http://cnoemphone.com/industry/quali.../certification

To enter European Economic Area, the mobile phone must pass three kinds of mandatory conformity certification: CE (European Conformity), phone number IMEI and ROHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances), which includes three methods: 1. Chemical Analysis: Divide a mobile phone into metallic parts and non-metallic parts to have a chemical analysis. 2. XRF (X-Ray Fluorescence) and Analysis: Scan the complete handset with a XRF machine and chemical testing. 3. ROHS Report: Gather all the ROHS reports of a mobile phone parts and make them into a complete ROHS report of the mobile phone.


Certifications for Mobile Phone Battery
1.There two kinds of certifications for mobile battery: one is EN60950-1, which needs lower cost but will have more chance for checking; the other is IEC62133, which costs more but will be approved by the local government.
2.To get Battery UL (Underwriter Laboratories Inc.) certification of United States, you need to make sure that you have get UL approval for battery core.
3.The CB reports and certifications for battery are sent by specified institutions, such as TUV, SGS, BV, ITS, CQC. Related certification marks:

Perhaps I'm missing some bit of this dialogue; but why is any of this important on a community/dev device? It's different than other prior Nokia device programs, but not too dissimilar to the BlackBerry Dev Alpha B device - something given out to a cross-section of folks, mostly devs, not "sold" but sent out and represented an incoming device; in this case the BlackBerry Z10.

The convo seems to overlook that... or something and has gotten into certificate particulars for a device that's not really sold, but exists for other reasons.

Or... am I missing something huge? Which very well might be the case.

Sorry to ask such a potentially stupid question but this whole convo seems just off to me from afar and isn't where it's important (to me)

Thanks in advance.

I am not familiar with the BB programme. Was the device in question being given away or for a charge like Jolla C? (Genuine question.)

BB devices were true dev devices and therefore got handed out free of charge and only to developers. They remained the property of RIM IIRC and were to be rendered useless after some time (which never happened).

EDIT: Found some more information: http://crackberry.com/blackberry-10-...sical-keyboard

There should be more over at crackberry.

For the Dev Alpha B, no charge. I think there was a charge for the Dev Alpha C device though - not 100% sure on that one though. I know I turned it down, I think it was because there was a fee (honestly cannot remember)

Nope, the Alpha C was free, too, for "real" devs:
http://devblog.blackberry.com/2012/1...0-dev-alpha-c/

I am also not an expert, but from what I know the manufacturer can decide to put the CE marking *and* issue a declaration of conformity with the applicable guidelines. The marking would not include the number of the certification authority (because there is none) and the manufacturer has the responsibility of figuring out which guidelines are applicable.

To me, not putting the CE marking and still selling the product in the EU means they either (1) don't give a d*mn, or (2) have no trust in their own product (i.e. don't want liability if the battery overheats and burns your house).

There is a declaration of conformity from Jolla for both the original Jolla phone and the tablet. There is none for the Jolla C which means that for the time being, it may not be marked with the CE mark and may not be sold in the EU.

https://jolla.com/legal/

The problem probably is that Jolla simply isn't the manufacturer of the Jolla C (not built to Jolla specs like the other devices) and hasn't tested the devices for conformity yet.

They confirmed me it has CE Certificate. Lets wait. I dont think at all it is a lie. This stuff is mandatory to give away a device in europe..as they are doing

http://jolla.com/guide/#sec-27
Under safety chapter you can find the sar value. That means that it was measured, as the law requires.
I expect the same for jolla C- and there is no reason why they should not have been doing that.

Various governments have defined maximum SAR levels for RF energy emitted by mobile devices:
◾United States: the FCC requires that phones sold have a SAR level at or below 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) taken over the volume containing a mass of 1 gram of tissue that is absorbing the most signal.
◾European Union: CENELEC specify SAR limits within the EU, following IEC standards. For mobile phones, and other such hand-held devices, the SAR limit is 2 W/kg averaged over the 10 g of tissue absorbing the most signal (IEC 62209-1).
◾India: switched from the EU limits to the US limits for mobile handsets in 2012. Unlike the US, India will not rely solely on SAR measurements provided by manufacturers; random compliance tests are done by a government-run Telecommunication Engineering Center (TEC) SAR Laboratory on handsets and 10% of towers. All handsets must have a hands free mode.[4]

From wikipedia

It seems that india's law is more efficient than US one, with more controls,at least in theory (not sure about reality).
Also it seems that indian and european law require a different test (first one on 1 gr of test tissue, second one on 10 gr) so maybe they cant use the same test used for intex device in india. I dont know if there is a way to convert the value without re testing, and if this is accepted from eu law,though.