this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2025
291 points (99.0% liked)

Android

19882 readers
164 users here now

The new home of /r/Android on Lemmy and the Fediverse!

Android news, reviews, tips, and discussions about rooting, tutorials, and apps.

🔗Universal Link: !android@lemdro.id


💡Content Philosophy:

Content which benefits the community (news, rumours, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules.


Support, technical, or app related questions belong in: !askandroid@lemdro.id

For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: !lemdroid@lemdro.id

💬Matrix Chat

💬Telegram channels / chats

📰Our communities below


Rules

  1. Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.

  2. No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to !askandroid@lemdro.id.

  3. Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to !androidmemes@lemdro.id.

  4. No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.

  5. No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.

  6. No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.

  7. No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.

  8. No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.

  9. No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!

  10. No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.

Quick Links

Our Communities

Lemmy App List

Chat and More


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 48 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Every damn feature.

But most? Removable flipping batteries. Having a bomb in your pocket computer that you can't remove, and shortens it's effective life without often complex surgery is absolutely criminal.

Removable D batteries have existed since 1898. It was a staples feature of machines. Nobody wanted, needed, or desired the tech brah "disruption" of gluing lithium bombs into phones.

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I miss just being able to take it out and have no phone for however long I want. Didn't drain the battery, didn't worry about the phone.

It does compromise the waterproofing to open and close phones, even cases. But fuck you, let me make my own mistakes, your job is to engineer things to be better and fit my needs, not just give up and charge more and strip features and invade my privacy and spy on me with psyops and try to control my life. I'm a customer, not a user.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 days ago

I miss just being able to take it out and have no phone for however long I want.

That's the most telling thing about phones today, right? I have some older flip phones from 15 or so years ago. Removable battery, but even with the battery inserted for 8 years, I could turn one on right now and it would have whatever current state of charge is in the battery, only losing power from physics.

It's obviously possible, as Samsung keeps making these XCover phones with a removable battery and a waterproof rating of IPX8 (SCUBA): https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/phone.php?p=7301

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It's because the U.S. Government can make it seem as if your phone is powered down, but it's actually still on and spying on you, sending data to whatever alphabet agency wants it. Removing the battery is the only defense against that attack, so they 'encouraged' manufacturers to stop allowing it.

[–] Honytawk@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Sounds like a dumb conspiracy. Especially since Fairphone sells in the US.

More likely is that manufacturers want to make more money so they make their phones more difficult to repair so customers have to pay them to get a battery replaced.

I blame Apple

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You can believe what you want. I didn't hear it from a conspiracy theorist, I heard it from Edward Snowden, and this was actually old news when he mentioned it, but his revelation on national TV made it even more widely known. "Coincidentally" it was right around the time Snowden blew the whistle that Android manufacturers started switching over to non-replaceable batteries.

Yes Apple are greedy fucks and it's obvious that forcing iPhone users to get their phones repaired by a 'genius' was a part of their strategy from the beginning. But Android manufacturers who didn't have a repair store they could force their users to use and wouldn't benefit from that were happy to continue letting users replace their own batteries, because it was a legitimate benefit for the consumer and way to differentiate themselves from Apple.

I'm sure that phone manufactures save a few pennies by forcing users to either buy a new phone or pay an expensive repair bill, but I'm pretty sure that isn't the only reason it's done.

Edit: Even if you ignore their ability to wiretap you when your phone is 'powered off', the fact remains that the government can and does track you by you cell phone and removing the battery is a great way to stop that.

Of course, it's not the only way- If you feel like you don't want to be tracked for any reason a Faraday bag is a decent option. It makes your phone less useful, but so would removing the battery.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Non replaceable batteries benefit android manufacturers as it simplifies manufacturing. And they dont care about repairs post warranty... thats just incentive to buy another one. You dont need a grand conspiracy to explain that.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Non replaceable batteries benefit android manufacturers as it simplifies manufacturing. And they dont care about repairs post warranty… thats just incentive to buy another one.

That was true from 2006-2016 as well, but most Android manufacturers still offered user replaceable batteries. If you believe that there is no correlation- that's fine. I don't buy it though, the timing is just too perfect for it to be a coincidence.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

You know its a really easy to prove against, right? Just have some basic radio spectrograph to detect any signals coming from a turned off phone.

In reality, the correlation is phones continue to get thinner, making it near impossible to create a battery and battery connector small enough and still be resistant to a 200lb ape handling it.

[–] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 4 days ago

That actually isn't a way to prove anything, unfortunately.

A powered off or "powered off" phone wouldn't need to transmit anything. It would be just waking one of the receivers periodically (or even the NFC could be hit by some radio energy as a trigger) to listen for the "secret" activation code. Listening for radio energy doesn't generate any.

If the phone was "powered off" - tracing power draw between battery/phone would probably show something, but likely, the phone's power draw while off is always constant if this were the case and it isn't a new state the phone goes into.

Even if the phone was being used as an offline bug, the user would still not know because it can record audio/whatever and store it internally without ever transmitting. It'd likely be rigged up to just transmit the next time the user "turns it on" - so they'd be unaware, as the transmission would look like normal traffic.

The only case where it would be traceable from a radio perspective is if it were being used as an online bug, which means it would already have to have been put in the online bug state, which means someone has a reason to monitor you.

I mean shoot, if one really wants to go full tinfoil hat, recording audio to temporary storage at voice quality could go on for days with a phone "powered off" - periodically dumped to somewhere in flash. Hours of conversation could be fit in megabytes. The phone could just always be recording while turned off for every user, and when turned back on, that audio file is sent through the ML processor to convert to text, and then compress the text, further reducing the size. That data could be transmitted during normal usage as voice or compressed data, or just stored in the phone as compressed data for years.

Every phone could be doing this right now, and could have been doing this for a decade, although on-device text transcription is a relatively new feature.

Then, let us go next level: phone recycling/exchange processes also harvest IMEI+that compressed data before being shipped off for resale in the event it was never transmitted. Finally, we know why the NSA has the Utah data center.

I keep asking them to send me copies of recordings of old phone calls, but they never humor me.

DISCLAIMER: This is all non-serious but based on what is technically possible right now.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You know its a really easy to prove against, right?

Why would I need to prove it? You didn't read any of the articles I linked to did you? The fact that they have the ability to do this is not even a question. The government admitted that it was able to do this all the way back in 2006.

Just have some basic radio spectrograph to detect any signals coming from a turned off phone.

The claim isn't that the FBI/NSA/CIA/ICE whoever is doing this constantly to everybody, it's that they have the capability to do this to anybody, which again isn't even a question. I'm not really worried about being spied on personally (yet) and even if I were I'd just leave my phone at home or put it in a Faraday bag, I'm not going to carry around a 'basic radio spectrograph' and whip it out every time I want to have a private conversation.

In reality, the correlation is phones continue to get thinner

Lol, that's like saying I lost weight because I bought smaller pants. Yeah, designers are able to make phones thinner when they are able to design around non-replaceable batteries. Was anyone asking for thinner phones? They had the ability to make thinner phones by disallowing replaceable batteries for a decade and did not.

Were consumers demanding that phone manufactures make phones worse by removing useful features like replaceable batteries or headphone jacks- or was these anti-features foisted upon us?

If it had been just some manufactures that switched, or if those manufacturers that did switch had offered the option of different models, some with replaceable batteries and some without, and then consumers chose the worse phones- I might not be as convinced.

As it is now with 99.9% of all phones you can buy not even giving you the option, I'm not buying it.

It's not like this is some crazy off the wall theory. I'm not saying the Earth is flat or we didn't land on the moon. We know that the government is using our cell phones to track us, we know they have the capabilities to do so. The only question is did governments (I guarantee it's not just the U.S) make deals with/ask/or put pressure on manufactures to incentivize the switch. That's not really far fetched at all.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Was anyone asking for thinner phones? They had the ability to make thinner phones by disallowing replaceable batteries for a decade and did not.

A. They did not have the ability because doing so would reduced battery capacity because the tech is battery still maturing.

B. Apparently people are asking because people are still buying. Just because me and you arent asking doesnt mean the greater market isnt.

As it is now with 99.9% of all phones you can buy not even giving you the option, I'm not buying it.

A. That would mean the entire world is in on the conspiracy.

B. I cant buy a small truck in america. Does that mean there is a grand conspiracy?

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

A. They did not have the ability because doing so would reduced battery capacity because the tech is battery still maturing.

That makes zero sense. How the phone is connected to the battery has no bearing on capacity.

B. Apparently people are asking because people are still buying. Just because me and you arent asking doesnt mean the greater market isnt.

That's silly. They removed the ability, they didn't give people a choice. No one was asking, no one chose this.

A. That would mean the entire world is in on the conspiracy.

How would it mean that? The U.S. is a Huge market, China is a huge market It would only take one or two. Plus countries all around the world spy on their own citizens, so it 'benefits' their governments even if they weren't directly responsible. Did you know that in the U.S. Texas makes all of our school textbooks worse because it's easier just to print the stupid textbooks than print separate ones for just Texas because Texas is such a big market. This is not a conspiracy theory, you can look it up if you are interested.

B. I cant buy a small truck in america.

You can buy small trucks in America. What are you talking about?

Does that mean there is a grand conspiracy?

You are the one that keeps calling this a 'grand conspiracy'. There are only a handful of phone manufactures, it wouldn't be that difficult to get them all to agree to something, especially if they were rewarded in some way for it. Corporations only care about money.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

thinner phone requires a smaller battery. Smaller battery is smaller capacity.

That's silly. They removed the ability, they didn't give people a choice. No one was asking, no one chose this.

Noone asked for phones to copy the iphone... yet here we are.

Did you know that in the U.S. Texas makes all of our school textbooks worse because it's easier just to print the stupid textbooks than print separate ones for just Texas because Texas is such a big market. This is not a conspiracy theory, you can look it up if you are interested.

So close to getting it... smh

You can buy small trucks in America. What are you talking about?

You can? Show one new model that is the same size of a 1990 ford ranger.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

thinner phone requires a smaller battery. Smaller battery is smaller capacity.

Yes, smaller batteries of the same type generally have lower capacity. Very good. That's not what we were talking about though is it? YOU said that having a non-replaceable battery allowed them to make phones thinner. That is what they had the ability to do for the decade that they were still making phones with replaceable batteries.

Noone asked for phones to copy the iphone

Peter Noone, from Hermans Hermits? Fun trivia. You know who else asked for it, everyone else.

So close to getting it…

Oh, you think you are close to getting it? Well maybe I can help you the rest of the way. If School Text Book manufacturers who were forced to come up with a dumber version of their product to fit the requirements of one large market found it was cheaper just to sell everyone the dumb version instead of making two different versions, it follows that Phone Manufacturers would likewise find it cheaper to sell the dumber version of phones to everyone if one large market required them to make phones dumber. Do you get it now? I can try to dumb it down even more for you if you need me to.

Show one new model that is the same size of a 1990 ford ranger.

The still sell Ford Rangers I'm pretty sure. I'm going to let you do your own Truck shopping.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I said smaller battery and connecters allowed for thinner phones.

And mass production is cheaper than low production. So if all phones are designed the same, then the factories can be tooled all the same accross all models.

People actually did like the form factor and function of iPhones, false equivalency much?

So why are you confused manufacturers are copying Apple?

I'm not going to do your Truck shopping for you. If you can't figure that out on your own, ask your parents.

But you said they exist... it should be easy. Unless... you were talking out of your ass again.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I said smaller battery and connecters allowed for thinner phones.

Just making the batteries non replaceable makes them able to be thinner, and they always had that ability. They also had the ability to put in smaller batteries if everyone was clamoring for super thin phones. They just weren't.

And mass production is cheaper than low production.

True

So if all phones are designed the same, then the factories can be tooled all the same accross all models.

Uh, no. That would only be true if all models of phone from the same factory were made exactly the same way with the exact same machines. That's not the case. They make different models of phone. They could easily make one model with a user replaceable battery and a different model without one.

But you said they exist… it should be easy. Unless… you were talking out of your ass again.

They do exist, and it was super easy. They still make Ford Rangers. Try google, it's the first thing that pops up when you type in New Ford Ranger. I guess you were talking out your ass again.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

The new ranger is just a tiny bit smaller than the f150 It absolutely is not the same or even close to the size of ranger 20 years ago.

The closest in size "truck" to the old ranger is the maverick... but thats a unibody UTE, hardly comparable.

Uh, no. That would only be true if all models of phone from the same factory were made exactly the same way with the exact same machines. That's not the case. They make different models of phone. They could easily make one model with a user replaceable battery and a different model without one.

Sure... if there was enough demand for replaceable batteries... but there is not. Basically the vast market is content with the cheaper option.

That's a BINGO! So if that's true, then they absolutely had the ability to do that for the first decade of smart phones.

Again... smaller battery smaller capacity... a battery of the same physical size 15 years ago was much less enegry dense.

Its ok. You can be wrong. Just learn from the experience.

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The new ranger is just a tiny bit smaller than the f150 It absolutely is not the same or even close to the size of ranger 20 years ago.

You said you couldn't buy a small truck, not that you couldn't buy a truck the same size as 20 years ago.

Sure… if there was enough demand for replaceable batteries… but there is not. Basically the vast market is content with the cheaper option.

There was a demand, we weren't given a choice. I'm not sure how this so hard for you to grasp.

Again… smaller battery smaller capacity…

Again...Just making the batteries non replaceable makes them able to be thinner, and they always had that ability. They also had the ability to put in smaller batteries if everyone was clamoring for super thin phones. They just weren’t.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

You said you couldn't buy a small truck, not that you couldn't buy a truck the same size as 20 years ago.

A. I clarified to find me one of the same size as a 1990 model.

B. Isnt this exactly the same argument your making? There is huge demand for small trucks, the ranger was a top seller when it was discontinued. And when it was brought back, its a slightly smaller version of the f150, and nothing what people want.

They also had the ability to put in smaller batteries if everyone was clamoring for super thin phones. They just weren’t.

You really are that dense. The battery tech was not there to allow thinner phones without compromising capacity. The strongest market desirablity is battery life. But people also want smaller phones. Hell, futurama made this joke in 2001

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

A. I clarified to find me one of the same size as a 1990 model.

Good for you.

B. Isnt this exactly the same argument your making?

No, you don't carry Ford Rangers around in your pocket all the time making them easy vectors to spy on people.

The bagtery tech was not there to allow thinner phones without comprismising capacity.

And if people really gave a fuck about thinner phones they would have accepted smaller "bagtery's" to get them. Clearly capacity was more important. So I guess people weren't chomping at the bit to get thinner phones now were they?

But people also want smaller phones.

Phones have been getting bigger not smaller.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Phones have been getting bigger not smaller.

To... wait for it... accommodate larger screens. Shocking i know. You know exactly what i meant by smaller.

No, you don't carry Ford Rangers around in your pocket all the time making them easy vectors to spy on people

Riddle me this. Why would you carry a phone....without a battery?

[–] Wolf@lemmy.today 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm done talking to you doofus. I hope you get help for whatever is wrong with you.

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago

The ability of rational and critical thinking? Its a curse.