TheMarcus
Well-known member
Difference is Samsung is a market leader.
Drop the removable battery and what's keeping longtime LG fans from switching to Samsung or other OEM's?
Future of LG and removable batteries
- Thread starter flyingkytez
- Start date
Drop the removable battery and what's keeping longtime LG fans from switching to Samsung or other OEM's?
Most of the benefits have to do with how devices are engineered. There are many more options available and far fewer compromises required in order to produce a device with a sealed battery as opposed to more compromises and fewer options with a user removable battery.
I think this is easiest to discuss if we're not assuming each other's arguments and actually accurately understand both positions.
Let's reverse it.
What are the benefits of a removable battery? Aside from the obvious, you can remove it and put a different one in. That's the "0 to 100 in under a minute" argument. (I'll revisit this)
I was hoping this one would come up. I strongly disagree that it would have helped them, at all. I actually believe the opposite, that it would have made the situation far worse.
You're exactly right - those that are choosing LG solely because of this feature will have no reason to remain. Luckily most LG users are with LG because they love the products LG is putting out and not for any single feature. Single feature buyers are actually incredibly rare. As I estimated earlier, it's likely that the number of people who are fanatical about removable batteries represent less than 3 in 1,000 consumers - and that is a large number when applied against a couple billion sales, but in reality, 99.9% of those probably could get by with a sealed battery using reasonable alternatives, such as strategic charging, better care for their devices, portable chargers, etc. It might not be what they'd want, but they'd have little difficultly adjusting. So we're really talking about something like 3 out of every 100,000 people that would be adversely impacted if there were 0 phones released with removable batteries.
Also, as indicated earlier, water resistance is not only not the only argument for sealed batteries, it's one of the weakest arguments available for. Resting an opposition case on this one point isn't going to work out well because it's one I'm willing to dismiss in at least two of my earlier posts in this very thread - because the Galaxy S5 had both. Water resistance is EASIER with a sealed battery, but Samsung made both work. I think we'd be better served to focus on the other pros and cons.
Another good point is that nowdays smartphones are "good enough" and people have no reason to upgrade except for better camera quality and battery life. With a sealed battery, it'll force people to upgrade eventually. My last two Samsung phones (S6 & S7) were already showing signs of battery wear (much weaker than when I first owned it). Either way, I'll be disappointed if all flagships went that route with a sealed battery, but I'll have to keep up with the times if I have to.
Now another topic: Google wants to eliminate the micro SD card.
Now another topic: Google wants to eliminate the micro SD card.
We should go to one of the existing threads for that topic. It's a good debate to have, but it'll make this one far more muddled.
It could have helped -- But if we go with this logic that would mean they are using removable to plan ahead in case it fails that hard? I doubt any manufacturer plans for "Well if it just explodes we can do this .." -- They try and not have them do that. Also this was only with the Note 7. How successful is the S7/S7 Edge ? I am pretty sure they aren't hurting. Even after the Note 7 fiasco they still were okay money wise. That doesn't happen if you are not able to sell phones.
I would think it is safe to say a removable battery is not the driving for LG. I am sure it is a perk and for some it is a must have but I doubt majority buy simply for that one reason alone.
I think removable batteries would have made the entire debacle not only more expensive for Samsung, but it would have made it more dangerous for consumers.
TheMarcus
Well-known member
Am I reading that you think replacing batteries would have been more expensive for Samsung than either replacing phones or recalling phones and giving people their money back?
Yes, it would have been more expensive and more dangerous. It would have been more expensive because 1) More phones would have burnt, more liability 2) All of the phones would have to have been recalled anyways 3) Fewer people would have returned them, thinking they could get away with it which would lead to #1 again. It would have been more dangerous because of 1 and 3 previously, more phones in the wild = more being used = more risk.
As it is, they took a nearly $20 billion write down. If there were serious injuries or deaths and their entire stance was "we sent out new batteries and asked people to responsibly recycle their defective ones" - they'd be screwed; possibly out of the mobile business. This would be compounded by what we know now: the second wave of batteries were also defective. Keep in mind, they didn't know that then.
Ntchwaidumela
Well-known member
I totally agree! If they seal the V-series phone, I would switch to another manufacturer. I'm sure a ton of others would too. Why would I stick with a phone that doesn't give me the main feature I want, when I can get an equally good phone from Samsung, or Google, etc.?
Do they have better phones other than the battery being removable? Or are they just equally good?
Ntchwaidumela
Well-known member
Logically, when the battery problem was discovered, it would have been far less hassle and expense to replace a $40 battery than an $800 phone. Not the problem one, but the correct battery.
That's theorically true, but it misses the point that they didn't know what the problem was (that it was the battery) and they didn't know that the batteries that they tested and thought were safe for the second round had a totally different problem that had similar results. So they could have attempted that, replaced just the batteries, probably had a higher retention rate of phones in the wild and saved money up front - only to carry a boatload more risk, have disastrous results and have to recall the devices anyways. It also discounts the smaller number of people that would have participated in the recall without it being heavily pushed on them, which also increases the risk. The bottom line is that without having the knowledge we have now and having it 9 months ago, Samsung would not have been able to get away with only recalling the battery and if they did attempt to do so, it's likely they would have seen far worse results. That's not a decision they'd be able to justify (at the moment) in any way because that knowledge wouldn't have been available in a timely fashion.
Jeremiah Bonds
Trusted Member
How were they tip toeing? They produced the report on what happened like they said.
LuxuryTouringZone
Trusted Member
"Future of LG and removable batteries"
I hope it'll be just the G6, and they leave the V30 alone. You do not need to seal a phone's battery to achieve IP67 or IP68 water resistance. The Samsung Galaxy S5 and Kyocera DuraForce XD are excellent example of phones that had removable batteries and IP67 & 68 certifications respectively.
I hope it'll be just the G6, and they leave the V30 alone. You do not need to seal a phone's battery to achieve IP67 or IP68 water resistance. The Samsung Galaxy S5 and Kyocera DuraForce XD are excellent example of phones that had removable batteries and IP67 & 68 certifications respectively.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
[Chatter] "Where everybody knows your name ..."
- Started by zero neck
- Replies: 53K
-
Thinnest case with some grippiness
- Started by fuzzywuzzywazzafuzzy
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram