alot of these mayor companies are scare of the jesus phone and will do anything to give it bad publicity, it says it real clear on the box that the battery has to be replace by apple, it does not say how long will it last because its really impossible to tell but even me if someone was to show up at my door step with a bag of cash i would not think twice on making a bullshiet claim about the poor jesus phone, although i love it
Didn't these retards hold the phone in their hand before buying it? Didn't these retards see the presentation 6 months before the phone was released? Being ignorant is not an excuse. Being stupid is not an excuse.
All of the sue-happy idiots that bought an iPhone won't be using the same phone in 1 or 2 years anyway. Apple will release a new version and they will run out and buy the new one (mainly because they were dumb enough to buy the first one). The phone has been on the market for 6 weeks. They have no evidence to justify their claim that the battery will be dead in 1 year.
I have owned many iPods since the very first model and none of them had battery issues. After two years of use, my 2nd Gen iPod started to lose the full capacity. TWO YEARS! Is that the fault of Apple? Hell no! It is a battery! They don't last forever. I replaced it for $29 and it played for 20 hours instead of 10 hours.
Apple offers a battery replacement program. But these people are too dumb and too clueless to even know about it. Most things in life cannot be serviced by the consumer. Fu*king deal with it! You don't have the right to sue a company because you are too stupid to understand common sense!
This is like someone buying a donut and then suing the store that sold it because after he ate it, it was gone!! And he couldn't eat it forever! Oh my god! There was nothing left, but he paid for that donut, and now he has nothing! There's no more donut and I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a donut in the first place.
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.
I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
If there's no information about the battery, then why would you buy the product in the first place? All of these people knew that the batteries weren't replaceable by themselves. I knew about all this before launch. $80 battery replacement isn't so bad considering the cost of the phone. There will be battery replacement services done by third parties just like there are services for the current iPod models, for much less. Heck, some of them even bump the capacity up.
Have you seen how thin the iPhone is? Making a battery cover adds thickness. Look at phones like the NEC L1 that don't have a replaceable battery because they are paper thin.
Apple nerds are getting pissed because they bought a product the second it launched instead of waiting like a normal human? Maybe these people should make better buying decisions and not buy the iPhone ASAP just because it's an Apple product and they expect perfection. Don't buy stuff the second it comes out, idiots!
While you're out, go buy yourself an analogy that isn't completely retarded.
There was a lady who was about to sue Lexus because she thought her car was maintenance free. She didn't change the oil in something like 60,000 miles and it still ran, too. Lexus ended up giving the dumb bitch free service for life.
So it's kind of like buying a car and expecting to be able to perform maintenance on it yourself. Sure, if you are skilled, you can perform maintenance on a car, but most people don't, just like skilled folks who replace their own iPod batteries. There's an analogy for you.
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts...............
No - ALL PHONE WILL NEED BATTERY REPLACEMENT SOMEDAY.
It doesn't matter whether the battery is built in or not.
Now it just happen that Apple charges more for the battery. And Nokia charges less.
Did Nokia wrote how much will it cost for a 2nd Battery? Nope. Not in the many years i brought phones has any manufacture told me how much an additional battery will cost.
And No one said the battery will died after 400 charges... it will only have less capacity compare to a brand new one. Which; again is the same as all Mobile phone's batteries.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
So Apple didn't specify the exact cost of the replacement battery until 2 days after the official launch... okay. But how much would you or anyone expect the battery replacement to cost? Also both of these lawsuits are claiming that the iPhone battery will deplete entirely after 300 charge cycles which according to Apple's documentation is wrong.
The anger pointed at individuals like these isn't because they're suing Apple - it's because a lot of people are tired of the get-rich-quick, sue-happy ass hats that want to sue simply because they weren't explicitly told something that is "common knowledge". Batteries will lose their charge eventually. A battery soldered into a product (like the iPhone and iPod) will need replacing eventually. McDonald's coffee is hot. Eating a ton of fast food will make you a fat ass. So, that being said - I stand by my beheading endorsement.
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.
The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.
But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.
So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...
Well, let's start with your assertion that it's out of the ordinary for retail/OEM battery replacement to cost 17% of the original purchase price.
In 2004, I purchased a Sprint Sanyo RL-7300 phone, which was $100 after rebates. At the time, the replacement battery from Sprint was over $20. (>20% of purchase price; I believe it was closer to $30 or more).
Now, even better: the Motorola v3m Razr on Sprint _currently_ is free after rebates ($250 before). The replacement battery option from Sprint, albeit an extended life battery (the only option Sprint currently offers) costs $50 - 20% of the pre-rebate price, or $50 more than the net consumer cost of the phone itself.
There is nothing unusual in the slightest about the battery replacements costing from the carrier and/or manufacturer in the vicinity of 20% of retail cost - and 3rd parties have and continue to do the same for lesser amounts.
The only difference here is that the phone is more expensive - so 20% of retail cost is a larger figure.
Never mind that the average user won't need to replace the battery within the claimed timeframe; most are on 2 year contracts, and typical cell phone batteries tend to still work just fine after two years of use.
This is like someone buying a donut and then suing the store that sold it because after he ate it, it was gone!! And he couldn't eat it forever! Oh my god! There was nothing left, but he paid for that donut, and now he has nothing! There's no more donut and I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a donut in the first place.
Buying a donut and complaining that the hole is missing is the more popular version of that analogy I believe
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.
The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.
But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.
So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...
The Battery is NOT "one little component inside" the iPhone it's one of the biggest after the actual screen itself
Quote:
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced.
Also equally possible is that it WON'T need replaced. Part of the reason the mobile market is so huge is that people replace thir phones when the "latest model" comes out so even if the battery is dead after 300 cycles as these idiots are claiming, a LARGE number of consumers will have moved on to a "new" model before reaching this magical 300 number.
I would be all for their beheading, it would only enhance the gene pool for the rest of us.
can anyone tell us what the battery in the iphone would cost wholesale and what it would cost retail? i think that makes a difference in this bizzare argument we're having because that represents the actual inconvenience cost added on by the apple replacement policy.
I have to sway toward the side of getting tired of "People Making Idiotic Lawsuits".
Here's the deal:
As others have said, It has been known for QUITE SOME TIME before the iPhone ever hit the streets that the battery was not user-replaceable. I remember seeing people discuss it on one of those cable-news networks one morning - a bunch of analysts hemming & hawing. This was NOT A SECRET.
Second - Until you need to replace a battery - it's a NON ISSUE...! If I go and mess-around with the inner-workings of my +$40k car, you're damn STRAIGHT they're gonna void my warranty.
Now - I know that up until now - you could go buy a shit-load of extra batteries for your phones and swap 'em whenever you wanted. BUT - I have been using my iPhone AGGRESSIVELY since I purchased it and have gone up to 4-days without charging the phone under HEAVY usage. I do not see a need for a "backup" battery.
For those that are thinking that 300 cycles means 300 days of plugging it in every night to charge it - you're WAY OFF course. Under NORMAL usage of the iPhone, it may take up to 3-years to even show signs of battery degradation (according to online info I've read - I am NOT a battery expert).
The idea that people are going to need to shell-out $100 per year is ridiculous. Probably closer to $85 every 3 years - and let's be honest - within 3-years, there's gonna be at least 2-3 newer models that will make me decide to upgrade the PHONE before I replace a battery.
Did you know AppleCare covers battery replacement? It is the same rules that apply to iPods, currently, Apple offers the only warranty out there that covers batteries at all.
Treos also don't have a user replaceable battery, along with every rechargeable Palm device out there, and many Pocket PCs.
If Apple had made a user replaceable battery in the iPhone, everyone would be complaining about how big it is. Internal batteries are almost always smaller. There are a lot of phones out there that have user replaceable batteries that you can't even get replacements for.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery.
The biggest advantage of not having a user replaceable battery is that Apple was able to use a very large battery that last a long time. This also leaves it less likely that an iPhone battery will end up in a land fill. Added to that is that the iPhone is a solid piece of equipment because it has no battery compartment.
Quote:
"Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
That is exactly the warning. The reason no price is necessary is because various Apple service providers will charge a different price. Apple will charge the most while others will charge less.
Comments
All of the sue-happy idiots that bought an iPhone won't be using the same phone in 1 or 2 years anyway. Apple will release a new version and they will run out and buy the new one (mainly because they were dumb enough to buy the first one). The phone has been on the market for 6 weeks. They have no evidence to justify their claim that the battery will be dead in 1 year.
I have owned many iPods since the very first model and none of them had battery issues. After two years of use, my 2nd Gen iPod started to lose the full capacity. TWO YEARS! Is that the fault of Apple? Hell no! It is a battery! They don't last forever. I replaced it for $29 and it played for 20 hours instead of 10 hours.
Apple offers a battery replacement program. But these people are too dumb and too clueless to even know about it. Most things in life cannot be serviced by the consumer. Fu*king deal with it! You don't have the right to sue a company because you are too stupid to understand common sense!
Sydney went to law school!
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...iendID=8897154
Hastings is the top law school in SF. I guess his degree is going to good use- too bad he didn't learn to read.
It is US. You can sue anyone for anything.
They're not baseless. There was absolutely no information available for people to make a decision about how they would handle battery replacement before the launch because no one was able to look at the phone. If I were givien a used iPhone for 3 days for a battery replacement I would be damn pissed.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery. They knew they were getting into a new area of income just like Home Depot wants you to pay for an extended warranty for a stupid $29 ceiling fan.
I've been buying Apple prolducts for over 10 years and I'm getting sick of their deceiving designs. "Well, we don't want any screws showing, so we'll just seal the whole thing for design sake and charge the customer extra in the future."
If there's no information about the battery, then why would you buy the product in the first place? All of these people knew that the batteries weren't replaceable by themselves. I knew about all this before launch. $80 battery replacement isn't so bad considering the cost of the phone. There will be battery replacement services done by third parties just like there are services for the current iPod models, for much less. Heck, some of them even bump the capacity up.
Have you seen how thin the iPhone is? Making a battery cover adds thickness. Look at phones like the NEC L1 that don't have a replaceable battery because they are paper thin.
Apple nerds are getting pissed because they bought a product the second it launched instead of waiting like a normal human? Maybe these people should make better buying decisions and not buy the iPhone ASAP just because it's an Apple product and they expect perfection. Don't buy stuff the second it comes out, idiots!
P.S. I think I'll go out and buy a car right now, and then sue the manufacturer because my car doesn't fly.
Just make sure you don't go out and buy a Chitty Chitty Bang Bang! Otherwise your lawsuit would be baseless!
While you're out, go buy yourself an analogy that isn't completely retarded.
There was a lady who was about to sue Lexus because she thought her car was maintenance free. She didn't change the oil in something like 60,000 miles and it still ran, too. Lexus ended up giving the dumb bitch free service for life.
So it's kind of like buying a car and expecting to be able to perform maintenance on it yourself. Sure, if you are skilled, you can perform maintenance on a car, but most people don't, just like skilled folks who replace their own iPod batteries. There's an analogy for you.
WTF?
You need serious help, dude. Srsly.
Then I take it you must be one of those frivolous people?
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts...............
No - ALL PHONE WILL NEED BATTERY REPLACEMENT SOMEDAY.
It doesn't matter whether the battery is built in or not.
Now it just happen that Apple charges more for the battery. And Nokia charges less.
Did Nokia wrote how much will it cost for a 2nd Battery? Nope. Not in the many years i brought phones has any manufacture told me how much an additional battery will cost.
And No one said the battery will died after 400 charges... it will only have less capacity compare to a brand new one. Which; again is the same as all Mobile phone's batteries.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
So Apple didn't specify the exact cost of the replacement battery until 2 days after the official launch... okay. But how much would you or anyone expect the battery replacement to cost? Also both of these lawsuits are claiming that the iPhone battery will deplete entirely after 300 charge cycles which according to Apple's documentation is wrong.
The anger pointed at individuals like these isn't because they're suing Apple - it's because a lot of people are tired of the get-rich-quick, sue-happy ass hats that want to sue simply because they weren't explicitly told something that is "common knowledge". Batteries will lose their charge eventually. A battery soldered into a product (like the iPhone and iPod) will need replacing eventually. McDonald's coffee is hot. Eating a ton of fast food will make you a fat ass. So, that being said - I stand by my beheading endorsement.
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.
The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.
But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.
So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...
Well, let's start with your assertion that it's out of the ordinary for retail/OEM battery replacement to cost 17% of the original purchase price.
In 2004, I purchased a Sprint Sanyo RL-7300 phone, which was $100 after rebates. At the time, the replacement battery from Sprint was over $20. (>20% of purchase price; I believe it was closer to $30 or more).
Now, even better: the Motorola v3m Razr on Sprint _currently_ is free after rebates ($250 before). The replacement battery option from Sprint, albeit an extended life battery (the only option Sprint currently offers) costs $50 - 20% of the pre-rebate price, or $50 more than the net consumer cost of the phone itself.
There is nothing unusual in the slightest about the battery replacements costing from the carrier and/or manufacturer in the vicinity of 20% of retail cost - and 3rd parties have and continue to do the same for lesser amounts.
The only difference here is that the phone is more expensive - so 20% of retail cost is a larger figure.
Never mind that the average user won't need to replace the battery within the claimed timeframe; most are on 2 year contracts, and typical cell phone batteries tend to still work just fine after two years of use.
This is like someone buying a donut and then suing the store that sold it because after he ate it, it was gone!! And he couldn't eat it forever! Oh my god! There was nothing left, but he paid for that donut, and now he has nothing! There's no more donut and I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a donut in the first place.
Buying a donut and complaining that the hole is missing is the more popular version of that analogy I believe
... I think nearly everyone posting up to this point has missed the crucial point that customers were not informed that replacing the battery of the iPhone would cost $86. Let's take a step back from insulting the intelligence of anyone and everyone who questions Apple for being so quick to reap a profit and look at the facts.
The iPhone retail box reads: "Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced. There's no mention here of any cost to the user. OK, you tell me, it's stupid to expect Apple to give us something for free. And I agree with you. Apple has traditionally been very eager to get us for every penny we have.
But consider this: $86 is as much as 17% of the total purchase price of an iPhone. Not to mention that the iPhone loaner during the service period costs $29 (or you can buy AppleCare for $69). Lots of people depend on their phone for work, family, personal business. It's a lifeline for people. To be without it for three days to pop a case open and pop in a battery is inexcusable.
So now we're looking at 23% of the value of an iPhone, just to have it maintained in operable condition. A quarter of the purchase price just to have one little component inside replaced. It's a bit absurd if you think about it.
This suit isn't claiming that Apple didn't tell us the battery wasn't user-replaceable. The suit says Apple didn't tell those original purchasers that there'd be a hefty fee to replace the battery. And they're right. The support document that describes the fee didn't go up until at least two days after the June 29 launch. And so the hundreds of thousands of people who snapped up an iPhone during that time were not informed of the substantial costs of maintaining their iPhone.
Let's stop the personal attacks and stop assuming that anyone that sues Apple is a stupid b***h who should be dragged into the town center and beheaded. Sometimes people that challenge Apple can be correct, and personally, I think this is one of those cases.
Here's to my first post in four years of reading AI...
The Battery is NOT "one little component inside" the iPhone it's one of the biggest after the actual screen itself
Apple says first that it may need to be replaced.
Also equally possible is that it WON'T need replaced. Part of the reason the mobile market is so huge is that people replace thir phones when the "latest model" comes out so even if the battery is dead after 300 cycles as these idiots are claiming, a LARGE number of consumers will have moved on to a "new" model before reaching this magical 300 number.
I would be all for their beheading, it would only enhance the gene pool for the rest of us.
Welcome to the board, hope you keep posting
common-sense realization that eventually its battery will run out. I don't agonise
over when this will happen. It's usually a few years.
When it does, I can either buy a new watch, or pay someone to replace the battery.
I cannot replace it myself, but that doesn't really bother me or surprise me.
So some companies charge you for a battery that you can replace, and some
charge you for a battery that they replace. Big deal.
Only an idiot would sue a manufacturer over something as nonsensical as this.
To add to the insanity, no damage has actually happened to anyone yet.
If this was three years down the road, and there was a huge class of people
that had been harmed by Apple's "deception", then they might be able to show
that. Since when are people allowed to sue someone for something that they
think might happen a long time from now?
I have to sway toward the side of getting tired of "People Making Idiotic Lawsuits".
Here's the deal:
As others have said, It has been known for QUITE SOME TIME before the iPhone ever hit the streets that the battery was not user-replaceable. I remember seeing people discuss it on one of those cable-news networks one morning - a bunch of analysts hemming & hawing. This was NOT A SECRET.
Second - Until you need to replace a battery - it's a NON ISSUE...! If I go and mess-around with the inner-workings of my +$40k car, you're damn STRAIGHT they're gonna void my warranty.
Now - I know that up until now - you could go buy a shit-load of extra batteries for your phones and swap 'em whenever you wanted. BUT - I have been using my iPhone AGGRESSIVELY since I purchased it and have gone up to 4-days without charging the phone under HEAVY usage. I do not see a need for a "backup" battery.
For those that are thinking that 300 cycles means 300 days of plugging it in every night to charge it - you're WAY OFF course. Under NORMAL usage of the iPhone, it may take up to 3-years to even show signs of battery degradation (according to online info I've read - I am NOT a battery expert).
The idea that people are going to need to shell-out $100 per year is ridiculous. Probably closer to $85 every 3 years - and let's be honest - within 3-years, there's gonna be at least 2-3 newer models that will make me decide to upgrade the PHONE before I replace a battery.
It's just a waste of time.
Treos also don't have a user replaceable battery, along with every rechargeable Palm device out there, and many Pocket PCs.
If Apple had made a user replaceable battery in the iPhone, everyone would be complaining about how big it is. Internal batteries are almost always smaller. There are a lot of phones out there that have user replaceable batteries that you can't even get replacements for.
There's absolutely no fu**ing reason Apple couldn't have made the back cover user friendly to access the battery.
The biggest advantage of not having a user replaceable battery is that Apple was able to use a very large battery that last a long time. This also leaves it less likely that an iPhone battery will end up in a land fill. Added to that is that the iPhone is a solid piece of equipment because it has no battery compartment.
"Battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced by Apple service provider." OK, that sounds legit. Apple gave us warning right on the box that we'd have to pay to get a new battery when the original is depleted, right?
Well, no. Not exactly.
That is exactly the warning. The reason no price is necessary is because various Apple service providers will charge a different price. Apple will charge the most while others will charge less.