> Apple makes an original, user-hostile decision

You make it sound like the decision comes with no benefits.

All of the hardware to support removable battery means less space for the battery.

And especially in the early days the iPhone was struggling to reach a normal working day.

R2R enthusiasts are incapable of seeing any decision from a perspective that isn't their own personal fetish for tinkering. So any and all advantages of sealing the battery into the chassis are just waved away and not acknowledged at all.

Lighter devices? That's irrelevant, no one cares about device weight.

Cheaper to manufacture? That's just a ploy to gasp make more money! How dare they?!

Waterproofing? Well I don't go SCUBA diving with my phone, so clearly no one else does. And if they do, just put it in a ziplock bag!

And so on.

There are reasonable levels of supply chain integration, and then there is user-hostility. With Apple we've seen both sides of the coin, so you'll have to excuse the people who accuse them out the gate.

It stands to reason that a company as large as Apple is capable of making decisions that impact large amounts of people. It's not just Right to Repair enthusiasts that care about that impact, it's extended to regulatory bodies that are tired of meaningless standards competition and arbitrary market separation. Apple can excuse these base truths with whatever feature or novelty they choose, but it doesn't overwrite the insidious functionality of their choices.

You're basically describing the situation in reverse, from the perspective of foreign markets and regulatory watchdogs:

"Another special, licensed connector for data and power? Why do we need that!"

"An App Store? Why give Apple complete control over a feature as basic as installing software?"

"Only one browser engine? How are new technologies intended to compete on a platform that doesn't acknowledge newcomers?"

So on and so forth.

These "advantages" to sealing the battery are incredibly weak/false.

The weight difference from sealing the battery is negligible. If it saved several hundred of grams, it would one thing, but a replaceable battery adds at most tens of grams.

Even if the sticker price of device is cheaper, I would still have to pay more to replace the entire device once the battery is worn. This is the primary reason for most companies sealing the battery, to force buying an entire phone. Having a replaceable battery would save me money.

Sealing the battery was not responsible for waterproof phones. There were already waterproof phones with replaceable batteries.

On the contrary, I find in amazing to see the lengths that Apple apologists will go to point out these spurious reasons why Apple included non-removable batteries.

The only point that you really list that is defensible is waterproofing. Lighter devices? Cheaper to manufacture? The idea that making a removable battery would make a phone noticeably heavier or impact the cost more than a cent or two is laughable.

Even with the waterproofing, I'm dumbfounded on how one hand people can laud Apple for their truly amazing engineering capabilities (I may question its utility but the Vision Pro is really an incredible piece of engineering), yet somehow a waterproof removable battery (which some other phones have) is beyond their grasp.

Removable batteries requires valuable space for the mechanism to hold the battery, transfer the power from the battery, eject the battery etc. It doesn't come for free.

At least based on what I've seen on camera mechanisms you're taking about 10-20% reduction in the battery cell.

Since the EU law is about making batteries "removable with normal tools" one could argue that encapsulating the battery like a camcorder battery with a plastic hull isn't needed. A normal pouch with contacts will do.

Assuming "All day battery life" (24h) a 1% reduction in battery life is about equal to 15minutes but frankly I can't see the replaceable battery reduce the capacity at all if you are doing halfway good engineering - there is plenty of void space in an iPhone even now. By that I mean space over/under PCBs where the battery cannot go because it is still just a rectangular polygon even in say the iphone 15. I think it has 2 rectangular smaller cells with a casing around them to make an L shape.

So why doesn't apple forgo the "casing" and take that sweet 10 to 20% extra capacity? :)

In the apple devices i have seen the insides off there is plenty of room to add screwed brackets that hold the battery in - the battery does not fill all available space because even pouch cells are basically rectangles. That means in every curve there is plenty of space for a screw post or hook.

But I agree that "Apple makes an original, user-hostile decision" is a bit too simplistic. I have long since come to the conclusion that Apple simply always chooses the cheapest option for them in cases where user-serviceability is concerned or to maybe put it another way they ignore user-serviceability semi-actively. Routing screw posts costs time and wear on tools. screwing in extra screws costs time thus just mainly gluing the battery in place is the cheapest option.

Soldering on flash and RAM saves on costs and makes the PCB design easier. At the same time it "locks" the longevity of the device neatly. This leads to not-overlong replacement cycles simply for practicability reasons - for instance modern chrome eats all the RAM.

I have huge respect for John Siracusa. His articles at Ars Technica, pragmatic opinions on the world of computing always spoke to me, but this article sounds like something written by John Gruber.

Apple indeed innovated in multiple ways and markets, but un-removable batteries wasn’t one.

I also have massive respect for Siracusa and I find I have a few similar opinions that made it really enjoyable listening to him and reading his articles.

But over the years, as John has gotten older (and as the other members of ATP) I find that my values are starting to diverge. It feels much more of a news show than a tech show and I find I’m not gaining much insight from their discussions or opinions. Even their tech insights are starting to feel out of touch with the rest of the world.

Marco was always disconnected because he's well off and could do whatever he wanted (good for him). When Casey and John had jobs, they were able to keep Marco grounded and the trio really worked. Now that Casey and John both only really do the podcast now, they all are a bit disconnected. I'm happy for all them to make money doing what they love, but the show definitely changed once they all became essentially full time podcasters.

I didn't know John pivoted to full time podcasting. This actually explains, IMHO, the shift towards a more forgiving view of Apple's product directions.

Indeed, if I remember correctly, he quit about 12 months ago or so. It made me wonder what the earning of a high profile podcast can be! Also how much that can fall away when the advertising business drops (as they constantly like to remind me, multiple times on every show…).

It makes me confused that while they’re working on the show(s) full time, the quality is dropping? It’s less interesting somehow?

I did the math a couple of years ago, and it came out to roughly $100k per podcaster. This has obviously dropped off significantly the last year with ad sales in general tanking.

Siracusa's simpering, consoomer defensiveness for Apple has become intolerable. He seems unable to deal with the fact that his precious company's business practices are incompatible with his political/enviromental beliefs. Instead concocting this 'blue ocean' dream that Apple will switch back to user serviceable batteries, creating a new market where there competitors don't dare tread.

What?

There are still plenty of Android devices that have user serviceable batteries, but they don't sell as well because what the majority of users want is to minimize size and weight at any cost. The minority of geeks out there who think something like this is important doesn't move the needle. Apple (particularly under Tim Cook) only cares about maximizing profits. Their environmental schtick is merely dressing in front of the ruthless profit making machine at work.

Obviously Siracusa can't deal with the dissonance that his precious Apple doesn't care about the environment as much as he does. Thus typing up silly articles like this...

> they don't sell as well because what the majority of users want is [...]

I think in the current market we have no idea of what the majority of users want because there's no combination of all the available options.

The majority of users might value iOS more than any specific hardware feature. Second to that, they might value price and career rebates.

That makes fringe android phones failures irrelevant and would leave us with only random guesses on what people would want outside of what Apple and Sumsung is offering right now.

Exactly. Just because a company sells something doesn't mean the majority of users want it that way. I would love for Apple to sell a laptop akin to the 2006 MacBook and MacBook Pro but with modern components, complete with removable batteries as well as user-upgradeable RAM and storage. It doesn't need to replace the existing Apple laptop lineup; it could supplement it (let's call it the MacBook Pro Max or the MacBook Extreme or something to that effect). Of course, Apple doesn't sell this product, and so I have to choose between two compromises: dealing with non-replaceable components so I could use macOS, or dealing with Windows or Linux so I could use something like a Framework laptop. In other words, I must choose between macOS or user-serviceable laptops, and unless Apple experiences noticeable declines in sales, this won't change; in fact, even PC laptops have largely moved toward the Apple model; even many ThinkPads have soldered RAM these days.