It looks like Apple grew tired of going through reviews of their products, with each and every one criticizing their decision to go with non-removable battery. Regardless of that product being an iPod, iPhone or a MacBook Pro “Unibody”, media criticized that bit.
But it is not just media, it is just the law of physics. Our web designer has two-year old $4200-paid MacBook Pro (1st Gen Intel) and the battery went “kapput”, as Germans would say. New battery exceeds $400 in Croatia, and for that price, he refuses to buy a new one. He also refuses to purchase a new unibody Mac, opting to build Intel Skulltrail platform instead, and turned that 8-core in Hackintosh faster than our original 45nm 8-Core 3GHz system with 16GB of veeeery expensive memory. For a fraction of Mac Pro’s retail price.
If you go to Apple Store, even biggest Apple zealot will take a look at non-removable battery feature and lower his/her shoulders. So, what do you do if people criticize your design decision, placed to force you to buy a new system after battery cycles out its natural life span (couple of thousand recharges, sometimes even as low as 500 recharges)?
Go and advertise that non-removable battery is green, that’s what you do. Apple’s marketing wizards decided to put a nice green spin on the feature, and claim that new Mac comes with five years of battery life is quite brave, given that Apple has no control over the quality of the battery. Even the best battery in the world will cycle out, and there is nothing Apple (or anybody else, unfortunately) can do.
Apple claims their proprietary electronics will keep the battery in check (let’s hope their marketing is right) and that the more people have non-removable batteries, less land will be filled with electronic waste. Thus, we can conclude that non-removable battery can actually save the world. And fill Apple’s coffers with those pesky charges that users have to pay the moment their device exits warranty period.