https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-recycling/
> Apple offers a battery replacement service for all MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro notebooks with built-in batteries.
I believe you probably mean “user replaceable” in your comments above. I do see the value in that for myself, which is why I still have my 2012 MacBook Pro. Nevertheless, I continue to my iPhone 6s after 3 battery replacements (I paid Apple for two and one was covered by them due to a recall).
I point this out because I think your criticism of Apple designing disposable hardware is less true of them than their competitors, at least in my experience. My Apple laptop and phone are the first Apple ones I’ve bought, and have outlasted my PC laptops and Androids by at least 2x.
If you want to make a criticism about Apple designing hardware that’s costly to repair, that’s something I could agree with.
By the way, the 2018+ MacBook Air does have a replaceable battery, in that Apple can replace it, so by extension, users can too (if they can track down a replacement).[2] Apple must adopt the adhesive pull tab approach on the MacBook Pro. The glued-in battery is completely unacceptable.
> I think your criticism of Apple designing disposable hardware is less true of them than their competitors, at least in my experience.
Keep in mind that, as the most profitable tech company in the world, Apple deserves to be held to a very high standard. Time and time again other companies follow their lead. Also keep in mind that Apple uses this profit to actively lobby against right to repair, making things worse for everyone in the long run.
Though laptops mostly don't care about repairability and any repairability they have is usually an accident, I don't think most other laptops on the market are quite as egregiously anti-repair as the MacBook Pro.
https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/MacBook+Pro+13-Inch+Touch+Bar+2...
As a user, my main concern with a battery replacement is that I get a new battery, that the device continues to work, and that it doesn’t take too long. If Apple decides the best way to meet those objectives is to swap the top case, I’d still consider the battery replaced.
> Assuming it's not user-replaceable nor Apple-replaceable, can we agree that it cannot be called a "replaceable" battery?
I could agree to calling these batteries “non-user replaceable”. What you’ve described is that Apple can do it, but they replace more components at the same time.
For what it’s worth, I like MacBooks but I skipped that generation of MacBook Pros because it didn’t seem worth it to me. I bought a non retina MacBook because I didn’t like the soldered on comments. After having 3 iPhone 6s battery replacements done by Apple, I guess I’m somewhat okay with glued in components as long as _someone_ can service it.
The only reason Apple "decides" this is because they designed the laptop with a non-replaceable battery. It would cost less money and be much less wasteful for them to replace just the battery, but they can't, because it's too difficult, because they designed it that way. This isn't the "best" way, it's most likely the only way for them to do it at their scale. They replace just the battery in the MacBook Air because they designed it with a replaceable battery.
The top case is replaceable -- Apple can replace it, and so can the user, if they can source a replacement. But the battery, individually? It's not replaceable. That iFixit guide you sent is not news to me. This is what I was referring to when I said:
> Yes, technically it may be possible, but if even the company who made it thinks it's too difficult, it's not very useful or accurate to call it "replaceable".
Most people (including myself) would never consider performing this procedure on their device. Apple won't do it. You would be hard-pressed to find a repair shop that would. It's far too risky and time-consuming.
Your definition of "replaceable" seems to be "theoretically possible to replace, even if extraordinarily difficult (by design)". Under this definition, basically any part in any product is "replaceable", so it is not a useful definition. Apple could probably not have made it any more difficult than it already is to replace the battery, and they don't even do this themselves, so it's perfectly fair to call it non-replaceable. Definitions are subjective; we must collectively decide how to use the word "replaceable" in this context, and I see no reason to adopt the almost meaningless, Apple-friendly definition. For example, depending on the definition, you might even be able to say the MacBook Pro battery is "user-replaceable". Does "user-replaceable" mean "designed to be replaced by the user", or "easily replaceable by the user", or "theoretically possible to replace by the user"? If the latter, then the MacBook Pro battery is user-replaceable, I guess.
I think a better definition of "replaceable" would be "feasible to replace, at least by the company who made it", and an even better definition would be "feasible to replace by the user". Either way, your definition is not useful.
> After having 3 iPhone 6s battery replacements done by Apple, I guess I’m somewhat okay with glued in components as long as _someone_ can service it.
The iPhone 6S battery uses adhesive pull tabs like the MacBook Air, so it is (easily) replaceable (by Apple, or by users, or by independent repair shops). The screen is lightly glued on, but that's standard procedure for phones these days, and the removal process isn't too difficult, risky, or time-consuming with the right tools [1].
In fact, it has been relatively easy to replace the battery in every iPhone released since at least the iPhone 4, and every iPhone since then has scored at least a 6/10 on iFixit [2]. So, afaik, the non-removable battery is currently only a problem with these Apple products: MacBook Pro (1/10 iFixit), AirPods (0/10), AirPods Pro (0/10).
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Kskal4s1sU, https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/iPhone+6s+Battery+Replacement/5...
The high price is not an issue for professionals, but it does mean people are _more_ likely to repair them, not less.
>Anyway, I think the idea that a $1300-$6500+ laptop ships with a glued-in, non-replaceable component that Apple themselves admits is "consumable" is just absurd, regardless of how long it may last.
This is where my view differs, since I can just hand it in for replacement, I don't have any issues with that. To me it doesn't matter at all if I can do it myself or not. Well except if you have to leave it at the Apple store for several days, then that's very inconvenient.
In general I just see it as a practical and financial question, and since I use my laptop 10 hours a day, and earn a very good salary from it, 200 dollars more or less every three years is really insignificant.
I wish it was easier to find actual data on battery life of 2016+ MBP models. Googling for "how long does MacBook Pro battery last" yields mostly useless results. There's a macOS app called "Coconut Battery" that tracks battery health over time, with an optional reporting feature that uploads the data to a server for comparison purposes.[2] Unfortunately the online viewer only allows you to view data by each individual model. It might be more helpful to aggregate the data from all 2016+ models, since the battery is the same, afaik. The online viewer also doesn't show how many reports the averages are based on. I wonder if it would be possible to scrape their data, to produce an evidence-based answer to the question "how long will my MacBook probably last?", rather than relying mostly on anecdotal evidence from Mac users.
Anyway, I think the idea that a $1300-$6500+ laptop ships with a glued-in, non-replaceable component that Apple themselves admits is "consumable" is just absurd, regardless of how long it may last.
[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201585
[2] https://www.coconut-flavour.com/ccbonline