mdrzn
an hour ago
"There is no difference in functionality between current products and revised products containing user-replaceable batteries."
So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
sva_
6 minutes ago
> like all the smartphone brands
But there is at least some argument that smartphones nowadays have some pretty crazy waterproofness that I'm not sure is physically possible with a replaceable battery?
rtkwe
6 minutes ago
I expect smartphones to look more like the Pro Controller tradeoffs than the joy cons. The issue with replaceable batteries is you need the extra space for the battery structure so unless phones grow they'll have lower capacities. There's also IP ratings, phones have pretty good IP ratings these days often surviving drops in puddles etc where none of these products have any official IP rating to preserve when adding doors etc for replacement batteries.
braiamp
a minute ago
I'm baffled that we still are thinking that we want thin phones. We have a gigantic camera bump that would be removed if the phone was thicker. Who wants a razor in their pocket, like really?
Zambyte
an hour ago
It's not that they didn't care, it's that they did care in the wrong way. A non-replacable battery means people will be more likely to buy a whole new device if (when) the battery fails.
Waterluvian
30 minutes ago
I think the more likely explanation is that there was not sufficient market motiviation to include the additional requirement of a user-swappable battery. ie. people care, but they don't care enough or in enough volume for Nintendo to decide it's required.
I celebrate user-swappable batteries and I think I like the battery regulations. I just don't think the Ghost of Iwata is under your bed twirling a Wario moustache while thinking about how to screw you over. The current Switch battery situation is simply a result of user-swappable not being a requirement, among the countless other requirements already in contention.
nolok
19 minutes ago
Disagree. The market will not decide on that, at least for the nintendo product. Your or your kid want the switch and the pokemon and mario and others game, you're buying the switch, you don't switch to something else because the something else allows battery switch.
That's Nintendo's entire business model and the reason why they've been thriving since for ever in gaming and even the bad times where actually positive cash flow wise. They're not losing a single sale because the battery cannot be replaced, unless that sale was far from guaranteed to begin win.
Waterluvian
5 minutes ago
I don't think customers need to be protected from themselves. If they don't like the hardware but buy it anyways because they really like the game, that's a choice. And I feel that when we're dealing with luxury goods, we should give consumers very broad discretion to speak with their money.
schmorptron
17 minutes ago
I don't think that's it for console manufacturers. They make the majority of their money on game sales, so they want the console itself to be used for as long as possible.
dchftcs
8 minutes ago
That's true for Sony, but Nintendo doesn't sell the Switch at a loss.
SpicyLemonZest
44 minutes ago
I don't understand why battery failure is a "when". The only batteries I've ever had fail in rechargeable electronic devices were replaceable packs where water got into the compartment. Perhaps I've just gotten lucky?
vitally3643
17 minutes ago
Batteries are chemical devices and have a finite lifespan. There's enough confounding variables involved that some people get real superstitious about it.
Through a combination of internal and external factors, lithium batteries go through irreversible chemical changes on every charge cycle. Total charge capacity always trends down. Depending on a large number of variables, this might happen quickly or it might happen so slow you might never notice at all. It's all down to how and where the battery is used because temperature is mostly what drives the chemical reactions.
The other thing is that lithium batteries which have been deeply discharged below safe levels are permanently damaged. Just like charge cycle wear, this can be immediately apparent, or something that goes unnoticed forever, but the cell is damaged and will never be the same. Recharging such a battery can cause physical damage inside the cell.
Point is, batteries are chemical cells. They don't last forever because most chemical reactions are not perfectly reversible. Their specific application and environment strongly affects how long they last. But we do know conclusively that when lithium batteries are kept hot and charged and discharged at high current (such as in a handheld gaming device), they degrade faster. Cells which are kept at a stable temperature and low currents (such as headphones) degrade very slowly and can last a long time.
If you look past superstition, there's an entire industry that's been rigorously studying this problem for decades. There's a lot of literature and evidence.
Lithium cells do degrade. How fast they degrade depends on cell quality and environmental factors. It is, unequivocally, a question of when a battery will fail. It might well be a decade or two, but it will fail eventually.
zootboy
37 minutes ago
Battery failure is a "when" because batteries have a limited number of charge-discharge cycles. Modern lithium-ion batteries have a life expectancy in the range of 300-600 cycles. So if you've never had such a failure, it probably just means you're not a heavy user of your devices.
I try to keep my cell phones as long as I feasibly can. Every single one I've used for more than 3 years has had its battery fail (as expected for a device that sees such heavy cycling). My current phone is on its 3rd replacement battery.
garciansmith
17 minutes ago
My PSP, maybe five years ago, had a swollen battery. A friend a couple days ago was complaining that his PS4 controller's battery held no charge at all.
jamesnorden
37 minutes ago
All li-ion batteries degrade over time, they may not fail completely, but the capacity will be diminished for sure.
sigmar
38 minutes ago
How many years do you use them?
SpicyLemonZest
34 minutes ago
I'd guesstimate 5 or so on average. I have noise-cancelling headphones that are coming up on 13 years soon.
Waterluvian
29 minutes ago
I finally fixed my PS3 and came to discover that the controller batteries are just fine. Good batteries with proper BMS seem to be fine to live a very long life.
endemic
an hour ago
My take is they didn't optimize for something that a small percentage of users would have problems with.
square_usual
43 minutes ago
It's not really a small percentage of users. All users will have trouble with the battery - eventually. My DS4s ran out of battery life in about three years of usage; I still have one of them that I use wired with my PC, but I absolutely cannot use it wireless. Likewise with my DS5s - one of them barely held a charge 2-3 years in. I'm sure with good battery management you can extend the lifespan to be closer to 5-6 years, like my M1 MBP from 2021 that still has a 9+h battery life (though down from 12 as I remember), but that only keeps them going for a little longer. It's just a fact of how Li-ion batteries work that they will lose their capacity eventually.
E: DS4 = DualShock 4, DS5 = DualSense; these are the standard PlayStation controllers for the PS4 and the PS5 respectively.
jamesnorden
38 minutes ago
Props for using the Apple wording, I guess.
juancn
an hour ago
Battery life is shorter, and some are a tad heavier.
parineum
43 minutes ago
> So there was nothing "limiting" them from making it already with user-replaceable batteries, they just didn't care enough until EU forced them (like all the smartphone brands). Love EU.
At the very least, the design will be more complicated to accommodate replaceable batteries. That costs money. There's a lot more to "limiting" than functionality.
xd1936
an hour ago
Except for an up-to-16% reduction in capacity, and slightly increased weight, depending on the product.
GuB-42
43 minutes ago
You mean an up-to-5% increase in capacity, and slightly decreased weight, depending on the product?
The truth is that the product with the 16% reduced capacity (Switch 2 Pro controller) is 7g lighter and the one with the 5% increased capacity (Gamecube controller) is 5g heavier.
Besides those two, the general idea is that the capacity is the same with 2-3% extra weight.
vrganj
an hour ago
The 16% is for the Pro Controller though, to be fair.
The Switch 2 itself loses 1% of battery capacity, most other products none at all.
Your framing seems a bit selective to the point of being misleading.
dcrazy
an hour ago
16% less battery life in a controller is pretty significant!
mdrzn
an hour ago
Yes but it's limited to only the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller.
The basic Joy-cons have no change to their battery capacity.
ablob
42 minutes ago
I wonder if it will feel significant. I can't remember being limited by the controller battery. The runtime on a single charge is probably still going to be measured in weeks, and at that scale I feel like it doesn't really matter.
vrganj
an hour ago
Agreed, that one's not great. But it seems to be the only product that has serious trade-offs.
mmunj
an hour ago
seeing as the product itself already advertises that it's best to not charge it to 100% feel like nothing's being lost here no matter how one tries to spin it
xnx
an hour ago
You still lose capacity with a smaller battery, even if you don't charge it to 100%.
brookst
an hour ago
Important to understand non-functional requirements (NFR). They’re saying the core features are the same. They are not saying they’re identical in weight, repair cost, water/dust resistance, battery lifetime, or cost.