Danneskjold Logbook

Notes and ramblings about philosophy and politics, from a voluntarist perspective. Follow me on Mastodon: @[email protected]

Next June, a new set of regulations for smartphones (approved back in 2023) comes into force: link.

Out of all of them one caught my eye, the “Ecodesign Requirements”:

  • Resistance to accidental drops or scratches and protection from dust and water
  • Sufficiently durable batteries which can withstand at least 800 charge and discharge cycles while retaining at least 80% of their initial capacity
  • Rules on disassembly and repair, including obligations for producers to make critical spare parts available within 5-10 working days, and for 7 years after the end of sales of the product model on the EU market
  • Availability of operating system upgrades for longer periods (at least 5 years from the date of the end of placement on the market of the last unit of a product model)
  • Non-discriminatory access for professional repairers to any software or firmware needed for the replacement

Sounds like a great idea! With the best of intentions! What could possibly go wrong?

A thought experiment 

Imagine a regulation that requires all furniture to be made from solid wood sourced from sustainable forests, and capable of withstanding large weights. No more flimsy cardboard and composite shelves and wardrobes, no more IKEA.

Or that all clothes must be made from organic materials, with fabrics of a minimum thickness or durability. No more fast fashion, no more Primark.

All in name of protecting the customer and the environment.

But, what would be the effect on people's lives?

The richest parts of society will continue to live the same way, largely unaffected.

Middle classes would suffer some immediate reduction of their disposable income, but they would probably be able to resist the hit. And their clothes and furniture would be of better quality, so they might even save money in the long term.

And both would celebrate how good it is that the greedy cost-cutting corporations were stopped and now everyone has much better quality, longer-lasting stuff.

Everyone? No. Low income people would suffer, forced to spend money they don’t have, or to prolong the life of those items way past what would be advisable. We would be back to poor people wearing rags (funny how that’s no longer a thing, huh?).

Without cheap but functional items, a lot of people would be forced to go into (more) debt, or would have to spend less on other, more important things. It’d be a serious blow to social mobility.

Desirable vs mandatory

When you criticise “pro consumer” policies like these you're often accused of siding with the evil companies. You're probably benefiting from their exploitation!

So let me show my cards:

I find all the stated goals of the policy desirable. I am a supporter of the right to repair. The number of years of software updates that I’ll get is a major factor for me at the time of purchasing a new device.  I'm even invested in companies that already comply with most of them and might end up experiencing higher (artificial) demand. I will not be negatively affected by this and I could even come out richer.

But that hasn’t always been the case.

When I was a student, and during the early years of my career, cheap was the name of the game. Money was limited, so why buy expensive brands when there were significantly cheaper alternatives? Yes, a lower end Xiaomi would need to be replaced in a couple of years, but I didn't have the money for a phone twice as expensive that would (hopefully) last me 3 times longer. And if I did, the risk of it not actually lasting long enough to compensate for the extra cost was too big to ignore. For example, I once got a pair of Levi's because I was tired of cheap jeans always breaking after a year or two of use. They cost 7 times more and did't last significantly longer.

I had cheap clothes and cheap equipment that had to be replaced or fixed often, but that allowed me to save money and build enough financial muscle to really afford to spend on quality (among other life goals).

Also, let’s not forget that some people just don’t care. Others enjoy changing their phones every couple of years and actually prefer a lower price over a longer use-life. You can argue they’re wrong, and their priorities should be better sorted (I certainly do), but you can’t force people to live their lives the way you think is best.

The EU: Trade warfare with good marketing

At the moment of writing this, I don’t think any major company complies with all of the new requirements.

Points 1,2 and 5 are relatively easy (but not free) to comply with, but 3 and 4 have been historically problematic.

To produce spare parts (point 3) the design has to be highly modular, which is not always desirable from the technical point of view. If you already have a design like that, I imagine it’s not a great cost for the company to sell them (although it might become more difficult as time passes and more models come to and leave the market).

Software updates (point 4) are a whole different beast. The cost and complexity of supporting a wide range of different hardware combinations is exponential, particularly if you work with 3rd party hardware. Unless you have a very tight vertical integration (like Apple) or have a very close relationship with your suppliers, it can very quickly become a nightmare to maintain. That is why Android has such a bad record with OS update support, and why Apple has always been way ahead until very recently. I don’t think any company complies with that point as it is at the moment, and I doubt anything other than multinational behemoths could in the long run.

This is a policy so completely disconnected from reality, that I only see a couple of explanations for it. Allow me to put on my little tinfoil hat.

a. This has been lobbied, written, and/or promoted by a group of naive, wealthy but well-intentioned tech enthusiasts b. The politicians behind this are interested in a more concentrated market for whatever reason (ie insider trading, a future power grab, or a cozy retirement from politics as an executive). c. This is an attempt to covertly attack trade with China in a market where they are very strong (as they already did with electric vehicles link). d. All of the above

The EU likes to present itself as a champion of free trade (particularly now, in opposition to Trump’s tariffs), but that’s only ever been true internally. They’ve always been quite protectionist, especially about specific industries like agriculture (see the CAP). Things like their AI regulation (link), or the recent barrage of fines to Apple and Google could well be an attempt to do the same for tech. However, they can’t afford to continue like this for much longer and they know it (see the Draghi report).

Conclusions and predictions

Policies have certain inertia, this one was voted in before the latest trade war and the Draghi report itself. It might be quietly repealed, or at least defanged, under new geopolitical circumstances. Or they might double down. Who knows?

However, I think the consequences of this policy (if maintained and enforced) will be a disappearance of cheap brands and models, and a great reduction of hardware diversity and customised Android builds. The market will become more concentrated into fewer but larger companies. Individual models will be discontinued very quickly to reduce the support lifespan as much as possible.

Over the last couple of decades, smartphones have gone from a luxury product to a de facto necessity of modern life. This change was enabled by a dramatic drop in prices, in turn fuelled by a cutthroat market largely left alone by governments. The EU seems determined to undo all that.

I can’t help but imagine a smug French bureaucrat, scrolling on the latest iPhone while casually telling her assistant “Let them buy Samsung”.

AXIOM |ˈaksɪəm| noun A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.

Discussing with people about politics or philosophy can be incredibly frustrating when you start from incompatible axioms or first principles. You're simply seeing the world itself from fundamentally incompatible lenses and you'll never convince or even understand each other.

So, in order to save me time and headaches, I have a list of axioms and basic principles derived from them that I use as filters to determine if it's even worth discussing with the other person. I'm happy to debate these principles themselves, as it can be very stimulating, but if we can't agree on them I'll refuse to touch any other topics.

1. Reality exists

This is true regardless of our capacity to fully and correctly perceive or understand it.

If you don't believe there's such thing as reality, there's no point in discussing anything else.

1.1. A is A (Law of no contradiction)

If reality exists, non-reality doesn't exist. Two mutually exclusive things can't be true at the same time. Equally, something can't be true and false at the same time.

If you don't agree with this, it's impossible to discuss or debate anything.

1.1.1. Morality is independent of outcome or necessity

If an act is immoral, the fact that it can produce a desirable or necessary outcome doesn't change it's nature.

Travelling back in time and killing Hitler as a baby would still be immoral because at that point he was still innocent.

Life is complicated and humans are fallible, so sometimes we might commit immoral acts, by necessity or mistake. But we shouldn't delude ourselves and pretend it was right. Rationalising can be a dangerously slippery slope.

2. Humans are rational creatures

This means we're not automatons simply reacting to stimuli. We reason and can plan and form abstract thoughts. This doesn't mean we are rational in the colloquial sense. Acting emotionally or making objectively wrong decisions is still rational because it follows some reasoning, as basic or flawed as it can be.

If you don't think we are rational, why are we even having a discussion?

2.1. Humans have free will

The fact that we can reason means we can act against our natural instincts if we choose to. How hard or painful it is to do so is irrelevant, the fact that we can do so remains.

If you are a determinist there's no point in discussing anything beyond this. What would be the point? After all, our opinions, arguments, and reactions are not ours to change.

2.2. Forcing an innocent to act against their will deprives them of their humanity. Thus, coercion is immoral.

COERCION |kəʊˈəːʃn| noun The practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.

(Notice the innocent. See principle 2.3)

Ancient philosophers and thinkers that justified slavery did so by arguing their victims were little more than animals, or as punishment for serious crimes.

What exactly constitutes coercion or a threat is something more complex that can be discussed.

However, if you don't agree with this, your only principle is the law of the jungle, where might makes right, and thus there's no point in debate or discussion. In fact, if you're still trying to have a discussion, you're just a wolf in sheep's clothing, waiting for the right conditions to ditch any pretence of civility and impose your will by force. As such, you're not only immoral, but evil. A barbarian only temporally civilised by the fear of punishment from someone stronger than yourself.

2.2.1. For the same reason, killing an innocent is also immoral

2.2.2. Depriving an innocent of the fruit of their labour is essentially forcing them to produce those goods for you. Thus, theft is also immoral.

Because labour requires time and effort, its fruit is then a “manifestation” of that portion of your life.

This makes theft a minor, opportunistic version of slavery. Thieves take whatever they can from whatever their victim has produced at that point. Slavers force their victims to produce something specific, then steal all of it, and will continue to do so indefinitely.

In a twisted way, if you consider their victims as “natural resources”, thieves are nomad slavers and slavers are sedentary thieves.

If you think you have a claim to others' lives, in full or in part, just because you want them, you're someone that won't recognise anything other than violence, much less rational arguments.

2.3. This means you have the innate moral right to self-defence

An innate moral right means it's not given to you by any State or government, and it'll remain morally correct regardless of what law or society says.

This means the use of force in response of a threat or aggression is always legitimate. The proportionality of it is a different question.

If you are against this right, you're not only a brute, but a coward. Wanting to steal and slave others but only daring to do so if they're unarmed.

This however doesn't make any and all voluntary interactions necessarily moral, but that's a different topic that can be debated.