Yup, I'm sure Apple has sold way more iPhones because the batteries are user not replaceable.
Which is a complete waste, because the 6s is probably fast enough for most people.
What exactly do you mean by "because the batteries are not user replaceable?
The iPhones that I've owned all looked beautiful. That's something that's important to me. I like beautiful things. A case that can be opened to replace the battery immediately looks ugly. So yes, Apple has certainly sold more iPhones because their cases look nicer without a user replaceable battery.
I want a battery with the largest possible charge. By not making the battery user replaceable, Apple can save space by removing the bits that need to be opened, have a battery that isn't itself enclosed in a solid case because it is within a solid iPhone, saving space again, have a more "interestingly" shaped battery that fills all the available space and so on. So yes, Apple has certainly sold more iPhones because non-user replaceable batteries can hold a bigger charge.
And if you tell potential customers that the battery is user replaceable, many will not see the benefits, but the fact that they'll have to replace and pay for a new battery. "What do you mean, I'll have to replace the battery? I'll rather buy a Samsung phone where I don't have a stupid user-replaceable battery". You would have _plenty_ of potential customers doing this. Don't try arguing that this would be stupid. Yes, it is. Many people _are_ stupid.
And last, I don't care whether the battery is user replaceable. I want it to be replaced easily and cheaply. The battery is Apple Store replaceable, that's good enough for me.
[doublepost=1515171551][/doublepost]
So far all I’ve seen is this.
“Apple should have user replaceable batteries”
Somehow yet it’s perfectly acceptable for Samsung to not have user replaceable batteries and a higher price point?
One could argue that if Samsung and Apple agree on something, then it's probably a good idea.