Thanks for commenting all.

I’m aware of Apple’s philosophical rationale for using non-swappable batteries. I wrote about it at cinsiderable length and detail in a report here:
http://www.pbcentral.com/columns/hildreth_moore/unibody17.shtml

It’s just no a philosophical outlook I share.

I did acknowledge that Apple blows both ways on this matter and could have given other examples of them blowing the wrong way (ever try changing a hard drive in any iBook?), but chose to focus on the battery replacement issue as exemplary because it’s topical and currently newsworthy (eg: see: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3469)

As for “if the battery included in a product is spec’ed to last far longer than the device itself, a non-replaceable battery is an excellent solution and a better design than a replaceable one”, I wouldn;t disagree, but the problem is that speced or not, batteries don’t outlast the device in many instances, as teh thriving business in third-party iPod battery replacement kits is testimony to. The battery failed in my first iPod before the machine did. I replaced it myself, and didn’t find it too difficult — for me — but it did end up requiring a soldering job so I wouldn’t characterize it as user friendly. I would probably not have too much trouble replacing the batteries in the Air and Unibody 17 either, or for that matter getting into the engine room of that Volvo concept car, but again that’s me. I’m addressing the concept of reasonably easy and cheap DIY service for ordinary consumers.

As a matter of fact, I think an Intel-powered “son of Pismo” that would be as easy to service, repair, expand and upgrade as the original Pismo would be way cool. However, I just took delivery of a gorgeous new unibody MacBook, and I think it’s way cool too, so I’m not quite the complete Luddite that Wayne seems to think I am.

Cheers,
Charles

The “Lady Volvo” debacle was a *concept* not a product and failed not because women are silly or that the ideas were bad but because it was a tiny mostly uniform group of people that were asked for their opinions.

The real problem with this argument is that while concept products are occasionally done this way (by surveying opinions of users), no well-designed product is actually designed that way. Design features are (or should be) included in a product because they are the best solution to a given problem or set of problems. Consumer feedback may in some instances define what the “problems” are, but not the features that are intended to solve those problems.

Even though it’s a really prevalent myth, to design a product by means of what the consumer thinks “should be” included is to approach the design completely backwards.

Also, the only real example you give of Apple behaving in this way is the non-replaceable batteries on some items and how iPods are hard to open. The non-replaceable battery on the iPod (the only thing you would need to open one for anyway), is a design solution that works. It’s not a wacky idea, not originating from some consumer brainstorm, and has been proven to be the best solution for years and years now. Generally, if the battery included in a product is spec’ed to last far longer than the device itself, a non-replaceable battery is an excellent solution and a better design than a replaceable one. Ask any real designer and they will tell you so. It’s a better design just from an environmental point of view if nothing else.

By your own admission of being a tinkerer, you should likewise absolutely *love* the batteries on the Air and the MacBook Pro 17″ because with a simple screwdriver you can get right in there and muck about with the battery and all the other components. These products (the only ones you mention besides the iPod) actually argue against you, not for you.

In fact, *all* recent Apple products, with the exception of the mobile device, are far more user friendly than they ever have been in the history of Apple products. The Mac Mini, the Mac pro, and the iMac all open far more easily than previous generations did and the hard drives and memory chips are all *more* accessible than they have been. Quite the opposite of the picture you paint here.

Um, not for well over ten years now. Historically, yes, but that’s far from “typical” anymore.

Why not if battery life inc & esser replacements are reqd so we take it to apple care then & let the professionals handle that..instead of having screws to fiddle around with for just the satisfaction of things being accesible??!!

Sometimes things are not that accesible for maintainence.. but then isnt it good that sometimes maintainence is just not needed!!
People need to think ahead & simplify .. while they are not ..

Pity..

The newest 17″ MacBook Pro could well have had a removable, user-servicable battery. It would have had a significantly shorter life, would have weighed significantly more, and might’ve forced other tradeoffs (cooling, RAM, not having a solid body, etc) in the process. But you ignore this, as if Apple simply used the standard battery solution but refused to put in a few extra screws so you could remove it.

Silly.

Look at tower Macs… they’ve very accesible inside, and have pretty much made it impossible for any manufacturer to stick to the old “remove the 3-sided cover” mentality. Laptops have other tradeoffs, and Apple’s not doing so poorly in that field.

I know you like crappy old Mac laptops and would just as soon be running a Pismo with Intel chips in it, but you’re way off on this criticism: it’s not a matter of style, it’s a matter of tradeoffs and results.