> If it was, say $40 more or even $100 and was marketed as being repairable, I bet a lot of people would buy it.

Not all the costs are denominated in dollars.

You want a small phone with little wasted volume and waterproofness, you're using adhesive everywhere. There's not room for O-ring seals and flanges and fittings.

My phone being small makes it more practical.

My phone being waterproof makes it less likely to need repair.

My old Samsung Galaxy S4 was water proof and had a removable battery. At least, it was waterproof enough to be able to answer a call in the shower, if need be. I never fully submerged the phone, but casual exposure to water was absolutely fine. Oh, and it had O-rings around the edge of the battery cover. It was a pretty great phone. Its downfall was being too thin. It didn't fit great in my pocket and it ended up getting bent when I sat down. Didn't break the phone, but was enough to leave aermanent bend in the phone about 3/4 of an inch from the top and a little bit of delamination in the one corner. Even with the bend, I kept the phone for quite a while before it finally met its demise falling out of a coat pocket onto asphalt exiting a car.

Galaxy S4: 136.60 x 69.80 x 7.90mm -- 75.3 cm^3 -- 68 cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 1.10 cm.

IP67, 1m 30 minutes (AKA don't really immerse this-- even if you drop it in a puddle it may not be OK).

iPhone 13 Mini: 131.5 x 64.2 x 7.65mm -- 64.6 cm^3 -- 72 cm^2 screen, volume to screen area ratio 0.9 cm.

IP68, maximum depth 6m 30 minutes (AKA brief immersion in depths of less than a couple meters is OK).

There's a reason why all these adhesives are used everywhere.

There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4 came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing method.

IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of thickness for a removable battery.

Not that we should assume that IP68 has to be sacrificed. There aren't a lot of comparison points on that specific attribute. A Galaxy Xcover Pro is bulky but that's because it's much more ruggedized in general.

> There are bezels on the top and bottom because the S4 came out in 2013, not because of the waterproofing method.

There are bezels on the top and bottom because older phones were less volume efficient than they are today-- something that is enabled by the use of adhesive.

> IP67 is enough for me, and I will happily trade .3mm of thickness for a removable battery.

OK, but, I believe the penalty would be significantly more than .3mm, and most people won't.

> There are bezels on the top and bottom because older phones were less volume efficient than they are today-- something that is enabled by the use of adhesive.

Adhesive on the front of the phone, where the screen is, is just fine as far as battery removability is concerned. Are you sure that's a real factor in this comparison?

> I believe the penalty would be significantly more than .3mm

Well I'm trying to use the example you gave...

> and most people won't.

Citation needed. I've never seen anyone mention sub-millimeter differences in choosing one phone over another.

> Adhesive on the front of the phone, where the screen is, is just fine as far as battery removability is concerned. Are you sure that's a real factor in this comparison?

Adhesive all over the place helps remove volume. So does using annoying connector types, and putting together the parts of the phone in crazy jenga-like assemblies.

The reason why phones are less serviceable today is because they are packed tight. This packed-tight characteristic is harder to manufacture, but much harder to service. The reason why it is there is because the designers of the phone think it is necessary to make a phone that is desirable to the market.

> Well I'm trying to use the example you gave...

OK, so look at total volume vs. screen area, because I think this is really actually the important metric. In less volume, we got basically the same volume of battery and a bigger screen. The metric swung by 20%.

> Citation needed. I've never seen anyone mention sub-millimeter differences in choosing one phone over another.

Phones with replaceable batteries didn't do very well versus their competition, which is a pretty good hint that the ease of replacing batteries was not the primary buying factor. Phone size-- both thinness and total volume-- and screen size-- are unquestionably important buying factors.

I can’t see how Apple can make a net profit on the repair itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.

There is a sliver of the market who would rather replace their own battery on a 30 month old phone.

There is a gigantic wedge of the market who looks forward to their battery dying so they can get the swankiest new phone for just $39/month.

The repair is not $69. That one is purely for battery replacement in an otherwise-intact phone.

Screen replacements are more expensive, but the worst is actually damage that's neither the screen nor the battery - for example just a scratch on the housing or a cracked back glass are actually the most expensive options (even though said housing on eBay is around 20 bucks).

Similarly, water damage can usually be fixed by just cleaning the board and replacing a few mainboard components - that's something Apple will outright not do (good luck if you have valuable data on the device), and yet there's clearly a business there as both Louis Rossmann and Jessa Jones (from iPad Rehab) have been able to build profitable businesses on it.

> I can’t see how Apple can make a net profit on the repair itself at $69 for modern phones, so the profit motive/outcome must come from tilting people towards replacing a phone with a trade-in credit.

Apple could probably sell the devices at a loss and still make money overall on App Store commissions.

From the layperson’s perspective they already are repairable. Apple offers repair programs at a somewhat reasonable cost already. I doubt the average person will care if they themselves can repair it at home.

>this is a case of Apple don’t want to offer that choice because they make money off of the repairs.

Apple is on record saying they lose money on repair services. Or do you think they're just lying about that too?

Apple can say many things, that doesn't make them true. Of course they loose potential money on repairs if they can get customers to buy a new phone instead, that's how consumer electronics make Money.

A think a right to repair badge on products that promises schematics, parts, etc for a modest premium, would be a key selling feature for many important consumer purchases for a small but influential group of consumers.

Cars, appliances, tech, it’s all the same and some people are happy with replacing everything every couple years on obsolescence schedules, but some people hate it and want good quality stuff that works and lasts for a fair price.