> If you could, iPhones would already have removable batteries.

A crazy take since apple has very clearly made anti-consumer moves in the past.

If having a baked in battery caused there to be 1% more iphones sales which would they choose.

You were likely nodding along when Jobs was out there telling people they were holding the phone wrong.

My point is that if it's all of those things (crucially, including cheaper), then it's a Pro-Apple move to manufacture iPhones that way. There would be no downside. To the extent they make anti-consumer moves at all (which I'll cede for the sake of keeping this brief), they do so because those moves are pro-Apple.

▲

baggy_trough 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The crazy take is thinking that a design choice that causes there to be 1% more iPhone sales is an anti-consumer move.

	▲	Jensson 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Planned obsolesce are anti consumer and increases sales. So yes anti consumer design can increase sales volume, that is often the point. Replaceable batteries lets you use your phone longer, that means people will take longer to buy a new phone and reduce iphone sales. Such anti consumer moves requires regulations to be fixed, since there is no incentive for the company to be pro consumer here.
	▲	tempest_ 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The point is that the incentives are not pointing towards "make better phone" they are pointing towards "sell more phones" Sometimes "better phone" drives "sell more phones" Sometimes it doesn't.
	▲	anonymars 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Can you explain your reasoning? Is there some minimum sales threshold required, and 2 million iPhones wouldn't meet it?