so im curious, is there a technical reason that nonreplaceable, integrated rechargable batteries (like our phones have) are more popular than the kind you can replace, ie, a replacable set of AAAs, assuming the space used is the same for both? because the latter seems WAY more convenient to me personally
- she/her
- patreon.com/emaytch
follow me if ur cool
mastodon
mastodon.social/@emaytchpersonal website
emaytch.neocities.org/You must log in to comment.
in reply to @margot's post:
They allow phones to be smaller and have better battery life and companies think people care more about that than user serviceability. The big bonuses that integrated batteries have are:
- Don't require a battery slot which requires material, extra space and some sort of accessible connector instead. Instead they can just use glue and a very thin ribbon cable.
- The battery can be sized to use more of the free space inside the case. This is why some phone batteries are actually 3 batteries linked together. It's similar with laptops.
- A fully enclosed device is easier to waterproof.
oh yeah, the last one definitely makes sense. the other two i already figured, but that's why i specified the same space requirement-- i'm actually looking at products where the form factor is exactly the same, just one uses AAAs and one uses a rechargeable li-on battery (and costs twice as much)
Yeah for any product that really has the space to do either, the only bonus to the integrated one I can think of is that it's probably easier for some people to plug the device in than manage having batteries.