> If you want easily swappable batteries, get a different machine.
Apple doesn't make a different machine.
Obviously what you mean is to buy from a different vendor, which is what I expect to do when the time comes for a new laptop. But how is it good for Apple that they got my money last time and won't get it next time?
Judging by the increase in sales year over year for the Macbooks, it doesn't seem like it's bad for Apple. How many sales has Apple gained by making the laptop thinner and lighter and giving it a longer battery life compared to sales lost from not making a few parts user-replaceable?
> Judging by the increase in sales year over year for the Macbooks...
...you get a number that tracks the economy in general and the consumption of luxury electronics in particular, is affected by the relative strength of Apple's ecosystem against Microsoft and Google, how badly Superfish has affected Lenovo's reputation, etc. etc.
And in any event the numbers aren't particularly optimistic:
> How many sales has Apple gained by making the laptop thinner and lighter and giving it a longer battery life compared to sales lost from not making a few parts user-replaceable?
We don't even have all the data yet. Customers don't realize they want a user-serviceable battery until they've had to replace one that isn't. Apple started selling glued batteries three years ago, which means they're only starting to have to be replaced now and the largest effect will be seen going forward when the people affected are buying new laptops.
But you're asking the wrong question anyway. The interesting question is: What would their sales look like if they had both ultra lightweight models and slightly heavier models with user-serviceable parts?
"And in any event the numbers aren't particularly optimistic"
The article is stating that the rate of growth (still positive) for Macs slowed somewhat.
The same article states:
"Apple nonetheless outperformed the overall PC market, which saw shipments plummet 11% to 71 million for the quarter, according to IDC. Moreover, given the worse performance of other PC makers, its market share rose to 7.6% in 2015 from 6.9% last year, according to Gartner."
You might as well compare sales of Macs to sales of office furniture or canned beets.
The information you want is the effect of the battery/case design on Mac sales. The only way to get that is to exclude the effect of everything else that has changed in the interim, which we can't.
In other words the data we want is not available and the available data is not overwhelmingly positive.
If you try to please everyone, you'll please no-one. Most people, certainly most Apple customers, don't care that the battery is not replaceable. In fact, it works in their favour as they can use the failing battery as justification for getting a shiny new MacBook Pro in a few years' time.
> If you try to please everyone, you'll please no-one.
How is that supposed to provide any support for Apple's one size fits all approach?
> Most people, certainly most Apple customers, don't care that the battery is not replaceable. In fact, it works in their favour as they can use the failing battery as justification for getting a shiny new MacBook Pro in a few years' time.
How is incurring an expense of several hundred dollars (or reducing the resale value by that amount) supposed to work in the customer's favor? It seems the customer could achieve the same "benefit" by smashing it with a hammer.
Apple doesn't make a different machine.
Obviously what you mean is to buy from a different vendor, which is what I expect to do when the time comes for a new laptop. But how is it good for Apple that they got my money last time and won't get it next time?