> Maybe not a great tradeoff for something needed once every 2-3 years.
The case for user-replaceable batteries isn't just to be able to replace them when they wear out. It's also to be able to carry a spare or two for when you want to use the device for an extended period of time. (No, external power banks don't really address this use case).
Not having easily replaceable batteries is definitely the root problem. Everyone knows that batteries can't last forever and the weak link in having something last for years yet everyone is perfectly fine with non replaceable batteries. I know so many people who have bought new phones when all they need is a new battery. It's mind boggling.
Nobody's saying that they have to be single-use batteries? Just that the rechargeable ones should be replaceable once they reach the end of their lifetime.
I'd appreciate it if someone with expertise can comment on why the market shifted to non-replaceable batteries. I know the suspicion that it's for planned obsolescence, but does someone really know?
My impression is that replaceable batteries limit the shapes, materials and engineering that can be used, reducing capacity while increasing weight and size. For example a replaceable battery must be safely handled by end users, shaped and placed so it can be easily removed, and its connection is limited to something quickly and easily utilized.
Having irreplaceable batteries makes your device have a very short lifespan. This is horrible for the environment. I'm typing this on a pixel 1 that I've replaced the battery in, and have used for 4+ years.
Laptops should have replaceable batteries. Period. If you get a new laptop every 2 years and don't know what it's like to have a perfectly good MacBook with 30minutes of battery life, then maybe you can just imagine being in that position and consider how globally impactful this anti consumer practice is.
User-replaceable batteries always have a negative effect on the design of a product. I’d rather see free battery replacements every X years be offered from authorized techs.
Out of topic, but is it possible that is this why phone manufacturers are shying away from putting bigger batteries in their flagships? They want the batteries to degrade in the 2 or 3 years of daily power cycle, and most people choose to upgrade instead of replacing their non-user-replaceable battery. Does this make sense?
I want replaceable batteries in that I want to replace them like 2-3 years after purchase. Which is already possible for a negligible price.
You really shouldn’t want to replace batteries on the fly in general — it makes stealing easier (modern phones can’t be powered off easily without authorization) so you may find it before it loses power, waterproofing suffers, etc.
This is stupid. Battery lifetimes has come a long way (1000-2000 cycles are the norm) and will improve in the future. Devices are much denser and are waterproof. There are trade offs and customers have chosen to favor designs that do not require easily replaceable batteries. I wouldn't want to pay the price for having one.
reply