[topherPedersen]

I have several computers that are 40 years old. I think the reason the old 80s microcomputers last so long is they don't have any moving parts like disk drives that go bad (I've had really bad success with the external disk drives I've purchased). Unfortunately, I think the reason why computers and phones don't last a long time now is because the companies designing the phones, computers, and operating systems WANT them to quit working.

The reason computers slow down and stop working worth a damn has nothing to do with the hardware, it's the operating system's receiving "updates" that make them quit working. I have a TRS-80 Color Computer running the Microsoft BASIC "operating system" that Bill Gates wrote himself and it still works great 40 years later.

And then the big issue with phones are the batteries. The phone manufacturers know that the batteries go bad, so they glue them into the phones so you can't replace them. Obviously if you wanted the phones to last a long time, you'd make it to where you can put a new battery in the damn thing. They also know that the screens break, so they'd make those easy to replace yourself as well if they cared.

That is nice you can take phones to those little repair places and they seem to do a nice job replacing screens and batteries, but they could probably design a phone where you can do it yourself.

[mfuzzey]

One of the issues with user replaceable batteries is waterproofing (IP rating).

My first smartphone was a Samsung Galaxy S1. It had an easilly swappable battery which was great because time between recharges was much shorter in those days so I had 2, one in the phone and one in the charger.

But once I got the phone wet just using it outside in the rain. After that it refused to charge for several days until it dried out.

More recently I've dropped my phone in water and it was perfecty fine with no drying time at all...

[pdimitar]

Sounds like a great and interesting engineering problem to work on.

The corporations still will not work on it though, for the exact reasons your parent commenter outlined.

I for one I am not convinced that we have to choose between swappable batteries and water-proof devices. I say we can have both -- but nobody in the business wants to figure it out, for obvious reasons.

[stephen_g]

You've misidentified the trade-off - it's not a choice between swappable batteries or waterproof devices - obviously either swappable or non-swappable devices can be designed to be waterproof.

The trade-off is usually size and complexity. You need more space for the seals (gaskets, O-rings etc.), and then latching mechanisms to hold covers on while applying the correct amount of pressure (and uniform pressure) on the gaskets.

That's not an especially hard an engineering problem, it just necessarily takes up more space so you end up with a bulkier device, which people tend not to like as much unless they really value being able to swap the battery.

[LorenPechtel]

It becomes an engineering problem when you are trying to make it small and light.

I recently replaced the battery in my chest strap heart rate monitor. And I found I was lucky--turns out the seal had slipped and it hadn't been waterproof since the last battery change.

And I think the sealing mechanism probably increases the device volume by 50%. As a chest strap that's not a big deal.

[xandrius]

I still have to this as an option by any manufacturer.

[dghlsakjg]

We don't have to choose. Those phones exist, they just don't sell well. Here's one you've never heard of: https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-xcover7...

We have to choose between swappable batteries, waterproofness, and compactness. most people are more concerned with waterproofness and compactness, and are perfectly happy to have a phone where the battery is not field serviceable.

Resealable waterproof cases that don't require adhesives are less reliable and bulkier. Nobody really wants a waterproof phone, with a replaceable battery, that has an o-ring seal that can be defeated by a cat hair.

The phones do exist, but you have to go looking for them.

[numpad0]

There's another one on Verizon USA right now[1]. Same story: heavy, bulky, anyone who asks for it don't commit to it.

By the way, I was really surprised to learn that US Army special operations guys just procure whatever latest models of Galaxy S2x in a marginally special plastic case that clips onto a flip-down chest mount. If that's all they need for parachute jumping and covert operations as far as physical reliability is concerned, surely I am not going to need any more hardening for my daily uses.

On the other hand, I sometimes see these seriously rugged phones seriously beaten up appearing in used markets with warehouse or heavy industrial factory style damages. Clearly that's where IP56 protection is actually required and proven.

1: https://www.techradar.com/pro/phone-communications/kyocera-d...

[pdimitar]

I wouldn't mind a Galaxy Xcover at all by the way, but here's one more war the corporations push people away from these devices: lack of software updates.

:(

[mjevans]

How about:

Waterproof phone* (excluding contacts for the battery and 3.5mm audio ports, which can be submerged without long term damage), and

Waterproofed battery* (safe to submerge, refuses to discharge unsafely).

I, personally, would also sacrifice compactness for robustness. I don't rock climb, but make a phone that can survive a tumble of multiple 10 meter drops and rolls and twists down a rock face. It must still be able to call EMS. That spec sounds bullet-proof enough to survive my relative's young kids worst antics.

[dghlsakjg]

The kind of phone you have described is called a 'tough phone', and typically marketed for industrial users.

I already linked to one that comes pretty close to what you want.

[Iulioh]

Yeah, now give me one with modern high end hardware.

That's the problem with these "niche" phones. Another example is Fairphone.

I don't necessarily have a problem with spending more, my problem is the fact that they compromise on things they could not compromise.

See Framework, they did it right.

[JohnFen]

> I am not convinced that we have to choose between swappable batteries and water-proof devices. I say we can have both

Of course we can have both. They used to exist and were reasonably common. The reason for nonswappable batteries now has exactly nothing to do with waterproofing and everything to do with cost-cutting.

[tourmalinetaco]

The corporate excuse before was “no one would buy a brick”, now the excuse is “no one would buy a non-waterproof phone”. We have the technology to make a user-replaceable phone with modern parts, just look at the Fairphone.

[shiroiushi]

You don't have to look at obscure stuff like that either; just look at the highly popular Samsung Galaxy S5. It was waterproof, had a headphone jack, and an easily replaced battery. And this came out 10 years ago, in 2014.

[numpad0]

I suspect the excuse is more like "it'll be nice if we had to warranty replace fewer water damaged phones" than it being a major selling point. Some places rain a lot, and not everyone sort trousers and purses by rain resistance.

[dns_snek]

Did any manufacturer ever replace water-damaged devices under warranty if they weren't advertised as being water resistant?

I've literally never heard of that happening, and even those that are advertised as water-resistant usually don't cover water damage under warranty.

[ryandrake]

How in the world did "waterproof" become a must-have feature for phones? What the hell are y'all doing with your phones? I've never once dropped my phone in the ocean or a pool, or the toilet, or anything like that. The thing is very expensive, and I treat it carefully and delicately. Who are these people constantly submerging their phones to the point where manufacturers all decided to pay the engineering costs and tradeoffs needed to make their phones waterproof!?

[LorenPechtel]

1) Power. It's no great technical challenge to build electronics that would last a lifetime--but using anything resembling normal current semiconductors means that to get that life your system must run cool. Put your finger on the hottest point in the system type cool. But note that this is the enemy of computing power. Your lifetime computer is going to be a total wimp. (Yes, I realize that many of the old devices don't actually run that cool--but note that neither do they run 24/7.)

Remember the claims that the light bulb makers were conspiring to sell bulbs that would wear out when they could make ones that lasted longer? Especially since there are some pretty long-lived examples out there. Yes, they could--but you make an incandescent light last longer by running it cooler. But that means more of the energy in the infrared rather than the visible spectrum. Long life bulbs produce less light for a given amount of power.

2) Weight. Yes, we had replaceable batteries--but that meant extra material required to make it easy to change the battery. Batteries always have housings. While lithium secondary batteries without housings exist they must be treated with a certain amount of respect and are incapable of self-defense against sloppy electronics. Your phone with an easily replaced battery is inherently bulkier and heavier than one without. Likewise, building something so it can be taken apart makes it bigger and heavier than the glued-together equivalent.

3) Waterproofing. I am not aware of any way of making an efficient waterproof, easily replaceable battery. And waterproof seals that you can open are troublesome, especially if you want to make them small and light.

4) Efficiency. My understanding is that in most cases the optimal design devotes enough to reliability/lifespan that half of the specimens will wear out before something bad happens to them.

The market wants light, powerful, as close to waterproof as possible phones. That means sealed units that are typically uneconomic to repair.

[chii]

> meant extra material required to make it easy to change the battery.

it doesn't need to be easy, nor user-replacible. It just needs to be _replacible_ by a professional, with readily available equipment that you'd expect a repair shop to have. Make the parts available for purchase, or have the specs be open for third-party production.

But companies, such as apple, deliberately make their parts incompatible, even if salvaged from a different phone. It's to thwart repairs specifically, and they cite theft prevention as the reason (which i claim is bs - they could allow repairs by having the owner authorize secondary sale of old phones as parts, which still prevents thefts).

[LorenPechtel]

Perhaps if there was a delayed authentication system. As it stands, their system isn't good enough because it lets the mugger demand you sign off so the phone is unlocked.