Future of LG and removable batteries

[Aquila]

This is totally anecdotal, but it's what made me willing to consider the merits of non-removable when I started reading about them. But I think the best example of the case for and against would be to consider the case for and against substituting Tablets instead of Phones.

So far my phones with removable batteries were the LG Ally (never swapped it), HTC Thunderbolt, Galaxy Nexus and LG G4. TBolt and Gnex both REQUIRED extra batteries, they struggled at getting a day's use in almost any conditions. The G4 we had the free extra battery and cradle, but don't think it was ever used.

So far my devices without removable batteries have been the Moto X '13, '14, '15 (Pure), Moto Z Force, Moto G '14, '15, G4 Plus 64, Nexus 6, Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, Pixel, Pixel XL, Zenfone 2, iPhone 5s. The thing they all have in common is better build quality and better battery life than all of the devices in the first list. Most of that is because they're newer devices, etc.

My use case is also slightly weird, because I carry two phones on a daily basis and so some of my work/play processing is offloaded to one device or the other which reduces drain somewhat on both.

 

[Aquila]

You've discounted the fact that consumers buy phones without removable batteries because the choice has been removed by the manufacturers. Those who really like Samsung phones, for instance, have no choice.

I do take this into consideration, but you're right that it becomes discounted as soon as we shift to talking about the number of consumers who will not purchase a phone that lacks a removable battery. Since everyone that bought a phone from the biggest companies all either preferred or accepted a sealed battery.

 

[Ntchwaidumela]

I do take this into consideration, but you're right that it becomes discounted as soon as we shift to talking about the number of consumers who will not purchase a phone that lacks a removable battery. Since everyone that bought a phone from the biggest companies all either preferred or accepted a sealed battery.

"Forced to accept" would be more accurate. Many of those "forced to accept" sealed phones bought them because of the specs and promised performance, not necessarily because they preferred a sealed phone. They were forced to give up the option of having a high performance phone AND being able to get through the day without charging their phone. If LG does away with the replaceable battery option on its highest end phone, I may also be forced to go to another manufacturer with the same or greater performance. I DON'T LIKE BEING FORCED! #45 is doing enough of that right now.

 

[Mooncatt]

So far my devices without removable batteries have been the Moto X '13, '14, '15 (Pure), Moto Z Force, Moto G '14, '15, G4 Plus 64, Nexus 6, Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, Pixel, Pixel XL, Zenfone 2, iPhone 5s. The thing they all have in common is better build quality and better battery life than all of the devices in the first list. Most of that is because they're newer devices, etc.

Since you listed yours, here's my experience.

Removable batteries: LG Optimus S, Droid Bionic (with Moto extended battery after misuse killed the factory one early), LG G4 and V20.

Sealed batteries: Moto Razr (internal battery short, warrantied out), Note 7 (we all know that one), S7 (has internally shorted once or twice, haven't got around to replacing yet). The only one that didn't have a problem directly related to the sealed battery was the HTC One M8, but I had two where the USB ports went bad. Had the batteries been removable, I would've had the option of charging on a cradle and keep using them. As it was, my M8's were bricked from not being able to charge them (wireless charging wasn't an option due to metal bodies).

 

[Aquila]

"Forced to accept" would be more accurate. Many of those "forced to accept" sealed phones bought them because of the specs and promised performance, not necessarily because they preferred a sealed phone. They were forced to give up the option of having a high performance phone AND being able to get through the day without charging their phone.

I'd go with a less strong term than forced, but your point is quite right. It was always an option, do you want this or do you want that - but the options are never what everyone would want, it's always choose between this feature or that feature. There's never been an iPhone 7+ with a removable battery, so we have no idea how such a device would sell.

 

[Almeuit]

"Forced to accept" would be more accurate. Many of those "forced to accept" sealed phones bought them because of the specs and promised performance, not necessarily because they preferred a sealed phone. They were forced to give up the option of having a high performance phone AND being able to get through the day without charging their phone. If LG does away with the replaceable battery option on its highest end phone, I may also be forced to go to another manufacturer with the same or greater performance. I DON'T LIKE BEING FORCED! #45 is doing enough of that right now.

I wouldn't say they were forced by being fooled into specs and what not -- the manufacturer just changed their design. It is the same as any product really... They change / modify what they do and sometimes it is going to cut some people due to it.

There is no perfect design and some may want water resistance so LG loses them as customers -- just like if they remove the removable battery then some may not buy due to that. They can't really please everyone so they will most likely do what most manufactures do and go with "What does the majority of the customer base want?". We will have to wait and see of course for sure but most "leaks" I have seen seem to be going down the sealed route. Maybe with the V30 it will be the same and they just make the LG G6 be their competitor to Samsung and others? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Aquila]

Maybe with the V30 it will be the same and they just make the LG G6 be their competitor to Samsung and others?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To me that's the best case scenario. Keep something for the niche crowd that's a fantastic phone with the removable whatevers and then make a mainstream device to compete with the mainstream crowd.

 

[anon(394005)]

The manufacturers have forced consumers to purchase phones with sealed batteries. They've dictated what kind of phone you buy and taken away your choice. For instance, I was a devoted Samsung Note user. However, when Samsung took away the option of swapping the battery, mandating that I carry around a charger/battery pack, I switch to the LG V10 (and now V20). I have my choice of swapping out the standard battery or using an extended battery in my normal day of moderately heavy/heavy use. I don't go swimming with my phone tucked into my trunks, shower with my phone, use it when I'm in the restroom, etc. Nor do I carry it around in my hand when in monsoons. So, like most people with good sense, I don't need a waterproof phone. I need a phone that gives ME the choice of how to extend my phone over a normal day of use. I get two full days of my normal use from the extended battery I've installed on my V20. Prior to that, I was able to switch to a fully charged battery prior to getting the extended battery. You've discounted the fact that consumers buy phones without removable batteries because the choice has been removed by the manufacturers. Those who really like Samsung phones, for instance, have no choice. Samsung makes great phones. So do the other manufacturers. But batteries suck! The technology hasn't kept up. And when they try...Note 7 disaster. I ask you: Do you need a waterproof phone? Do you NEED a sealed phone? Or do you have one because that's the only choice you have for the phone you want? So, your figures are skewed based on what the manufacturers offer. Three in every 100,000 consumers??? Exaggerate much? Would you still have the phone you currently use, if it had a replaceable battery option? Or would you spurn it BECAUSE it had that option? Did you buy it because it was sealed? Or would you not have bought if you could replace the battery? Performance figures in there somewhere. What if it gave you great performance AND had a replaceable battery?

I think these past posts from another thread say all you need to know...

Everyone has different priorities. I personally despise removable batteries in mobile devices. I feel that they're a design blunder. At the same time, I am glad that someone is still doing them because there are quite a few people out there that really need that option to get through their use case and I know everyone's use case varies significantly from mine.

Yes, IMO, anyone who is trying to design a phone that they want me to buy will recognize that the battery has to be sealed and that not doing so will make it incredibly improbable that I'll have any interest in their device - even if they put out an otherwise great device with industry leading audio, etc. A removable battery is a sign that their head just isn't in the game, if their goal is designing a phone for me. It means that a huge number of compromises in build, opportunity cost, design and device philosophy - almost every one of which I find unacceptable. But no one is designing phones specifically for me and I'm very glad someone is making phones that you love to use

 

[Aquila]

I think these past posts from another thread say all you need to know...

Did something I said in this thread contradict that?

Here's the rest of that statement: "Yes, I think that it is easier for me to understand wanting the utility of a removable battery than it is for people to understand the reasons that I wouldn't want one. And I am sincerely glad that LG makes a phone with the removable battery and I'm glad you like it - just saying it's not for me; two different points." Emphasis mine. It seems like this is the exact same problem we're seeing in this thread 3 months later.

 

[Aquila]

But yes we haven't touched on opportunity cost yet, that could be interesting. Typically we only get into that on removable storage.

 

[LeoRex]

Water resistance is not even a good argument for a non removable battery since we all know that we can have a water resistant phone with a removable battery. The only reason to go sealed is to go thinner and look what that did for the Note 7. Lead the way Samsung.

Thinner... or larger... A sealed battery allows OEMs to put larger battery cells in the phone. Yes, Sammy kissed the donkey with the Note 7, but they were trying to get too cute. I am not sure if any sharp design types have looked into this, so I can't speculate just how much capacity is lost, but I don't think it is insignificant. But there is some truth.... eliminating all the extra hassle of the cradle and connections allows an OEM to make their phones thinner and keep the same sized cell.

But its moot. Samsung isn't the pied piper of sealed batteries... they just finally came to the conclusion that it was a feature that was no longer needed because their customers no longer cared. They make phones for the market, not vice versa. Samsung switched and it did nothing to alter their sales... LG retained removable batteries and it did little to change their fortunes (that mobile unit is struggling). If the market was so gung ho about swapping out batteries, we'd see more available.

Conversely, there is a huge market in battery packs. As easy as it might be to switch out a battery, it's even easier to plug it into a pack and let it charge fairly quickly... and there's the added benefit of not having to power down the phone. Last year I took a trip to Disney World and I had a spare battery and cradle for my wife's G4... and while it was nice to be able to swap out a fresh battery, popping the back off a phone and juggling batteries while you wait in line for Test Track without dropping the damn thing was a bit of a pain. This year, I'll just plug her S7 Edge into the massive RavPower pack I have and let it juice up while we sit down for a snack.

So yeah, it sucks... it'd be nice if everyone had everything they wanted, but that doesn't happen. OEMs build phones to sell phones to the masses, not to a small, but vocal minority of users. And being able to easily remove a battery is way down the public's list, whether people like it or not. You might as well howl at the moon at this point.

 

[flyingkytez]

I think that guess would be the opposite of reality. That's based solely on what they're choosing to spend their money on. For several years the sealed devices have been increasing their market share lead over LG and there's no sign of that trend reversing. At the highest I would estimate that fewer than 3 in every 100,000 consumers will refuse to purchase a device without a removable battery.

Ask a Note 4 owner. "I'm still keeping my Note 4 because of the removable battery. The phone still works great, no need to upgrade yet." Just wait until Samsung rolls out an "OS Update" and slows down the phone and make it useless because of the stubborn Note 4 owners that see no real need to upgrade.

 

[Guyinbox]

I'm definitely in the removable battery camp. My mom is still using my old note 2, which would be a paperweight by now if i want able to purchase two new batteries for it (on the cheap, i might add.) My wife used my old note 3 long after the USB port quit taking a charge and the warranty had run out because she was able to charge the spare battery in the cradle and swap them when needed.

I get that a phone with a removable battery will probably lack water resistance , but i don't believe the design suffers. The note 4 is still my favorite phone design ever, and the v20 would be right up there with it if it wasn't so slippery without a case.

I also have the s7 edge as a backup, but ii want a fan of wiring about battery life if i was away for the day with the family, and don't get me started on how much i hated the fragile design.

I also realize I'm in the minority though, since Samsung has sold 40 million s7's. I just hope there's a still a manufacturer around that still offers removable batteries until the actually a breakthrough in battery technology that renders the need for them obsolete.

 

[Aquila]

I just hope there's a still a manufacturer around that still offers removable batteries until the actually a breakthrough in battery technology that renders the need for them obsolete.

I think this is the key right here. For myself and I think the vast majority of mainstream consumers, that already happened in around 2013 or so, but those that weren't on board then were definitely fully on board by 2016. There is still a small percentage, yourself and others in this thread, for whom that even hasn't happened yet, and that's exactly why I said I hope the V30 also has a removable battery - to keep options available for those who can't reasonably do without.

 

[skeptic25]

My views while anecdotal I believe represent a large group (maybe not a majority) of phone users.

Sealed batteries are to the benefit of the manufactures not the consumers. It really all comes down to cost. It's cheaper albeit minutely however a few cents here or there compounded by millions of units equals $$$.

A sealed unit equals better build? I've had many of each and yes there are a few early phones with removable backs that weren't up to snuff. I would say now the build quality is equal.

Personally I prefer a removable battery and have purchased a charging cradle and extra battery for my V20 and I'm content. However, the masses are ignorant sheep and they can't miss what they don't care to understand. There's a reason why the Iphone is a major seller...

 

[Morty2264]

I'm really hoping the V20 isn't the last flagship with a removable battery! To be honest, I'd take a removable battery over waterproof any day of the week - but, of course, my lifestyle is such that waterproof devices are not a necessity, so I get that that boils down to personal preference. But, unfortunately, LG might be following in the path of other smartphone manufacturers, and putting non-removable batteries in their future devices may be something they want - maybe they feel that waterproofing their devices is more significant to generating revenue than removable batteries would be. And if they're right, it's not like I'd fault them for it if they have data/record sales to back this up; but I'd still miss having a removable battery. That's how I solved most of my random bugs with my G3!

 

[Gayle Lynn]

Yes had to swap battery on crappy Note II.
ANDROID has a rep for eating 10% per hour.
iPhone 6S+ not so.
Huawei Mate 9 with 4000 mAh Battery sips juice without need to tweak.

Also while Mate 9 is about same size and weight as the 6S+ it gets 0.4" more screen, very thin, and a pleasure to hold.

If I need extra time, I do have some nice boxes with 25,000 mHa to charge and run that are safe, not exposed, don't need to touch internals.

 

[flyingkytez]

Thinner... or larger... A sealed battery allows OEMs to put larger battery cells in the phone. Yes, Sammy kissed the donkey with the Note 7, but they were trying to get too cute. I am not sure if any sharp design types have looked into this, so I can't speculate just how much capacity is lost, but I don't think it is insignificant. But there is some truth.... eliminating all the extra hassle of the cradle and connections allows an OEM to make their phones thinner and keep the same sized cell.

But its moot. Samsung isn't the pied piper of sealed batteries... they just finally came to the conclusion that it was a feature that was no longer needed because their customers no longer cared. They make phones for the market, not vice versa. Samsung switched and it did nothing to alter their sales... LG retained removable batteries and it did little to change their fortunes (that mobile unit is struggling). If the market was so gung ho about swapping out batteries, we'd see more available.

Conversely, there is a huge market in battery packs. As easy as it might be to switch out a battery, it's even easier to plug it into a pack and let it charge fairly quickly... and there's the added benefit of not having to power down the phone. Last year I took a trip to Disney World and I had a spare battery and cradle for my wife's G4... and while it was nice to be able to swap out a fresh battery, popping the back off a phone and juggling batteries while you wait in line for Test Track without dropping the damn thing was a bit of a pain. This year, I'll just plug her S7 Edge into the massive RavPower pack I have and let it juice up while we sit down for a snack.

So yeah, it sucks... it'd be nice if everyone had everything they wanted, but that doesn't happen. OEMs build phones to sell phones to the masses, not to a small, but vocal minority of users. And being able to easily remove a battery is way down the public's list, whether people like it or not. You might as well howl at the moon at this point.

Agreed. If it's best for the manufacture to do it in order to survive, then that's what they gotta do. With a sealed battery for LG, I might as well go back to Samsung and get better hardware, no point of getting an LG especially since they always get slightly inferior hardware (they're getting the Snapdragon 821 VS 835, no AMOLED screen). Kinda has the opposite effect.

 

[Almeuit]

Yes had to swap battery on crappy Note II.
ANDROID has a rep for eating 10% per hour.
iPhone 6S+ not so.
Huawei Mate 9 with 4000 mAh Battery sips juice without need to tweak.

Also while Mate 9 is about same size and weight as the 6S+ it gets 0.4" more screen, very thin, and a pleasure to hold.

If I need extra time, I do have some nice boxes with 25,000 mHa to charge and run that are safe, not exposed, don't need to touch internals.

10% per hour? On what phone? My Pixel XL doesn't do that unless I am stressing it out a ton.

 

[flyingkytez]

WOW too much of info to process in one sitting.

I'm in favor of removable batteries. However I never keep a phone more that 18 months. This problem could be solved if manufacturers would stop trying to make slimmer and sexier devices. Give me a thicker phone with a 5,000 mAh battery with a slight curve on the back. Then it's done.

The Galaxy S7 Active has a 4000mah. It's pretty darn thick and, not very comfortable. Battery life was just meh considering the large size. I think it's more about efficiency vs size from now on.