Let the Europeans eat cake

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”:

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”.