[Dalewyn]

I think I see where I got tripped up. Essentially, they're saying all batteries in portable electronics will be portable by 2027 and defined as so-and-so; not that batteries today are portable and will be made compliant as defined so-and-so.

Because I think we can all agree: The battery on an ICOM walkie-talkie is portable, the battery in an Apple iPhone is not portable.

[zuminator]

The definition of "portable" that's germane here is the statutory one that was quoted above:

> portable battery’ means a battery that is sealed, weighs 5 kg or less, is not designed specifically for industrial use and is neither an electric vehicle battery, an LMT battery, nor an SLI battery;

> ‘portable battery of general use’ means a portable battery, whether or not rechargeable, that is specifically designed to be interoperable and that has one of the following common formats 4,5 Volts (3R12), button cell, D, C, AA, AAA, AAAA, A23, 9 Volts (PP3);

When words are defined statutorily, that supersedes any "common sense" use of the word with respect to the sections governed by that statute.

It further goes on to state:

> Any natural or legal person that places on the market products incorporating portable batteries shall ensure that those products are accompanied with instructions and safety information on the use, removal and replacement of the batteries. Those instructions and that safety information shall be made available permanently online, on a publicly available website, in an easily understandable way for end-users.

So the goal is for all portable batteries to be removeable. However there's an exemption ("derogation") for devices intended to be used around water or washable. Most high end phones these days are to some extent submersible, which raises the question of whether this will exempt them from the user-replaceable requirement.

[mark-r]

No, we cannot all agree. I think your definition of "portable" is not compatible with most people's. You seem to be conflating portable and removable; those are two different properties that do not have to coexist. If the battery in your iPhone was not portable, you would not be able to move your iPhone.

[Dalewyn]

Given no further context, when I hear "portable battery" I think of a battery that is portable in itself. An iPhone is portable, but the battery embedded in it isn't. Contrast the battery pack that something like an ICOM walkie talkie would have, which is portable in itself.

Other ways to see it: An Electron program is portable, a .exe program is not portable; they are both programs. A stick of RAM is portable, soldered RAM on a motherboard or in a CPU is not portable; they are both RAM.

[aqme28]

Why “given no further context”? One of the people you replied to gave the EU regulations defining “portable.” That’s context.

[Dalewyn]

The comment I replied to mentioned "portable batteries" will be required to be "removable/replaceable", which sounds like an oxymoron because the entire point of a portable battery is that it's removable/replaceable.

The proper understanding was that electronics ("appliances") will become required to have portable batteries, because most batteries in them today are not portable.

If I'm still not coming across, let me put it this way: "Portable" in "portable iPhone" is a modifier on "iPhone", it is irrelevant with regards to the iPhone's battery which as of today is decidedly not portable anyway.

If I'm still not coming across: An iPhone being portable does not mean its battery is also portable.

[mark-r]

You're coming across just fine. The problem is that you made a sweeping generalization that "I think we can all agree" when it is obvious that we cannot. Your definition does not make sense to me, just as mine does not make sense to you. Neither one matters anyway now that there is a legal definition that must be adhered to.