Valve will soon be forced to revise a new Steam Deck (and I can't wait)

[Windows Central]

A new regulation passed in the EU states that devices must have replaceable batteries by 2027. This means a new Steam Deck is on the way!

Valve will soon be forced to revise a new Steam Deck (and I can't wait) : Read more

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I appreciate finding the positive perspective on this. I agree that a replaceable battery is a nice plus, and I suspect that almost everyone would agree that by itself, a replaceable battery is better than a non-replaceable battery. So why do you think companies don't do this? After all they want to win customers, so why not just build it this way in the first place? Because there are adverse effects to some combination of size, weight, cost, and time to develop/iterate, which customers care about even more.

If enough customers really cared about this or ANY feature within reasonable engineering reach of manufacturers, they would already offer it. In fact, it was fairly recent history when many cell phones still offered replaceable batteries. Further back, I used to buy a few spares and a separate charger for my old Samsung Palm Smartphones back around 2002-2005 so I could have more power with me when I traveled for work. When one ran out, I'd just slap in the replacement.

The reality is that CUSTOMERS told companies that thin and light were more important than a replaceable battery in certain classes of devices. Obviously, not every customer agreed with that prioritization, but that's where competition would step in to fill the gap, if there really were a market interest for this. Given that some manufactures kept offering replaceable batteries for quite a while, we can see that they did more than try. They even pushed these, promoting replaceable batteries as a critical benefit. Customers en masse said with their purchasing "we don't care about that enough to sacrifice thin and light."

This is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of excessive government regulation harming customers (most regulations do). Some bureaucrat has data, or a personal bug up his/her butt, that users would like replaceable batteries. True. He or she then pushes for a regulation to require it with no comprehension of the market impacts of this change.

There will surely be plenty of ignorant people praising this, because again, who wouldn't want the ability to replace the battery? But they completely miss the history and the long-term unintended consequences to this. Worse, because it's also expensive to produce fundamentally different models for different parts of the world, this means we're probably all going to suffer the consequences.

Good for you EU, you've just made all electronic devices worse and more expensive, as proven by customer purchases over the past two decades.

 

[wojtek]

I appreciate finding the positive perspective on this. I agree that a replaceable battery is a nice plus, and I suspect that almost everyone would agree that by itself, a replaceable battery is better than a non-replaceable battery. So why do you think companies don't do this? After all they want to win customers, so why not just build it this way in the first place? Because there are adverse effects to some combination of size, weight, cost, and time to develop/iterate, which customers care about even more.

If enough customers really cared about this or ANY feature within reasonable engineering reach of manufacturers, they would already offer it. In fact, it was fairly recent history when many cell phones still offered replaceable batteries. Further back, I used to buy a few spares and a separate charger for my old Samsung Palm Smartphones back around 2002-2005 so I could have more power with me when I traveled for work. When one ran out, I'd just slap in the replacement.

The reality is that CUSTOMERS told companies that thin and light were more important than a replaceable battery in certain classes of devices. Obviously, not every customer agreed with that prioritization, but that's where competition would step in to fill the gap, if there really were a market interest for this. Given that some manufactures kept offering replaceable batteries for quite a while, we can see that they did more than try. They even pushed these, promoting replaceable batteries as a critical benefit. Customers en masse said with their purchasing "we don't care about that enough to sacrifice thin and light."

This is the PERFECT EXAMPLE of excessive government regulation harming customers (most regulations do). Some bureaucrat has data, or a personal bug up his/her butt, that users would like replaceable batteries. True. He or she then pushes for a regulation to require it with no comprehension of the market impacts of this change.

There will surely be plenty of ignorant people praising this, because again, who wouldn't want the ability to replace the battery? But they completely miss the history and the long-term unintended consequences to this. Worse, because it's also expensive to produce fundamentally different models for different parts of the world, this means we're probably all going to suffer the consequences.

Good for you EU, you've just made all electronic devices worse and more expensive, as proven by customer purchases over the past two decades.

I dint agree, to put it mildly... Phone companies market stuff (and usually follow apple... "monkey sees, monkey does") and if apple made phones that didn't have replaceable batteries then others done the same. But apple (and other popular brands) profits from battery service. Making the battery replaceable is not such extreme - not requiring special screwdrivers and not putting 200% of glue already makes it times more easier...

Are you also arguing tha this "awful EU with to of regulation" made a disservice to the world by forcing single charger port? or to you miss times when each company had it own chargerab(yes, plural because different models had different charges)?

 

[GraniteStateColin]

I dint agree, to put it mildly... Phone companies market stuff (and usually follow apple... "monkey sees, monkey does") and if apple made phones that didn't have replaceable batteries then others done the same. But apple (and other popular brands) profits from battery service. Making the battery replaceable is not such extreme - not requiring special screwdrivers and not putting 200% of glue already makes it times more easier...

Are you also arguing tha this "awful EU with to of regulation" made a disservice to the world by forcing single charger port? or to you miss times when each company had it own chargerab(yes, plural because different models had different charges)?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post or question, but I'll try to respond. I'm saying that there are unintended consequences when companies are forced by regulations to making products with features that they didn't choose to make based on market demand. I think you are asking if I would make the same argument about the Apple Lightning Connector and the EU forcing them to USB-C? If so, then yes, that was a bad policy by the EU. It doesn't matter if it superficially appears to be beneficial to users, because the problems is the UNINTENDED consequences.

I do think there are cases where government can help implement standards, but forcing Apple to eliminate the Lightning Connector is not one of those. Where regulations are appropriate for standards, it's only when there are many competing approaches and none are gaining user acceptance because of the Babylon of connectors. In that case, a forced standard can benefit everyone. Even then, it's best to let a standards organization voluntarily resolve the issue, like happens with Wi-Fi or the USB forum.

In Apple's case, there was already a standard, USB-C, and Apple chose to offer a proprietary connector that they believe to be better for their customers. By forcing Apple to drop that in favor if USB-C, they harm all the existing iOS users with Lightning connectors, they reduce competitiveness for improving the standards (would the USB Implementer's Forum have ever come up with the reversible USB-C if not for the Lightning Connector? Maybe, maybe not. Competition drives innovation. Regulation forcing a standard kills it.

 

[wojtek]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your post or question, but I'll try to respond. I'm saying that there are unintended consequences when companies are forced by regulations to making products with features that they didn't choose to make based on market demand. I think you are asking if I would make the same argument about the Apple Lightning Connector and the EU forcing them to USB-C? If so, then yes, that was a bad policy by the EU. It doesn't matter if it superficially appears to be beneficial to users, because the problems is the UNINTENDED consequences.

You see... you are believer of free market and that it will solve everything. However you are missing, by a huge margin, the "elephant in the room" - companies, especially bigger ones, are not driven by "making the world better", they are driven by making profit. Lightning is not the best connector (while being "flip compatible", i.e. doesn't matter how you put it, it.s slow and propiatery…) and Apple using is is just to enforce it's walled garden policy and milk users on overpriced dongles and cables... same thing was happening in the past where each company had dozens of custom, proprietary chargers... just to milk cashcows (customers)...

Do you think that Apple with their iMessage (and fb with messanger/whatsapp) are closed gardens because it's better? No, it's just marketing to get more users = more customers... gtalk/fb messanger/skype were interoperable a decade ago, but then they gained enough users to close off the rest...

Users don't have completely free choice - they are quite often forced to select something even though they may not be so happy about it (blue vs green bubbles idiocy from the land of the "freedom" ring any bell?)

 

[GraniteStateColin]

You see... you are believer of free market and that it will solve everything. However you are missing, by a huge margin, the "elephant in the room" - companies, especially bigger ones, are not driven by "making the world better", they are driven by making profit. Lightning is not the best connector (while being "flip compatible", i.e. doesn't matter how you put it, it.s slow and propiatery…) and Apple using is is just to enforce it's walled garden policy and milk users on overpriced dongles and cables... same thing was happening in the past where each company had dozens of custom, proprietary chargers... just to milk cashcows (customers)...

Do you think that Apple with their iMessage (and fb with messanger/whatsapp) are closed gardens because it's better? No, it's just marketing to get more users = more customers... gtalk/fb messanger/skype were interoperable a decade ago, but then they gained enough users to close off the rest...

Users don't have completely free choice - they are quite often forced to select something even though they may not be so happy about it (blue vs green bubbles idiocy from the land of the "freedom" ring any bell?)

Yes, companies are driven to make a profit and, more important, that the rate of profit (as a percentage of dollars spent, called the internal rate of return orIRR) increases over time. In other words, a company can't just screw its customers to make a big profit this quarter if it will hurt it in the long-term, or its stock will suffer. Now, "long-term" can be a subjective term. Companies don't generally look much further than about 5 years with respect to profits. They may have general plans that go further than that, but they won't generally take a hit now for a win that's any further out than that, and usually it requires at least consistent IRR within 1-3 years.

And do you know the ONLY thing a product-company can do to show increasing profits over the years? Make products that customers want to buy. If you think otherwise, you are just ignorant about how product development planning works. When we design products, we are focused on how to delight customers so they will want to buy our products and build brand loyalty so they'll also want to buy another one in the future, instead of jumping ship to another manufacturer's.

I don't defend Lightning as a connector. I MUCH PREFER USB-C. I also don't use iMessage (because I don't use Apple products, except for testing in app development, because we release apps for iOS devices). But neither my preference nor yours nor any gov't bureaucrat's opinion should matter. That's the marketplace and each customer and each inventor making their own choices.

 

[stanto]

A new regulation passed in the EU states that devices must have replaceable batteries by 2027. This means a new Steam Deck is on the way!

Valve will soon be forced to revise a new Steam Deck (and I can't wait) : Read more

This article is misleading.
The steam deck battery is replaceable and you buy replacements from ifixit.com.

 

[wojtek]

This article is misleading.
The steam deck battery is replaceable and you buy replacements from ifixit.com.

All batteries are replaceable. The crux of the topic is the effort.

Even mentioned ifixit guide (https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Steam+Deck+Battery+Replacement/149070#s307400) has this gem:

> The battery is strongly adhered to the Steam Deck. The adhesive loosens with constant, steady force, and it will require repeated heating and prying cycles.