• TheLurker@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I will assume that your example is the reason for your your comment, and while I agree this does open the door for exclusion, that is after all a reasonable one.

    You cannot have a consumer device at a reasonable price point, designed to provide water resilience, which also contains an open section to the power supply.

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a good point, but it was an expensive phone for the time.

        I’m more interested in people have a choice rather than having government bodies dictate.

    • Doodoocaca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You cannot have a consumer device at a reasonable price point, designed to provide water resilience, which also contains an open section to the power supply.

      You certainly can. Look up any flagship smartphone and you can see that they provide water resilience and they have a charging port.

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are all closed cover designs though.

        I am not saying it cannot be done. I’m saying that most of us are not walking around with $2000 phones, nor do we want to.

        As a consumer I want a choice, not a mandate. I am more interested in getting an affordable phone myself then whether or not I can opening it up easily.

        But if you want a phone that can do that I believe you have the right to that.