4 ms·

Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. The primary driver has been increased capacity, followed closely by t

by genmud 3y ago

Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. The primary driver has been increased capacity, followed closely by the ability to make them much thinner and develop water resistant handsets. All other reasons are so far below these they aren't even worth mentioning.

jklinger410 3y ago
> Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. What makes you qualified to say this? Do you work for one of the large phone manufacturers?
- sonicshadow 3y ago
  I think some observation and a little engineering thinking makes this clear. In the early 2010s one of the biggest issues with smartphones was battery life. The packaging of the battery is limited if a requirement is to make it removable (i.e. it must be a certain shape, have connectors in a certain location, etc). If that requirement is removed, battery can be made to fill whatever space is available in the device. People drop their phones in water all the time. Then call the company and complain it's broken. People get mad when the company tells them it's their fault. If you have fewer holes in a device, it's less likely to be damaged by water. A removable battery means exposed connectors sealed by imperfect covers, making them more likely to be damaged by any water ingress. So they removed that failure point. Another issue in tech generally is end-users messing with the device internals, accidentally breaking the device, and blaming the company. Remove that failure-case by making the internals inaccessible and complaints go down. Making the device impossible to access because of a deep-state conspiracy is just a convenient mental shortcut to believe in. I'm as annoyed as the next person about less-repairable devices but I don't think it's a conspiracy, just practical engineering.
  - hattmall 3y ago
    My s5 had great battery life with removable battery that could be upgraded and was perfectly waterproof almost 10 yrs ago. I think the bigger driver is encouraging people to get a new phone when battery life inevitably declined. I used the S5 for about 6 years with no issues other than a couple battery replacements. My pixel didn't even make it 2 years before serious performance declines and poor battery life.
    - sonicshadow 3y ago
      It must have been one of the few well-made smartphones back then. It's still hard to make a perfectly waterproof seal that last for years and is inexpensive enough to use on a smartphone. Some team has to sit around designing it, so without the removable battery and seal they could in theory be freed up to do something else Just because something is possible to do, doesn't mean every manufacturer wants to do it
- genmud 3y ago
  I have first hand accounts from decision makers about the challenges these decisions were faced with and have worked with many engineers in adjacent areas over the years.
- hex4def6 3y ago
  While I haven't worked on phones, I have worked on tablets and e-readers. I can say that the discussions have always been around cost, ID, waterproofing, tablet thickness in the design stage. I don't think it's a stretch to say the same design considerations are at work in cell phones. I've worked with the ID and battery teams (who also worked on phones). There was never even a hint of being pushed to non-replaceable batteries from "higher up" for "reasons". Instead, it was product specs / design parameters that drove the choice.
  - hiatus 3y ago
    > There was never even a hint of being pushed to non-replaceable batteries from "higher up" for "reasons". Instead, it was product specs / design parameters that drove the choice. Cynically, we should be so lucky to have such crudely overt messaging. I would expect the reasons to take the form of specs and design parameters and not be so blunt. The NSA has done just that in the past. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-make-crypto-worse-and-better/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/the-n...
pengaru 3y ago
> Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. The primary driver has been increased capacity, followed closely by the ability to make them much thinner and develop water resistant handsets. All other reasons are so far below these they aren't even worth mentioning. Oh give me a break! It obviously makes more money to have things non-trivially-user-servicable - especially wear items like a battery.
- genmud 3y ago
  I'm a strong advocate for right to repair... that being said, user serviceability is something that has to be explicitly defined as a requirement. However, just because something is difficult to service, doesn't mean it was designed with that in mind. For example, designing a flex PCB with a 90 degree bend and a small inner radius like you might see on a mipi display or camera makes it extremely difficult to service, but has very little effect on initial assembly. If you design it for serviceability, you might do 2x 45 degree bends or a rounded pcb plus a stiffener above the mezzanine connector, reducing the chance it may tear or have broken joints. I guess what I'm saying is just because it hasn't been designed to be serviced, doesn't mean it was designed to be unserviceable.
  - pengaru 3y ago
    It generates more sales to tightly couple a wear item to its host, full stop. We're talking about massive for-profit businesses here, there's zero chance this is happening ignorant of the positive revenue effects. I've had to replace the battery on my phone due to swelling in the desert heat four times now.
    - sonicshadow 3y ago
      How about the consideration that making an item less easy to service incurs more complaints? That's a metric too right?
    - genmud 3y ago
      I think you are overestimating how much influence beancounters and marketing people have on the design. I live in the desert as well and in the last 15 years between me, my wife and my parents have only replaced a single battery. We buy a new phone once a year and then rotate them, so keep them a minimum of 3 years.

by genmud 3y ago

jklinger410 3y ago

> Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. What makes you qualified to say this? Do you work for one of the large phone manufacturers?

sonicshadow 3y ago
I think some observation and a little engineering thinking makes this clear. In the early 2010s one of the biggest issues with smartphones was battery life. The packaging of the battery is limited if a requirement is to make it removable (i.e. it must be a certain shape, have connectors in a certain location, etc). If that requirement is removed, battery can be made to fill whatever space is available in the device. People drop their phones in water all the time. Then call the company and complain it's broken. People get mad when the company tells them it's their fault. If you have fewer holes in a device, it's less likely to be damaged by water. A removable battery means exposed connectors sealed by imperfect covers, making them more likely to be damaged by any water ingress. So they removed that failure point. Another issue in tech generally is end-users messing with the device internals, accidentally breaking the device, and blaming the company. Remove that failure-case by making the internals inaccessible and complaints go down. Making the device impossible to access because of a deep-state conspiracy is just a convenient mental shortcut to believe in. I'm as annoyed as the next person about less-repairable devices but I don't think it's a conspiracy, just practical engineering.
- hattmall 3y ago
  My s5 had great battery life with removable battery that could be upgraded and was perfectly waterproof almost 10 yrs ago. I think the bigger driver is encouraging people to get a new phone when battery life inevitably declined. I used the S5 for about 6 years with no issues other than a couple battery replacements. My pixel didn't even make it 2 years before serious performance declines and poor battery life.
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    It must have been one of the few well-made smartphones back then. It's still hard to make a perfectly waterproof seal that last for years and is inexpensive enough to use on a smartphone. Some team has to sit around designing it, so without the removable battery and seal they could in theory be freed up to do something else Just because something is possible to do, doesn't mean every manufacturer wants to do it
genmud 3y ago
I have first hand accounts from decision makers about the challenges these decisions were faced with and have worked with many engineers in adjacent areas over the years.
hex4def6 3y ago
While I haven't worked on phones, I have worked on tablets and e-readers. I can say that the discussions have always been around cost, ID, waterproofing, tablet thickness in the design stage. I don't think it's a stretch to say the same design considerations are at work in cell phones. I've worked with the ID and battery teams (who also worked on phones). There was never even a hint of being pushed to non-replaceable batteries from "higher up" for "reasons". Instead, it was product specs / design parameters that drove the choice.
- hiatus 3y ago
  > There was never even a hint of being pushed to non-replaceable batteries from "higher up" for "reasons". Instead, it was product specs / design parameters that drove the choice. Cynically, we should be so lucky to have such crudely overt messaging. I would expect the reasons to take the form of specs and design parameters and not be so blunt. The NSA has done just that in the past. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/the-nsas-work-to-make-crypto-worse-and-better/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/09/the-n...

pengaru 3y ago

> Not even a little consideration for this has made manufacturers ditch removable batteries. The primary driver has been increased capacity, followed closely by the ability to make them much thinner and develop water resistant handsets. All other reasons are so far below these they aren't even worth mentioning. Oh give me a break! It obviously makes more money to have things non-trivially-user-servicable - especially wear items like a battery.

genmud 3y ago
I'm a strong advocate for right to repair... that being said, user serviceability is something that has to be explicitly defined as a requirement. However, just because something is difficult to service, doesn't mean it was designed with that in mind. For example, designing a flex PCB with a 90 degree bend and a small inner radius like you might see on a mipi display or camera makes it extremely difficult to service, but has very little effect on initial assembly. If you design it for serviceability, you might do 2x 45 degree bends or a rounded pcb plus a stiffener above the mezzanine connector, reducing the chance it may tear or have broken joints. I guess what I'm saying is just because it hasn't been designed to be serviced, doesn't mean it was designed to be unserviceable.
- pengaru 3y ago
  It generates more sales to tightly couple a wear item to its host, full stop. We're talking about massive for-profit businesses here, there's zero chance this is happening ignorant of the positive revenue effects. I've had to replace the battery on my phone due to swelling in the desert heat four times now.
  - sonicshadow 3y ago
    How about the consideration that making an item less easy to service incurs more complaints? That's a metric too right?
  - genmud 3y ago
    I think you are overestimating how much influence beancounters and marketing people have on the design. I live in the desert as well and in the last 15 years between me, my wife and my parents have only replaced a single battery. We buy a new phone once a year and then rotate them, so keep them a minimum of 3 years.