Are phones designed to age faster? The EU wants to challenge this model

EU rules aim to shift control from manufacturers to users, challenging design choices that have quietly pushed faster upgrades and made repairing smartphones harder

There’s a familiar cycle most smartphones go through. A device that once felt fast and reliable starts to slip, battery life shortens, performance feels uneven, and charging becomes a constant habit rather than an occasional one. Nothing is completely broken, but everything feels just inconvenient enough to push you toward an upgrade. 

Over time, that experience has come to feel inevitable, almost natural. However, lawmakers in the European Union believe this cycle may not be as natural as it seems. 

By forcing changes to how devices are designed, particularly around batteries and repairability, the EU is attempting to interrupt a pattern that has quietly shaped how long we keep our devices, and how easily we give them up.

The logic of planned obsolescence

Planned obsolescence is often described as designing products to fail over time. In practice, it works more subtly. Devices are rarely built to stop functioning outright; instead, they are built in ways that gradually make them less practical to keep using. 

Friction builds over time. Batteries lose capacity, software support slows or ends, and repairs become either expensive or difficult to access. Eventually, replacement begins to feel less like a choice and more like the sensible option. 

The battery sits at the centre of this dynamic. It is the one component guaranteed to degrade with use. According to EU assessments, smartphones are typically replaced every two to three years, with battery performance, repair costs, and software limitations all contributing to that decision. 

Data from the EU’s Joint Research Centre shows that aesthetic obsolescence accounts for nearly half of all upgrades, with technical issues such as performance and battery degradation following closely behind. In many cases, the device still works, but no longer feels worth keeping. 

 

That tension has played out publicly before. In 2017, Apple confirmed it was slowing down certain iPhones with ageing batteries to prevent unexpected shutdowns. While the company said this was to protect components, it also highlighted how deeply battery health shapes the overall device experience. 

The backlash led Apple to introduce battery health indicators within iOS, a feature that has since become standard across devices. While this offers more visibility, the underlying issue remains unchanged: as batteries degrade, the experience declines, often nudging users toward replacement.

Why removable batteries disappeared

Until the early 2010s, replacing a phone battery was straightforward. Today, it often requires specialised tools, careful disassembly, and, in many cases, professional intervention. 

Manufacturers moved to sealed designs for valid reasons — thinner devices, improved waterproofing, and streamlined manufacturing. But these choices also reshaped how devices can be maintained.

  READ: This EU rule may let you replace your phone battery yourself from 2027

  A sealed phone is not just harder to open; it is harder to repair independently, harder to sustain over time, and more dependent on manufacturer-controlled service channels. Limited spare parts, high repair costs, and restricted access to software updates all contribute to shorter device lifespans. 

That control extends beyond hardware. Apple, for instance, requires post-repair calibration through its Repair Assistant after replacing key components. Without this step, users may see warnings, lose features, or receive inaccurate battery health readings. 

While Apple says this improves security and prevents misuse, it also raises the barrier for independent repairs, making them more complex and often more expensive. 

The impact of sealed designs is visible in real-world cases. Google Pixel users, for instance, have reported battery swelling and overheating issues in the past. In some cases, software updates were used to limit charging and performance, with replacements offered instead. In devices with easily replaceable batteries, such issues could potentially be resolved more directly.

The economics behind sealed devices

Modern smartphones operate within a lifecycle that favours replacement over repair. Shorter upgrade cycles sustain demand for new devices, while tightly managed repair ecosystems allow manufacturers to retain control over servicing, parts, and software. 

Repair extends the life of existing hardware without generating the same level of revenue as a new sale. As a result, while repair is often technically possible, it is rarely positioned as the easiest or most affordable option.

What the EU is trying to disrupt

The EU’s intervention is rooted in a broader concern: devices are being replaced earlier than necessary, leading to wasted resources and higher environmental costs. 

Rather than addressing this only at disposal, the EU is targeting design itself. Through its Ecodesign framework, it is setting expectations for durability, repairability, and long-term support. 

Devices are expected to be more durable, batteries must retain capacity over extended use, and manufacturers must make spare parts available for years. Software support is also part of this shift, ensuring devices remain usable for longer. 

Independent repairers are meant to have fair access to tools and information, addressing one of the key barriers to repair today.

The industry is already adapting

Even before these rules fully take effect, some shifts are visible. 

Apple has introduced design changes that make batteries easier to remove in newer devices, while its latest MacBooks are being seen as more repair-friendly. Independent repair platform iFixit’s scores also suggest gradual improvements across brands. 

Apple’s iPhones have improved from repairability scores of around 6 to 7 in recent generations. Google’s Pixel devices have seen smaller gains, while Samsung’s flagship devices have improved from much lower scores in earlier models. 

The trend, however, is uneven. Foldable devices remain difficult to repair due to their complexity, while a few models, such as HMD’s Nokia devices, have demonstrated that highly repairable designs are possible. 

At the same time, greater repairability often exists alongside tighter control mechanisms, such as part pairing and restricted repair processes. Devices may be easier to open, but not necessarily easier to repair freely.

Will this change how devices are used?

There are clear potential benefits. Devices that last longer and are easier to repair could reduce long-term costs and lower environmental impact.

But the transition may not be seamless.

 

Designing for repairability can introduce trade-offs, from slightly thicker devices to new engineering constraints around safety and durability. There is also the question of cost, whether manufacturers absorb these changes or pass them on. 

And even if devices become easier to repair, accessibility will remain key. A repairable device is only meaningful if repair is affordable and widely available.

What this could mean for markets like India

While the EU’s rules apply within its own market, their impact is unlikely to stay contained. Global manufacturers rarely design region-specific hardware at scale, which means changes driven by European regulation often ripple outward.

  READ: India's smartphone market hits six-year low as memory costs surge: Report

  India has begun exploring similar ideas, including a Right to Repair framework and a proposed repairability index. While still evolving, these efforts signal a broader shift in thinking, where repairability is becoming a policy concern rather than just a technical detail.

The real issue: fixing control, not just batteries

At its core, this debate is not really about batteries. It is about control — specifically, who decides how long a device lasts. 

For years, that control has largely rested with manufacturers. Through sealed designs, limited repair access, and software support tied to their own timelines, they have shaped when a device stops being practical to use. 

The EU’s rules challenge that model. By forcing companies to design for repairability, longer support, and easier access to parts, the regulation pushes back against a system where replacement has been the default outcome. 

And that is the real shift. 

Because the question is no longer just whether a battery can be replaced — it is whether manufacturers still get to decide when a device is effectively done.