The European Commission yesterday adopted new exemptions to its Batteries Regulation that free the Apple Watch and AirPods from having to offer user-removable and replaceable batteries.
The reasoning largely mirrors why devices like electric toothbrushes were already exempt: Opening a compact, sealed enclosure and failing to reseal it properly could let water in and create a safety risk. Products can also qualify for exemption if their construction makes battery removal inherently dangerous, or if there is no realistic way to build in user access given current manufacturing methods.
The iPhone was already exempt from the removability rule under the original regulation, thanks to its battery cycle life and water resistance rating.
Although the Commission has adopted the exemption, it must still undergo scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Council of the EU.
To read the European Commission’s full delegated act, follow this link.
AirPods Apple Watch Battery Replacement European Union Hardware iPhone Legal Unauthorized Repair
So a mostly pointless regulation seeing as most products it might have applied to are now exempt – how much fecking money was wasted on this!?
Still at least we have the cookie banner pop-ups ruining the web browsing experience so it hasn't't been a complete waste of time.
"a mostly pointless regulation seeing as most products it might have applied to are now exempt"
Nintendo just replaced their products in Europe with ones with replaceable batteries, which is super cool. I don't understand why there is such a need to be so cynical about everything.
The battery of the Pixel Watch 4 is replaceable.
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Google+Pixel+Watch+4+Battery+Replacement/197169
This is pretty disappointing, but I guess a tiny bit understandable. Two pairs of PowerBeats Pro earbuds gave out for me after just two years (luckily the first pair was barely inside the warranty period), mainly because of the batteries, and I'm forced to buy another $250 hunk of junk to get longer than 10 minutes audio playtime. I opted instead for a $35 pair of knock-off earbuds, so at least I get 14 years instead of just 2 for the same amount of money now.
I was hoping that I would be able to finally get away from the e-waste of standard wired earphones that always seemed to get frayed wires after a few years, but nope, now we have a different problem that still basically requires replacement pretty frequently.
It would be nice if the EU actually *incentivized* replaceable batteries on all kinds of electronics so that manufacturers would be more likely to provide them even if they had an exemption. Earbuds and smart watches in particular are terrible for the environment in terms of e-waste.
No where does it say that websites need cookie banners.
You could also not harvest personal info and sell it to 200+ "legitimate business interest companies" for a pittance.
@Kristoffer My understanding is that cookie banners are also required for sites that don’t sell personal info.
You do *not* need a cookie banner for cookies that are essential for the site to work, i.e. "if the service would genuinely fail without it and the user specifically requested that service." So if, for example, you have an online store and need a cookie to store the contents of the shopping basket, you do not need a cookie banner.
You *do* need a cookie banner if, for example, you do some kind of cookie-based analytics, even if you don't sell the data.
I'm just tired of the kneejerk "EU regulation sucks because there are annoying cookie banners" argument.
My point was that companies can choose to not be scummy and use annoying cookie banners, or you can do it in a nice way.
That a majority of companies do it in a scummy way is not the fault of GDPR.
That the banners have become less annoying, with quicker access to a "No, don't track me" alternative, IS thanks to the eu though
I think it's also worth noting that most cookie banners don't comply with GDPR anyway. The whole cookie banner thing is pretty weird; it's as if companies added them not to comply with any regulation, but to be as annoying and useless as possible just to get people upset at the EU.
Much like Apple trying to get their European customers on their side in the fight against DMA.
Some people appear to have fallen for it, though it's so rare, and so consistent in wording, that I suspect it's mostly paid plants and bots
Source: Hacker News — This article was automatically imported from the source. Read full article at original source →
