[ceejayoz]

> You would double or triple the lifespan of a ton of things.

Until they get dropped in the toilet.

Phones have gotten more waterproof as the batteries have gotten more permanently secured (not to mention induction charging). It's not a spurious correlation.

[jcgl]

The Samsung Galaxy S5 was IP67, with a fully toolless, user-replaceable battery (not to mention SIM card!).

That was back in 2014.

[ksenzee]

That was a great phone. Still miss it.

[wqaatwt]

It also had a plastic back cover? How do you do the same with glass?

[madmask]

The battery of my diving torch is removable.. and of course doesn’t flood after 40 meters dives. This is a marketing excuse

[wolrah]

I am certainly very pro-removable-battery, but I feel like it's a safe bet your diving torch uses a round screw-on battery cover that is easy to get a reliable seal with even pressure across the whole thing compared to a flat rectangular opening like a phone battery. They are not comparable.

[madmask]

Yes, that’s true it’s a round screw on cap on the torch.

However, my casio G-Shock often comes with me and it’s only protected by a flat surface pushing on a gasket through 4 tiny screws.. the battery inside is a coin shape.

So I still think that’s an excuse.

[wolrah]

I didn't say it was impossible, just that the flashlight comparison is not great because it's not only a much easier design to seal but it's also a lot more tolerant of leaks.

[vincnetas]

it looks like you thinking about the excuses not the solutions. if you can't solve this problem does not mean that there is no one in the market who can't. and so we as consumers will reward the one who can't solve these new constraints presented by regulations.

[wolrah]

No, my post was literally about the fact that sealing a flashlight is not the same as sealing a modern smartphone.

I didn't say it was impossible, or that people shouldn't try it, just that the flashlight comparison isn't relevant.

[econ]

It's not hard. Can make a disk shape battery that can be screwed into the back of the phone with a flat screwdriver.

[goodpoint]

That's not relevant. Your phone does not need to work for a long time underwater. The phone can be perfectly waterproof even if there's water between phone and battery.

[wolrah]

My phone is a lot more sensitive to water intrusion. Having dropped totally non-waterproof flashlights in pools as a kid they'll generally still work even if totally flooded. Even if they get bad enough to stop working they'll almost certainly work perfectly once dried out.

That's not the case with a modern smartphone.

[Too]

Same with GoPros.

[smarkov]

I'm not denying that there are some trade-offs, but I'm also not strictly speaking about phones here. Think electric toothbrushes, trimmers, Bluetooth speakers and the other endless amounts of electric things with rechargeable batteries that don't have the space constraints of a phone.

[Kirby64]

> electric toothbrushes

If anything, sealing electric toothbrushes is even more paramount than a phone. The normal use case is literally getting it wet through use.

Also, anecdotally, I’ve never had a sonicare toothbrush battery die. They still last weeks after many many years of use.

[NikkiA]

My (oral b) toothbrush uses 2*AA batteries and manages to be waterproof enough just fine.

[eviks]

It's also easy to seal, so that paramount concern also doesn't justify waste. And non-anecdotally we know batteries die in years, not decades

[kelnos]

It's weird to me that your line of thinking is actually a thing. It is not difficult to make a water-tight battery compartment for an electric toothbrush, but also make it trivial to open up and replace the battery. Hell, I just did a quick search for "electric toothbrush AAA battery", and these things exist and presumably work fine.

I feel like modern phones and the marketing around them (mostly from Apple) has pushed this nonsense that it's difficult to make water-resistant or water-proof electronics that still have a user-replaceable battery. Unfortunately this marketing seems to be working. Worked on you, at least. Gaskets, o-rings, and pressure seals are old, time-tested technology.

Admittedly it isn't as easy to make a water-resistant smartphone as it is to make water-resistant electric toothbrush. But it's far from impossible.

[robertlagrant]

A toothbrush doesn't have the same space constraints, so they can just have relatively large seals, and they seal a relatively small opening (enough to fit a AA battery through).

It might well be possible to do this in a phone, but this sort of reasoning to come to that conclusion seems faulty. Like saying "Phones should be able to blow buildings apart. After all, tanks do it, so it's clearly possible."

[smarkov]

It's not my area of expertise so I might just be delusional here, but from my understanding phones are difficult to make waterproof if they had replaceable batteries because they require a massive lid that spans across the entire phone while having a limited amount of thickness to work with and also because they have some expectations about the depth at which they remain waterproof. You don't necessarily have these constraints with a toothbrush. You can have a small opening at the bottom where you insert a tall battery and have plenty of height left to make a waterproof hatch. You're also unlikely to submerge your toothbrush in more than 50cm of water, like in the event of dropping it in the bathtub.

> Also, anecdotally, I’ve never had a sonicare toothbrush battery die. They still last weeks after many many years of use.

Sure, these exist too, though it doesn't reflect the majority of items which cheap out on all components, including batteries.

[Semaphor]

> Also, anecdotally, I’ve never had a sonicare toothbrush battery die. They still last weeks after many many years of use.

It’s the same for me, the whole toothbrush died two times shortly after warranty ended, with the battery having no issues. Not touching sonicare ever again. The cheap honeywell Chinese whatever brand is far more reliable for a small fraction of the price.

[vincnetas]

but you don't go diving with your bathroom devices. they need just splash protection which is not that complicated. i bet inventive competitor can come up with how to solve this problem efficiently and be rewarded by market.

[ceejayoz]

Each of the items you've highlighted are also quite likely to encounter water.

[e12e]

> Phones have gotten more waterproof

Tell that to the Ericsson t888 I washed (phone turned on) for a full cycle at 60C. After drying out for a few days it worked fine.

[ceejayoz]

OK? A modern iPhone or Apple Watch doesn't need drying out after a dip, let alone days worth.

[mr_toad]

iPhones are only water resistant. I wouldn’t recommend putting one through a wash cycle.

[OptionOfT]

I never understood that. Apple claims (for the iPhone Pro Max):

> Rated IP68 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes) under IEC standard 60529

But then, the fine print says:

> iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max are splash, water, and dust resistant and were tested under controlled laboratory conditions with a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters up to 30 minutes). Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions. Resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage not covered under warranty.

What is the difference here between being water proof and water resistant?

Is it because water proof is permanent and resistant is time based?

Doesn't that mean that nothing is water proof? A submarine then is also only water resistant, because they have depth limits.

Lastly, they're advertising something, but then stating it's not covered under warranty. Doesn't that go against the Warranty of Merchantability?

[AdrianB1]

iPhone and submarines have different limitations. Submarines have a depth limit because they are (mostly) empty shells at very high pressure and the hull implodes, which is not the case of iPhones. For iPhones, being submerged for extended periods of time water will slowly get in at very low rates, but given enough time it will accumulate to significant quantities to do damage.

[eviks]

It wasn't a dip?