> "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.