I mean, I know in the abstract sense that it's ideal if they ever get fully drained and, but that's not all that catastrophic. I'd consider it normal use in most cases—if manufacturers don't want the charge to ever dip that low, they should make the battery stop working earlier.
I presume you mean don't get fully drained. They also should not get fully charged either. They could make the battery stop working earlier and limit them from being filled, but this is going to limit a lot of one time use cases when the trade off is worthwhile.
> They could make the battery stop working earlier and limit them from being filled, but this is going to limit a lot of one time use cases when the trade off is worthwhile.
Which brings me back to my original question: how does one treat a battery poorly? Or perhaps more accurately, how would people treat batteries they rent more poorly than ones they own?
In a world where consumers were highly cognizant of maintaining battery health, and only fully drained/charged their batteries when absolutely essential, I can see how rented batteries would be a problem. In practice, I doubt many consumers actually think about this, if they're even aware of it to begin with.
Ergo, I don't forsee rented batteries dying significantly sooner than owned batteries, because most consumers aren't going to change their behavior.
It appears that it's for some of the same reasons why people don't want to just swap their car - when you have a large asset that can be in a variable condition, you don't really want to be swapping it for another one randomly.
