Of course it's a valid argument. Comparing dissimilar models is an invalid argument. The point is, how thin would the same device be with and without a user-replaceable battery. How does it affect total volume, component layout, etc? It is unquestionable that adding the protective elements of a user-replaceable battery (the battery's own shell, barriers in the battery compartment, more robust connectors, etc) add volume, and that volume has to go somewhere.
OK, so persuade Samsung to make a version of the S5 without a removable cell or HTC/Google to build a Pixel with and then we can compare properly (somewhat tongue in cheek).
My point was that it is entirely possible to produce pretty and slim devices with removable cells, not that they were equivalent devices in any other respect. I appreciate that it will by necessity add an amount of volume and weight, but I chose that example to illustrate that it need not add excessive amounts (and also because they are the two phones I have personal experience of).
I specifically addressed off-brand batteries as being outside the scope of my argument. I am talking about counterfeits, which were a huge problem for Samsung. People were spending full price for a battery they believed to be an original Samsung, and instead were receiving a cheap knockoff. This was especially problematic with Amazon, which pools its own stock with that sent in by FBA vendors, who pollute Amazon's legitimate Samsung stock with counterfeits.
And there are, still, batteries out there claiming to be OEM, or at least misleadingly packaged without actually stating such, for devices that are intended to be fitted by end users, it's difficult to discern a genuine battery from an 'off brand' device, especially when the sealed in battery has only in house markings, it may even be reasonable to make an argument that it's easier to offer non original batteries as genuine because the internal ones have less easily identifiable security measures like holograms, serial numbers etc. so the logical extension of that would be to restrict users ability to replace them even further or is that another absurd argument?
I'm not saying counterfeiting isn't a valid concern, it very much is and should be stopped for several reasons, not least safety, it's been a big problem for a long time, but claiming sealed in batteries are used because 'it's for your own good' is rather patronising.
As for your claim that I'm advocating a ban on opening your own goods, I'm sorry, I said nothing of the sort and have no interest in engaging in a childish reductio-ad-absurdum bicker with you.
Mea culpa, ban was too strong a word but it's easy to think and hard to counter that reducing user serviceability isn't comparable to a restriction of rights or is that absurd too?
We've also had this conversation before about Apple error #53 which was 'to protect users' by turning their phone into a useless lump of metal which required, at first, a replacement device to be purchased at significant expense instead of just warning and switching off a facility on the phone.
A 'mistake' that was corrected by Apple when a not insignificant number of users got bitten by it.
"Planned obsolescence" means designing a product to fail on purpose after a given amount of time. I have only ever heard of one legitimate instance of this being done, namely the incandescent light bulb cartel of the early 20th century.
What we see all the time now is products being designed down to cost, with components selected such as to be as cheap as possible and still outlast the expected lifespan of the device (at minimum, the warranty period). It's a subtle distinction, but it's a difference nonetheless.
It's hairsplitting IMHO because even on cheap devices often the only component that fails close to the warranty expiry is the battery. It's difficult to make a convincing argument that it's not a form of obsolescence on a sealed device because the device would in all probability be perfectly functional with a new battery and, as you say, expected lifespan is designed in by choice of that (and possibly other) component.
It would also be a very short sighted company that couldn't see that as a factor in forecasting future markets.
Why design a smartphone to last 5 years? By that age, it's hopelessly outdated as far as software is concerned.
I agree, but it's likely given the reliability of electronic components that device will end up in E-Waste because the battery is not user replaceable.
It's not a great stretch of the imagination to think that those devices might easily fulfil a useful life in some part of the world with a developing economy, as a device for a child or even as a spare for the time when you need to order a replacement battery for your other device.
I would for instance have given my HTC One to my son or be still using it myself if replacing the battery didn't necessitate breaking the phone apart.
Of course I had more than one feature on my list of requirements when I made my decision to buy a device with a non replaceable battery, I would have preferred a version with a battery/cell/accumulator that I could easily replace, even if it meant disassembling the phone with some oddball screwdriver, I chose a 'high end' device precisely because I wanted it to last longer, in the event battery life was what necessitated its replacement, not software, but again I realise I may be atypical.