[wattjustin]

I recall the 15" non-Unibody MBP batteries costing $149. So for $50 more you get a better battery, and because of a design that makes it a non-user replaceable battery, but also one of the thinnest laptops in the world with this kind of power, this story is getting voted up? Replacing batteries isn't a monthly ordeal, it's likely needed only once, possibly twice in the lifespan of the laptops usage.

As an example, here is a 12 cell HP laptop battery: http://www.hp.com/canada/products/landing/consumer-accessori.... Price, $159. User installed. I can understand people being annoyed they can't physically change the batteries themselves, but the pricing is not a scandal.

[jaems33]

Different parts get better and cheaper (RAM, hard drives, processors), why wouldn't a battery? (serious question)

[wattjustin]

In my university years I worked at Best Buy part time and the HP rep who visited always openly acknowledged (and joked about) batteries as being overpriced as it's easier for people to justify a new laptop when the battery is approaching 1/4 of the price of a new one. Granted, this laptop we're speaking of is worth a lot more than $200 x4 but I think the point is clear.

[sukuriant]

It doesn't make good business sense to encourage people to spend $100 on a battery for a laptop they don't sell anymore when you could spend $800-$2000 on a new laptop.

The real question is: Why should a company provide better tech for their old machines when that tech has to be custom built for that and a small line of similar machines.

[easp]

All the things you list are strongly influenced by Moore's law and things with a similar trajectory.

Batteries are on nothing like the same trajectory. I think the average rate of improvement is 10%/year. Not bad, but nothing compared to doubling every 18-24 months.

[wlesieutre]

That HP battery's showing up as $160 for me, but point taken regardless

[wattjustin]

My apologies, I just corrected that. Thanks for the heads up!