SHIFT Battery magazine draft

[Ronen]

Claim:
1.Sliding rails fixing the battery magazine
2. snap-fits fixiing the battery magazine
3. bouton releasing battery magazine (like Gun's magazine)
4. Watter proof ring protect connect pole prevent liquid invade

 

[Rigol]

So... How would you deal with stereo Speakers? Where to put the Antennas which may need to be in the lower part of the phone? Where would the Vibration motor be located?

Regarding simplicity, I understand that waterprofing and handling by the user may be simpler, but everything else is more complicated and expensive:

• Charging hardware in each Battery increases price.
• Complex locking mechanism increases price.
• Protective shell in each Battery increases price (the phone still needs a hard outer shell, but now the battery does aswell).
• Wireless charging hardware in each battery increases price.
• If anything breaks the battery and surrounding hardware needs to be replaced, which is less sustainable.
• Higher capacity is a claim, which has to be substantiated. I expect the opposite.
• New battery system is not back compatible, which increases price and reduces quality for legacy device battery replacements.
• The supply chain gets more complex due to more components.

The current battery is the minimum viable product, which is the best for a sustainable replacement module.

 

[Ronen]

Thanks for your reply, I have some explains for detal and solutions :

So... How would you deal with stereo Speakers? Where to put the Antennas which may need to be in the lower part of the phone? Where would the Vibration motor be located?

Ans: This draft just only concept of pouch battery module, not final sample, Antennas and Vibration motor.... other module parts able to located at phone fram right side and left side,There will be no Conflict with the battery magazine. I will continue with the circuit design

Regarding simplicity, I understand that waterprofing and handling by the user may be simpler, but everything else is more complicated and expensive:

• Charging hardware in each Battery increases price.

Ans: No, because its just move Charging hardware from phone to Battery magazine , Not adding second one in Battery Magazine

• Complex locking mechanism increases price.

Ans:
1.Using hard plastic snap-fits won't incur much cost. even if while using small number of metal is possible, they are still significantly cheaper compared to using screws.
2.Due to Recent EU regulations have placed a stronger emphasis on the structural robustness and drop resistance of smartphones,like(EU) 2023/1670 and (EU) 2023/1669,The EU may place greater emphasis on drop resistance in the future. Its may main reson why Fairphone 6 used pouch battery then screws fixed it becomes many users inconvenient.
3.This locking mechanism likes LG G5, its not also increasese price , ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LG_G5
4.It might even using for customized 3D printing.
5.Even if at a higher price point, I believe the product's uniqueness and scarcity will attract a group of high-end users willing to pay a premium, especially through a customized production system

• Protective shell in each Battery increases price (the phone still needs a hard outer shell, but now the battery does aswell).

Ans:
1.If using battery magazine ,the phone no need (or no need whole)hard outer shell,because Hard battery magazine shell as phone outer shell(phone back cover). One shell protecting battery magazine and phone at the same time.
2.This also helps reduce material waste for the phone's back cover.

• Wireless charging hardware in each battery increases price.

Ans: In my design draft picture.1:Wireless Charging and Solar Charging are "Optional" items Its means When purchasing the battery magazine, you can customize the configuration to choose what you want or don't want. if you needed you can buy option item add on,if you not needed you can don't buy option item or remove it.
Not every battery magazine include "Wireless charging or Solar Charging"

• If anything breaks the battery and surrounding hardware needs to be replaced, which is less sustainable.

Ans:
If anything breaks the battery or battery worn out →just only replace the battery magazine or battery cells. No need replace other surrouding hardware or other module

• Higher capacity is a claim, which has to be substantiated. I expect the opposite.

Ans:
Evidence 1:https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/eb/d5eb00126a
Evidence 2:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775323007711 (Elsevier, Journal of Power Sources)
Evidence 3:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2590116819300104 (Pouch battery densities)
Evidence 4: largest capacity(8000 mAh) phone now used pouch batterty https://www.androidauthority.com/honor-power-3544757/

As a sustainable brand, we can no longer afford to remain passive in a niche market. We must take the initiative and aggressively compete in the mainstream market. So...Our quality and performance cannot fall too far behind the market average in the Future.

• New battery system is not back compatible, which increases price and reduces quality for legacy device battery replacements.

Ans:
1.My project purpose not disuse previous prismatic battery(5me 6m or 8),in my project the new phone replacing "frame module A" able to use previous prismatic battery ,the same way, change to another "frame module B" able to use pouch battery magazine, Not waste anything.
2.My design purpose also "Forward Compatible", in Future only replace or upgrade old module may not necessarily need to replace whole phone,in the Future.

• The supply chain gets more complex due to more components.

Ans: With SHIFT’s robust recycling system, this transition should be manageable. My vision is a flexible modular system: one module can be shared among multiple users, while one user can also own multiple modules. This How approach benefits the environment while safeguarding the profit margins for both suppliers and SHIFT—addressing the core reason why sustainable brands often struggle to maintain strong relationships with suppliers and ODMs.
.......thereby furthering the ideals of ESG and SDGs

 

[Rigol]

Before I'll get to your answers, I have another question. How do you suggest to maintain full USB 3.1 functionality including external displays, networking, data transfer and much more? Will this need to be routed through the battery module, increasing complexity and cost? Or do you suggest an additional USB-C connector on the phone, which increases complexity as well?

Currently the (replaceable) sub-pcb with the attached (replaceable) usb port is connected with a (replaceable) ribbon cable to the (replaceable) mainboard containing the chipset with the charging hardware. Considering routing the data connection to the battery's usb port, you'd unify four/five individually replaceable modules (battery, sub-pcb, ribbon cable, usb port, charging hardware on mainboard) into one single module. This reduces modularity which makes repairs less sustainable.

To my knowledge, the charging hardware is included in the chipset. This makes it so that it can't be removed without choosing another chipset without charging hardware. I doubt that the latter exists, but even if it does it requires a complete redesign of the phones internals. The other option is to not use the existing charging hardware (making it redundant) and adding a new one in your battery module. To me, this doesn't sound sustainable. Another option is to route the electricity from the port through the battery to the chipset and then back to the battery, in which case the battery wouldn't be able to charge outside the phone. How are you planning to handle this problem created by the modern integration of charging hardware into phone chipsets?

other module parts able to located at phone fram right side and left side,There will be no Conflict with the battery magazine.

Which increases the frame width and decreases the space for the battery.

Ans: No, because its just move Charging hardware from phone to Battery magazine , Not adding second one in Battery Magazine

Yes. And if you own two batteries or replace a battery you don't only pay for the battery but also for the fast charging hardware. Also as explained above, you can't simply move the charging hardware, since it is an integral part of the phones chipset. So you'd need to double the charging hardware

1.Using hard plastic snap-fits won't incur much cost. even if while using small number of metal is possible, they are still significantly cheaper compared to using screws.

So a moving mechanism with custom parts is cheaper than mass produced screws?

5.Even if at a higher price point, I believe the product's uniqueness and scarcity will attract a group of high-end users willing to pay a premium, especially through a customized production system

I can respect that. Although, it'll make the already expensive sustainable SHIFTphone more expensive to the average user, making the entire concept less sustainable.

1.If using battery magazine ,the phone no need (or no need whole)hard outer shell,because Hard battery magazine shell as phone outer shell(phone back cover). One shell protecting battery magazine and phone at the same time.

You are either suggesting, that the phones internals are exposed to the battery magazine slot, or you are neglecting, that the phone still has a back cover behind the battery. This comes down to the question if you see phone internals or the phone shell/cover when the battery is removed.

2.This also helps reduce material waste for the phone's back cover.

If you had exposed internals to the outside (battery magazine slot), then yes. But it will increase waste when replacing the battery, which is typically replaced before the phone is EOL. So overall increased waste.

Not every battery magazine include "Wireless charging or Solar Charging"

So worse and more expensive than current system? You pay a premium to add another (originally replaceable) module to each battery. With the current system you buy the hardware with the phone, with your system you buy the hardware with each battery you want to own, making it inferior because less sustainable and more expensive.

Ans:
Evidence 1:https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/eb/d5eb00126a
Evidence 2:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378775323007711 (Elsevier, Journal of Power Sources)
Evidence 3:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2590116819300104 (Pouch battery densities)
Evidence 4: largest capacity(8000 mAh) phone now used pouch batterty https://www.androidauthority.com/honor-power-3544757/

The pouch cell studies apply to both your and shifts battery. Both are pouch cells surrounded by some hardware and casing. Although you are increasing the hardware and casing in your design. The original battery needs only minimal casing, because it is protected within the phone, your design needs much more robust casing protecting the battery.

1.My project purpose not disuse previous prismatic battery(5me 6m or 8),in my project the new phone replacing "frame module A" able to use previous prismatic battery ,the same way, change to another "frame module B" able to use pouch battery magazine, Not waste anything.

This means, you reconfigure the phones internals (if possible) and add a mechanism (rails, buttons, and retaining clips) into the same space, which would leave less space for the battery? Also you create expensive new hardware, replacing about 50% of the phone (frame, sub-pcb, antennas, antenna cables, usb port, speaker, microphone, battery, back cover, wireless charging, nfc coils), which makes the old parts electronic waste?
How many would buy the new system for legacy phones? The RnD for it would be quite expensive and needs funding.

It's also misleading to call one battery prismatic and the other pouch, when both contain a battery pouch in a casing with hardware. What I see in your concept is starting from the same battery system but than adding more casing, more hardware, and a more complex mechanism, requiring relocation of lower antennas, the speaker, the microphone, and the vibration motor.

design purpose also "Forward Compatible", in Future only replace or upgrade old module may not necessarily need to replace whole phone,in the Future.

This already applies to the current battery module.

Ans: With SHIFT’s robust recycling system, this transition should be manageable. My vision is a flexible modular system: one module can be shared among multiple users, while one user can also own multiple modules. This How approach benefits the environment while safeguarding the profit margins for both suppliers and SHIFT—addressing the core reason why sustainable brands often struggle to maintain strong relationships with suppliers and ODMs.

Does not address my concerns with increased supply chain complexity. Everything you say applies to the current battery as well.


I'm considering, that every user will buy an average of two battery modules. One with the phone and one replacement later on. This means all hardware included in the battery module would be bought twice. The average user also removes the battery a single digit or low double digit amount of times during the phones lifetime. Imho this means, that the battery module should contain as little hardware as possible and the mechanism should be rather resourceful than fancy.

Edit: Parts of your text seem AI-written, which doesn't add credibility to your idea. There are clear indications like changes in writing style, unnecessary abbreviations and overly fancy words, and the famous "–", for which LLMs are known.

 

[Ronen]

Before I'll get to your answers, I have another question. How do you suggest to maintain full USB 3.1 functionality including external displays, networking, data transfer and much more? Will this need to be routed through the battery module, increasing complexity and cost? Or do you suggest an additional USB-C connector on the phone, which increases complexity as well?

No

Currently the (replaceable) sub-pcb with the attached (replaceable) usb port is connected with a (replaceable) ribbon cable to the (replaceable) mainboard containing the chipset with the charging hardware. Considering routing the data connection to the battery's usb port, you'd unify four/five individually replaceable modules (battery, sub-pcb, ribbon cable, usb port, charging hardware on mainboard) into one single module. This reduces modularity which makes repairs less sustainable.

No need PCB in magazine,only charging IC,and connector

To my knowledge, the charging hardware is included in the chipset. This makes it so that it can't be removed without choosing another chipset without charging hardware. I doubt that the latter exists, but even if it does it requires a complete redesign of the phones internals. The other option is to not use the existing charging hardware (making it redundant) and adding a new one in your battery module. To me, this doesn't sound sustainable. Another option is to route the electricity from the port through the battery to the chipset and then back to the battery, in which case the battery wouldn't be able to charge outside the phone. How are you planning to handle this problem created by the modern integration of charging hardware into phone chipsets?

The core principle of my design is to integrate the already finalized external charging case and portable protective case integrate into a detachable plug-in battery magazine, further simplifying both the structure and the operational workflow→

URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLATtfNxqoQ&t=1010s


Battery Magazine include:【battery cell,USB-C port,Power pass-through,data pass-through,Charging IC, BMS/NTC Chip(I considerate),connector/FPC】
Phone PCB include:【PMIC,Charging control,USB Controller,USB PHY,PD negotiation】
External Charging pathway: charger→usbc→charging IC→battery
Interlnal Charging pathway:charger→usbc→PMIC/charging IC→battery

Which increases the frame width and decreases the space for the battery.

Ans: Other brands Any phone increase battery size also decreases space for other components

Yes. And if you own two batteries or replace a battery you don't only pay for the battery but also for the fast charging hardware. Also as explained above, you can't simply move the charging hardware, since it is an integral part of the phones chipset. So you'd need to double the charging hardware

1.Any technology progressive will inevitably increase short-term costs,also increase some hardwares,Otherwise, we’d be heading back to the era of the Nokia 3310.

2.Besides allowing users to replace batteries more easily.The battery magazine concept undeniably adds a small amount of extra power management chips and transmission cable components. However, in comparison, it can reduce the excessive production and waste of external chargers, power banks, battery protection cases, phone back covers, and adapters. It can also extend the lifespan of smartphones, thereby contributing to sustainability and environmental protection.

3.the pouch battery inside the battery magazine can provide a larger capacity, it can reduce the need for carrying multiple spare batteries for outdoor workers and travelers, thereby reducing the over production and waste of battery cells. For example, outdoor workers or travelers who previously needed to carry three spare batteries may only need to carry one or two battery magazines in the future.

4.The SHIFT battery magazine is not intended solely to power SHIFT smartphones. If SHIFT establishes a universal standard in the future, the same battery magazine could also be a battery for drones, robots, labtop, AI hardware, surveillance systems, autonomous vehicles, and many other devices. This would create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly ecosystem. Moreover, it can instantly function as a power bank to charge other USB Type-C devices.

5.Extra battery magazines could also be shared or rented among other SHIFT users.

So a moving mechanism with custom parts is cheaper than mass produced screws?

You may refer to the previous LG G5 as an example.

I can respect that. Although, it'll make the already expensive sustainable SHIFTphone more expensive to the average user, making the entire concept less sustainable.

Thanks
Customers who want a buffet-style choice should have the freedom to choose it, rather than being forced by manufacturers to accept a fixed set menu.
Currently, all smartphone brands have taken away customers’ right to choose a buffet.

1.The value of modular products lies in giving customers the freedom to choose carte buffet, rather than forcing them to accept a fixed set menu. Of course, customers must also pay a higher price for the premium options they choose themselves.
2.Just like a buffet restaurant, we should not offer only low- to mid-range dishes. We must also provide high-value premium options and allow customers the freedom to choose.
I suggest we should not limit ourselves to only the low- and mid-end markets while giving up opportunities in the high-end market.

You are either suggesting, that the phones internals are exposed to the battery magazine slot, or you are neglecting, that the phone still has a back cover behind the battery. This comes down to the question if you see phone internals or the phone shell/cover when the battery is removed.

If you had exposed internals to the outside (battery magazine slot), then yes. But it will increase waste when replacing the battery, which is typically replaced before the phone is EOL. So overall increased waste.

1.I would design the bottom section using a softer and lighter plastic rather than the harder plastic used for the battery magazine, because the rear side of the bottom section sits directly against the display module.

All phone internals, chips, and PCBs would also be enclosed within the phone frame in order to achieve a high level of water resistance.


2.My goal is to make the smartphone usable for as long as possible, ideally without ever needing to be abandoned or replaced.

So worse and more expensive than current system? You pay a premium to add another (originally replaceable) module to each battery. With the current system you buy the hardware with the phone, with your system you buy the hardware with each battery you want to own, making it inferior because less sustainable and more expensive.

1.Basically, it depends on customer demand. If customers want features such as wireless charging, solar charging, or other additional functions, they could register through a future pre-order system and pay for customized configurations in advance, helping to reduce unnecessary waste and overproduction. If customers do not need those features, they can simply purchase the standard configuration instead.
2.The vision of future Industry 4.0 or 5.0 is to enable a demand-driven model led by customer needs.I hope so...

The pouch cell studies apply to both your and shifts battery. Both are pouch cells surrounded by some hardware and casing. Although you are increasing the hardware and casing in your design. The original battery needs only minimal casing, because it is protected within the phone, your design needs much more robust casing protecting the battery.

My original design concept was this: since smartphones from other brands already use pouch batteries, and their casings whether metal, glass, or hard plastic are already capable of protecting those pouch cells, I can simply repurpose part of the phone’s outer casing into a protective shell for the battery magazine to protect the battery cell itself. The section removed from the phone casing would then be replaced by the battery magazine casing, allowing one structure to serve two purposes.

This means, you reconfigure the phones internals (if possible) and add a mechanism (rails, buttons, and retaining clips) into the same space, which would leave less space for the battery? Also you create expensive new hardware, replacing about 50% of the phone (frame, sub-pcb, antennas, antenna cables, usb port, speaker, microphone, battery, back cover, wireless charging, nfc coils), which makes the old parts electronic waste?
How many would buy the new system for legacy phones? The RnD for it would be quite expensive and needs funding.

It's also misleading to call one battery prismatic and the other pouch, when both contain a battery pouch in a casing with hardware. What I see in your concept is starting from the same battery system but than adding more casing, more hardware, and a more complex mechanism, requiring relocation of lower antennas, the speaker, the microphone, and the vibration motor.

1.Currently, every smartphone brand develops completely new parts for each new generation. At our SHIFT as well, from SHIFTphone 4.2 to 8.1, every generation has required newly developed components. Even Fairphone is the same :from FP2 to FP6, the parts cannot be reused or made fully compatible with older devices.
This is also one of the main reasons why I designed the “Project of SHIFT LIFE.” I hope that in the future, under my Project of SHIFT LIFE plan, new modules will be able to work with older phones, allowing users to upgrade existing devices instead of replacing the entire phone, thereby reducing electronic waste. →https://forum.shiftphones.com/threads/project-of-shift-life.7951/

2.Rather than being afraid of electronic waste, it would be better to establish a proper modular recycling system.
Last year, I was already thinking about some possible solutions. For example, in the future, if customers want to purchase a new module, they may first need to recycle an old module. After the recycling company or department confirms the returned module, it could send a verification code to SHIFT. SHIFT would then issue a new authorization code to the customer, which would either allow the new hardware module to be activated or grant permission to purchase a new module. At that point, we can decide whether the authorization code should be linked to the online store account or bound directly to the hardware SoC.

This already applies to the current battery module.

1.our 6m 4242 mAh battery unable using in 8.1
2.8.1 battery need "adaptor" to 6m or 6mq (By your logic, adapters could also contribute to electronic waste)
3.Besides the battery, the camera module from the SHIFTphone 8 or 8.1 also cannot be installed on the SHIFT6m
4.Additionally, I would like to ask you: if the physical size of the current SHIFTphone 8 battery remains unchanged in the future, what technologies could be used to increase its capacity to more than 5000mAh?

Does not address my concerns with increased supply chain complexity. Everything you say applies to the current battery as well.

1.as for other module:I suggest establishing a universal "SHIFT standard" in the future, integrating with third party companies, and moving toward an open source hardware and customizable hardware ecosystem.
2.As for batteries:almost smartphone brands currently use pouch batteries, so obtaining pouch cells or more advanced battery technologies from the supply chain side would be much easier for us.

I'm considering, that every user will buy an average of two battery modules. One with the phone and one replacement later on. This means all hardware included in the battery module would be bought twice.

As I mentioned before, our advantage is giving customers the freedom to choose their own “buffet” configuration.

1. Customers could freely choose to purchase Frame Module A with the phone and only one battery magazine, without needing to buy additional spare battery magazines.
2. Customers could also freely choose to purchase Frame Module B, which is compatible with the original Prismatic cell batteries used in devices( such as the SHIFT6m and SHIFTphone 8.1. Battery size)

The average user also removes the battery a single digit or low double digit amount of times during the phones lifetime. Imho this means, that the battery module should contain as little hardware as possible and the mechanism should be rather resourceful than fancy.

However, you also need to consider users who work outdoors, users who cannot reliably access charging, or users in emergency situations such as military personnel, police officers, medical staff, and other professionals who may be unable to charge their phones for extended periods of time. For them, fast swappable batteries are extremely important.

For example, a few years ago, our Taiwan experienced a major earthquake disaster. People were trapped, and fortunately the swappable battery design of SHIFT phones allowed us to quickly restore power when our phone batteries were depleted. This enabled our phones to continue functioning, until police and rescue teams to locate us. The SHIFT swappable battery system helped protect and save our lives.

If swaping the battery becomes more difficult, our brand and values will lose attractiveness and uniqueness.
Users who need swappable batteries should also be respected.

Edit: Parts of your text seem AI-written, which doesn't add credibility to your idea. There are clear indications like changes in writing style, unnecessary abbreviations and overly fancy words, and the famous "–", for which LLMs are known.

I am not AI, but I belive in the future AI can help us solve many of the challenges related to modular smartphones, allowing their quality and functionality to continuously improve over time.For example, issues related to weight, thickness, module compatibility, and many other challenges.

 

[jxn_30]

I am very confused by what is happening here. You're using the SHIFT logo but are you a representative of SHIFT or just a normal community member just like us. If you were the former, I would be shocked by how the idea is being represented as I expect more structure for official SHIFT projects.

All I get from reading this thread is eye pain from all the colours. It's hard to understand what exactly is proposed in here, as the initial post only contains some interesting pictures and 4 bullet points. Some more information would help me understand what your idea and project is. Explained in a simple way please
I think a different form of presentation could help the project to be accepted more and helps bringin it more forward. In my eyes there is to much glitter, colour and bloom which makes the presentation less serious and more difficult to understand and follow – but this may also be just my taste, other people may or may not see this different

I always love when communities are starting to build their own ideas, giving inspiration for SHIFT itself but also building up an ecosystem which helps convincing more people of the SHIFT-world. So thanks in advance for your effort!

and the famous "–", for which LLMs are known.

I always loved using them but since LLMs, I unfortunately try to avoid them depending on the context

 

[amartinz]

You're using the SHIFT logo but are you a representative of SHIFT or just a normal community member just like us.

He is not a representative, just an enthusiastic community member

These ideas were presented to us before, at a time before LLMs were a thing.

 

[Rigol]

(By your logic, adapters could also contribute to electronic waste)

Of course they do. But by keeping old devices alive they may prevent more waste than they create.

Besides the battery, the camera module from the SHIFTphone 8 or 8.1 also cannot be installed on the SHIFT6m

Yes. This however is not only a problem of the formfactor. The SoC needs to be fast enough to work in unity with the camera module. So maintaining compatability is not possible. This is why the Google Project Ara failed. It was planned as a fully modular "buffet style" smartphone, but it turned out, that it is not viable. You still need to replace most of the phone when upgrading and the modularity reduces compactnes and IP rating.

Additionally, I would like to ask you: if the physical size of the current SHIFTphone 8 battery remains unchanged in the future, what technologies could be used to increase its capacity to more than 5000mAh?

The same way they have been increases for the past years without increases in battery size. Battery capacity doubled without phone sizes doubling. As I'm not a researcher on the field of batteries, it's not necessarily up to me to know that.

People were trapped, and fortunately the swappable battery design of SHIFT phones allowed us to quickly restore power when our phone batteries were depleted.

So, the current battery system already does what you are advertising for the new one?

I am not AI

I never said that. However, I was implying that parts of your text were AI written.



You are presenting lots of bling, with may fancy words and wonderful promises. But I fail to see anything that proves anything. No proof of viability, no proof of increased capacity. Not even any back-of-the-envelope cost calculations or estimations. I see some images and you postulate great advancements. I'm sorry to be harsh, but for me that is not enough. That isn't a concept, it's an idea waiting to be figured out or discarded.

I hope for much more technical detail, until then I remain of the opinion, that this will only add complexity and cost whilst reducing modularity and sustainability. The reasons why have been layed out by me.

 

[Ronen]

Of course they do. But by keeping old devices alive they may prevent more waste than they create.

Great! The next step could be think to explore how to make the SHIFT6m's 4242mAh battery compatible with the SHIFTphone 8.1.

1.I finally understand your definition of “electronic waste” better. My battery magazine design could also give new life to older devices(change Frame module and some adeptor) and allowing charging other devices, while also remaining compatible with newer devices. At the same time, it could replace power banks, external chargers, and battery protection cases, helping to reduce electronic waste. Therefore, compared with traditional battery designs, my battery magazine concept has the potential to reduce a significantly larger amount of electronic waste.

2.About Electronic waste
Accroding Basel Convention ANNEX VIII list main hazardous WEEE are :Heavy metals, PCB (Polychlorinated Biphenyls), Mercury, Lead, Cadmium https://www.basel.int/Portals/4/download.aspx?d=UNEP-CHW-IMPL-CONVTEXT-AnnexVIII.English.pdf ; then
WHO list main hazardous WEEE are:Lead, Cadmium, Mercury, Dioxins, Nickel, Brominated flame retardants, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electronic-waste-(e-waste)? https://iris.who.int/server/api/core/bitstreams/1b1556ab-fbe1-4de2-890e-68af26c7e1c7/content

Based on the above, hazardous e-waste primarily refers to electronic components containing hazardous substances, such as printed circuit boards (PCBs), chips, batteries, and other toxic electronic materials.

Based on the above, the materials used for the outer shell and locking clips are plastics of my Battery magazine . Plastics themselves are not classified as hazardous electronic waste, nor are they inherently non-recyclable or unmanageable materials.

Yes. This however is not only a problem of the formfactor. The SoC needs to be fast enough to work in unity with the camera module. So maintaining compatability is not possible.

Regarding this issue, the concept behind my planned SHIFT EYE project is to integrate a dedicated ISP chip into each camera module. The ISP would preprocess and optimize image data from newer, higher-resolution lenses and sensors, reducing the workload on older CPUs/SoCs while also assisting or partially offloading computational photography tasks. This could allow older devices to support newer camera technologies and improved image quality without requiring a completely new mainboard or CPU.

https://forum.shiftphones.com/attachments/1778545177463-jpg.7199

This is why the Google Project Ara failed. It was planned as a fully modular "buffet style" smartphone, but it turned out, that it is not viable.

1.Do you really believe the main reason Project Ara failed was because it was technically impossible? Could it also be possible that true modularization would threaten the existing dominant interests of major smartphone brands, allowing them to exert influence over OEMs ODMs and supply-chain partners? These large brands can offer extremely high volume MOQ procurement agreements and establish long-term partnerships with suppliers, making it extremely difficult for smaller sustainable modular companies to compete.

Could it also be possible that some major smartphone brands indirectly pressured Google to discontinue Project Ara because a truly modular ecosystem could disrupt existing profit structures and long-established supply-chain relationships?

2.In medicine and biotechnology → fields far more complex and challenging than electronics engineering organ transplants, histological tissue and cell transplants, and even ex vivo tissue survival and cultivation are already possible. So do you really believe modularization in electronics engineering is impossible?
Nowadays, companies like SHIFTbook, Framework, and CJSCOPE have already demonstrated that modularization in laptops is achievable in real commercial products.

3.In the smartphone industry, it is undeniable that Project Ara faced technical and quality-related challenges back in 2016. However, that was nearly a decade ago. Are such major technical barriers for modular smartphones still truly impossible to solve today, in 2026? And looking further into the future, with the advancement of AI and other technologies, will these challenges really remain severe enough to make modular smartphones fundamentally impractical?

4.To quote a statement from the Mayor of Taipei City: “Long-standing problems should not be expected to be solved or changed within just a day or two. But at the same time, do not assume that doing nothing will somehow make those problems disappear.”
In my SHIFT LIFE project, the modular design philosophy I am pursuing is much closer to PuzzlePhone’s approach rather than the concepts behind Project Ara or Phonebloks.
Making every individual chip such as the CPU, RAM, and NPU fully removable and individually modular is impossible and impractical, because it is necessary to respect semiconductor suppliers, packaging companies, and their fundamental rights and business interests rather than attempting to completely bypass their existing manufacturing and packaging ecosystems. Modern semiconductor architectures are also heavily constrained by factors such as BGA packaging, LPDDR high speed signaling, PoP packaging, signal integrity and power integrity (SI/PI) requirements, power consumption, EMI, manufacturing cost, and device thickness. Because of these engineering and industrial limitations, attempting to modularize every individual chip would introduce major technical and reliability challenges.

My ultimate concept is to permanently integrate and solder the CPU, RAM, NPU, and other computing chips onto a dedicated PCB module called SHIFT HEART. Storage related components such as internal Storage and SD cards would be integrated and soldered onto another storage PCB module called SHIFT BRAIN. Communication related chips including eSIM or SIM, Bluetooth, and Wi Fi would be permanently integrated and soldered onto a communication PCB module called SHIFT LUNG.

All of these PCB modules would then be interconnected through a high speed connector architecture called SHIFT NERVE, which would integrate all PCB modules into a unified system. The smartphone frame and external housing would then be wrapped and protected by a modular enclosure system called SHIFT SKIN.

Finally, a SHIFT standard ecosystem would be established to support external expansion and customizable functional modules under the codename SHIFT HAND, which could be attached to the edges of each PCB module. (These customized expansion functional modules could be provided, designed, or manufactured by third party companies, but they would still be required to comply with SHIFT standards and sustainability principles, as well as pay licensing or certification fees to SHIFT.)

Under this architecture, future upgrades would only require replacing specific PCB modules rather than discarding the entire smartphone. If a hardware bug or hardware defect occurs, only the affected PCB module would need to be replaced,without needing to wait for the next generation of smartphones.. This approach could also make quality control management, maintenance, and repairability much more practical and efficient.

Of course, for now we need to move step by step and start from the simplest and most achievable goals first. Here are the steps I currently suggest:

STEP 1 — SHIFT LIVER Project

Start by improving our batteries. SHIFT is currently the only smartphone brand in the world, besides the Samsung XCover series, that still offers truly fast-swappable batteries. We should maximize the battery capacity of the current SHIFTphone 8.1 without changing its physical size or shape. At this stage, the goal should not be to surpass Apple, Samsung, Redmi, or Xiaomi in battery capacity. Instead, the first milestone should simply be matching the battery capacity of the latest Fairphone generation, whose battery is screw-locked rather than truly swappable. Achieving that alone would already be a major success.

STEP 2 — SHIFT SKIN Project

Develop customizable frames with different thicknesses, slimness, waterproofing levels, shock resistance, and other characteristics. This may be one of the easiest projects to implement in the early stage.

STEP 3 — SHIFT EYE Project

Create a new camera module standard that can connect to any future SHIFTphone device.

STEP 4 — SHIFT LIVER MAGAZINE Project

Keep the original SHIFTphone 8.1 battery architecture while simultaneously introducing a new battery magazine product line. This would help address possible future EU drop-resistance requirements while also allowing us to catch up with major brands in battery capacity, while entering the advanced high-end fast-swappable battery market.

STEP 5 — SHIFT EYE Standard

Establish the SHIFT EYE standard so that multiple third-party camera manufacturers can develop compatible camera modules for the SHIFT ecosystem, enabling highly customized lens options. This would allow high-quality camera lenses from other lens companies to become compatible with our SHIFT phones through the SHIFT standard.

STEP 6 — SHIFT BRAIN Project

Attempt to separate the storage-function PCB into an independent PCB.

STEP 7 — SHIFT LUNG Project

Attempt to separate the communication PCB into an independent PCB.

STEP 8 — SHIFT HEART Project

Attempt to separate the computing PCB into an independent PCB.

STEP 9 — SHIFT HAND Project

Establish a SHIFT platform standard capable of supporting third-party modules and accessories.

R

Thema 'Project of SHIFT LIFE'

12 Mai 2026

SLOGAN:
1.Sie besitzen nicht nur ein Smartphone, sondern einen nachhaltig fortbestehenden Organismus 您擁有的不只是手機，而是一個永續不息的生命體
You own not just a smartphone, but a perpetually sustainable living organism.
2.If there is a hardware problem or an update, other brands usually have to wait until the next generation of phones to fix or improve it, while SHIFT can immediately solve and upgrade it by replacing the hardware module.

BENIFIT:
According to EU 1670 regulations, spare parts must be provided for 7 years. However, SHIFT can upgrade modules at any time and upgrade old devices with new...

• Ronen
• Antworten: 1
• Forum: Angekündigte SHIFT-Produkte

You still need to replace most of the phone when upgrading and the modularity reduces compactnes and IP rating.

In my SHIFT SKIN and SHIFT EYE projects, upgrading to new camera modules will not affect the waterproof rating of the phone. If a new camera module does not physically fit the size of an older SKIN (FRAME MODULE), users can simply replace it with a newer compatible SKIN designed for that module.

The same way they have been increases for the past years without increases in battery size. Battery capacity doubled without phone sizes doubling. As I'm not a researcher on the field of batteries, it's not necessarily up to me to know that.

1.However, from SHIFTphone 6 to SHIFTphone 8.1, our battery capacity actually decreased from 4242 mAh to 3820 mAh.
2.For us Asians, the size of the SHIFT5me is the best.

So, the current battery system already does what you are advertising for the new one?

1.Back in 2024, yes. At that time, we owned the SHIFT6m, SHIFT5me, and Fairphone4. Those smartphones with fast-swappable batteries truly saved us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Hualien_earthquake

2.Currently, SHIFT’s battery design is far better than that of the Fairphone 6.

I never said that. However, I was implying that parts of your text were AI written.

I didn’t use AI to write this.Otherwise, I would not be replying this slowly.
Thanks for overestimating my abilities. my writing looks like can compete with AI?

You are presenting lots of bling, with may fancy words and wonderful promises. But I fail to see anything that proves anything.

If you decide to discard my proposal, may I ask whether you have any alternative solution that can achieve the following goals without abandoning the current fast-swappable battery design for our SHIFTPHONE8.1 battery?

1. Increase EU drop-resistance ratings and scores
2. Increase battery capacity (while future smartphones may easily reach 8000 or 10000 mAh or more, we only aim to remain around the market average)
3. Provide a simpler external charging solution and portable battery protection(more lightweight and pocket-friendly)
4. Maintain the current waterproof level or achieve even better waterproofing or a simpler waterproofing design
5. Make battery swapping even faster and simpler: Makes battery swapping even simpler than plugging in a power bank (especially for Asian users, Because daily life in many parts of Asia tends to be more fast-paced, many Asian users have become more reliant on power banks in their daily lives.).
6. Maintain sustainability principles

Maybe it is not necessary right now, but what about the future?

No proof of viability,

Similar concepts and structural elements have already existed in commercial products:
1.Snap-fit swappable battery: LG G5
2.Rail-based structures: Fairphone 6 (back cover structure), Moto Z, Nokia N96, N95, N91, and N97

no proof of increased capacity.

There is already clear evidence that battery technology and battery capacity continue to improve.

Brands such as Redmi, HONOR, and Xiaomi are already pushing toward much higher capacity soft pouch batteries, and you can already see the battery capacities they are reaching.

Not even any back-of-the-envelope

Sorry I can't understand

cost calculations or estimations. I see some images and you postulate great advancements. I'm sorry to be harsh, but for me that is not enough.

1. I sincerely apologize because I still have a fulltime job. Over the past few months, I have sacrificed my sleep time just to turn the ideas in my mind into drawings.
2. Since the European Union started introducing drop resistance ratings, and after Fairphone 6 started using screws to lock the battery, resulting in a very inconvenient backward design, I only then started to develop these ideas.
3. The purpose of my posts here is because I am worried that if the ideas I came up with are disclosed too late, other large companies or brands may patent them first, even though they do not want to pursue sustainability or modular smartphones. this could create problems in the future if SHIFT ever decides to develop this in future, because those companies could use patents to extort or block SHIFT.So once an idea is publicly disclosed, it becomes much more difficult for others to patent it(Be a Prior Art).
4. Thank you for your harsh criticism. On the contrary, I hope you can be even harsher on my future designs. It is better to be stricter during the planning stage than to fail during the execution stage. This way, we can continue to make advancements.

I hope for much more technical detail, until then I remain of the opinion,

I will gradually add more details during my free time or holidays in the future. Thank you for your understanding.

that this will only add complexity and cost whilst reducing modularity and sustainability.

1. about cost:Actually, plastic does not significantly increase costs. In the future, with the support of 3D printing or Industry 4.0/5.0 customized manufacturing, plastic parts may become even easier and cheaper to produce. In comparison, metals and electronic components are more likely to increase production costs.
2. limited production: erhaps SHIFT could use a "limited production" for this. This means that once the small quantity of products is sold out, they will no longer be supplied or produced again (during the initial stage). This would not only create rush buying for scarce products, but also make it easier to control the fault tolerance management of production costs.Because while scarcity can create rush buying, it can also allow higher product pricing, since the market for fast-swappable batteries is will not disappear, and Fairphone has already abandoned it. High-priced, unique, scarce, limited-availability products may allow SHIFT to become the Rolex of the smartphone industry.
3. Regarding sustainability and electronic waste, I believe my ideas do not actually conflict too much with your ideas. In my plan, SHIFT LIVER (BATTERY) and SHIFT SKIN (FRAME + BACK COVER) could have multiple modular product lines. just like F-35A F-35B F-35C
   
   A. A SKIN compatible with 8.1 or 6M / 6MQ BATTERY
   B. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE A (without charging IC, external charging not supported)
   C. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE B (with charging IC, external charging supported)
   D. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE C (with charging IC and wireless charging)
   E. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE D (with charging IC, wireless charging, and solar charging)
   
   The charging-related electronic components may potentially create a very small amount of electronic waste (according to the definition under the Basel Convention). Therefore, users(like you) who are concerned about electronic waste and do not want external charging functionality could choose the A or B options.
   
   
   
   
   
4. My View is this: SHIFT is a unique and precious brand on Earth, almost like a rare endangered species. We must protect and support it together so that the brand can continue into the future. However, SHIFT also needs profit and cannot work like volunteers forever, even though it is a company founded on charitable principles.
   Therefore, I believe we should find ways to attract mainstream customers through innovation, uniqueness, and by taking a different path. After all, the sustainability-focused customer base only represents a small proportion of the market. If I have more time in the future, I will also continue planning strategies for SHIFT.

 

[Ronen]

He is not a representative, just an enthusiastic community member

These ideas were presented to us before, at a time before LLMs were a thing.

Did you receive the private message I sent you the day before yesterday in our team work group?

 

[tkopq]

@jxn_30 weißt du inzwischen was es ist? Ich schätze so eine Art externe Batterygehäuse was man statt der bisherigen Battery ins Shift einstecken kann (siehe Bild 2, Anwendungsfall dritter von links). Dadurch ermöglicht man auch das Laden der Batterie extern und andere Modelle von Batterien sind kompatibel. Ich freue mich über eine Bestätigung und Präzisierung oder Korrektur, meines Versuchs die Produktidee zu verstehen

 

[Rigol]

Great! The next step could be think to explore how to make the SHIFT6m's 4242mAh battery compatible with the SHIFTphone 8.1.

No. The 6m Battery is EOL. That is why the Universal Shift Battery was made back compatible with the 6m. The new battery technology was adapted to old designs. Suggesting do fit the 6m Battery into the new devices is suggesting to adapt an old technology, which isn't produced any more, for new devices. The usecase would be limited to users who have 6m batteries, which they don't use in an 6m and which are still good (after 8 years), and have a 6mq or 8. It's unlikely that you'll find a significant number of such users.

1.I finally understand your definition of “electronic waste” better. My battery magazine design could also give new life to older devices(change Frame module and some adeptor) and allowing charging other devices, while also remaining compatible with newer devices. At the same time, it could replace power banks, external chargers, and battery protection cases, helping to reduce electronic waste. Therefore, compared with traditional battery designs, my battery magazine concept has the potential to reduce a significantly larger amount of electronic waste.

No. The current battery consists of a tiny pcb with cell protection, the battery pouch and minimal "casing". Very easy to recycle with. You are adding a lot of hardware to this very simple swappable battery, which increases waste either way.

Based on the above, the materials used for the outer shell and locking clips are plastics of my Battery magazine . Plastics themselves are not classified as hazardous electronic waste, nor are they inherently non-recyclable or unmanageable materials.

You neglect, that you are also adding a charging pcb and usb connector. These increase the amount of electronic waste when swapping the battery and the additional casin makes the recycling process more difficult and adds additional waste. You say, the casing is insignificant, but even 1g additional casing weight in each currently sold smartphone will increase plastic waste by over a 1000 metric tons every year (global smartphone sales in 2023 was 1300.000.000 units).

If you decide to discard my proposal, may I ask whether you have any alternative solution that can achieve the following goals without abandoning the current fast-swappable battery design for our SHIFTPHONE8.1 battery?

1. Increase EU drop-resistance ratings and scores The included bumper already does a great job. Improve the mechanism of the back cover and it should suffice. Is the current bumper compatible with your battery magazine or will this add another cost and waste point?
2. Increase battery capacity (while future smartphones may easily reach 8000 or 10000 mAh or more, we only aim to remain around the market average) The current battery is perfectly swappable. If it increases in capacity, due to new battery technology, it will be easily implementable into legacy shiftphones without major modifications like changing the frame, antennas and sub pcb.
3. Provide a simpler external charging solution and portable battery protection(more lightweight and pocket-friendly) Shift is working on such a product.
4. Maintain the current waterproof level or achieve even better waterproofing or a simpler waterproofing design See 1.
5. Make battery swapping even faster and simpler: Makes battery swapping even simpler than plugging in a power bank (especially for Asian users, Because daily life in many parts of Asia tends to be more fast-paced, many Asian users have become more reliant on power banks in their daily lives.). Enhanced rear cover design in future model should help with that. Shift still has a long way to go before expanding significantly into the asian market.
6. Maintain sustainability principles The current universal battery maintains them perfectly.

Answers above within the cited text.

Similar concepts and structural elements have already existed in commercial products:
1.Snap-fit swappable battery: LG G5
2.Rail-based structures: Fairphone 6 (back cover structure), Moto Z, Nokia N96, N95, N91, and N97

That is no proof at all. You need to prove that:

1. Your concept can be retrofitted to at least one of the Shiftphones currently using the the universal battery.
2. Financial viability of either maintaining two systems or replacing the old one.
3. Technicall viability of your design independent of device.
4. Your concept is in fact future proof.
5. Good recycling strategy of your new battery concept.
6. Market analysis of users prefering the new concept instead of the old.

There is already clear evidence that battery technology and battery capacity continue to improve.

Indeed. That is what I was arguing the entire time, which will improve the capacity of the current universal battery. What makes your concept different?

1. about cost:Actually, plastic does not significantly increase costs. In the future, with the support of 3D printing or Industry 4.0/5.0 customized manufacturing, plastic parts may become even easier and cheaper to produce. In comparison, metals and electronic components are more likely to increase production costs. 3D printing is only viable for very small production runs. For high volume production runs 3D printing increases costs significantly. Which is why shift uses injection molding, which is the current industrial gold standard. You are also adding a complex usb-c connector, data cabling, and charging electronics. Currently the replacement battery costs less than 3% of the devices price when new. Your concept will increase this by a factor of 2 or 3. Currently the battery is a standard battery which can be produced at every battery manufacturing plant. Your concept requires the addition of a non-standart case, custom charging electronics, and a custom connector. This will most likely require an additional manufacturing and assembly step.
2. limited production: erhaps SHIFT could use a "limited production" for this. This means that once the small quantity of products is sold out, they will no longer be supplied or produced again (during the initial stage). This would not only create rush buying for scarce products, but also make it easier to control the fault tolerance management of production costs.Because while scarcity can create rush buying, it can also allow higher product pricing, since the market for fast-swappable batteries is will not disappear, and Fairphone has already abandoned it. High-priced, unique, scarce, limited-availability products may allow SHIFT to become the Rolex of the smartphone industry. This is even less sustainable than everything you suggested before! If you want to be sustainable, you have to support replacement parts for a long time, which is what makes Shift and especially their universal battery so unique. What you are suggesting will destroy the soul of SHIFT and replace it with everything going wrong in the current consumer electronics market. Your suggestion implies to me, that you don't value SHIFT, but see them solely as an potential asset to bring your idea to market. Insane!

Answers above within the cited text.

1. Regarding sustainability and electronic waste, I believe my ideas do not actually conflict too much with your ideas. In my plan, SHIFT LIVER (BATTERY) and SHIFT SKIN (FRAME + BACK COVER) could have multiple modular product lines. just like F-35A F-35B F-35C
   
   A. A SKIN compatible with 8.1 or 6M / 6MQ BATTERY
   B. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE A (without charging IC, external charging not supported)
   C. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE B (with charging IC, external charging supported)
   D. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE C (with charging IC and wireless charging)
   E. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE D (with charging IC, wireless charging, and solar charging)
   
   The charging-related electronic components may potentially create a very small amount of electronic waste (according to the definition under the Basel Convention). Therefore, users(like you) who are concerned about electronic waste and do not want external charging functionality could choose the A or B options.

This is even more insane! The current battery is great because it's universal. It supports current and legacy devices, so everytime you order a new battery, you'll get a brand new one. If you have device specific batteries, you'll get new-old stock, which has been on a shelf for years and has thus deminished in quality. Shift worked hard for having a universal battery and now you want to throw it away? You previously argued for inter-device compatibility and now you ar arguing against it? How can you be so inconsistent? As said before: I think you don't value sustainability, compatibility, recycling, user opinions, comunity, or SHIFT as a company. You just want to sell your "the smartphone battery is like a pistol magazine" idea.

My View is this: SHIFT is a unique and precious brand on Earth, almost like a rare endangered species. We must protect and support it together so that the brand can continue into the future. However, SHIFT also needs profit and cannot work like volunteers forever, even though it is a company founded on charitable principles.
Therefore, I believe we should find ways to attract mainstream customers through innovation, uniqueness, and by taking a different path. After all, the sustainability-focused customer base only represents a small proportion of the market. If I have more time in the future, I will also continue planning strategies for SHIFT.

By now, I don't think you are being completely honest, when you write that. See the red texts above. Smartphones with fast swappable modules have been a niche on the market, so I don't think that it's the right way to attract more users. A reasonably priced good product with no BS however is a good way to attract consumers.

 

[Ronen]

No. The 6m Battery is EOL. That is why the Universal Shift Battery was made back compatible with the 6m. The new battery technology was adapted to old designs. Suggesting do fit the 6m Battery into the new devices is suggesting to adapt an old technology, which isn't produced any more, for new devices. The usecase would be limited to users who have 6m batteries, which they don't use in an 6m and which are still good (after 8 years), and have a 6mq or 8. It's unlikely that you'll find a significant number of such users.

1. About Capacity:Actually, In fact, the 6M's battery capacity is superior (6M's4242mah; 8.1 3820mah)
2. about SIZE:The size of the 6m battery can carry a larger capacity than the 8
3. About Sustainability: Even though the old devices are EOL, their components (including batteries) are still in good condition. Yet, they are incompatible with new devices. This seems to contradict the principles of sustainability and reducing e-waste for my view.
4. Customers who purchased the 6m battery in its later stages still have cells in a very healthy condition. Speaking from my personal experience, SHIFT's battery cells are of exceptional quality; whether for the 5me or the 6m, there has been no swelling or rapid degradation even after 7 years of use. Furthermore, SHIFT's batteries can support any type of external charger available on the market, whether in Asia or Europe. In contrast, Fairphone's batteries are incompatible with external chargers (at least, compatible chargers cannot be bought in Taiwan). Meanwhile, the batteries for the Fairphone 3 or the Samsung S5 usually swelled up after just about 1 to 2 years.Therefore, even if a battery has reached EOL, wouldn't it be much better if users with old batteries could still use them in new devices, provided that the new devices are designed with backward compatibility in mind?

No. The current battery consists of a tiny pcb with cell protection,

tiny pcb with cell protection(Current battery)→tiny pcb with cell protection(Battery Magazine)

the battery pouch and minimal "casing".

Battery pouch(Current battery)→Battery pouch(Battery Magazine)
Minimal Casing(Current battery)→Protective shell(Battery Magazine)

Is the minimal 'casing' of traditional batteries the main factor limiting the development of larger capacities, or not? And is it also why modern smartphone batteries have eliminated the outer housing, shifting toward pouch cells to maximize battery capacity right?

Very easy to recycle with. You are adding a lot of hardware to this very simple swappable battery, which increases waste either way.

1. In reality, I only added slides rails, snap-fits, and release buttons and connector .
2. And the outer shell of my battery magazine is itself the phone’s back cover, completely replacing the original back cover of the phone.

You neglect, that you are also adding a charging pcb and usb connector. These increase the amount of electronic waste when swapping the battery and the additional casin makes the recycling process more difficult and adds additional waste.

Sorry Let me emphasize again: I only movedthe battery magazine of certain models, I did not replicate them.

1.You say, the casing is insignificant, but even 1g additional casing weight in each currently sold smartphone will increase plastic waste by over a 1000 metric tons every year (global smartphone sales in 2023 was 1300.000.000 units).

1. This premise is defined under a non-sustainable phone that cannot be upgraded, lacks forward or backward compatibility, and is impossible to repair or swap parts for under which, this is possible.
2. Compared to PCBs, chips, batteries, and other electronic components, pure plastic structural parts are generally not considered the primary source of toxicity in electronic waste. Unless they are illegally burned or exposed to high temperature decomposition, their environmental risk is usually lower in comparison.In addition, AI intelligent recycling technologies are continuously improving and may become even more advanced in the future through intelligent recycling systems.My battery magazine shell is designed as a long-term reusable mechanical structural component
3. Please compare my battery magazine (protective shell + latch + slide rails + button) VS (an external power bank + external charger + plastic battery protective box + back cover): which one actually uses more plastic?
4. My waterproof ring only needs a very short section to seal off the connector poles. Compared to the existing design that wraps around the entire perimeter of the battery, which one uses more plastic and results in a heavier weight?
5. Frequent plugging and unplugging of traditional USB ports causes wear and tear over time, increasing the failure rate. When a traditional USB port breaks, you often have to replace the entire motherboard. In contrast, with my battery magazine, you only need to replace the USB port itself, without touching the motherboard.
6. You might have overlooked one point: my battery magazine is designed to be openable, meaning the battery cell, charging IC, USB port, and connectors can all be opened and replaced
7. And the outer shell of my battery magazine is itself the phone’s back cover, completely replacing the original back cover of the phone.

1. Your concept can be retrofitted to at least one of the Shiftphones currently using the the universal battery.

1. For 6m or 8 :By swapping the Shift skin (frame module), it can be compatible with motherboards and cameras from both the SHIFT 8 and SHIFT 6m.
2. For 5me: However, because the 5me is smaller in size, it will likely require an additionally customized frame to fit

Financial viability of either maintaining two systems or replacing the old one.

Step by step

Technicall viability of your design independent of device.

For Detal :Next step by step

Your concept is in fact future proof.

Human Factors Engineering (HFE) and User Experience (UX):Please compare these two workflows:

Workflow 1:Press the release button → Eject the battery magazine → Plug in the USB cable to charge the magazine→Reinsert the battery magazine into the phone..

Workflow 2:open the back cover → Remove the battery with your fingernail → Pick up the external charger → Connect the battery to the external charger → Plug the USB cable into the external charger → Unplug the battery from the external charger → Line up the battery and pop it back into the phone slot→Snap the back cover back on.

1. Which one is faster? Which one is more convenient?
2. This is especially critical for the elderly, individuals with disabilities, and in emergency situations.
3. Is Workflow 2 indeed the primary reason why battery swapping lost the competition to power banks among today's mainstream consumers, or not?

Good recycling strategy of your new battery concept.

1. We can reference Dyson's recycling model, because Dyson's batteries also contain a charging IC and do not require an adiitional external charger.

2. Since the battery magazine I designed can be opened and disassembled, old USB ports, connectors, or cables, etc., can be reused. We only need to recycle the protector shell and the pouch cell (because letting users remove the cell themselves will cause safety issues, and transporting the cell alone also has safety issues). The recycling technology and channels can be executed by distributors, recyclers, or repair shops authorized by SHIFTor by mailing it back to SHIFT's repair orrecycling department (for Asian or European customers) .

Market analysis of users prefering the new concept instead of the old.

1. If future batteries are eventually able to provide enough capacity to support one or even two full days of heavy all-day work usage, the demand for fast-swappable batteries may decrease. But what if current battery technology still cannot fully achieve that today?
2. Even if the first point eventually becomes achievable, battery capacity still degrades year after year over time. Under heavy all day work usage, maintaining reliable battery life beyond a full day may still become difficult. Because of this, the demand for fast-swappable batteries may never fully disappear.

Report: NoMoPhobia Low-battery Anxiety Consumer Study

NoMoPhobia Low-battery Anxiety Consumer Study

counterpointresearch.com

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Investigating-Low-Battery-Anxiety-of-Mobile-Users-Zhang-Tang/31946997a98f73aa27f9ea75c7f92a04c88c854a

Indeed. That is what I was arguing the entire time, which will improve the capacity of the current universal battery. What makes your concept different?

1. Is the minimal 'casing' of traditional batteries the main factor limiting the development of larger capacities, or not? And is it also why modern smartphone batteries have eliminated the outer housing, shifting toward pouch cells to maximize battery capacity right?
2. Does minimal casing increase the weight of the battery?
3. Unlike current designs, my battery magazine keeps the cells free from the limits of a tight minimal casing in terms of size and shape. As a result, it can house a larger capacity cell to compete directly with mainstream brands.

The included bumper already does a great job. Improve the mechanism of the back cover and it should suffice. Is the current bumper compatible with your battery magazine or will this add another cost and waste point?

YES, compatible with my battery magazine

The current battery is perfectly swappable. If it increases in capacity due to new battery technology, it will be easily implementable into legacy shiftphones without major modifications like changing the frame, antennas and sub pcb.

My battery magazine also is,but only need to swap frame

Shift is working on such a product.

I know; my battery magazine simply integrates this product, adds sliding rails and fixing structures, and simplifies the operating process.

Enhanced rear cover design in future model should help with that.

I fully support this

Shift still has a long way to go before expanding significantly into the asian market.

It is not difficult because SHIFT's production base is in Asia. Shipping internationally via modules in the future can save a lot on taxes; however, the main priority remains establishing recycling stations and technical support hubs.

The current universal battery maintains them perfectly.Shift worked hard for having a universal battery and now you want to throw it away?

1. Do I look like I'm about to throw away SHIFT's current universal battery? For my future plans, I am mostly keeping SHIFT's current battery size and shape. https://forum.shiftphones.com/attachments/1778545127877-jpg.7198/
2. Does that mean I should halt my research on improving the cell materials and battery capacity for SHIFT's current universal battery?
3. I am not trying to throw away the universal battery. On the contrary, many of my ideas are actually extensions built upon it. The current universal battery is indeed one of SHIFT’s most important and unique achievements, and I fully recognize its value in repairability, compatibility, spare part management, and sustainability.
   However, I do not believe that continuing the universal battery philosophy and exploring new structural possibilities are necessarily contradictory. The core concept I am currently proposing mainly adds rails, locking latches, release buttons, and a protective shell evolved from the original battery casing and smartphone back cover, rather than completely replacing the entire battery platform.In some ways, my direction is actually intended to extend the lifespan and battery capacity of the entire battery ecosystem, improve cross-device compatibility, create more external usage scenarios, and reduce user dependence on power banks and other duplicated accessories
4. You may perhaps understand the concept of product diversification and market segmentation. Different users, different usage scenarios, and different working and living environments may naturally lead to different product needs. A single product may not necessarily be suitable for every market or every user.
   In fact, SHIFT itself previously had products with different positioning at the same time, such as the SHIFT5me and SHIFT6m. This does not mean that the existence of the SHIFT6m was intended to replace or deny the SHIFT5me, but rather that different users may naturally have different needs regarding size, weight, portability, battery capacity, and usage scenarios.
   For example, personally, under normal daily situations I may prefer to carry the 6m; however, during sports, travel, or situations where lighter portability is more important, I may choose the 5me instead. The two are not necessarily in conflict, but rather complement each other.
   Therefore, I believe that exploring different forms of battery structures does not necessarily mean rejecting or replacing the current universal battery, but may simply provide another option and possibility for different usage scenarios.
   Furthermore, I believe that maintaining a certain degree of product and technological diversity can also improve SHIFT’s resilience against future uncertainties. For example, if future EU requirements regarding drop resistance, waterproofing, or battery regulations become stricter, or if supply chains, market demands, or component availability change unexpectedly, at least SHIFT would not be completely restricted to a single design direction.
   
   
5. For general users, the current universal battery may already be sufficient, and I do not believe that everyone necessarily needs a design such as the battery magazine.
   
   However, for certain specific usage scenarios, such as users who require longer battery life, long hours of outdoor work, higher mobility demands, or higher levels of drop resistance and waterproof protection, this type of product may still have value.
   
   For example, some outdoor workers, travelers, heavy smartphone users, elderly users, or some users with limited mobility may place greater importance on faster energy replacement, easier-to-operate structures, additional protection, and longer continuous usage capability.
   
   Therefore, I believe this kind of concept is not necessarily intended to replace the universal battery, but may simply provide another option for specific usage needs.

and now you want to throw it away? You previously argued for inter-device compatibility and now you ar arguing against it? How can you be so inconsistent?

You misunderstood my point. From the very beginning, I have consistently supported a compatibility-focused design philosophy, and not only vertical cross-generation compatibility, but also horizontal cross-device compatibility.

Therefore, my idea was never to abandon the universal battery or argue against inter-device compatibility. On the contrary, I want to further explore additional possibilities for different usage scenarios while keeping compatibility as the foundation.

So I do not believe there is any contradiction here. In fact, many of my concepts are built around the core idea of extending compatibility and maximizing the lifespan of the overall platform ecosystem as much as possible.

3D printing is only viable for very small production runs. For high volume production runs 3D printing increases costs significantly. Which is why shift uses injection molding, which is the current industrial gold standard. You are also adding a complex usb-c connector, data cabling, and charging electronics. Currently the replacement battery costs less than 3% of the devices price when new. Your concept will increase this by a factor of 2 or 3. Currently the battery is a standard battery which can be produced at every battery manufacturing plant. Your concept requires the addition of a non-standart case, custom charging electronics, and a custom connector. This will most likely require an additional manufacturing and assembly step.

1. I never suggested relying entirely on 3D printing for future mass production.the 3D printing and Industry 4.0/5.0 because they mitigate prototyping costs, low-volume customization costs, initial trial production risks, and experimental barriers for modular products.Even today, standard industry practice runs parallel: injection molding handles mass production, while 3D printing handles prototypes, small-batch modules, and custom parts.The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
2. The core concept I am currently proposing mainly adds mechanical structures, such as rails, locking latches, release buttons, and a protective shell evolved from the original battery casing and smartphone back cover.

This is even more insane!

1. What I mean by “limited production” is not artificial scarcity or abandoning sustainability. It is closer to a controlled experimental rollout. For a relatively small company like SHIFT, immediately mass-producing a completely new structure at large scale could instead create risks such as quality control problems, excessive spare part pressure, repair system instability, inventory waste, and even higher sustainability risks.
2. Therefore, starting with a smaller rollout to evaluate structural reliability, user acceptance, repair capability, and long-term spare part support may actually be more consistent with the risk management logic of a sustainability-focused company.
3. Short-term tactics focus on controlling risks and testing viability. Medium-term strategy focuses on gradually stabilizing the supply chain and ecosystem. Long-term goals focus on building a truly sustainable, repairable, and long-term supportable product system.
4. And because SHIFT already values long-term repairability and spare part support, even an initially limited rollout could still provide long-term spare parts and repair support for those users, rather than becoming a disposable or abandoned product

Let me give an example:

Some companies’ software products are only available for purchase within 3 months, or limited to 100 copies. However, the company still provides later updates, services, and support for the people who bought those products.

So, does this model violate any sustainability principles?

Because our SHIFT has a deposit system, it is relatively easier for us to identify the users.

The current battery is great because it's universal. It supports current and legacy devices,

The included bumper already does a great job. Improve the mechanism of the back cover and it should suffice
The current battery is perfectly swappable. If it increases in capacity, due to new battery technology, it will be easily implementable into legacy shiftphones without major modifications like changing the frame, antennas and sub pcb.

I fully support this point; this is exactly the primary reason I have been promoting it in Asia.
Especially the fact that the current battery can be replaced without requiring any tools is the best part.

so everytime you order a new battery, you'll get a brand new one. If you have device specific batteries, you'll get new-old stock, which has been on a shelf for years and has thus deminished in quality.

1. This also involves issues related to EU 2023/1670, the Battery Passport, and long-term supply chain management.

Battery aging and inventory turnover are challenges that all lithium battery platforms must face, not only device-specific batteries.
My Battery Magazine concept is not intended to make every device depend on completely different and non-replaceable battery cells. Instead, I hope it could move toward a replaceable and compatible cell-family approach, allowing the cells inside the battery magazine itself to be replaceable.
In the future, this concept could potentially explore directions such as: universal or semi-universal cell platforms, replaceable compatible cell families, high-turnover supply chains, universal BMS platforms, and cross-generation compatibility designs. Combined with strategies such as partial pre-order production, rolling replenishment, or limited-batch manufacturing, these approaches may help reduce old stock, long-term inventory aging, and future spare-part supply pressure.
Of course, there would still be many detailed challenges and problems to solve. I simply believe these may be some possible directions for future solutions.

Your argument is based on the assumption of large scale production combined with long term stockpiling over many years.However, if part of the production instead adopts small batch production, the situation could become very different.Battery technology, energy density, safety, and manufacturing processes are continuously evolving. Small batch production may actually allow later batches to gradually adopt newer battery cells or improved chemical technologies, rather than depending on years old battery cells stored for long periods of time.Therefore, I do not think the “old stock battery cell” problem is necessarily impossible to solve.As battery technology continues to advance, battery cells produced in later batches may potentially have better quality and even higher mAh capacity.Furthermore, with the future development of smart factories, Industry 4.0/5.0, flexible manufacturing, and customized production technologies, this type of small batch production model may also gradually become more mature.However, this still requires further research, because it would also involve EU 1670 related long term spare parts supply requirements, as well as the requirement to deliver spare parts within 5 to 10 working days. Therefore, inventory management and supply chain management issues would also need to be considered.


2.Would it also be possible to share the same or compatible cell family, or at least the same battery chemistry platform, with the existing SHIFT 8 battery?
If both systems could share part of the same cell supply chain and platform, then when demand for the existing SHIFT 8 battery is higher, the supply chain could prioritize supplying cells to the original battery platform. Conversely, if demand for the Battery Magazine becomes higher, it could also share part of the existing cell supply resources.
I believe this kind of platformization and shared supply-chain approach may improve turnover rates and supply flexibility, while also reducing old stock, long-term inventory aging, and future spare-part supply pressure.

As said before: I think you don't value sustainability,

If I had designed the battery magazine to be permanently soldered into the phone, or designed the battery to be locked in place with screws so that users would need tools to replace it, then criticizing my idea as being unsustainable would be reasonable. But my design is the opposite.

Since Project Ara was cancelled in 2016, I have never bought a non-sustainable smartphone again. What do you think?
If I don't value sustainability, I would not have spent the last decade continuously researching topics such as compatibility, modular reuse and recycle, legacy support, modular upgradability, https://forum.shiftphones.com/attachments/1778545479205-jpg.7203/ and portable operating systems like Win2USB.

compatibility

A. A SKIN compatible with 8.1 or 6M / 6MQ BATTERY
B. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE A (without charging IC, external charging not supported)
C. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE B (with charging IC, external charging supported)
D. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE C (with charging IC and wireless charging)
E. B SKIN compatible with BATTERY MAGAZINE D (with charging IC, wireless charging, and solar charging)

Sorry, I need to emphasize this once again.:A, B, C, D, E are all mutually compatible with each other. Using one would not make the others become waste.

recycling,

As already discussed above.

user opinions, comunity,

Let’s talk about user opinions, especially regarding speed and convenience.





Scenario A: Charging Environment


Workflow 1 — Battery Magazine


Press the release button → Eject the battery magazine → Plug the USB cable directly into the battery magazine for charging → Reinsert the battery magazine into the phone.





Workflow 2 — Traditional Removable Battery


Open the back cover → Remove the battery with your fingernail → Pick up the external charger → Insert the battery into the external charger → Plug the USB cable into the external charger → Remove the battery from the charger → Align the battery and place it back into the phone → Snap the back cover back on.





Scenario B: Carrying Spare Batteries in a Pocket


Workflow 1 — Battery Magazine


Press the release button → Eject the battery magazine → Take a charged battery magazine from your pocket → Put the empty battery magazine into your pocket → Reinsert the battery magazine into the phone.





Workflow 2 — Traditional Removable Battery


Open the back cover → Remove the battery with your fingernail → Take the plastic battery case out of your pocket → Open the plastic battery protector box → take the spare battery while still holding the depleted battery → Put the depleted battery into the plastic battery box → Close the plastic battery box and place it back into your pocket → Align the battery and place it back into the phone → Snap the back cover back on.





From a human factors engineering and UX perspective, which workflow would be faster and more convenient for users?

or SHIFT as a company. You just want to sell your "the smartphone battery is like a pistol magazine" idea..

Sell Idea?
I feel your imagination may be a bit too excessive.
Honestly, if you had not said that, I probably would not even have thought about it that way.

I'm not a factory, I'm not a supplier..........., so why exactly am I supposed to sell it?

Except for the SHIFT Asia staff, I was the first SHIFT5me user in Asia, the first SHIFT6m user in Asia, and now I am also the first SHIFTphone 8.1 user in Asia.
Personally, I do not care that much whether my battery magazine idea can actually be realized. What I truly care about is whether SHIFT can survive and continue to exist in the future.

Moreover, the SHIFT LIVER battery concepts I currently have are not limited to only one design. The Battery Magazine is just one of more than ten different concepts I currently have in mind.
One of the reasons why I posted this concept publicly is to help SHIFT establish prior art first, in order to prevent another company patenting similar ideas earlier in the future.

What you are suggesting will destroy the soul of SHIFT

I believe no one on this forum truly wants to destroy the soul of SHIFT.

Okay, let’s talk about the soul of SHIFT.
Beyond the 13R principles, SHIFT also value "minimalism" and simplicity in its design philosophy. https://www.shiftphones.co.nz/
May I ask you:
Should we pursue structural simplicity at the cost of operational complexity for the user; or slightly more structural complexity that creates greater operational simplicity for the user?

By now, I don't think you are being completely honest, when you write that. See the red texts above.

Please try to think from SHIFT’s perspective:

Since the Fairphone 6 no longer has a true instant-swappable battery design, some users who still value instant battery swapping may gradually shift toward SHIFT. The ability to instantly swap batteries and maintain uninterrupted relay-style power usage could potentially become one of SHIFT’s strongest advantages in the future.

So I think there are several important strategic questions worth considering:

1. Currently, what percentage of our customer base (customers who have purchased our SHIFT products) mainly chooses SHIFT because of sustainability or environmental values?
2. Currently, what percentage of our customer base is loyal specifically to the SHIFT brand itself?
3. Currently, what percentage of our customer base chooses SHIFT mainly because of repairability and easy maintenance?
4. Currently, what percentage of our customer base chooses SHIFT mainly because of true instant battery swapping?
5. Currently, what percentage of our customer base chooses SHIFT mainly because of the availability of de-Googled Android versions?
6. If within the next 1–2 years, other smartphone brands reach battery capacities of 10,000–15,000mAh together with significantly faster charging technologies, while SHIFT batteries only improve to around 4,000–5,000mAh, meaning one battery from competitors could equal two or even three SHIFT batteries, Under such circumstances, what percentage of users might potentially change their purchasing preference regarding SHIFT products?
7. With the rapid development of AI, software development(like AI coding...) may become increasingly accessible to ordinary users. If software becomes more open in the future, will hardware become more open as well, or more closed?
8. If future EU regulations such as EU 1670, 1542, or similar regulations eventually force mainstream smartphone brands to become significantly easier to repair (for example, restricting excessive glue usage and requiring user-friendly repairability), what percentage of SHIFT’s current customer base could still remain loyal to SHIFT?

Smartphones with fast swappable modules have been a niche on the market, so I don't think that it's the right way to attract more users. .....with no BS however is a good way to attract consumers.

1.“Niche market” does not mean that it is impossible to attract more users from the mainstream market(In my View).
Many successful products and brands originally began by focusing on small but core niche demands.
If, in the future, repairability and sustainability gradually become basic requirements that the entire industry in the EU must follow, should we also begin thinking about add new directions for future uniqueness and differentiation?

2.Fast swappable modular designs can actually be very meaningful and important for sustainability.
First, if the modules themselves are upgradable, users may be able to upgrade specific modules instead of replacing the entire device every few years, thereby extending the overall lifespan of the device.
Second, some modules may potentially support sharing, reuse, or rental across multiple users or devices in the future, which could help reduce resource waste and unnecessary repeated purchases.
Third, when certain hardware modules develop design flaws, failures, or other issues, only the affected modules would need to be recalled and replaced, rather than requiring users to wait for an entirely new generation of devices before replacing the whole product.

3.For consumers, fast swappable modular designs may allow specific modules to be upgraded without needing to purchase an entirely new smartphone, or even shared and reused between different users. This may provide greater value in terms of consumer benefits, economic efficiency, and resource efficiency.

A reasonably priced good product

I believe this is reasonable from a user pays perspective.

For certain special products or projects, it is reasonable for consumers to help share part of the research, development, and production costs, while also allowing SHIFT to retain part of the revenue for profit and future growth.

In addition, I believe that most consumers would also be willing to pay a higher price for such products.

 

[Rigol]

You misunderstood my point. From the very beginning, I have consistently supported a compatibility-focused design philosophy, and not only vertical cross-generation compatibility, but also horizontal cross-device compatibility.

As a matter of fact, I did. I misread and interpreted your text regarding A and B frames wrong. I still don't like the philosophy of including data and charging hardware into a Battery (making every battery as wasteful as a power bank). Regarding your concept of inter-device-compatability, I was wrong. Although I still remain of the opinion, that the Shift universal battery already has perfect inter-device compatibility.

Therefore, even if a battery has reached EOL, wouldn't it be much better if users with old batteries could still use them in new devices, provided that the new devices are designed with backward compatibility in mind?

No, but you almost get the point. The idea is to keep a battery from becoming EOL by reusing it's design in new devices. That is, why I am heavily against your concept, because you are either pleading for two systems, which increases cost without significant benefits, or you want to replace the universal battery, making it EOL. Once a Battery is EOL and you have a universal standart, it is sensible to offer retrofitting the new standart to old devices if feasible, but not to keep backwards compatibility of new devices to old batteries. There may be a few users for which it would be useful, but not enough to make it financially viable in a sustainable way.

That is no proof at all. You need to prove that:

1. Your concept can be retrofitted to at least one of the Shiftphones currently using the the universal battery.
2. Financial viability of either maintaining two systems or replacing the old one.
3. Technicall viability of your design independent of device.
4. Your concept is in fact future proof.
5. Good recycling strategy of your new battery concept.
6. Market analysis of users prefering the new concept instead of the old.

You fail to do so. But I also didn't expect you to, because this is months of work researching, cad, prototyping, and so forth. Just citing a few vaguely related concepts isn't anywhere near enough. So I agree, step-by-step it is. Good luck!

You might have overlooked one point: my battery magazine is designed to be openable, meaning the battery cell, charging IC, USB port, and connectors can all be opened and replaced

To my knowledge that is a concept, not previously associated with your battery magazine. So basically it is conceptualised to be repaired identically as you already can with every and each SHIFT product? This makes it even more similar to the current system. It also introduces more complexity to your design and reduces available space for the battery.

For general users, the current universal battery may already be sufficient, and I do not believe that everyone necessarily needs a design such as the battery magazine.

However, for certain specific usage scenarios, such as users who require longer battery life, long hours of outdoor work, higher mobility demands, or higher levels of drop resistance and waterproof protection, this type of product may still have value.

So you admit, that it is a gadget and a niche product. That was my point all along. Thanks for confirming.

Do I look like I'm about to throw away SHIFT's current universal battery? For my future plans, I am mostly keeping SHIFT's current battery size and shape.

Keeping the Shift universal battery sounds good, if we can agree on that. There is, however, no such thing as "mostly keeping SHIFT's current battery size". You either keep it or not. "Mostly" is the same as "not".

What I mean by “limited production” is not artificial scarcity or abandoning sustainability. It is closer to a controlled experimental rollout

That is not what you wrote earlier:

High-priced, unique, scarce, limited-availability products may allow SHIFT to become the Rolex of the smartphone industry.

At this point I'll remove myself from the discussion, as more and more of your texts are filled with meaningless buzzwords and resemble the gibberish an AI produces. Furthermore you are qouting me a lot out of context, which doesn't feel like a good faith discussion.

What I like is that you re-think the current situation with the back-cover, which does in fact not work as good as it should. Nevertheless, I don't believe that my phones battery should resemble a firearm magazine, even if soly in functionality. I think a new design should still make use of the Shift universal battery. Not because it is the best battery, but because it is the most sustainable approach.

 

[@Lhotze]