[microtonal]

Not this again :). Just taking a random example: the Samsung S5 was IPX67 rated (up to 1m for 30min), was thinner than an iPhone 16, and had a replaceable battery. Admittedly, it has fewer mAh, but it's also older battery technology and the volume of the phone case is slightly smaller (and probably has bigger electronics).

Is should be totally possible to make a good 2024 flagship with replaceable batteries, but we'd have to forgo the fancy glass back panels.

[jmull]

> Not this again :)

The problem with this logic is that phones are complicated and have a lot of constraints. Phone design inherently involves numerous tradeoffs.

So... of course it's possible for manufacturers like Apple and Samsung to create a thin, waterproof phone with no-tool battery replacement.

But at a cost to other features.

The market has shown repeatedly that few consumers value no-tool battery replacements, relative to various other features they'd have to give up to get it. People are voting with their wallets and it doesn't make sense for Apple, Samsung, etc., to build phones people don't really want.

[bmicraft]

> The market has shown repeatedly that few consumers value no-tool battery replacements, relative to various other features they'd have to give up to get it. People are voting with their wallets and it doesn't make sense for Apple, Samsung, etc., to build phones people don't really want.

It costs those manufacturers next to nothing to make the battery replaceable. What is does cost the is future sales of phones, because now people could swap in a 15$ replacement battery instead of choosing between (1) pay 150$ for a replacement or (2) just get a new phone.

This isn't about the market not wanting to pay the extra 5$ it would take, this is about the manufacturer deciding there is more money to be made this way.

We never truly had a choice. The fact of the matter is people's choice of phone brand is sticky, and manufacturers abuse that. If you've had the Galaxy S5 and needed a new phone at no point did you have the choice between an S7 with or without replaceable battery. It's get the S7 without, or screw you - get a worse phone.

[jmull]

> It costs those manufacturers next to nothing to make the battery replaceable.

Are you sure about that? I notice Apple charges $99 for, e.g., an iPhone 15 battery replacement, not $150. And iFixit charges $44 for an iPhone 15 battery, not $15 (not to mention, a user-replaceable one would need changes, like a case, which would tend to make them more expensive). I wonder if you have an understanding of the cost to phones in terms of price and/or loss of other features to make their batteries user-replaceable without tools.

> Its get the S7 without, or screw you - get a worse phone.

Yep. But it’s not to screw you. It’s because they can’t create that phone with the replaceable battery you want, not without making it worse and/or more expensive.

[bmicraft]

Non authenticc, organically sourced, non-gmo Apple(R) batteries cost way less than 44$

[Terretta]

> What is does cost the is future sales of phones, because now people could swap in a 15$ replacement battery instead of choosing between (1) pay 150$ for a replacement or (2) just get a new phone.

This argument is undermined by Apple putting a user configurable 80% charge limiter in recent iPhones that extends battery life multiple times over.

(And that's on top of the smart charging to avoid charging to full if not needed, added many models ago.)

[Wytwwww]

> forgo the fancy glass back panels.

Plastic is just meh.. I'd rather have an unrepairable device than one made of plastic.

(We can't have metal because of the wireless charging)