# Any benefit of non-removable battery technology in personal gadgets?



## theilluminati (Aug 28, 2013)

Like mobile phones, tablets and notebooks?

What do you think? Searched the forum but couldn't find any discussion.


----------



## Norm (Aug 28, 2013)

Tries to ensures that users don't buy cheap unsafe replacement batteries.

Norm


----------



## JacobJones (Aug 28, 2013)

Provides jobs for factory workers who recondition said devices.

Improves the soldering skills of people like myself who don't want to spend much money on the device or replace it, but want to keep using it long after manufacturers cease support.


----------



## hkenawy (Aug 29, 2013)

keeps you buying new products every time the battery fails


----------



## Yoda4561 (Aug 29, 2013)

You can make devices slimmer, there's no battery door to pop off when you drop it, and fewer safety issues from using low quality aftermarket batteries. This really bothered me back in the early days of lithium ion as batteries were likely to fail years before I would "get my moneys worth" from the product. Newer battery technologies abate some of that worry as many should last upwards of 10 years barring manufacturing defects.


----------



## Wrend (Aug 29, 2013)

I would prefer to use Eneloops in my portable handheld electronic devices, include my mobile phone and as such that they were designed to hold AA or AAA cells. Three loose AAs would work rather well in a mobile phone for me (similar voltage as Li-ion), and I'd never have to wait for them to charge. Unfortunately, I've never been able to find one.

At least I can still use them in my keyboards, mice, calculator, remotes, hobby transmitters and receivers, and of course lights. :thumbsup:


----------



## Norm (Aug 29, 2013)

Wrend said:


> I would prefer to use Eneloops in my portable handheld electronic devices, include my mobile phone and as such that they were designed to hold AA or AAA cells.


Thre AAA's would have insufficient energy to run a smart phone all day and I wouldn't want to carry a phone that is thick enough to swallow three AA's

Norm


----------



## ElectronGuru (Aug 29, 2013)

Installable packs confine cells to a block. This increases thickness and reduces capacity. Free of that shape, designers can spread the cells out:

http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing+MacBook+Air+13-Inch+Mid+2013+Battery/15205/1


So you gain capacity out of the box but can't swap as needed with spares. I used to relish putting two 4 hour packs into certain laptops that allowed it. It's not as satisfying, but a single 10 hour pack is actually better.


----------



## Wrend (Aug 30, 2013)

Norm said:


> Thre AAA's would have insufficient energy to run a smart phone all day and I wouldn't want to carry a phone that is thick enough to swallow three AA's
> 
> Norm



Three AAs would be more than small enough for my needs, if incorporated well into the back base of a phone, running lengthwise parallel with each other, and the phone could fit easily into one of my pockets or hands with room to spare.

I'm actually thinking about picking up some 2-way handheld 1.5 watt radios which have up to a "35 mile range" (realistically maybe 1 to 2 miles, but I'm also thinking about setting up a GMRS repeater base station, and/or using the local 50 watt one located in the downtown of our city that's open to use by GMRS licensees and their families) and using three AA Eneloops with those.  Should provide for about 23 hours of talk time using Eneloops in them.

I have no use for a "smart" phone, using my Nexus 7 for that kind of functionality (and more) instead, but I would prefer the longer run time of the AAs instead of AAAs on a phone.


----------



## Monocrom (Aug 30, 2013)

For a flashaholic who is educated about batteries ... None.


----------



## havequick (Oct 12, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> For a flashaholic who is educated about batteries ... None.



Probably the biggest benefit to the consumer is keeping the up fronts costs down. It may not seem like it at first glance, but creating a gadget with a removable battery is considerably more complicated than a non-removable battery. Latches, hooks, and swivels all increase the tooling costs for plastic parts. Removable batteries require connectors. Environmental sealing is more complicated when you have non-permanent housings. All of these things add to the cost of the product.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 12, 2013)

havequick said:


> Probably the biggest benefit to the consumer is keeping the up fronts costs down. It may not seem like it at first glance, but creating a gadget with a removable battery is considerably more complicated than a non-removable battery. Latches, hooks, and swivels all increase the tooling costs for plastic parts. Removable batteries require connectors. Environmental sealing is more complicated when you have non-permanent housings. All of these things add to the cost of the product.



Sorry, not buying it. Owned countless devices over the years that had compartments built into them that were perfectly good at allowing easy access to batteries to swap them out. We're talking everything from Made in China junk that cost $10 to complicated electronic devices costing a couple hundred bucks. If the guys putting out cheap junk can make a battery compartment tough enough to easily survive numerous battery changes without breaking, than anyone can.

Non-removable batteries means one thing and one thing only ... Consumer is forced to send the device back to the company that made it. Company then gets to charge an outrageous fee for what would otherwise be a simple battery change by the user on a similar device with a battery compartment that can be easily accessed. Outrageous fee covers inflated price for a new battery *+* the cost of replacing the old battery. (Which is also inflated.)

Honestly, just a BS way of making more money off of consumers who have already paid for the item.


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 12, 2013)

Keeps iFixIt in business.

My sense is that both the pros of integrated non-replaceable batteries and the cons of replaceable are generally overplayed.


----------



## havequick (Oct 13, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> Sorry, not buying it. Owned countless devices over the years that had compartments built into them that were perfectly good at allowing easy access to batteries to swap them out. We're talking everything from Made in China junk that cost $10 to complicated electronic devices costing a couple hundred bucks. If the guys putting out cheap junk can make a battery compartment tough enough to easily survive numerous battery changes without breaking, than anyone can.
> 
> Non-removable batteries means one thing and one thing only ... Consumer is forced to send the device back to the company that made it. Company then gets to charge an outrageous fee for what would otherwise be a simple battery change by the user on a similar device with a battery compartment that can be easily accessed. Outrageous fee covers inflated price for a new battery *+* the cost of replacing the old battery. (Which is also inflated.)
> 
> Honestly, just a BS way of making more money off of consumers who have already paid for the item.



You don't have to buy it, but it is reality. You may have _owned_ countless devices over the years but I am guessing you haven't designed or put into manufacturing any of those devices. The OP asked if there was _any_ benefit for the consumer and I explained at least one. Yes, the manufacturers also make more when the batteries are non-user replaceable through both service repairs, and because many consumers opt to just upgrade to the next model instead of having the battery replaced. But that does not mean that it does not cost less to manufacture a device having a fixed battery. It certainly does cost less. I didn't say anywhere that it was a matter of having the know-how to design a reliable or durable compartment that was user accessible--of course that can be done. It is simply a matter of production costs. For almost any given device (and with all other aspects being equal) the design decision to go with a removable battery versus a fixed battery will necessarily result in tooling and BOM costs that are higher. Injection molds with multiple cams and lifters, connectors, screws, gaskets, added assembly line steps, etc., are all real costs. And those costs are always passed on to the buyer, either directly or indirectly. If your iPhone had a user replaceable battery it would cost more to make, and if your Galaxy had an integrated battery it would cost less. However, many (if not most) gadgets today are obsoleted through software and lifecycle far earlier than the expected life of the rechargeable battery so the point is often moot anyway. 

So again, you don't _have_ to buy it, you could have just bought the Galaxy...


----------



## Norm (Oct 13, 2013)

One reason I can see for the manufacturer wanting your device to have an original battery as a replacement is to protect their reputation.

Not a battery but look at the way the press handles any incident that involves one of the tall poppies  WARNING! Apple iPhone Electric Shock Leaves Young Australian Woman Electrocuted and Hospitalized; How to Avoid Similar Incident [PHOTOS], these incidents are usually caused by non approved third party equipment but the OEM's reputation suffers, stories like this have nothing to do with the manufacturer but mud sticks

Why would they want you using anything other than original parts?

Norm


----------



## zespectre (Oct 13, 2013)

It -should- make it easier to waterproof said devices. Not that the manufacturers seem to bother (except in Japan where I'm told people will actually shower while talking on their phones).


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2013)

havequick said:


> You don't have to buy it, but it is reality. You may have _owned_ countless devices over the years but I am guessing you haven't designed or put into manufacturing any of those devices. The OP asked if there was _any_ benefit for the consumer and I explained at least one.



And I explained the biggest reason why companies now make such devices. I'm not going to debate what constitutes "reality" with someone who thinks it's a relative or subjective thing. It's not. Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it. Fact is, no; I haven't designed or put into manufacture any of the countless devices (both cheap or very expensive) which I've owned over the years. But ... so what?

What exactly is your point in bringing up that issue? The cheap devices that I've owned which had battery compartments that their owners could both easily and repeatedly access, exist. You might not like that fact of reality. You might wish it wasn't so. But once again, just because you wish it to go away; doesn't mean it will. My main point which you glossed over completely is that it's not even remotely expensive to built accessible battery compartments into electronic devices. Yes, things such as "... screws, gaskets, assembly line steps, etc., are all real costs." 

Yet, companies across the world are still able to put out cheap electronic devices with easily accessible battery compartments; without *major* costs passed along to consumers. Sorry, but that's reality. Sitting behind me is a cabinet full of such devices. They still work. I've swapped out their batteries more times than I can remember over the decades. (Yup, decades. Not years.) Cheap radios, cheap handheld Pac-Man games (the one specifically I mean was featured in an episode of "Magnum P.I."), old cellphones. Especially cellphones. I had a basic Samsung with an easily accessible battery that lay dormant for 5 years. In 2009, I was headed to Vegas and didn't want to risk possibly damaging or losing my high-tech cellphone at the time. (Also with an easily accessible battery.) So, I just swapped out the SIM card. Charged the old phone overnight, and I was good to go. If that old Samsung had needed a new battery, I could have bought one myself and installed it on my own for very little outlay of funds. Could have done it in a couple of hours instead of sending it in and (hopefully) getting it back in 7 - 10 days.

Sorry, still not buying that sales pitch about Smartphones costing less simply due to not being able to access the battery. And if it is true, likely we're talking a few bucks at the most. Far from anything significant at all. Despite now preferring to use basic cellphones myself, I used to own the earliest generation of Smartphones. Those had accessible battery compartments. Even factoring in the current rate of inflation, the cost difference today vs. just back then is negligible. It's just not that expensive, not even remotely, to add a cover and a few odds & ends in order to provide a owner-accessible battery compartment. Companies in business are in business to make money. One way to increase profit-margins is to entomb the battery within the device. If the owner needs a new battery, he has to pay over-inflated fees for both a new battery and the task of having the old one replaced. Fees that the company which originally made the device, gets to enjoy. That's just the reality of it.

Once again, you can disagree. Though the reality of it is rather obvious. At least to me. I'm willing to bet that it is to other members as well. I have no problem letting them read our posts and come to their own conclusions.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2013)

Norm said:


> Why would they want you using anything other than original parts?
> 
> Norm



Several years back, there were numerous stories of LG phones exploding in owner's pockets and even next to their faces while they chatted on them. There was one local man in my area who had a story done on him. Thankfully, his face was singed instead of badly burned. At first, LG blamed owners for using after-market batteries in their phones. But no other brand was experiencing issues of exploding phones back then. Many owners claimed they had not replaced the batteries at all.

Took awhile, but it was revealed that LG had gone with a lower-cost supplier. A supplier who was using counterfeit batteries and pocketing the profits. It took awhile, but LG fixed the problem and today still puts out phones. 

Even with a few dumb-*** owners who should know better than to put cheap junk inside their phones, companies invariably bounce back.


----------



## Norm (Oct 13, 2013)

Monocrom said:


> At first, LG blamed owners for using after-market batteries in their phones. But no other brand was experiencing issues of exploding phones back then. Many owners claimed they had not replaced the batteries at all.


That is the manufacturers problem but why should the manufacturer cop the flack when they aren't responsible?

Your post has nothing to do with what I posted. I was pointing out how a manufacturer is often held to account when they have no involvement in the problem.

Norm


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 13, 2013)

Norm said:


> That is the manufacturers problem but why should the manufacturer cop the flack when they aren't responsible?
> 
> Your post has noting to do with what I posted.
> 
> Norm



Just giving a different perspective on things. Sometimes it's owners who should know better. Other times it's the company itself.

You're right that when it's the former, companies don't deserve the bad press they invariably get. Unfortunately that's the nature of running any business. Years upon years to build up a great reputation. Takes less time to lose it though. That's why PR departments are a necessary branch of every company. Is it fair? No. But it effects every company out there regardless of the product they make or service they provide.


----------



## idleprocess (Oct 13, 2013)

Norm said:


> Why would they want you using anything other than original parts?


Of course they want you to use original parts sold under their label - they typically make usury margins of 400% or more on them. When I was working for a small manufacturer, we typically charged 4-6x our cost on parts. The only reason that the parts business wasn't a big profit center for us was because we were small with no scale to build efficiency.

One of the problems with custom li-ion/-poly cells and battery packs is the fact that they are highly proprietary. Even if they use semi-standard cells, the packaging, contact locations, and mechanical/aesthetic requirements of any housing are highly variable. In order for a 3rd party to replicate such batteries, they must exert no small amount of effort to duplicate what the OEM has done at appreciable expense via R&D effort and low-quantity custom parts. Since a 3rd-party replacement must be cheaper than OEM (or outperform it), a common means of cutting production costs is to use inferior components such as cheaper cells or other safety-critical components.

The proprietary issue is aggravated by numerous manufacturers using patented serial I/O communication between the device and the battery pack. The communication between device and battery is patented solely so the OEM can _extract rent_ from the marketplace. 3rd-party manufacturers that do not license the patent (at significant cost) risk their products simply not working or the host device might misbehave - ie refuse to charge the battery, discharge it at an accelerated pace, not use the full capacity, etc.

Industry could easily standardize on a handful of battery sizes - ie 18650 packs in standard sizes for laptops (or RC-style minimalist li-poly packs), flat prismatic li-ion cells for cell phones, etc - if it chose, but it seems they believe making fat _unit_ profits on low volumes is a more attractive proposition for their annual financial statements.



Anyway, back on topic.

A common argument for integrated non-replaceable batteries is that it forces the manufacturer to use quality components because they need to meet the warranty period. While this can be true for some manufacturers sitting at the upper end of the market, it's hardly a universal rule - especially as one comes down from companies headquartered in Cupertino (witness cheap li-ion/-poly powered _anything_ on amazon or fleabay). 3rd-party replacements for removable cells can certainly suffer from quality problems as I've mentioned above, however there are often good choices available from 3rd-party makes with brand reputations to defend.

Another is that it improves the structural integrity of the product. There is some truth to this, although actual execution in the market is highly varied and opinion on the subject often comes down to aesthetics rather than performance _(witness tech news sites ascribing miraculous build quality to things that "don't flex", without any useful examination of what that has to do with utility or durability)_. Part of the problem with removable batteries is designers' common insistence on more packaging than is necessary and integrating them into the exterior of the product - this used to be common with cell phones and it still the rule with laptops. Environmental resistance is certainly improved with fewer seals and mating surfaces, but the average consumer product simply isn't designed for much more than a splash to say nothing of immersion.


----------



## RickyPaul (Dec 24, 2013)

I can't say anything about it but i must say that there is no any difference between normal removable battery and non removable.batteries. I have seen many non removable batters who damaged soon.


----------



## RetroTechie (Dec 24, 2013)

Norm said:


> Tries to ensures that users don't buy cheap unsafe replacement batteries.


That's the official blurb (no offense Norm  ).



hkenawy said:


> keeps you buying new products every time the battery fails


And that's the *real* reason. Yeah a burning iPhone might reflect badly on the brand, but if user replaced the battery with a cheap knock-off, it's user's fault when things catch fire. And no reason OEM can't sell quality replacement batteries @ a decent price.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 29, 2013)

i'll take the high road here and refer to the thread topic. I do not want gadgets that have no way to replace a battery. It's just the flashaholic in me. LOL.

Bill


----------



## mcnair55 (Dec 29, 2013)

I have the best of both worlds off my son for xmas.He bought me a rechargeable torch where as all i do is plug the charger into the torch but if needed can unscrew the back and take out the enclosed 18650 battery.


----------



## curby (Jan 3, 2014)

tl;dr: The benefits are cost and packaging. 

Disclaimer: However, not all product types benefit equally from these improvements, and not all benefit enough to outweigh the disadvantages. 

Wall of text: In the case of laptops, you see a packaging improvement: you can pack individual rectangular cells in various nooks and crannies. Replaceable battery packs would be considerably bigger than those raw cells, and would be nearly impossible to fit into those little areas.

As has been mentioned, the addition of more components, electrical connection, and more points of failure would necessarily increase the price of building devices with user-interchangeable parts.

Lastly, if your interchangeable battery pack is built of cells encased in plastic, and this in turn sits in another fully enclosed battery bay, that's four layers of material around the battery. By contrast, a layer cake of case+battery is much thinner, allowing for simultaneously larger battery capacity and thinner devices. If you think the resulting larger battery capacity powers the device long enough for most users, you improve user experience for those users by not requiring them to buy and lug around replacement batteries.

In the case of flashlights, these benefits are marginal to begin with. There is little packaging benefit as bare cells are generally used in flashlight, and they already have the shape of the final device: there's little capacity improvement or weight/size reduction to be gained from sealing off he battery at the factory. 

The cost savings are likely also negligible, as the electrical and mechanical connections that a user would use to access the battery are probably similar to the ones you would use at the factory when assembling the light.

These meager benefits pale further based on the expected run times of lights and the needs of users. A city user might only ever need one battery worth of use: they can carry the light and no spares at all, and not be burdened by the cost and weight of either a larger integrated battery pack or spares. A more demanding user might appreciate the benefits of a larger integrated pack, but they might prefer a smaller light along with a larger set of backup batteries.


----------



## Unicorn (Jan 20, 2014)

They can be made smaller and better seald from the elements while being smaller. No battery door, less bulk of the battery pack itself. And if it's something made to be water proof there is only less point of ingress, without having to have a larger seal and locking mechanism. The battery dor on the Galaxy S4 Active really isn't all that great for instance. It's easy enough to not get it tight enough. However, I'd rather be able to replace the battery myself, either to get a larger capacity one, even if oversized, or to replace an older one because I decided to keep my phone longer than a year or two.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 20, 2014)

I gambled on an integrated battery with my new phone. We'll see how it goes. Positively _sips_ juice relative to all of my previous smartphones, so perhaps it will last for a few years without obvious loss of runtime until the phone's eventual obsolescence leads to yet another replacement.


----------



## Spiffytexan (Feb 19, 2014)

I have a huge zero lemon battery on my Galaxy s3! 4-8 DAYS OF RUNTIME! 

Integrated are silly imo


----------



## ScaryFatKidGT (Mar 16, 2014)

Fit a slightly larger battery and cost? and language deleted everyone off... I just wish everything took 18650's so I could put 3400mah ones in everything lol

I love being able to swap batterys on my BB Q10.


----------



## theilluminati (Nov 26, 2014)

Thank you for your insights so far!

*Here is the deal*: I need a new (small, portable) laptop. Current and liked models are sold with a more or less non-removable battery (less removable: MacBook Air; more removable: everything else; think of a Chromebook).

I use the laptop 99% plugged in at a home/office setting, and in the 1% cases when I am on the road I can still plug it it.

So I thought I _might_ want to remove the not-so-removable battery and simply charge it to 50% every 6 months and keep it in storage (laptop gets lighter as a portable device as well; when reselling later I can resell it with a newish battery).

*Question*: do you recommend the above practice; anyone did it? then every 6 months will I still need to insert the battery to the laptop to charge or can I charge outside it without special gear?

*Main question*: how to preserve battery life in the *MacBook Air*, especially, can you, or are you supposed to remove its battery? (It is quite expensive to just kill it by charging - discharging all the time for no reason)

See this thread - and linked article - for reference as well: [Lifehacker article] Simple/cheap way to cut off charging at 80% of battery?

*Bottom line*: so, you ain't supposed to charge your batteries over 80%, and discharge fully; non-removable batteries in portable devices like smartphones and tablets might be fine but I find them in laptops overkill.


----------



## curby (Nov 26, 2014)

Haven't read the entire thread since my last post here; just responding to the post above. Apple's battery management tech is quite good. Just cycle the battery at least once a week and you'll be fine. The thing to NOT do is leave it plugged in all the time without discharging it at all. So if you're on the road, drain the battery even if there's a plug available. If you aren't on the road that week, let the battery drain one day anyway. 

In my honest opinion, if you buy a laptop with the plan of micromanaging the battery and the goal of increased resale value, it's a fool's errand that you'll soon abandon anyway because it's like manual data backups (you'll do it for a week and then forget).

Enjoy your MacBook, and don't sweat the battery too much.


----------



## Norm (Nov 26, 2014)

curby said:


> Enjoy your MacBook, and don't sweat the battery too much.


I'm of the same opinion when it comes to my iPhone, I have always put my phone on charge at about ten PM And it sits on charge until eight AM every morning. I've treated every phone I've ever owned with a lithium battery this way and have never experienced any sort of battery problem. 

Norm


----------

