Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebo
I am curious what is the design philosophy of manufacturers such as Amazon, Apple and now B/N to adopt non-user replaceable battery. Is this to enable a cheaper or lighter design or they are betting on the user to just toss the gadget out when the battery dies? It should be noted that gadgets are being obsolete at an alarming rate. The darling gadget last year becomes a dinosaur today.
|
In general, it's a cost issue, and often also a design issue. It's almost always cheaper to put in a non-removable battery, as you don't have to worry about the engineering issues associated with the battery cradle/contacts (hard-wiring it in is easier and thus cheaper). Sometimes it's also a design issue, as not only can a non-removable setup be less bulky, but it eliminates the need for battery doors and such (plus again, it's easier and cheaper to mold a single solid piece of metal or plastic than to mold 2 pieces and make sure they fit together properly and can withstand the strain of repeated (un)latchings). Every bit of bulk that can be removed from a device is extra space for something else (MicroSD card slot, headphone jack) or a bit of weight saved.
Mind you, I really don't like the idea of non-removable batteries. And I've heard the costs saved usually don't amount to much per device ($1/device?). But if you're making 1 million devices, and manage to save $1/device...that adds up. I do think many manufacturers use the design or cost aspect to justify non-removable batteries, but in some situations it does make sense outside of "planned obsolescence."