Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 29th Oct 2012 18:14 UTC
Permalink for comment 540809
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
saso,
"I'm not talking about the environmental aspect. I agree with you that we are generating lots of waste, but the fact that batteries aren't replaceable doesn't really factor into people's decision to buy a phone anymore."
Well, the sales numbers don't lie, you are right.
However a purchase of a non-battery-accessible device cannot be construed as a vote against having accessible batteries. It's a subtle distinction having to do with the granularity of choices offered.
When given no fine grained choice about the battery, consumers will buy them anyways. However given a choice we may very well learn that many consumers would prefer an accessible battery and would even be willing to pay a bit more for it.
It is plausible a manufacturer may been aware that consumers wanted battery access, and never the less decided to do away with it for selfish reasons like built in obsolescence.