This is unrelated to replaceable batteries. Apple would want to do this anyway, because not everyone will replace their battery (which costs money even on phones designed to make it trivial) at the slightest sign of trouble.
Of course, since the many folks are extremely inconvenienced without a phone for a day or two for servicing, I wonder how good the uptake on the post-warranty battery replace really is. It's a 1 hour operation to replace-and-upgrade.
The time Apple takes to replace the batter is roughly how long it would take me to unpackaged a replaceable battery myself.
The only drawback to Apple's choice (and incidentally just about every other manufacturer's as well) is that I have to drive to a location rather than having a replacement battery delivered.
So there's a drawback, but it's not as drastic as people seem to imagine. I suspect most people are just unaware that Apple (or third parties) will perform this task so cheaply.
And it's now somehow the users' fault for jumping to conclusions.
I emphasized that they call it a feature because they've hidden it and refused to admit it until decent proof appeared. Which is just shady.
Not a fan of this logic.
They aren't user replaceable and that is 100% the correct design choice.
Ah yes, it'd be a shame if Apple didn't get a pound of flesh from the service techs who pay for the license. Very good point.
It's 100% the correct design choice if your goal is to perpetually force users to upgrade. But hey, at least the phone is sliiiightly slimmer. Because what everyone's desperately been asking for is a slightly slimmer phone.
Phones are designed without user replaceable batteries because it makes it slightly cheaper to manufacture, generates revenue from users who require replacement, and makes it less desirable to keep an existing device vs buying a new one.
Why? Imagine that Apple sold batteries at cost, so people replaced the battery in their phone instead of throwing away the whole phone. The only loser would be Apple, since they sell fewer phones.
So for whom is it the correct design choice, Apple or its customers?
If consumers demanded replaceable batteries by only buying phones that had them, Apple would not be selling all these phones.
What's your point again? To create drama? Right, that's what I thought.
My point is: it's a fantastically anti-user-interest system and yet another example of the perpetual forced obsolescence that people refuse to call Apple on. And their groundbreaking work in forced obsolescence and PR aircover has made it acceptable for every other phone manufacturer to follow suit. Hooray!
We're in this mess because Apple decided that replaceable batteries were not in its best interests. It then applies further technical fixes as a consequence. All of these fixes decrease the longevity of the device as a consequence.
But hey, our phones are 0.05cm thinner and yay, they're 2% cheaper for Apple to manufacture. Whew.