undefined

points

[-]

Incorrect. Replaceable battery is a feature that decreases sales. Why would you implement it when battery being weak will cause substantial amount of users to replace phone instead of paying for service to replace the battery ?

If the feature isn't expected and it decrease sales, why would manufacturer put it in ?

by wolvoleo15 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

And decreasing sales is exactly what the EU wants to accomplish. To stop people buying a whole new phone every couple of years.

Unfortunately I do expect other tricks towards planned obsolescence. Long-term support is now a thing but what they can still do is make phones slower over time. Even Apple did this with the iPhone 6.

by kolinko13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

If the phones with replaceable batteries break more often (and they most likely will), then people will buy them more often, not less.

Also, a new battery is how much - €100 for an iPhone battery? It's not that expensive.

by wolvoleo12 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Why would they break more often? I don't really see that.

We have thousands of Xcovers (also replaceable) in the factories at work and they break no more often than the regular phones in the office environment. In fact people treat them pretty roughly because they're handling heavy requirement and you know how well people look after equipment they didn't pay for :) They're not perfect but they walk the walk.

Another point: I know several people that have Fairphones where almost every component can be user-replaced and I've held them but I don't see them being any more fragile than any other phone, really. And these are not rugged models.

And a Fairphone battery is 40€. An Xcover battery (including NFC antenna which is weirdly enough in the battery) costs similar. The screen 90€. All a lot cheaper than Apple, probably because there is no labor cost. You can just do it yourself or ask a friend who's handy.

by pyrale20 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

You say "the market wants" like consumers are given much choice.

Using that hypothesis, the market also loves cookie banners and prefers subscriptions over one-time payments.

by nonethewiser20 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

You can buy phones with non-embedded batteries but they suck. That's not a coincidence.

What is your hypothesis for why more phones arent designed with non-embedded, directly replacable batteries? If it's such a highly valued trait in a phone, why doesnt some company just gobble up that market share? Why havent existing solutions sold well? Mine is that consumers dont actually value non-embedded batteries when accounting for all the tradeoffs. What's your hypothesis?

by traderj0e11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

They were given the choice years ago, when some Android phones had removable batteries and touted that as a feature. Nobody seemed to care.

In contrast, users were also given the choice between headphone jack and Bluetooth for years when every phone had both, and clearly chose the jack. BT headphones were rare. But Apple and many other phonemakers figured out they make more money by removing it.

by Aachen20 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

"instead of resorting to ad hominem" Was this edited out or which part do you mean?

by nonethewiser16 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

calling him a shill for having a different opinion. just an attack on the person. based on nothing and distracts from the substance of his comment.

by Aachen1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Are we talking about the same comment? This is what the ad honinem remark was a reply to, just to double check that it's not simply a mix-up:

> People shouldn't have to go to a special store or buy special tools requiring special skills to change a battery.

I don't see how this could be read as a shill (having looked up the word; I'm not a native speaker). But I guess it may also not be my business

by OutOfHere20 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

I originally did engage with the comment. Water-resistance absolutely still is physically possible if the replacement battery is waterproof. Water can over time be corrosive at the contacts, but that's a risk for the user. It does not in any way imply that water will enter the internals of the device from the point of contact with the battery. This will require a bit of engineering at the contact to ensure that water doesn't enter the device. As for the size argument, adding 2 mm of thickness is less important than providing five years of extra life.

by addaon20 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Wait, are you proposing sealing the phone and sealing the battery separately, but not sealing the contacts between them? That’s… super sketchy for salt water immersion. Unless you add fuses and a BMS and safety mechanisms into the “battery”. In which case wouldn’t customers want to be able to replace the actual battery within the now-a-battery-plus-computer phone accessory once it wears down?