...or very soon they go out of business.
On 2023-07-26 17:13, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart >>>>>>>>> phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass >>>>>>>>> shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
Some do, sure...
So what?
Companies build what consumers want...
Not really.
...or very soon they go out of business.
On 2023-07-26 10:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-26 17:13, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart >>>>>>>>>> phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass >>>>>>>>>> shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
Some do, sure...
So what?
Companies build what consumers want...
Not really.
Yes, really.
...or very soon they go out of business.
On 2023-07-27 02:30, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 10:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-26 17:13, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart >>>>>>>>>>> phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass >>>>>>>>>>> shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic. >>>>>
Some do, sure...
So what?
Companies build what consumers want...
Not really.
Yes, really.
No :-D
Yes.
Companies build what consumers want...
...because if consumers don't want what they build...
...then they don't buy it.
Alan wrote:
Yes.
Companies build what consumers want...
...because if consumers don't want what they build...
...then they don't buy it.
mainly yes, but it's not a perfect process
e.g. every time I've bought a smartphone, the choice has always been physically larger than before, so I have to buy a bigger one, and the industry interprets this as "people want even bigger phones"
Same for under display fingerprint readers, instead of on the back where
they are in the perfect position, I expect rear fingerprint scanners
will not exist next time I want a new phone
Same for hole-punch cameras
Same for thinking people want thinner and thinner devices.
The industry misreads what people want, because they buy the only
choices available to them
Like the US standard that prevented cars in North America from getting
better headlights...
....and the new standards are still holding them back?
Companies sell what can be sold well, not necessarily what consumers
want. And consumers buy "a phone" choosing from what is available that
has the features they want, no matter if it has some other features they
do not want. We can not just not buy a phone, we do need a phone.
The companies are not really asking their clients.
mainly yes, but it's not a perfect process
e.g. every time I've bought a smartphone, the choice has always been physically larger than before, so I have to buy a bigger one, and the industry interprets this as "people want even bigger phones"
Same for under display fingerprint readers, instead of on the back where
they are in the perfect position, I expect rear fingerprint scanners
will not exist next time I want a new phone
Same for hole-punch cameras
Same for thinking people want thinner and thinner devices.
The industry misreads what people want, because they buy the only
choices available to them
On 7/27/2023 4:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Companies do extensive market research (even when they insist that they don't!) to determine the trade-offs in sales volume, manufacturing cost,
and other factors, before they add or remove features. Been there, done
that.
I suppose that the manufacturer could use tiny screws instead of
glue, and use gaskets for waterproofing that were easier to
replace, but that would increase manufacturing costs.
batteries aren't glued and screws require depth and if near the
battery can pierce it.
AJL <noemail@none.com wrote:
I think I worry more about breaking the screen cause I could cover
the back with a case.
You can also cover the front with a case, as I do.
On 26/07/2023 00:03, Alan wrote:
Like the US standard that prevented cars in North America from getting
better headlights...
....and the new standards are still holding them back?
As you have had explained to you multiple times before, headlights with moving parts that may rust and seize up are not everybody's idea of an improvement.
Take your Apple anti-standards propaganda to a more appropriate place,
such as your arsehole.
Am 27.07.23 um 16:28 schrieb sms:
On 7/27/2023 4:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Companies do extensive market research (even when they insist that
they don't!) to determine the trade-offs in sales volume,
manufacturing cost, and other factors, before they add or remove
features. Been there, done that.
Companies do also spend extensive amounts of money on marketing and advertising in order to form the market to their needs and persuade the customer they he/she needs exactly, what is offered in the ad.
In this era of exzessive consumption, a company is successful, if it can
sell things the customer does *NOT* actually need.
On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 15:33:03 -0000 (UTC), AJL <noemail@none.com>
wrote:
On 7/26/23 3:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic.
I had to Google my Galaxy S10+ to see if it has a glass case. I couldn't
remember and I didn't want to take the plastic cover off after all these
years. Turns out it does. But I doubt I bought it for that reason though I >> can't remember that either... :-\
Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
I think I worry more about breaking the screen cause I could cover the back >> with a case. Oh wait, I already did...
You can also cover the front with a case, as I do.
On Thu, 27 Jul 2023 03:48:45 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
On 2023-07-27 02:30, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 10:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-26 17:13, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-26 03:40, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-25 19:43, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-25 04:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:Sure... so they protect the glass with a protective case :-P
On 2023-07-25 02:00, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-24 14:19, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-24 22:45, AJL wrote:
On 7/24/23 11:56 AM, VanguardLH wrote
I've never felt an all-glass case is a smart idea for a smart >>>>>>>>>>>> phone, or
any portable phone.
Agreed.
Another reason
users end up replacing their working phones because the glass >>>>>>>>>>>> shattered.
Not if they're smart and use a protective case...
Why then have a glass back at all?
It's transparent to RF energy?
So is a good solid plastic back.
Sure... ...but people appear to LIKE glass backs more than plastic. >>>>>>
Some do, sure...
So what?
Companies build what consumers want...
Not really.
Yes, really.
No :-D
I'll take the middle ground. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. And it
depends on the company; some are more likely to do it than others.
Finally! :-)
<https://wccftech.com/eu-new-regulations-apple-samsung-others-must-offer-easy-to-replace-batteries/>
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Alan wrote:
Yes.
Companies build what consumers want...
...because if consumers don't want what they build...
...then they don't buy it.
mainly yes, but it's not a perfect process
e.g. every time I've bought a smartphone, the choice has always been physically larger than before, so I have to buy a bigger one, and the industry interprets this as "people want even bigger phones"
Same for under display fingerprint readers, instead of on the back where
they are in the perfect position, I expect rear fingerprint scanners
will not exist next time I want a new phone
Same for hole-punch cameras
Same for thinking people want thinner and thinner devices.
The industry misreads what people want, because they buy the only
choices available to them
On 2023-07-27 09:19, Andy Burns wrote:
Alan wrote:
Yes.
Companies build what consumers want...
...because if consumers don't want what they build...
...then they don't buy it.
mainly yes, but it's not a perfect process
Companies sell what can be sold well, not necessarily what consumers
want.
And consumers buy "a phone" choosing from what is available that
has the features they want, no matter if it has some other features they
do not want. We can not just not buy a phone, we do need a phone.
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote
The industry misreads what people want, because they buy the only
choices available to them
Think of the "Pinto" or the "Corvair" (i.e., "unsafe at any speed").
It's not so much the industry "misreads" what consumers want so much as
what the industry wants isn't always in line with what the consumer wants.
An example is Apple having to make excuses of it being "courageous" that
they removed the headphone port so that they could influence consumers' buying habits toward earbuds.
Likewise with the removal of the sd slot, so that they could influence consumers' buying habits toward their highly marketed cloud solutions.
A classic case is the removal of the charger in the box, where the excuses the industry made were patently ridiculous (less cardboard waste!), when
the main goal was to greatly influence the consumers' buying habits for profit.
Anyone who thinks industry is in line with the consumer has never
considered that the main goal of industry (profits) conflicts with the main goal of consumers (better, faster & cheaper).
BTW, you'll note... it's only the Apple idiots like Alan and nospam who
claim the industry gives them exactly what they want - because Apple has indoctrinated them to believe Apple is their religious God.
Am 27.07.23 um 16:28 schrieb sms:
On 7/27/2023 4:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Companies do extensive market research (even when they insist that
they don't!) to determine the trade-offs in sales volume,
manufacturing cost, and other factors, before they add or remove
features. Been there, done that.
Companies do also spend extensive amounts of money on marketing and advertising in order to form the market to their needs and persuade the customer they he/she needs exactly, what is offered in the ad.
In this era of exzessive consumption, a company is successful, if it can
sell things the customer does *NOT* actually need.
On 2023-07-27 04:48, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-27 09:19, Andy Burns wrote:
Alan wrote:
Yes.
Companies build what consumers want...
...because if consumers don't want what they build...
...then they don't buy it.
mainly yes, but it's not a perfect process
Companies sell what can be sold well, not necessarily what consumers
want.
Do you realize who stupid that sentence is?
And consumers buy "a phone" choosing from what is available that
has the features they want, no matter if it has some other features they
do not want. We can not just not buy a phone, we do need a phone.
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Bullshit.
On 2023-07-27 07:48, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
Am 27.07.23 um 16:28 schrieb sms:
On 7/27/2023 4:48 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
The companies are not really asking their clients.
Companies do extensive market research (even when they insist that
they don't!) to determine the trade-offs in sales volume,
manufacturing cost, and other factors, before they add or remove
features. Been there, done that.
Companies do also spend extensive amounts of money on marketing and
advertising in order to form the market to their needs and persuade the
customer they he/she needs exactly, what is offered in the ad.
In this era of exzessive consumption, a company is successful, if it can
sell things the customer does *NOT* actually need.
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
In this era of exzessive consumption, a company is successful, if it can >>>> sell things the customer does *NOT* actually need.
Nobody ever died from an ice cream deficiency.
They sold cigarettes expressly marketed to women, didn't they?
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
Andy Burns wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
EU Approves New Regulations That Require Apple, Samsung And Countless
Others To Offer ‘Easy to Replace’ Batteries
Well, it's not quite final yet is it?
The PDF I read when you first posted was not up to date, because it said
"If the Council approves the European Parliament's position, the
legislative act will be adopted"
As of this morning, it is now in the official journal as regulation EU/2023/1542
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2023.191.01.0001.01.ENG>
AJL wrote:
I think I worry more about breaking the screen
You can also cover the front with a case, as I do.
Does your back-front case make the phone thicker than just a back
case?
Of course. But not a lot. It still fits comfortably in my pocket,
My back-only case wraps around the front sides of the phone in
such a way that "should" protect it from most drops to a flat
surface. Since my hiking trail days are long gone most of my life
these days is lived on flat surfaces so I "should" be OK...
Yes, I understand, but... ...the main reason I use this back-front
case is that it stops the phone from accidentally getting something
pressed in my pocket--dialing a number, turning bluetooth off, etc.
Those accidental presses use to be a pain. Since I got this case, it
never happens.
It was inexpensive--somewhere around $10-$15 from Amazon--and there
are other similar cases that are less expensive. I'm very glad I got
it,
Yep. Amazon is the place to go for cases. None of my local stores carry
cases (or holsters) for phones as old as mine...
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote
They sold cigarettes expressly marketed to women, didn't they?
Virginia Slims. I smoked PallMall and eventually those stupid things
that had holes around the filter which serious smokers took pains to
cover with their fingers.
The reason for bringing up the advertising to get more women to smoke
cancer sticks was that the Apple idiots think that the consumer drives
demand when the best marketing companies themselves can drive demand.
Think about all those yellow iPhones they sold based on this idiocy. https://youtu.be/1S8L7t2tu0U
Both the advertising for virginia slims and the yellow iPhone are telling
us how stupid each of these marketing organization knows their customer is.
In article <u9v99b$258d0$1@dont-email.me>, Woozy Song
<suzyw0ng@outlook.com> wrote:
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box.
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
the message from consumers was very
clear that including yet another was wasteful.
also, due to the proliferation of devices that charge via usb, many
people prefer to use chargers with multiple ports, which is much better
(and more economical) than individual chargers for each device, each
taking up a mains outlet.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box. >>wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices. the message from consumers was very
clear that including yet another was wasteful.
It's no longer surprising how little you actually know about Android.
You are ignorant that almost all the Android devices today come with the proper QC/PD charger in the box while zero Apple iPhones do anymore.
Only the very high end models copied Apple's highly lucrative scams.
You are so desperate to hide that fact that you blame Samsung and Google
for forcing Apple to fuck the customer by removing the charger in the box.
Only Apple gives you no choices - both Google & Samsung give you the choice since you can buy a phone you want from them that comes _with_ the charger.
also, due to the proliferation of devices that charge via usb, many
people prefer to use chargers with multiple ports, which is much better
(and more economical) than individual chargers for each device, each
taking up a mains outlet.
It's no longer surprising how little you actually know about Apple.
The fact is that the proper charger for all the latest iPhones has _never_
in the history of Apple ever been supplied with _any_ iPhone, nospam.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <u9v99b$258d0$1@dont-email.me>, Woozy Song
<suzyw0ng@outlook.com> wrote:
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box. >>
the chargers in the box were not being used
Saw how, exactly? Did they have monitors in 100m homes checking to see if
the charger was removed from the box?
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models -
nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
mini USB-A and USB-A yes, loads. USB-C nope.
the message from consumers was very
clear that including yet another was wasteful.
also, due to the proliferation of devices that charge via usb, many
people prefer to use chargers with multiple ports, which is much better
(and more economical) than individual chargers for each device, each
taking up a mains outlet.
Better still get USB sockets integrated into the power outlet so no mains sockets are used up. Again USB-A was the norm and USB-C was hard to find. It's still the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.toolstation.com/axiom-13a-white-low-profile-usb-switched-socket/p27963
On 7/28/23 5:54 PM, Chris wrote:
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from
the box.
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used
Saw how, exactly? Did they have monitors in 100m homes checking to see if
the charger was removed from the box?
Apple conveniently didn't say that almost NOBODY had the properly sized intelligent PD charger that the expensive phone is capable of using.
If they're Apple customers, it would be 99.99% of the people because Apple has not supplied that PD charger in _any_ iPhone Apple has ever sold.
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models -
nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
It's ridiculous what these low class Apple people put up with from Apple.
Who would be so low class as to use a 5W brick with a brand new thousand dollar iPhone? Nobody does that. Apple knows that nobody would do that.
It's like buying a new car and putting your old tires on it from the old
car (and then swapping the tires back & forth each time you use each car).
mini USB-A and USB-A yes, loads. USB-C nope.
Not only USB-C, but Apple has never supplied iPhone customers ever with the high-power PD chargers that the customer's expensive phone is capable of.
the message from consumers was very
clear that including yet another was wasteful.
Why is it then that almost every Android tablet & phone comes with it?
also, due to the proliferation of devices that charge via usb, many
people prefer to use chargers with multiple ports, which is much better
(and more economical) than individual chargers for each device, each
taking up a mains outlet.
Better still get USB sockets integrated into the power outlet so no mains
sockets are used up. Again USB-A was the norm and USB-C was hard to find.
It's still the exception rather than the rule.
https://www.toolstation.com/axiom-13a-white-low-profile-usb-switched-socket/p27963
It's not surprising but these Apple people have never heard of PD/QC standards since all they know about are the old Apple white 5W bricks.
Zero Apple customers had the right sized PD charger. Everyone had to buy
it.
Apple's added eWaste as a result is easily tremendous (when you include the Amazon shipping, the boxing, the deliver green house gas emissions, etc.).
Oh yes, and all that cardboard that Apple claims to have saved.
It took ten times more cardboard to have it shipped by Amazon to you.
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box.
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used
Saw how, exactly? Did they have monitors in 100m homes checking to see if
the charger was removed from the box?
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models -
nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
the message from consumers was very
clear that including yet another was wasteful.
also, due to the proliferation of devices that charge via usb, many
people prefer to use chargers with multiple ports, which is much better (and more economical) than individual chargers for each device, each
taking up a mains outlet.
Better still get USB sockets integrated into the power outlet so no mains sockets are used up.
note that many other companies also are no longer including a charger,
some doing so *before* apple did.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
note that many other companies also are no longer including a charger,
some doing so *before* apple did.
Obviously nospam feels Apple has no marketing. No design teams. Nothing.
*Apple can only follow what everyone else does*, according to nospam.
If you believe nospam, Apple is completely incompetent at making their own decisions as to whether they want to put a charger in the box, or not.
For a thousand-dollar phone.
In article <ua0vdh$2a296$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box.
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used
Saw how, exactly? Did they have monitors in 100m homes checking to see if
the charger was removed from the box?
who told you? those compliance vans are supposed to be secret.
there are many ways to determine that, including via market surveys,
direct customer feedback, returned items where the chargers were never unwrapped (but the phones were clearly used), how many separate
chargers are sold, etc.
note that many other companies also are no longer including a charger,
some doing so *before* apple did.
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models -
nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
the chargers that people already had worked just fine. it might not be
the fastest rate, but for most people, that's not an issue since the
charge overnight while they sleep, plus slower charge rates is better
for the battery.
Better still get USB sockets integrated into the power outlet so no mains
sockets are used up.
excellent idea.
all those people who have usb-a sockets in their mains outlets now have
to replace them with usb-c. some might need combo outlets with both
usb-a and usb-c so that they are able to continue to use their older
devices alongside their new ones.
a few years from now, when whatever the successor to usb-c appears,
they get to rewire their house again with new mains outlets.
keep those electricians in business. it's good for the economy.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua0vdh$2a296$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
There is 0 chance consumers asked Apple to remove the charger from the box.
wrong. apple, along with google, samsung and many companies, saw that
the chargers in the box were not being used
Saw how, exactly? Did they have monitors in 100m homes checking to see if >>> the charger was removed from the box?
who told you? those compliance vans are supposed to be secret.
there are many ways to determine that, including via market surveys,
direct customer feedback, returned items where the chargers were never
unwrapped (but the phones were clearly used), how many separate
chargers are sold, etc.
Or, occam's razor, they identified a commercial opportunity to reduce costs while at the same time avoid customer backlash by calling it a green incentive.
note that many other companies also are no longer including a charger,
some doing so *before* apple did.
because people already had
a bunch of them from other devices.
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models - >>> nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
the chargers that people already had worked just fine. it might not be
the fastest rate, but for most people, that's not an issue since the
charge overnight while they sleep, plus slower charge rates is better
for the battery.
Whoosh.
Better still get USB sockets integrated into the power outlet so no mains >>> sockets are used up.
excellent idea.
I thought so.
In article <ua3rja$bet5$1@paganini.bofh.team>, Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
If you do it at home, how do you unlock Apple's battery lock code
not needed, other than displaying battery health, which is not a
critical function (and most people don't even know it exists).
(without purchasing expensive specialized equipment to unlock it)?
apple provides that *for* *free* for those who want to do it on their
own.
On 2023-07-29 15:17, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua0vdh$2a296$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models - >>>> nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
the chargers that people already had worked just fine. it might not be
the fastest rate, but for most people, that's not an issue since the
charge overnight while they sleep, plus slower charge rates is better
for the battery.
Whoosh.
How so?
People charge their phones overnight. Provided that the phone is charged
to 100% by the time they wake up, the charger they use is fine.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-29 15:17, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua0vdh$2a296$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> >>>>
Almost no-one had spare USB-C chargers given that very few Apple models - >>>>> nor many others - were sold with them at the time.
the chargers that people already had worked just fine. it might not be >>>> the fastest rate, but for most people, that's not an issue since the
charge overnight while they sleep, plus slower charge rates is better
for the battery.
Whoosh.
How so?
People charge their phones overnight. Provided that the phone is charged
to 100% by the time they wake up, the charger they use is fine.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
If you do it at home, how do you unlock Apple's battery lock code
not needed, other than displaying battery health, which is not a
critical function (and most people don't even know it exists).
Since you're ignorant of this battery lock - you expect others to be too.
*Apple is Locking iPhone Batteries to Discourage Independent Repair*
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez3f1HgOa1o>
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
People charge their phones overnight. Provided that the phone is charged >>> to 100% by the time they wake up, the charger they use is fine.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
Almost all Androids nowadays come with batteries twice Apple's capacity.
In addition, modern Androids will have double the useful life of iPhones
due simply to the undoubtable physics of vastly fewer charge/discharge
cycles (those charging cycles being mostly what degrades batteries).
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
Since you're ignorant of this battery lock - you expect others to be too. >>> *Apple is Locking iPhone Batteries to Discourage Independent Repair* >>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez3f1HgOa1o>
They are displaying a warning and not showing the battery health of the
replacement battery ... unless ...
... one follows a straightforward workaround - but it requires fine
soldering skills and a chip programmer.
(Moving a part from the old battery to the new battery).
This unfortunately removes the replacement from the realm of the
ordinary fixer (like me) to more skilled shops - like the one I like
that is a few km from here (also do Apple Watch batteries now too...).
Apple are idiots in this regard - thankfully there are smart people
other there getting around Apple's silly repair obstructions.
Does this battery lock only happen when you use non-Apple batteries?
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
iPhones are also less power hungry than Androids for the same
functionality due to the efficiency of Apple designed processors.
Android makers have to use the commodity "mobile" ARM chips from
Qualcomm et al.
You are correct.
So let's assume everything you said is completely correct, a priori.
What matters for life is NOT how "power hungry" the phone is, right?
What matters is the sheer _number_ of charge/discharge cycles, right?
Those cycles are a _function_ of both how power hungry the phone is, and at the same time those cycles are a function of the original battery capacity.
So you can't just take one metric without also including the other, right?
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
People charge their phones overnight. Provided that the phone is charged >>> to 100% by the time they wake up, the charger they use is fine.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
Almost all Androids nowadays come with batteries twice Apple's capacity.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
So you can't just take one metric without also including the other, right? >>Precisely - which is why your "Androids have more battery" is countered
by "iPhones use less power" and therefore don't need larger batteries.
Facts are good. It's how normal adults communicate technical concepts.
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
People charge their phones overnight.
Provided that the phone is charged to 100% by the time they wake
up, the charger they use is fine.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have
one that fits the cable that came with the phone.
Both the Apple and Android phones that live in my house have used
wireless chargers since purchase, no cable or new charger required. YMMV...
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote
Ours [phones] have always been fully [wireless] charged in the
morning. YMMV.
The overall lifetime is measured in charge/discharge cycles - which
are a function of _both_ how much you use the battery & how much you
charge it.
there's also an added detail that it's also related to not getting
too close below or above the battery's endpoints - typically assumed
to be 20% & 80% of capacity.
On 7/30/2023 9:08 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
As I've said here before, I don't use a wireless charger, and see no
value in them.
As I've said here before, YMMV...
As I've said here before, I don't use a wireless charger, and see no
value in them.
The only battery lifetime I care about is that I don't have to replace
it before I get a new phone. So far so good. YMMV.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
Almost all Androids nowadays come with batteries twice Apple's capacity.
Which is only half the story. Androids are more power hungry so use that
extra capacity faster.
It's good you're speaking logic since adult conversations work that way.
Shoot me if I ever say an incorrect fact or if I ever say something that's not logically defensible on the merits of the facts & logic alone.
The _biggest_ iPhone battery is less than five amp hours. That's a fact.
The _bigger_ Android batteries are over seven amp hours. That's a fact too.
If we use easy numbers of a typical iPhone being 3 amp hours and a typical Android phone (at an equivalent price range!) being 6 amp hours, that's the ratio you need to know for efficiency to be compared, right?
With those numbers, the iPhone must be _twice_ as efficient to be a draw.
Is it?
I don't know.
Do you?
Remember, nospam always claims iPhones are more efficient with RAM but when we looked it up, it turned out he spouted complete bullshit since the efficiency is in single digits while the RAM difference is triple digits.
Logic. Facts. That's how adults communicate.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
People charge their phones overnight. Provided that the phone is charged >>> to 100% by the time they wake up, the charger they use is fine.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
Almost all Androids nowadays come with batteries twice Apple's capacity.
In addition, modern Androids will have double the useful life of iPhones
due simply to the undoubtable physics of vastly fewer charge/discharge
cycles (those charging cycles being mostly what degrades batteries).
If people are desperate to charge a phone overnight, then it's an iPhone.
(without purchasing expensive specialized equipment to unlock it)?
apple provides that *for* *free* for those who want to do it on their
own.
Where?
In article <ua56o9$2tira$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
In article <ua5qo7$duk$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com>, Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> wrote:
Does this battery lock only happen when you use non-Apple batteries?
*any* battery can be used without issue, without any locking or
unlocking needed.
displaying battery health is the *only* function that requires the
battery to be authenticated (incorrectly called locked) so that the
reported data from the battery is known to be accurate.
displaying incorrect data is of no benefit to anyone. many batteries
report false data so that they appear to be better than they actually
are.
On 7/30/2023 9:29 AM, AJL wrote:
On 7/30/2023 9:08 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
As I've said here before, I don't use a wireless charger, and see no
value in them.
As I've said here before, YMMV...
The big advantage of wireless charging is longevity of the phone and
battery.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
The other issue, which we've seen mentioned both on this forum, and
you'll see in Reddit forums and Howard Forums, is broken charge ports. However this was for Micro USB and Lightning,
Eh? What fora are you on??
I've never read anything in recent years
regarding broken lightning ports.
I've had micro-USB fail.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 7/30/2023 9:29 AM, AJL wrote:
On 7/30/2023 9:08 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
As I've said here before, I don't use a wireless charger, and see no
value in them.
As I've said here before, YMMV...
The big advantage of wireless charging is longevity of the phone and
battery.
Incorrect. Wireless charging induces more heat in the battery which accelerates ageing.
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
Wireless charging induces more heat in the battery which accelerates
ageing.
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
"The teardown group has discovered that an iPhone XS, *iPhone* XR, or *iPhone* XS Max that has had its battery swapped by anyone other than Apple or an Apple authorized service provider will now display a message saying their battery needs servicing."
In article <zVBxM.24790$KIcf.471@fx07.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
As I previously posted, this is overcome by taking the monitor circuit
(incl. a little chip) from the old battery and adding it to the new
battery.
except that it's calibrated for the old battery.
On 2023-07-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Everyone charges their phones overnight
If you're really charging every night, something is wrong with your phone.
Alan Brown said he charges his iPhone every two days which is about right.
My Android is only six months old. I charge it when it needs it.
That's for about two hours on the fast charger every two to four days.
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the phone.
On 7/30/2023 8:57 AM, Wally J wrote:
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote
Ours [phones] have always been fully [wireless] charged in the
morning. YMMV.
The overall lifetime is measured in charge/discharge cycles - which
are a function of _both_ how much you use the battery & how much you
charge it.
The only battery lifetime I care about is that I don't have to replace
it before I get a new phone. So far so good. YMMV.
(Except for that one blowup battery and I doubt that had anything to do
with recharge cycles...)
there's also an added detail that it's also related to not getting
too close below or above the battery's endpoints - typically assumed
to be 20% & 80% of capacity.
My phone has such a setting. It'll stop charging at 80% if so set. I
don't set it because I prefer the extra capacity in case of an emergency (like a power outage) or the wife's shopping takes longer than usual...
On 2023-07-30, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
Everyone charges their phones overnight
If you're really charging every night, something is wrong with your phone.
Alan Brown said he charges his iPhone every two days which is about right.
My Android is only six months old. I charge it when it needs it.
That's for about two hours on the fast charger every two to four days.
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the phone.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 7/30/2023 9:29 AM, AJL wrote:
On 7/30/2023 9:08 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
As I've said here before, I don't use a wireless charger, and see no
value in them.
As I've said here before, YMMV...
The big advantage of wireless charging is longevity of the phone and
battery.
Incorrect. Wireless charging induces more heat in the battery which accelerates ageing.
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
On 7/30/2023 1:36 PM, Chris wrote:
Wireless charging induces more heat in the battery which accelerates
ageing.
My wireless charger plate came with a standard 2A USB charger. I
replaced it with a 1/2A USB charger (from my extra chargers bag) on the theory there will be less heat. It still is fully charged in the
morning. Dunno if it helped or not...
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the electric bill
from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
On 2023-07-31 00:20, AJL wrote:
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my
air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the
electric bill from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
For a single device, the power wasted is minimal. However, the
aggregation of millions of such device is not.
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
Yes.
For a single device, the power wasted is minimal. However, the
aggregation of millions of such device is not.
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one >>>> that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
On 7/30/2023 1:36 PM, Chris wrote:
Wireless charging induces more heat in the battery which accelerates
ageing.
My wireless charger plate came with a standard 2A USB charger. I
replaced it with a 1/2A USB charger (from my extra chargers bag) on the theory there will be less heat. It still is fully charged in the
morning. Dunno if it helped or not...
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the electric bill
from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
On 7/31/2023 3:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-31 00:20, AJL wrote:
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my
air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the
electric bill from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
For a single device, the power wasted is minimal. However, the
aggregation of millions of such device is not.
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per hour
so
perhaps my little wasteful 2 watt wireless charger is not as noticeable
as some folks worry about...
BTW1 When I grew up here we had swamp coolers that used on average
between 100 watts to 200 watts of electricity per hour AND no wireless chargers to load down the system. Maybe we should go back??
BTW2 Nah. I'm about 40 miles from the largest nuclear power generating
in the US. Lot of power here for my charger... ;)
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
On 7/31/2023 3:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
<snip>
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
Yes.
Wrong: Read the laws of thermodynamics.
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one >>>>> that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that
iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a
lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector
cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
On 7/31/2023 10:10 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
<snip>
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches, electric vehicles, etc.. The batteries in phones are
sized with the expectation of daily charging.
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one >>>> that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
On 2023-07-31 10:37, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one >>>>>> that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient >>>>> to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that
iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a
lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector
cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
And you think there aren't USB-C to Lightning cables available?
You can get two for $10CAD delivered tomorrow:
<https://www.amazon.ca/USB-C-Lightning-Cable-iPhone-Certified/dp/B0BYZD4STN/>
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 10:37, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one >>>>>>> that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient >>>>>> to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that >>>> iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a >>>> lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector >>>> cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
And you think there aren't USB-C to Lightning cables available?
Talking about USB chargers not cables.
You can get two for $10CAD delivered tomorrow:
<https://www.amazon.ca/USB-C-Lightning-Cable-iPhone-Certified/dp/B0BYZD4STN/>
Thus adding to ewaste.
Yup. All because of wireless charging, huh... ;)
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 14:59, Chris wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 10:37, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient >>>>>>>> to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use. >>>>>>>
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that >>>>>> iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a >>>>>> lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector >>>>>> cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
And you think there aren't USB-C to Lightning cables available?
Talking about USB chargers not cables.
And how do you think most chargers are connected to devices, Sunshine?
With USB-A connectors in the vast majority of cases, rain cloud.
You can get two for $10CAD delivered tomorrow:
<https://www.amazon.ca/USB-C-Lightning-Cable-iPhone-Certified/dp/B0BYZD4STN/>
Thus adding to ewaste.
<yawn>
Not surprised you don't care.
On 2023-07-31 14:59, Chris wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 10:37, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is insufficient >>>>>>> to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use.
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and that >>>>> iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have included a >>>>> lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock connector >>>>> cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
And you think there aren't USB-C to Lightning cables available?
Talking about USB chargers not cables.
And how do you think most chargers are connected to devices, Sunshine?
You can get two for $10CAD delivered tomorrow:
<https://www.amazon.ca/USB-C-Lightning-Cable-iPhone-Certified/dp/B0BYZD4STN/>
Thus adding to ewaste.
<yawn>
On 7/31/2023 10:10 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
<snip>
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches,
On 7/31/2023 3:47 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
It [Carlos's phone] has "optimized charging setting". It finds out
my pattern of use and charge; thus when I connect it at night it
charges fast to 80%, then stops, and continues charging just in time
to be 100% full for the wake up alarm.
IF you're going to overnight charge wouldn't it be better to slow charge
the whole night and save your battery some heat?
My laptop, which is actually the same brand (Motorola ≡ Lenovo),
BTW1 Motorola was named by linking "motor" (for motorcar) with "ola"
(from Victrola). They made car radios (with vibrators). No, not those
kind of vibrators. Careful what you're thinking. That was around 1947.
BTW2 I worked for Motorola Western Military Division in Scottsdale AZ US
from 1968 to 1975 as an ET. All government projects from side looking
radar to moon stuff. All very interesting...
does have a setting to limit charge, configurable.
On 7/31/2023 3:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-31 00:20, AJL wrote:
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my
air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the
electric bill from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
For a single device, the power wasted is minimal. However, the
aggregation of millions of such device is not.
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per hour so
perhaps my little wasteful 2 watt wireless charger is not as noticeable
as some folks worry about...
BTW1 When I grew up here we had swamp coolers that used on average
between 100 watts to 200 watts of electricity per hour AND no wireless chargers to load down the system. Maybe we should go back??
BTW2 Nah. I'm about 40 miles from the largest nuclear power generating
in the US. Lot of power here for my charger... ;)
On 2023-07-31 23:50, Chris wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 14:59, Chris wrote:
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2023-07-31 10:37, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <ua6b1a$30dm7$1@dont-email.me>, Chris
<ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
Are you cruising the streets with those secret vans again?It makes no difference how they charge the phone if they don't >>>>>>>>>> have one
that fits the cable that came with the phone.
nearly everyone does. the number of people who do not is
insufficient
to justify including a charger that most people won't ever use. >>>>>>>>
who told you? that's supposed to be a secret.
That's the only
way you'd know "nearly everyone".
given that usb chargers have been around for roughly 20 years and >>>>>>> that
iphones, ipods, ipads and several other apple products have
included a
lightning cable for the past 11 years (prior to that, a dock
connector
cable), it's quite obvious that it really is nearly everyone.
As I keep saying; USB-A yes, USB-C no.
And you think there aren't USB-C to Lightning cables available?
Talking about USB chargers not cables.
And how do you think most chargers are connected to devices, Sunshine?
With USB-A connectors in the vast majority of cases, rain cloud.
So?
The point is:
IT DOESN'T MATTER.
It's just a change of cable.
You can get two for $10CAD delivered tomorrow:
<https://www.amazon.ca/USB-C-Lightning-Cable-iPhone-Certified/dp/B0BYZD4STN/>
Thus adding to ewaste.
<yawn>
Not surprised you don't care.
Not surprised that you don't get it.
what matters is the failure *rate*, which is not something that can be determined from reddit posts.
On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:12:58 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches, electric vehicles, etc.. The batteries in phones are
sized with the expectation of daily charging.
Complete gibberish.
I charge my iPhone when needed. This about every 2 days - rarely 2 days
in a row and on occasion more than 2 days.
I charge my Watch every 2 nights.
No idea for my iPad - it can go over a week w/o being charged.
I agree with those who have no need to charge their devices overnight.
It has been _years_ since that daily overnight charge was required.
Now you charge it for a couple of hours on a fast charger when it needs it.
On 2023-07-31 17:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per hour
My AC takes about 200..400 watts,
continuously, because it is inverter type,
and because I keep the temperature at 28°C or 27°C.
Cools the computer room and even reaches my dormitory.
I don't need colder. Otherwise, my electricity bill could double, and
going to another room or outside would be hell.
BTW1 When I grew up here we had swamp coolers that used on average
between 100 watts to 200 watts of electricity per hour AND no
wireless chargers to load down the system. Maybe we should go
back??
On 1/8/2023, nospam wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Whose fault is that?
On 2023-08-01, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches,
Not smart watches, if you want them to monitor sleep. I charge mine
while I shower.
Since they're small, how long does it take to charge those watches?
I haven't seen a device take more than two or three hours (at most) lately
to charge to full capacity once you put it on those new smart chargers.
.The failure rate is probably about the same but it's understood by most people that what matters is the tremendous waste of having two cable standards, when it's Apple that made a standard nobody else uses.
charged, overnight is when I charge it. I even often charge it
overnight when it doesn't really need to be charged.
On 8/1/2023 10:24 PM, nospam wrote:
what matters is the failure *rate*, which is not something that can be
determined from reddit posts.
The failure rate is probably about the same but it's understood by most people that what matters is the tremendous waste of having two cable standards, when it's Apple that made a standard nobody else uses.
On 8/1/2023 10:24 PM, nospam wrote:
what matters is the failure *rate*, which is not something that can be
determined from reddit posts.
The failure rate is probably about the same but it's understood by most people that what matters is the tremendous waste of having two cable standards, when it's Apple that made a standard nobody else uses.
On 2023-08-01, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches,
Not smart watches, if you want them to monitor sleep. I charge mine
while I shower.
Since they're small, how long does it take to charge those watches?
On 8/1/2023 4:04 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
First off Apple replaced their 30 pin connector with something much
better that met the need. That of course was _not_ the poorly designed
micro-USB. Year: 2012.
In those days, everyone had proprietary connections which was fine for
Apple as everyone else had their own connections. Those days are gone.
USB-C connector was introduced: 2014 (announced in 2012 as a reaction to
the Lightning connector).
Agree the Lightning had a huge advantage over micro-usb, being reversible. Competition is good because that forced USB-C to become the standard it is.
This is something best left to the market - not regulation.
If Apple didn't have a duopoly, I would agree with you since nobody would
buy a no-name phone with a crazy non-standard connection method nowadays.
But if you want an iPhone, you're stuck with whatever cord it comes with.
No Android phone would be able to get away with these schemes. Only Apple.
The market, btw, reduced e-waste by no longer shipping wall warts -
beginning with Apple and soon followed by everyone else. Par.
That you believe iPhones charge themselves without eWarts is disturbing.
You probably also believe Jesus Christ was born from a virgin mother.
Despite Apple's claims to charge an iPhone without a charger, it can't.
And nobody is going to share a modern PD/QC charger among multiple people.
Only Apple religious zealots wait in a queue sharing their PD charger. Everyone else gets the correctly sized charger that comes with the phone.
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the phone. >>Nobody?
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
He probably should have said nobody using current day equipment would ever need to charge overnight - as that's just unheard of for modern devices.
The answer to those three questions is why you are still charging overnight when nobody else is.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
At the time, the alternatives were worse. Micro-USB and Mini-USB were
worse than Lightning.
I agree that, in a way, we can't blame Apple for coming up with a non-standard cable connector because at that time both microusb and miniusb were worse than lightning is now.
What Apple probably should have done is realize that they created a
standard that nobody else wanted to use, and then, when USB-C came out,
Apple could have switched over to the standard connector everyone used.
That Apple didn't do that (for the iPhone) is an indication of Apple's lack of consumer-based decision making - which the EU kindly hastened for them.
In article <pj6npjxig4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
I agree that, in a way, we can't blame Apple for coming up with aIn the malarkey department, you are at least consistent.
non-standard cable connector because at that time both microusb and miniusb >>> were worse than lightning is now.
What Apple probably should have done is realize that they created a
standard that nobody else wanted to use, and then, when USB-C came out,
Apple could have switched over to the standard connector everyone used.
That Apple didn't do that (for the iPhone) is an indication of Apple's lack >>> of consumer-based decision making - which the EU kindly hastened for them. >>
I'm _always_ consistent because I don't care who it is that says what they say - what I care about is what they say - hence I will easily agree with
you that Apple created a _better_ connector at the time of micro/mini usb.
However... it's 2023.
In today's market, USB-C is king.
Apple isn't stupid.
On 2023-08-01, "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
It's what most people do. Plug in (or place on wireless charger) when
you go to bed at night, in the morning it's fully charged. Ditto for
smart watches,
Not smart watches, if you want them to monitor sleep. I charge mine
while I shower.
Since they're small, how long does it take to charge those watches?
I haven't seen a device take more than two or three hours (at most) lately
to charge to full capacity once you put it on those new smart chargers.
Am 01.08.23 um 16:45 schrieb Peter:
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the
phone.
Nobody?
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
He probably should have said nobody using current day equipment
would ever need to charge overnight - as that's just unheard of for
modern devices.
Although there might be no *NEED* to charge overnight, for many people
this still is the most reasonable way to do it, because
- the phone will definitely not be in use at this time.
- you can rely on a fully charged phone in the morning. The limited and already quite hectic time between waking up and leaving to work/school
is not the best choice for squeezing in additional tasks that can be
easily forgotten.
- plugging in the phone at a fixed time (before going to bed) turns into
a ritual, which is much less likely to be forgotten.
- you might also want to schedule automated tasks like a backup into a
time, where the phone has unlimited power supply AND free Wifi AND is
not in use.
- quick charging is not exactly beneficial for battery life. It's quite useful as "Plan B" (i even bought a QC-capable power bank), but not a
wise choice for regular use.
The answer to those three questions is why you are still charging
overnight
when nobody else is.
"nobody" is a very bold statement as it implies that your behavior is ultimate, that is, you are god.
Despite Apple's claims to charge an iPhone without a charger, it can't.
Please cite where Apple claim to charge a phone w/o a charger.
First off Apple replaced their 30 pin connector with something much
better that met the need. That of course was _not_ the poorly designed micro-USB. Year: 2012.
USB-C connector was introduced: 2014 (announced in 2012 as a reaction to
the Lightning connector).
This is something best left to the market - not regulation.
The market, btw, reduced e-waste by no longer shipping wall warts -
beginning with Apple and soon followed by everyone else. Par.
On 1/8/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
Agree the Lightning had a huge advantage over micro-usb, being reversible. >>> Competition is good because that forced USB-C to become the standard it is. >>Yes - I certainly like them on my SO's MBA and will have them on my new
Mac (this fall? TBD) - need to see what Apple is doing this fall.
Agree with you that at the time the lightning connector first came out, it was much better than the micro and mini usb connectors - but USB-C is the standard for most devices today - so I'm looking forward to the new iPhones having the standard connector everything else already uses.
My SO's 7 year old iPhone needs to be replaced too - definitely this
fall when the new line pops. It will almost certainly have USB-C and
that sits well with her MBA setup.
Agree with you that it appears the latest iPhones will be using the
standard connector that everything else has already been using for a while.
See below regarding warts - same applies to cords - except people haveThis is something best left to the market - not regulation.
If Apple didn't have a duopoly, I would agree with you since nobody would >>> buy a no-name phone with a crazy non-standard connection method nowadays. >>>
But if you want an iPhone, you're stuck with whatever cord it comes with. >>> No Android phone would be able to get away with these schemes. Only Apple. >>
even more of them lying around because they come with the device.
A cord is still supplied with almost every phone sold today.
But the wall wart is only supplied with almost every Android phone sold.
Phones do not charge themselves and nobody is going to be sharing warts, particularly when phones are designed for these high power 65 watt warts.
The market, btw, reduced e-waste by no longer shipping wall warts -
beginning with Apple and soon followed by everyone else. Par.
That you believe iPhones charge themselves without eWarts is disturbing. >>> You probably also believe Jesus Christ was born from a virgin mother.
Silly girl. By the time Apple stopped shipping the charger with phones,
most people already had 2 or more lying around the house.
Having a hundred 5 watt wall warts, most of which are old, damaged, and broken, is why Apple's advice to use old damaged equipment is so heinous.
Despite Apple claiming years ago that old damaged equipment can be
dangerous, now Apple is telling you outright to use old damaged chargers.
It wouldn't make sense unless you realized in the first case Apple charged $10 to "replace" your old damaged charger and in the second case Apple charges $20 to sell you a new charger to replace that old damaged charger.
Apple did a 180 degree about face on using the old damaged chargers.
But in _both_ cases Apple _profited_ from what Apple told you to do!
I've got
several here at that - which is convenient as I have three in the front
hall for guests, 1 in the bedroom for my Watch, 2 in my office, 2 in my
SO's office. (Mix of chargers from 4 iPhones over time, 2 iPads
(current), whatever was excess at work, etc. and so on).
I call bullshit - because if it's not a powerful modern QC charger (for example, 65 watt Ga-N) then you're using garbage equipment on your iPhone.
That Apple recommends you use garbage to charge your iPhone is indicative
of what Apple really thinks of its customer being stupid enough to do that.
Despite Apple's claims to charge an iPhone without a charger, it can't.
Please cite where Apple claim to charge a phone w/o a charger.
Apple has never even once ever provided the correct charger to charge any current iPhone in any iPhone box ever sold in Apple's entire history.
If you don't know that - then you need to read up on what Apple does.
And nobody is going to share a modern PD/QC charger among multiple people. >>>Many Android phones come w/o a charger - Samsung began copying Apple a
Only Apple religious zealots wait in a queue sharing their PD charger.
Everyone else gets the correctly sized charger that comes with the phone. >>
month or so later. Painful to be you.
Almost all Android phones not only come with "a charger", but more
important, they're not the garbage 5 watt chargers Apple says to use.
Almost every Android phone comes with not only a QC charger but a PD spec
too & they're high wattage also - which is what the phone is designed for.
Only Apple treats its iPhone customers like garbage in terms of charging. Which tells you everything you need to know of what Apple thinks of you.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 7/31/2023 3:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
<snip>
It's also less efficient and wastes energy.
Yes.
Wrong: Read the laws of thermodynamics.
I'd love to see where:
5A of charge + heat <= 5A of charge
USB-C introduces
1. higher data transmission speeds,
2. much higher charging current and voltage (suitable for the demands of
a notebook computer),
3. the ability to tunnel other protocols like Thunderbolt or DisplayPort through the same connector,
4. a reversible connector.
Feature 4 might have been a reaction to Lightning, Features 1-3
certainly not. First, these things go far beyond the connector and take
more than two years to agree on a protocol and develop all the
associated chips. Second, Lightning does not even have them.
On 8/1/2023 4:19 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-31 17:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per hour
My AC takes about 200..400 watts,
Wow, that's a big difference. I got the above watt estimates from
Google. I have no clue what mine is actually using.
continuously, because it is inverter type,
Mine's the old fashioned on-off type.
and because I keep the temperature at 28°C or 27°C.
We're not that different. Mine's kept at 78F.
Cools the computer room and even reaches my dormitory.
Not sure what you mean here. Mines a central air system for the whole
house. I adjust the registers to adjust the separate room temperatures. Thankfully I only have to do it once cause it takes a ladder...
I don't need colder. Otherwise, my electricity bill could double, and
going to another room or outside would be hell.
My bill for for the peak summer months is around $250 US for my 1800 sq
ft house. When it was built (2000) I paid for extra insulation but it's probably somewhat compressed by now...
I better add that my thermostat is hooked to my WiFi so that I can
control the AC (and heater) from my ANDROID phone. Case there's any
off-topic police covertly listening...
BTW1 When I grew up here we had swamp coolers that used on average
between 100 watts to 200 watts of electricity per hour AND no
wireless chargers to load down the system. Maybe we should go
back??
My first house (1960s-paid $6000 US brand new) had a swamp cooler. My neighbor had an AC. Since a swamp cooler can reduce the temperature up
to 30 degrees in dry weather I was often cooler than him because he
couldn't afford to keep his AC that low. But he had the last laugh when
it became humid during our monsoon season and then I really sweated it...
In article <pj6npjxig4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Am 01.08.23 um 17:04 schrieb Alan Browne:
First off Apple replaced their 30 pin connector with something much
better that met the need. That of course was _not_ the poorly
designed micro-USB. Year: 2012.
Yes, they wanted to replace the *REALLY* poorly designed 30Pin connector
with something much better while still maintaining their own ecosystem.
Many manufacturers used their own connectors at that time, so going this
way was just a reasonable thing to do.
I doubt that the design of MicroUSB (which, by the way, was already a
big improvement over MiniUSB) was the major driving factor in that
decision.
The sole advantage and not one that iPhone really needs for most people.USB-C connector was introduced: 2014 (announced in 2012 as a reaction
to the Lightning connector).
USB-C introduces
1. higher data transmission speeds,
2. much higher charging current and voltage (suitable for the demands ofWhich is not a need of an iPhone.
a notebook computer),
3. the ability to tunnel other protocols like Thunderbolt or DisplayPort through the same connector,Doable on _any_ highspeed link. It's all abstraction.
4. a reversible connector.Lightning was already reversible.
Feature 4 might have been a reaction to Lightning, Features 1-3
certainly not. First, these things go far beyond the connector and take
more than two years to agree on a protocol and develop all the
associated chips. Second, Lightning does not even have them.
This is something best left to the market - not regulation.
The market came up with USB-C. Everyone saw it was good and adopted it.
Yes, Apple too for most of their product lineup.
It's now time to sweep out the remaining dirt from the corners of the
market, so everyone can focus on improving USB-C. This includes both companies still sticking to MicroUSB and ones sticking to proprietary connectors.
The market, btw, reduced e-waste by no longer shipping wall warts -
beginning with Apple and soon followed by everyone else. Par.
It's been known for several years, that the EU will mandate for chargers
to be standardized and sold separately.
Yes, this time Apple was one of the first companies to react.
Unfortunately, they did not go all the way yet. But i'm pretty sure,
USB-C is already incorporated into the design of last 3-4 iPhone
generations, as it is for all other Apple products. The Management just
have to give the order to populate the different connector in production.
My first house...had a swamp cooler.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporative_cooler>
The caveat is they use water, and usually the regions that need
cooling are also lacking in water.
On 2023-08-01 20:02, Alan Browne wrote:
...
Despite Apple's claims to charge an iPhone without a charger, it can't.
Please cite where Apple claim to charge a phone w/o a charger.
Easy. They don't include the charger in the box:-p
On 8/1/2023 1:41 PM, Hergen Lehmann wrote:
<snip>
USB-C introduces
1. higher data transmission speeds,
2. much higher charging current and voltage (suitable for the demands
of a notebook computer),
3. the ability to tunnel other protocols like Thunderbolt or
DisplayPort through the same connector,
4. a reversible connector.
Feature 4 might have been a reaction to Lightning, Features 1-3
certainly not. First, these things go far beyond the connector and
take more than two years to agree on a protocol and develop all the
associated chips. Second, Lightning does not even have them.
Apple is very active on the standards committees and wanted 1, 2, & 3
since Lightning was not going to cut it.
On 7/31/2023 3:52 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-07-31 00:20, AJL wrote:
It's now been a month of over 110F degree days here. Compared to my
air conditioning bill I doubt I'll notice much extra on the
electric bill from the waste that my wireless charger produces...
For a single device, the power wasted is minimal. However, the
aggregation of millions of such device is not.
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per hour...
On 2023-08-01 15:24, nospam wrote:
In article <pj6npjxig4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Irrelevant what you think. It is the law :-p
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <pj6npjxig4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Hypocrite. Removing a charger was fine, but changing a cable isn't.
Everyone already has USB-C cables from all the previously bought devices,
by your logic. If USB-C cables with no charger was fine then USB-C cables
are also fine.
On 8/1/2023 10:24 PM, nospam wrote:
what matters is the failure *rate*, which is not something that can be
determined from reddit posts.
The failure rate is probably about the same but it's understood by most people that what matters is the tremendous waste of having two cable standards, when it's Apple that made a standard nobody else uses.
Apple's intent wasn't to create ewaste - but that was Apple's effect.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
Not surprised you don't care.
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
Just like religious zealots will never get it, Chris, Alan will never be
able to understand Apple plays him and his fellow iKooks like a fiddle.
Apple's entire strategy is to create duplication (which contributes to eWaste), where the cable duplication helps enable Apple profits.
Apple's strategy is to also remove functionality (like industry standard ports which all new iPhones completely lack) so you're forced to buy them back in a more expensive form (which, again - contributes to eWaste).
For Apple to claim they "reduce waste" is a ludicrous argument in light of the facts that Apple's strategy is to cause consumers to purchase things
they wouldn't have to purchase if they were on Android devices instead.
On 8/1/2023 4:04 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
First off Apple replaced their 30 pin connector with something much
better that met the need. That of course was _not_ the poorly designed
micro-USB. Year: 2012.
In those days, everyone had proprietary connections which was fine for
Apple as everyone else had their own connections. Those days are gone.
USB-C connector was introduced: 2014 (announced in 2012 as a reaction to
the Lightning connector).
Agree the Lightning had a huge advantage over micro-usb, being reversible. Competition is good because that forced USB-C to become the standard it is.
This is something best left to the market - not regulation.
If Apple didn't have a duopoly, I would agree with you since nobody would
buy a no-name phone with a crazy non-standard connection method nowadays.
But if you want an iPhone, you're stuck with whatever cord it comes with.
No Android phone would be able to get away with these schemes. Only Apple.
The market, btw, reduced e-waste by no longer shipping wall warts -
beginning with Apple and soon followed by everyone else. Par.
That you believe iPhones charge themselves without eWarts is disturbing.
You probably also believe Jesus Christ was born from a virgin mother.
Despite Apple's claims to charge an iPhone without a charger, it can't.
And nobody is going to share a modern PD/QC charger among multiple people.
Only Apple religious zealots wait in a queue sharing their PD charger. Everyone else gets the correctly sized charger that comes with the phone.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
charged, overnight is when I charge it. I even often charge it
overnight when it doesn't really need to be charged.
Thus reducing the overall battery life. Above 80% charge is stressful
on the battery. Why Apple delay charging to 80% until near when you
unplug it in the morning.
Ideally, there would be a setting to not charge above 80%. Similar to
Mac OS on laptops. If you're not unplugging it often, it stops charging
at 80%. This can be over-ridden of course.
What is no longer surprising is how ignorant these people are who claim to spew Apple's does what Apple does given how important battery CAPACITY is!
Given Apple has the _smallest_ batteries in smartphones today (bar none!), these non-educated Apple owners don't realize their puny three amphour battery will need more C/D cycles than a typical 6 amphour Android battery.
Double in fact.
*Which means the typical iPhone has _half_ the life of Android phones*.
On 8/1/2023 5:58 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
Argue with my source:
"Air conditioner usage varies based on the size of your AC. However, generally speaking, a central air conditioner will consume between 3000
and 3500 watts per hour. While window units use between 900 and 1440
watts per hour, portable units consume between 2900 and 4100."
<https://www.tcl.com/global/en/blog/how-much-electricity-does-an-air-conditioner-use>
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
At the time, the alternatives were worse. Micro-USB and Mini-USB were
worse than Lightning.
I agree that, in a way, we can't blame Apple for coming up with a non-standard cable connector because at that time both microusb and miniusb were worse than lightning is now.
What Apple probably should have done is realize that they created a
standard that nobody else wanted to use, and then, when USB-C came out,
Apple could have switched over to the standard connector everyone used.
That Apple didn't do that (for the iPhone) is an indication of Apple's lack of consumer-based decision making - which the EU kindly hastened for them.
On 2023-08-01 18:22, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 5:58 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
Argue with my source:
"Air conditioner usage varies based on the size of your AC. However,
generally speaking, a central air conditioner will consume between 3000
and 3500 watts per hour. While window units use between 900 and 1440
watts per hour, portable units consume between 2900 and 4100."
<https://www.tcl.com/global/en/blog/how-much-electricity-does-an-air-conditioner-use>
watts = joules/second
I don't care who your source is: it's still not valid to say
"joules per second per hour".
On 8/1/2023 6:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-08-01 18:22, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 5:58 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
Argue with my source:
"Air conditioner usage varies based on the size of your AC. However,
generally speaking, a central air conditioner will consume between 3000
and 3500 watts per hour. While window units use between 900 and 1440
watts per hour, portable units consume between 2900 and 4100."
<https://www.tcl.com/global/en/blog/how-much-electricity-does-an-air-conditioner-use>
watts = joules/second
I don't care who your source is: it's still not valid to say
"joules per second per hour".
Perhaps it's the 'watts per hour' wording that is bothering you? I don't think it's supposed to be to be a 'unit'. The above article says the AC
uses 3000 watts PER hour and the below article says it uses 3000 watts
AN hour. I think they're basically saying the same thing. Are they both wrong?
"On average, a home air conditioner can use about 3,000 watts of
electricity an hour."
<https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/sustainable-living/how-much-electricity-does-air-conditioning-use>
On 2023-08-01 19:52, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 6:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-08-01 18:22, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 5:58 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
Argue with my source:
"Air conditioner usage varies based on the size of your AC. However,
generally speaking, a central air conditioner will consume between 3000 >>>> and 3500 watts per hour. While window units use between 900 and 1440
watts per hour, portable units consume between 2900 and 4100."
<https://www.tcl.com/global/en/blog/how-much-electricity-does-an-air-conditioner-use>
watts = joules/second
I don't care who your source is: it's still not valid to say
"joules per second per hour".
Perhaps it's the 'watts per hour' wording that is bothering you? I
don't think it's supposed to be to be a 'unit'. The above article says
the AC uses 3000 watts PER hour and the below article says it uses
3000 watts AN hour. I think they're basically saying the same thing.
Are they both wrong?
Yes.
"On average, a home air conditioner can use about 3,000 watts of
electricity an hour."
<https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/sustainable-living/how-much-electricity-does-air-conditioning-use>
And it's still WRONG.
You cannot speaking about using a rate of something with respect to time
with respect to time (no: saying "with respect to time" twice wasn't an error).
Nothing uses any number of watts PER hour.
On 2023-08-01 14:15, Chris wrote:
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
In article <pj6npjxig4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Hypocrite. Removing a charger was fine, but changing a cable isn't.
Everyone already has USB-C cables from all the previously bought devices,
by your logic. If USB-C cables with no charger was fine then USB-C cables
are also fine.
Removing vs changing:
Removing a charge leaves people the option to buy a charger if needed...
...but use their existing charger if not.
Changing a standard means existing cables won't work with new devices.
I have about 6 different Lightning cables--4 of which I use pretty much
every day—and I'll have to throw them all out when the next phone I buy forces me to use USB-C
On 2023-08-01 10:30, Falafel Balls wrote:
On 1/8/2023, nospam wrote:
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
it will actually create more waste because people will have to buy new
cables to replace their perfectly functional existing cables.
Whose fault is that?
European Union. They should leave markets alone where such is
concerned. They have a very poor understanding of unintended consequences.
On 1/8/2023, Alan Browne wrote:
Despite Apple claiming years ago that old damaged equipment can beWhere does Apple say that. Be specific and supply links.
dangerous, now Apple is telling you outright to use old damaged chargers. >>
This proves you are stupid.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
charged, overnight is when I charge it. I even often charge it
overnight when it doesn't really need to be charged.
Thus reducing the overall battery life. Above 80% charge is stressful
on the battery. Why Apple delay charging to 80% until near when you
unplug it in the morning.
Ideally, there would be a setting to not charge above 80%. Similar to
Mac OS on laptops. If you're not unplugging it often, it stops charging
at 80%. This can be over-ridden of course.
What is no longer surprising is how ignorant these people are who claim to spew Apple's does what Apple does given how important battery CAPACITY is!
Given Apple has the _smallest_ batteries in smartphones today (bar none!), these non-educated Apple owners don't realize their puny three amphour battery will need more C/D cycles than a typical 6 amphour Android battery.
Double in fact.
*Which means the typical iPhone has _half_ the life of Android phones*.
Am 01.08.23 um 16:59 schrieb Alan Browne:
European Union. They should leave markets alone where such is
concerned. They have a very poor understanding of unintended consequences.
Does it hurt, Master?
I have about 6 different Lightning cables--4 of which I use pretty much every dayand I'll have to throw them all out when the next phone I buy forces me to use USB-C
I have loads of USB-A chargers which don't work with the USB-C cables that come with current iphones/ipads.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
As previously stipulated by you, the iPhone doesn't need a huge battery
because the iPhone is far more energy efficient. Therefore a charge
lasts a long time.
You _hate_ that, compared to Android, the iPhone battery is cheap garbage.
As previously stipulated _neither you nor I_ know what the _percentage_ of claimed efficiency is - so _every_ conclusion by you is completely bogus.
For example, we proved the iPhone is about 2% to 5% more efficient in RAM than Android, but nospam claims that this offsets the 100%/200% more RAM.
It doesn't.
It's clear nospam doesn't know arithmetic.
If the iPhone is in the single digits more efficient at using the battery,
and if the battery is triple digits larger in Android, the math works out
that the iPhone will _always_ degrade sooner due to the increased number of charge/discharge cycles (all else being assumed equal for this arithmetic).
*iPhone batteries === _garbage_* (in terms of capacity)
So it all washed out in the end.
Since all iPhones have garbage batteries (in terms of capacity) you're
going to need double-digit (and triple-digit!) efficiencies to offset that.
You have no idea what the efficiency difference is.
Neither do I.
But it's NOT logically going to be in the double-digits and triple digits!
Hence it's logically defensible a priori that it's a reasonable conclusion
*The iPhone battery will _always_ die sooner*!
You may _hate_ that Apple put those cheap garbage batteries in the iPhone. Apple cheaped out and now you're desperate to excuse the garbage batteries.
You need to take that up with Apple. Not with me.
On 2023-08-02, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
But, as you will see over the next 5 years, the EU's meddling in
markets will cause a pulse of e-waste that otherwise would not have
happened.
While you always take the position of the big corporations, the EU is
trying to take the position of the common consumer instead of big money.
Those two positions are diametrically opposed in almost every situation.
While you will never stand up for the consumer, someone should. But who?
If the EU doesn't stand up for the consumer, you won't so who else will?
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote
As previously stipulated by you, the iPhone doesn't need a huge battery
because the iPhone is far more energy efficient. Therefore a charge
lasts a long time.
You _love_ that, compared to Android, the iPhone battery goes the distance.
On 8/1/2023 8:22 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-08-01 19:52, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 6:34 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-08-01 18:22, AJL wrote:
On 8/1/2023 5:58 PM, Alan wrote:
On 2023-07-31 08:41, AJL wrote:
Here in my city alone (5M pop metro) there are millions of air
conditioners running that use between 3000 and 3500 watts per
hour...
Just noticed this. "watts per hour" is not a valid unit.
Argue with my source:
"Air conditioner usage varies based on the size of your AC. However, >>>>> generally speaking, a central air conditioner will consume between
3000
and 3500 watts per hour. While window units use between 900 and 1440 >>>>> watts per hour, portable units consume between 2900 and 4100."
<https://www.tcl.com/global/en/blog/how-much-electricity-does-an-air-conditioner-use>
watts = joules/second
I don't care who your source is: it's still not valid to say
"joules per second per hour".
Perhaps it's the 'watts per hour' wording that is bothering you? I
don't think it's supposed to be to be a 'unit'. The above article says
the AC uses 3000 watts PER hour and the below article says it uses
3000 watts AN hour. I think they're basically saying the same thing.
Are they both wrong?
Yes.
"On average, a home air conditioner can use about 3,000 watts of
electricity an hour."
<https://www.inspirecleanenergy.com/blog/sustainable-living/how-much-electricity-does-air-conditioning-use>
And it's still WRONG.
Guess you better start notifying webpages of their errors. There are
many many more with the same word usage out there...
You cannot speaking about using a rate of something with respect to time
with respect to time (no: saying "with respect to time" twice wasn't an
error).
Nothing uses any number of watts PER hour.
My house does. I just checked my electric usage online. (My meter is connected by wireless to my electric company and can give me instant readouts.) It says that yesterday my highest use was 4-5PM at 4.45 kW
and my lowest use was 11-12PM at 2.02 kW. So at the lowest reading I was using 2.02 kW per hour and at the highest reading I was using 4.45 kW
per hour. My average use then was a little over 3000 watts per hour just
like the article(s) said...
Am 02.08.2023 um 21:19:03 Uhr schrieb Alan:
But one can easily look up which phones have the best run times:
Idiot.
He wasn't talking about run times which have nothing to do with battery
life due to the degradation of battery chemistry over time, you moron.
On 2023-08-02, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
But, as you will see over the next 5 years, the EU's meddling in
markets will cause a pulse of e-waste that otherwise would not have
happened.
While you always take the position of the big corporations, the EU is
trying to take the position of the common consumer instead of big money.
Those two positions are diametrically opposed in almost every situation.
While you will never stand up for the consumer, someone should. But who?
If the EU doesn't stand up for the consumer, you won't so who else will?
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote
Not surprised you don't care.
Not surprised that you don't get it.
The EU does. Here, even Apple has to switch to USB-C, want it or not,
because of waste.
Just like religious zealots will never get it, Chris, Alan will never be
able to understand Apple plays him and his fellow iKooks like a fiddle.
Apple's entire strategy is to create duplication (which contributes to eWaste), where the cable duplication helps enable Apple profits.
Apple's strategy is to also remove functionality (like industry standard ports which all new iPhones completely lack) so you're forced to buy them back in a more expensive form (which, again - contributes to eWaste).
For Apple to claim they "reduce waste" is a ludicrous argument in light of the facts that Apple's strategy is to cause consumers to purchase things
they wouldn't have to purchase if they were on Android devices instead.
Am 02.08.2023 um 21:19:03 Uhr schrieb Alan:
But one can easily look up which phones have the best run times:
Idiot.
He wasn't talking about run times which have nothing to do with battery
life due to the degradation of battery chemistry over time, you moron.
On 2023-08-02 16:03, Marco Moock wrote:
Am 02.08.2023 um 21:19:03 Uhr schrieb Alan:
But one can easily look up which phones have the best run times:
Idiot.
He wasn't talking about run times which have nothing to do with battery
life due to the degradation of battery chemistry over time, you moron.
My iPhone 11 (near 4 years): 90%
My SO's iPhone 7 (near 7 years old): high 80s. - and she uses it a lot.
So as usual the Android crowd look at the spec's looking for boogeymen
and come up with irrelevancies...
Sad.
In article <uacv1v$3vn6q$1@dont-email.me>, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have about 6 different Lightning cables--4 of which I use pretty much
every dayand I'll have to throw them all out when the next phone I buy >>> forces me to use USB-C
I have loads of USB-A chargers which don't work with the USB-C cables that >> come with current iphones/ipads.
but they *do* work with the usb-a cables you have been using with other
apple devices.
those switching from android to iphone would have at least one usb-c
charger to use with the included usb-c lightning cable, so no issues
for that group either.
only those who have never had an apple device with a lightning port and therefore do not have a usb-a lightning cable, and also not a single
device with usb-c (charger or laptop) is this a problem. that number is
very small.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:21:26 +0200, Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
Am 01.08.23 um 16:45 schrieb Peter:
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the phone.
Nobody?
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
He probably should have said nobody using current day equipment would ever >>> need to charge overnight - as that's just unheard of for modern devices.
Although there might be no *NEED* to charge overnight, for many people
this still is the most reasonable way to do it, because
- the phone will definitely not be in use at this time.
Not true for those of us who read Kindle books on their phone and who
read in bed.
But since I charge overnight with a wired charger, that's not a
problem for me.
Hergen Lehmann wrote:
Am 01.08.23 um 16:45 schrieb Peter:
Although there might be no *NEED* to charge overnight, for many
people this still is the most reasonable way to do it, because -
the phone will definitely not be in use at this time.
Not true for those of us who read Kindle books on their phone and who
read in bed.
But since I charge overnight with a wired charger, that's not a
problem for me.
On Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:21:26 +0200, Hergen Lehmann <hlehmann.expires.12-22@snafu.de> wrote:
Am 01.08.23 um 16:45 schrieb Peter:
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
Nobody charges overnight anymore unless something is wrong with the phone.
Nobody?
That's nonsense. I don't know how common it is, but I do, and I know
many other people who do.
He probably should have said nobody using current day equipment would ever >>> need to charge overnight - as that's just unheard of for modern devices.
Although there might be no *NEED* to charge overnight, for many people
this still is the most reasonable way to do it, because
- the phone will definitely not be in use at this time.
Not true for those of us who read Kindle books on their phone and who
read in bed.
Am 03.08.2023 um 11:55:09 Uhr schrieb Ken Blake:
He wasn't talking about run times which have nothing to do with battery
life due to the degradation of battery chemistry over time, you moron.
Feel free to disagree with anything somebody says here.
You think it's the first time that person has said that?
He _knows_ he's moving the goalpost (aka changing the topic).
He _knows_ that it's two completely different things in terms of chemistry. a. How long a battery lasts per day
b. How long a battery lasts in years
The chemistry is completely different because of chemical degradation.
a. Chemical degradation isn't happening (greatly) per day.
b. Chemical degradation is something that happens over a long time.
Chemical charge comes back daily.
Chemical degradation never comes back.
They're completely different chemical equations.
It's like the difference between "weather" & "climate".
People can confuse them, and that's normal (because people don't think).
But once you've explained the difference between weather and climate,
people are expected to understand that they are different equations.
That difference has been explained many times to the guy I responded to.
He's mixing them up either because he's a moron or he does it on purpose.
If it's on purpose, he chooses to act like a moron does by equating
a. Daily battery level, with
b. Permanent degradation
The equation is completely different (just as is weather from climate).
I have about 6 different Lightning cables--4 of which I use pretty much >>> every day?and I'll have to throw them all out when the next phone I buy >>> forces me to use USB-C
I have loads of USB-A chargers which don't work with the USB-C cables that
come with current iphones/ipads.
but they *do* work with the usb-a cables you have been using with other apple devices.
If you previously owned an Apple device.
those switching from android to iphone would have at least one usb-c charger to use with the included usb-c lightning cable, so no issues
for that group either.
If you have an Android with a USB-C charger.
If you have an Android with a USB-C charger.
most people buying a new iphone have previously owned either an iphone
(and have a cable) or a recent android (and have a usb-c charger).
recent laptops include a usb-c charger, as do various other devices, so owning a recent android phone is not the only way to obtain a usb-c
charger.
put simply, the number of people who will need to buy a cable or
charger is too small to justify it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 04:42:34 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,335,886 |
