You can use tiny phillips/hex/torx screws instead of glue to hold the back in place.
You can use thin rubber gaskets and silicone grease to seal the case instead of a custom punched adhesive sheet that is nearly impossible to replace without destroying the device or compromising future water resistance. Literally every water resistant wristwatch made before Apple entered the market used to work this way. They're designed to have batteries replaced or mechanical bits serviced every few years and are expected to continue to be water resistant, and many of them are extremely thin. I'm surprised that no phones do this, as it seems like it could be marketed as a super premium build-quality feature ("built like a dive watch").
The batteries are already connectorized instead of soldered. You can use replaceable pull-tab-removable adhesive strips to hold the battery in place if needed, instead of glue that exceeds the yield strength of the material it's attached to.
Some of these things might cost a few cents more, but none of them should materially affect thinness, rigidity, water resistance, etc.
Water resistance is a feature that most people don't need (me included). It's nice to have, sure, but how many people choose one device over another because of it?
As for damage resistance, are you sure about that? Modern gadgets are ridiculously fragile for no good reason.
- A thinner device is likely lighter as well, which people do want. And, people do like the things they own to look good, which subjectively can include “thinness” - Water resistance is very nice for normal use, even if you don’t explicitly want to use your device in wet places. You can use it near the kitchen sink, in the rain, or even in the bath without damaging it. This plays into the next point: - Anecdotally, I think at least iPhones are getting less fragile. I had a lot of problems with earlier iPhones, like bendgate and cracked screens. Not only have I not cracked my screen with recent iPhones, I’ve gotten significantly fewer requests from folks for me to repair their screens. I drop my phone all the time, and it basically refuses to break. And I just use a cheap bumper case. Similar for other folks I know. Along with water resistance (which would come alongside dust resistance), I think devices are pretty sturdy.
All of that said, I’m a huge supporter of the right to repair. And I don’t think we have to give up nice designs and even thinness at the cost of repairability. I think if Apple even just changed their stance to be pro-repairability (even selling replacement parts), I’d be happier. I think a heatgun and some torx screwdrivers are cheap enough that it’s not that difficult to teardown an iPhone with some knowledge and practice.
My main gripes with repairing iPhones are the lack of quality parts. Buying cheap replacement parts is possible, but they are worse quality, and some things (like Touch ID) don’t work properly.
On top of that, I imagine you can still achieve thinness and water resistance with screws rather than glue. So I’m with you there, they could design the products to give us the same features and also be more repairable.
I want think and light devices - but not at the cost of everything else. A replaceable battery is important - realistically, how much thinner and lighter does a fixed battery make it?
I fully agree that some manufacturers (cough Apple) are obsessed with thinness, but I strongly believe the main driver behind fixed batteries is planned obsolescence.
i've worked with companies making the kinds of products you're concerned about. this never comes up. they are however terrified about lithium batteries in consumer products catching fire, and want to keep you, the user, far away from them. thin flat batteries also tend to stay a bit cooler, which helps in multiple ways.
I really wish it was. Nowadays devices are thin but heavy so it's unrelated.
I asked for this.
> Water resistance is a feature that most people don't need
I need this.
So how can Apple satisfy both of us? How about let them research the market and decide what to do themselves?
There's something so arrogant about the right-to-repair and user-serviceable crowd who think devices should be crippled to suit their minority requirements at the expense of the majority.
I want to buy a device once and use it forever. That's it. It's that simple. The glued-together construction artificially limits the lifespan of the device.
And, actually, it's possible to have both. I remember there were water-resistant Sony phones that had user-replaceable batteries.
Ok... but most people don't. So you aren't going to get that. You can't expect phone development projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars to cater to your particular views. And guess what more: people who buy a device just once aren't going to be anyone's priority for anything.
> And, actually, it's possible to have both. I remember there were water-resistant Sony phones that had user-replaceable batteries.
How thick were they, though?
Imagine HTC unveiled a new phone that is the Desire S but with a modern-ish multi-core CPU and a non-potato camera. Everything else — the design, the size, the screen, the removable battery — is the same. How many people would buy one, given that the current 7" glass slabs remain a (prevalent) option?
And, I mean, people buy and keep iPhone SE (1st gen) and 5S for that same reason. The SE wasn't a flop, despite having a small screen no waterproofing. There's definitely a market for these.
> How thick were they, though?
I don't remember the exact model to google it, so given the period, I'd bet at least 8 mm.
What we do right now is toxic and wasteful.
Plus how many devices does Apple save from needing to be replaced by adding water resistance?
And the recycling is itself toxic. Recycling, in the view of people seeking more robust, enduring gear, is mitigation, not a solution.
It is entirely possible to make things that last.
Like big pharma sees real cures as bad for business, buy once, use for a very long time is also bad for business.
There are huge costs associated with both ideas.
The problem is you don’t see your own cognitive dissonance in demanding the latest most powerful phones last longer, but refusing to use old phones longer.
And iPhones are held together by screws, the glue just holds the components together better making it harder for falls and bumps to break connections, which makes the phone last longer without any repairs.
Well, close to that, I have a first-generation Google Pixel because iOS is too crippled for my taste. And, yes, I've replaced the battery twice and the glued-down screen is a major nuisance.
In 2020, all phones are the exact same thing with minor differences.
Of course if you believe your design actually has a market, it’s never been an easier time in world history to manufacture your own smartphone designs with easy availability of parts, android, Kickstarter, Chinese contract manufacturers, etc.
Are you are the type of person who complains but never does anything about it?
Sure there is a reason (thinner devices, easier water resistance, harder for users to damage, etc.).
I'm not saying the reasons are necessarily worth the tradeoffs made, but this is not malicious planned obsolescence. The term "planned obsolescence" has become overused in my opinion, mostly in reference to Apple devices.