Hacker News Reader

Comment by IBM | Hacker News Reader

It is replaceable (by Apple, authorized and unauthorized third parties). User replaceable batteries could increase waste by being less reliable overall. I know every TV remote I've owned with a battery door eventually ends up with a rubber band around it, and I think that's pretty much a universal experience.

Also we've had this debate for years already when Apple went to unibody Macbooks. The reliability and battery life only increased because of the better structural integrity and increased room for battery cells.

View on HN

It is not easily replaceable as with any other phone.

The issue is not creating waste, but wasting one's money on middle-men for replacing one's phone batteries.

>I know every TV remote I've owned with a battery door eventually ends up with a rubber band around it, and I think that's pretty much a universal experience.

You're relating a supposedly personal story to make your spin claims more relatable. Maybe you're like the people in late-night TV commercials who seemingly can't open a can of tomatoes without massive bleeding? ;)

> The issue is not creating waste, but wasting one's money on middle-men for replacing one's phone batteries.

Well I could say I'm spending that money on having a nicer phone that's sealed and seamless, rather than wasting it.

Sealed, seamless, performance-degraded, costly to service, with planned obsolescence.

It's quite obvious that it's a waste of money to pay middle-men to perform basic service on it for stuff a user can do at home with any other phone.

Right... but the point was I get something, in return for having to pay middle-men to service it. It's a trade I'm happy with. Maybe you aren't, but it works for me.

You can go to a store and ask someone there to replace the batteries of your TV remote or battery-swappable phone for free, if you like.

You're just being sarcastic for the sake of it and not really contributing anything to the discussion.

it seemed to me you were saying that your received benefit in exchange for not being able to change the battery... was that you now had to pay someone else to do it. which is a bit odd.

i would wager that their post was trying to highlight that.

> it seemed to me you were saying that your received benefit in exchange for not being able to change the battery... was that you now had to pay someone else to do it. which is a bit odd.

That would be odd! Which is why that's not what I said.

I said that the received benefit in return for having to pay for the batter to be replaced was 'a nicer phone'. I like the single form of the iPhone.

How do you know? Have you ever tried an iPhone with a replaceable battery? Is the iPhone 7 better than the iPhone 6 because it is more difficult to replace the battery?

This isn't a criminal trial. I don't have to defend it. I'm just telling you I'm happy with it. Someone told me I was wasting my money. I'm saying no I'm happy having to pay someone to replace the battery if it means I can have an iPhone instead of some other phone just because it has a user-replaceable battery.

It is not a criminal trial therefore you don't have to construct an argument?

Your original reply was you got a "nicer phone that's sealed and seamless". Apple innovated the smartphone_without_user_replaceable_battery. So I am asking you, would you not prefer to have the choice of having a similar smartphone (with pretty much all the benefits of the iPhone) but then _with_ a user replaceable battery?

You know what the beauty of such a device is? We wouldn't need this silly discussion. You'd just buy a new battery from Apple and be done with it. But for some magic reason, Apple is doing it different again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com