OSNews

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.

I never said I agree or disagree with the direction the manufacturers have taken. I was merely stating the fact of the market place - it simply doesn't factor into people's purchasing choices (I mean at large; not talking about individuals like yourself).


You can always purchase a smartphone with a removable battery, there's still plenty of choice, e.g. (nearly) all of Samsungs offerings, AFAIK, still have removable batteries.


Sales numbers clearly show this to be false. Accept it, people just don't care.


Before you ascribe ulterior motives, try to look for valid technical reasons why a battery might not be field-replaceable. For instance, hinges, clips, connectors and release mechanisms all take up valuable space, compromise the device's mechanical integrity, add weight and make hardware design generally more complex. They also make certain features nearly impossible, like Nexus 4's laminated glass back (which adds scratch resistance - a feature consumers really want).