No, the list was "Cheaper, higher battery capacity, water proof, smaller, stronger". I don't think it's all that controversial to say that there are engineering tradeoffs to be made here. You can make a waterproof phone with a removable battery, but you can't make a waterproof phone with a removable battery that is as good or better than an iPhone in every other respect too. If you could, iPhones would already have removable batteries.
> If you could, iPhones would already have removable batteries.
A crazy take since apple has very clearly made anti-consumer moves in the past.
If having a baked in battery caused there to be 1% more iphones sales which would they choose.
You were likely nodding along when Jobs was out there telling people they were holding the phone wrong.
My point is that if it's all of those things (crucially, including cheaper), then it's a Pro-Apple move to manufacture iPhones that way. There would be no downside. To the extent they make anti-consumer moves at all (which I'll cede for the sake of keeping this brief), they do so because those moves are pro-Apple.
The crazy take is thinking that a design choice that causes there to be 1% more iPhone sales is an anti-consumer move.