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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

> 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.)

Or perhaps get Samsung Xcover Pro - removable battery and IP68 rating (and audio jack!) https://m.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_xcover6_pro-11600.php

Is gluing the battery inside the case really a requirement for waterproofing?

When they remove the battery cover -- "oh, waterproofing"

When they glue the battery amd remove all screws -- "oh, waterproofing"

When they eventually require an approved persons blood sample to perform repair, will I also hear the "oh, waterproofing" thing?

It was water-indifferent, like a Jeep.

(Kidding. I did love mine and I did not protect it, and I'm sure it got rained on many times, but I don't know if I ever literally hosed water through it. :)

Do people go swimming with their phones?

Older devices could generally handle splashes, e.g being used in light rain. Water damage seemed far less likely than drop damage.

Yes, I do.

But that's most likely 1% of the market. They can have their own phones. The rest of us just want water resistance for accidental contact with water and easily replaceable batteries.

I think you’re in a techie bubble. I would wager more people care about better water resistance (for example, because they want to use their phone in the shower) than about easily replaceable batteries.

The overwhelming majority of people will never even contemplate trying to replace their own battery no matter how easy it is (unless it’s literally 90s/2000s-style snap on).

We have our own phone, it's the iPhone. I paid the money for it because I wanted the full package. You can buy your own kind of phone that's not the full package. Many different vendors are making that.

The iPhone is not waterproof, it's IP68 rated meaning it's water resistant. Swimming with your phone is absolutely not recommended and I don't know a single person that does this (unless we count people using special waterproof cases for filming).

So no, the average smartphone buyer does not swim with their phone. Manufacturers had other incentives to make changing the batteries harder and there was no pressure from customers to increase the IP rating. In fact all you hear is people ranting how much it sucks that batteries are so hard to change these days.

Is that all you hear? I don't hear that at all. People around me didn't change the battery when it was easy either. I was always like an alien when I suggested it.

I remember when the iPhone first came out non-tech friends had recurring nightmares about forgetting to take their phone out of their pocket before swimming.

Phones being waterproof is a huge QOL improvement

Who is us? Likely a similar sized segment that wants to tinker and are Louis Rossman fans.