[GuestFAUniverse]

Electric toothbrushes are exempt? Why?

We have several for our kids, with removable batteries from Oral-B. All are years old and still waterproof. And with that amount of voltage, where can there _ever_ be a "safety issue"? That is quackery!

Sounds more like somebody lobbied successfully.

[Ciantic]

That is what I also wonder, who added that tootbrush statement there? Given that Oral-B has done replacable batteries for years, and they have dominant position, I'm thinkin that statement didn't come from lobbies. Maybe someone who are making the law is reasoning with itself or small group and didn't know that replacable batteries in toothbrushes are already a thing.

[bluecalm]

Oral-B is an American company. Phillips is an European company. Phillips toothbrushes don't have removable batteries (at least none of many I owned had them).

Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.

[hvb2]

> Now connect the dots. That is how things work in EU.

Uh sure. If you've been paying attention the last year and a half it's the US putting up trade barriers to every other country. Like how the EU is under investigation for forced labor, that outcome might be used in the coming months to justify more tariffs.

Just to address this one specific case. If they're exempt, and you can sell more of them, why would you go beyond the regulation? This is why regulation like this shouldn't have exemptions.

[siim_osur]

You can asbolutely redesign the devices to fit the requirement.

It's absolutely a result of lobbying.

[marysol5]

Because they're specifically engineered to be safe?

I can see someone taking open a toothbrush, slapping a generic cell in there and then it going into water and having a fun time

[GuestFAUniverse]

There are 2 AAs (1,2V * 2500mA, rechargeable) inside.

Where is the danger? Even if I would put the wrong ones inside, from an RC race car (3,7V). I wouldn't even come close to dangerous wattage.

And since when does every device need to be idiot safe? I have a drill, a vacuum cleaner, a saw, a kitchen aid, bottles of isopropanol ... a lot of things are more dangerous.

And the vacuum cleaner the most surprisingly dangerous one, if one of your child decides to vacuum liquids from his rooms floor -- been there: vacuum destroyed, child survived. So, does that mean we only ever are allowed to buy models that can cope with wet and dry?

Oh, please. There's always an opportunity to be more paranoid I guess.

[fragmede]

I mean, it's not a toaster.

[bko]

Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product?

My guess is there is a trade of that's worth it on the product side. That's why you can't buy a compelling phone w a replaceable battery anywhere. Its an incredibly competitive market. If there was a design that worked and tradeoffs made sense it works certainly exist and do well since who wouldn't like it.

I just believe that the fact it doesn't exist tells you that the trade offs aren't worth it. I didn't buy conspiracy theories how dozens of independent manufacturer and hundreds of hardware manufacturers that are on the side line so collude to keep this design choice at bay.

[tsimionescu]

There is another option here - the company may refuse to offer a replaceable battery because it would eat into the market itself by increasing the lifetime of the products. And different companies may have agreed, in secret or just tacitly, to perpetuate this. Especially as replaceable batteries are not THAT high on the list of features consumers actually look for - it's not like Samsung could eat Apple's lunch by including a releasable battery in their next flagship. So, better for everyone if they just don't include one.

[bko]

Why wouldn't one of the hundreds and probably thousands of companies that can make phones at scale not jump in? These are all pretty much off the shelf parts.

Why did Google even attempt Project Ara? Why did Fairphone or Teracube never produce a compelling product?

If anyone could make replaceable batteries work, even at a premium, it would be a big hit. I remember replaceable batteries and they were incredible. The batteries were slim, can barely feel them in your pocket. I popped 2 or 3 for my camping trip and never had to worry about charging.

The idea that there's collusion in one of the most competitive marketplaces in the world (consumer electronics) is an extraordinary claim. Companies don't just nuke their products and survive long term.

[tsimionescu]

What thousands of companies? The market for flagship smartphones has fewer and fewer players every year - it's mostly Apple, Samsung, Google, OnePlus, and Xiaomi now, I think. Even Sony has been drastically dropping in popularity.

[kalaksi]

Uh, Fairphone does have compelling products?

[bko]

The Fairphone 6 is about double the price of a comparable phone like Motorola Edge 60 Fusion. All these branded "fair" or "open" products are just not competitive and 99% of people aren't willing to pay such a big premium for what's essentially a concept

https://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=13955&idPhone...

[kalaksi]

For many people it's still compelling and not "a concept". If you're looking for the cheapest phone with most performant CPU, RAM etc. (relative to price), then you're probably not target audience.

[andor]

Comparable or not, the Fairphone 6 costs less than half of my iPhone. I don't think the price is an issue.

[verall]

Most phones quietly lose their ip68 when battery or screen is replaced

[marysol5]

At least with phone batteries, to make them removable, means removing some capacity. Lots of phones squeeze as much cell into every nook and cranny as they can

[fragmede]

> Why would a company choose to produce an inferior product?

It costs less to make the inferior product, so even if you have to lower prices, you make it up in volume.

[bko]

Right, and people don't want to pay a high enough premium to justify the cost and design tradeoffs. That's how markets work. Mandating a more expensive product w features consumers aren't willing to pay for normally makes everyone worse off