I had one of these phones that would crash under load and the update fixed it. The technical fix was sound. Batteries can't supply full power as they age, and the CPU needs high power when it runs faster. It's an annoying reality of battery powered devices that looks like a conspiracy to boost sales.
Should be coming back in 2027, when the EUs battery regulation goes into effect. While it doesn't iirc require easily swappable batteries (like the Nokia of the olden days, where you just took off the back cover and put a new one in), it's specifically designed to put a stop to the current amount of device waste coming from poor quality batteries.
A "user-serviceable battery," by requirements, is going to be a hard shell plastic sort of thing - which means a decent fraction of the "total battery space" is a protective layer, not active cell components - so some significantly reduced capacity compared to having a "non-replaceable" battery ("slightly more difficult to replace"). You also end up having to devote space to whatever mechanisms keep the rear shell in place, and may have a harder time waterproofing it as a result (which seems to be standard anymore - the number of people I see at the gym using their phones in the hot tub or sauna is boggling).
Batteries, under light use of phones not kept in pockets, last a very long time - 3-5 years isn't unreasonable, and many will last longer. Batteries, under heavy use of a phone kept in a pocket and run hard, will still typically last 1.5-2 years. So in exchange for "slightly more inconvenience less than annually," you get a good bit more capacity and runtime.
Apple, in general, hasn't made their batteries nonsensically hard to replace. They've used the "pull tab sticky" sort of thing for some while, which is far nicer than "glue the whole thing down," and their newer devices are using some sort of electrically released magic (apply 9V to the adhesive, battery pops out).
That's a whole lot of words to just carry water for a bunch of anti-user stuff Apple continues to inflict on their Stockholm Syndrome afflicted customers. The whole water proofing thing is dumb--why is it that every digital watch I've ever owned is simultaneously unbelievably easier to service and also manages to survive being under water way better than any phone I've seen, Apple or otherwise? It's like gasket technology doesn't exist. You could have your shiny metal back and just have it secured with a handful of machine screws. And as far as their batteries not being a pain, they're way harder than a Motorola, for example, and again frankly needlessly so.
It's so weird that we just come to expect to be screwed on these phones, when if it was anything else, especially the sort of devices that are more commercially focused than consumer, you'd demand better.
Samsung’s Galaxy S5 or so was water resistant and had a replaceable battery. I remember a test where it survived a full washing machine program without any issue.
no one asked for water resistance, but literally everyone said "we want replaceable batteries and don't care about phone thinness either", but Apple doesn't care.
I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are very happy with water resistance in exchange for having to do a bit more work to replace a battery (that they don't actually replace).
The number of people using their phones in the hot tub, or in the sauna, astounds me on a regular basis. I can't imagine doing that. But, with modern devices being genuinely "drop them in the pool" grade waterproof, neither does it seem likely to be a problem.
I'll agree on thinness, though. The number of phones in massive, chunky cases says "A lot of people don't care about thin."
> The number of people using their phones in the hot tub, or in the sauna, astounds me on a regular basis. I can't imagine doing that.
and the number of people who desperately look for a way to replace their batteries or upgrade to a new model just because their phone battery degraded is quite saddening.
I've suggested to a range of people that if their only complaint is runtime, and the phone is a few years old, getting someone to replace the battery is far cheaper than a new phone. It's a novel concept, and I'm quite unsure if people just don't know if that's a thing, or if that's the socially accepted excuse to spend a lot of money on a new phone.
Manufacturers put water-sensitive indicators in electronics to flag this during warranty claims. Before water resistant phones, people would desperately google for how to save their phones.
> don't care about phone thinness either
There are rumors the next iPhone with have a thin model. You should also look into the original Motorola Razr. It was the original sexy phone precisely because of how thin it was.
i never needed waterproof phone. i dont throw my devices into water. on contrary i've changed batteries many times when phones had replaceable ones.
there were waterproof phones before this whole BS, so this "argument" disintegrated. seems more like you are happy being held hostage by corporation.
I don't just go throwing my devices into water intentionally, but having waterproof phones has been a lifesaver for me. I've fallen into pools with my phone. I've had phones around a pool I thought we're safe but still got soaked from splashes. I've been caught in pretty massive rainstorms without a waterproof pocket or bag. I've had things spill while cooking. I've had kids with sticky fingers get all kinds of greasy nasties all over my phone and been happy I could just rinse it in the sink.
I’m not defending Apple here because I don’t buy the “water resistance requires non-replaceable batteries story” (there have been plenty of phones that were water resistant and had replaceable batteries + TRS sockets)
However it’s worth noting that in the era you described where phones had replaceable batteries, water damage was also a lot less permanent.
Back then, you would whip the battery out, leave the phone in rice for a day, then it would power up the following day as if nothing had happened.
These days I couldn’t see that working even if you could remove the battery. And when you also factor in how much more essential phones are to our every day lives (they’re our wallet, plane boarding pass, health monitors, location tracking for nervous parents, etc. we don’t even remember important phone numbers like we used to). Regardless of whether you agree with all these use cases, it does result in a scenario where water resistance is a lot more important than it used to be.
I’m assuming you meant “user
replaceable”, because that’s really the key thing to understand here. Almost every phone had those, but most of them switched over half a decade. There was a long period where consumers had tons of options with removable batteries, and the market unequivocally rejected them. It’s always a mistake to assume that people drop hundreds of dollars on worse products based on nebulous claims about marketing, so clearly the average phone buyer thought that they were buying a better product. Why?
Removable batteries were useful in two situations: before a phone could last all day, swapping batteries was handy for people who spent a lot of time away from chargers … but most people don’t need that very often, if at all. The other situation is a few years in, when the battery life is starting to be noticeably worse. For that to be a big deal, it has to happen before you want to buy a new phone for other reasons. This is a valid complaint but you only experience it every few years and can fix it by spending the equivalent of a month of phone service and waiting roughly the amount of time it takes you to get lunch.
Now, what did we gain? Using a sealed battery made phones far more durable – people used to joke about dropping their phone and having the battery fly out! – and especially made it easier to make them dust and waterproof. It also made them cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sturdier.
So basically the average buyer gave up benefits they rarely used in exchange for things they noticed literally every time they picked up the phone. The day the iPhone came out, the entire market re-evaluated what they wanted in a phone and almost everyone decided that they didn’t make 18 hour flights with no charging often enough to give up that solid, luxury feel. Just as Google’s software developers made a crash project to copy the iOS UI, the hardware designers saw the lines around the block at Apple Stores and correctly concluded that nobody minded the drawbacks of a sealed battery.
> This is a valid complaint but you only experience it every few years and can fix it by spending the equivalent of a month of phone service and waiting roughly the amount of time it takes you to get lunch.
I don't spend $90-100 on service. So make that three months. With 1/5 or less of the price going to the actual battery.
> people used to joke about dropping their phone and having the battery fly out!
You can solve that with a screw.
> The day the iPhone came out, the entire market re-evaluated what they wanted in a phone and almost everyone decided that they didn’t make 18 hour flights with no charging often enough to give up that solid, luxury feel.
Things have changed a lot since then. Batteries are huge, chips are efficient, and phones are thinner. These days the loss of half a millimeter of battery, or making the phone half a millimeter thicker, would be just fine in a ton of cases.
> cheaper, smaller, lighter, and sturdier
The sliver of thickness is real, but you can keep the same sturdiness, and what kind of price difference do you have in mind? If the phone costs a dollar more but you save more than fifty dollars on battery replacement that's a pretty good deal.
> the hardware designers saw the lines around the block at Apple Stores and correctly concluded that nobody minded the drawbacks of a sealed battery.
Ugh. People liking a product is not an endorsement of every single aspect of that product!
> I don't spend $90-100 on service. So make that three months. With 1/5 or less of the price going to the actual battery.
The cost of the battery is more than that unless you’re buying no-name fire hazards off of Amazon – and even 20 years ago the batteries cost a similar amount, it’s not like competition was keeping the price down – so you’re looking at something like $50-60 dollars in labor. Not cheap, but clearly not something the average person is changing buying decisions over.
> You can solve that with a screw
We can look at the many, many past devices and learn that it’s not that simple. Those fell out over time due to thermal expansion and contraction, complicated waterproofing, cost more, and added weight and volume – especially when done in a way which was durable and felt solid.
Again, my point isn’t that the sealed case is perfect with no drawbacks of any sort but rather that there was an extended period where people had options on the market, and consistently, overwhelmingly picked the sealed phones. That strongly suggests that people value those everyday benefits more than the cost of replacing a battery. Things like waterproofing are a good example: not having to worry about replacing your phone because of rain or a spill has a peace of mind which most people appreciate because they fear an unexpected $500 loss more than possibly saving $50 on batteries every 2-4 years.
> The batteries I looked at through ifixit are $20. No-name goes below $10.
The cheapest for my phone is $35, and Apple will do it for $90 or third parties for a bit less. If you’re seeing different numbers for your phone, I’m sure that’s true but don’t think it’s fundamentally changing the cost into a number which changes the average phone buyer’s decision. Again, I’m not saying it’s trivial but that people pay hundreds of dollars upfront and usually thousands over the life of the device. There just don’t seem to be that many people who intend to own the same phone for many years and factor the cost of installing a replacement battery into their decision.
> You can be pretty water-resistant while also having a cover normal people can remove.
Yes, nobody has said otherwise. It’s just more expensive and makes a physically larger device if you are making an equivalently durable device because you need to add screws, seals, etc. and make a mechanically more complex case.
Again, my point is simply that the entire phone market had removable batteries but shifted away over roughly a decade and it’s usually a mistake to look at a durable consumer preference and dismiss it as marketing or some kind of conspiracy. Apple is a single vendor so maybe they’re a lost cause but there have been many Android phone makers and their buyers also followed the same trend despite a vocal minority urging otherwise.
I'm not trying to say that more than half of people care, I'm saying that a lot of people care, but it's a situation where "vote with your wallet" would only work if it was a very strong preference, because the competition for good phones is limited and too many features are bundled together. So millions of people have their desire unmet despite the technology being able to meet it with a small size penalty and at negligible dollar cost.
It's not a conspiracy that manufacturers will all make a choice that saves 50 cents if 99.9% of people that care will suck it up for other reasons. But if two phones were offered with everything else equal except battery replacement, half a millimeter, and $1 on price, I'm confident that a very significant fraction of people would pick the replaceable battery option.
