> For that to happen there obviously needs to be a supply worth writing home about.

Not really. If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers did a market analysis and decided it’s not even worth it to offer that. So either their analysis is extremely wrong and it actually would sell, or the consumers don’t want to buy it that bad.

▲

spankibalt 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> "If there’s no supply, it’s probably because the manufacturers [...] decided it’s not even worth it to offer that."

You got it surrounded. Why offer devices that you have to support for a longer time (e. g. enterprise models) when there's more money to be made when you enshittify (which obviously goes beyond just batteries)?

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Because you’ll be the only manufacturer making the desired product and have 100% of this market? If there are multiple manufacturers competing, surely one of them would do it if it’s profitable?

▲

spankibalt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, sure, some of them already do. Their market share is practically negligible, enterprise players (e. g. Samsung with their Galaxy Xcover line) notwithstanding. That, on a strictly personal level, still doesn't mean they offer a desirable product.

▲

echoangle 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but it’s an indicator that the general consumer doesn’t care that much about it.

And I say that as an absolute supporter of the mandatory USB C. But I don’t think the average consumer cares enough about it that apple would have switched without being forced.

	▲	spankibalt an hour ago \| parent [-]
		If we talk about the same "average consumer" it describes an individual that doesn't care for technical minutiae beyond a couple of specific use cases (telecomms, photo/video shooter, socials). These people are precisely the reason for why a regulator has to jump in if a government wants to implement sustainability efforts.