• Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    It’s only making it more expensive for themselves. They want to have two production lines for two separate models… Well that effects their profit margin.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        Is it though or is this just them being spiteful?

        How often do the batteries in the non-user replaceable version fail, they can’t have the failure rate be too high or else word would get around. So they’re doing this against the cost of some theoretical future benefit may very well not come to pass. I suspect this decision hasn’t been properly costed out.

    • Azzu@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.