> Why isn't there any significant demand for replaceable batteries?
Most consumers are like pigs who simply eat whatever the market throws into their trough, because ultimately they have better things to do than to get deeply involved in every purchasing decision.
> If replaceable batteries were better, they would already be available.
Developments like those in the smartphone market involve complex path dependencies. That’s why you can’t simply assume that competition will lead to the product offerings converging on the best product. Furthermore, “better” needs to be defined in some way. If we leave that up to the market, it becomes a circular argument: (1) The better product prevails in the market. (2) The product that prevails in the market is the better one. This circular reasoning is the biggest flaw in market ideology. I don't understand why people can't see that. The market moves in a certain direction, and they say, “There it is—progress!”
> Regulation hinders progress.
Perhaps, at times, the opposite is true. Even if we set aside the fact that “better” is defined in a circular manner here, the path-dependence of market development sometimes causes the market to get stuck in a local optimum. Regulatory interventions in the market can then serve as an effective lever to help the market break free from that situation.
> If you want a removable battery, you're simply in the minority as a consumer.
That’s another point where I just don’t get market ideologues: why should I reject regulatory intervention on the one hand, but on the other hand, if the market doesn’t give me what I want, I’m supposed to just shut up and accept that there isn’t enough demand for my quirky, special requests? I’ve been missing removable batteries ever since they disappeared from the market. That must have coincided with the rise of smartphones. Come to think of it, maybe Steve Jobs is to blame. With iPods, there was still a public debate about the issue [1]. With the iPhone, it was just the way it was.
> That’s why you can’t simply assume that competition will lead to the product offerings converging on the best product.
You also can't simply assume that an existing solution on the market is not the best already.
I mean, who told us that smartphones with user-replaceable batteries are better than smartphones that are 0.5 mm thinner because their batteries are non-replaceable? The same people who want to ban encryption?
> Regulatory interventions in the market can then serve as an effective lever to help the market break free from that situation.
No, they can't. Regulatory processes are shaped by the same incentives as market ones. It's just that the tools for achieving goals are different. And because of this, it is always moving in the opposite direction from "help the market".
> I’m supposed to just shut up and accept that there isn’t enough demand for my quirky, special requests?
Generally speaking, yes, it is a market ideology. But what's not clear about it? People adhere to it not because they like when unqualified masses, with their consumer behavior, encourage all sorts of nasty things in mass-market products. It's simply better than when a regulatory body implements its "quirky, special requests" at the expense of everyone else.
> You also can't simply assume that an existing solution on the market is not the best already.
What kind of rash response is that? No one here is making a blanket claim that the market solution is categorically suboptimal.
> I mean, who told us that smartphones with user-replaceable batteries are better...
Let me repeat: you have to FIRST define what you mean by “better” and then ask that question. I want a phone with a removable battery, and it’s immediately clear to me that making this a requirement is a measure that removes a lower limit on the devices’ lifespan.
> Regulatory processes are shaped by the same incentives as market ones.
That’s just another one of those market-driven circular arguments. There’s no alternative to market logic, because in the end, everything follows the same incentives. You should be able to see that this is nonsense just by driving down a public street or standing under a streetlight at night.
> opposite direction from "help the market"
I would rephrase that as: “help the market move in a desired direction for the benefit of people” and I do believe that regulation can achieve exactly that.
> It's simply better than when a regulatory body implements its "quirky, special requests" at the expense of everyone else.
At whose expense, then? People who are upset that batteries are replaceable again? People who now find their smartphones a few millimeters too thick or a few grams too heavy? Are these people also upset about safety and environmental standards for cars because they make cars a little heavier, more expensive, or more complex?
> Are these people also upset about safety and environmental standards for cars
By the way, this is a good example of what happens when regulators lose to the market. By what year was initially planned the complete ban of internal combustion engine vehicles for some European countries? And where are we now?
The regulator lost, the market suffered, but survived, and many people are unhappy with the regulations.
And there are situations when the regulator wins. You know, like when the communist government came to power. And when the regulator wins, people die of hunger. All the people. Every single time.
Yeah, yeah, I know the story. Enjoy your unregulated capitalism if you like it so much. These kinds of ideological debates are pointless. It’s better to just say “China” in that typical Trump voice while waving your hands around in the air.
> I mean, who told us that smartphones with user-replaceable batteries are better than smartphones that are 0.5 mm thinner because their batteries are non-replaceable? The same people who want to ban encryption?
Even apart from the ad-hominem FUD argumentation, currently, it's the people who refuse to ban encryption even after it was pushed to them multiple times.
This argument is neither an ad hominem attack nor FUD. If you don’t like the pig trough analogy, I’ll be happy to rephrase it for you: when I buy something, I just go to the store and buy it. There are a few areas of personal interest where I’m more selective about what I buy, but generally speaking, I just grab whatever’s right at the front of the shelf, within arm’s reach, and looks roughly like what I want. If you look at consumers as a whole, that’s the best approximation of their behavior.
The ban on encryption is a good counterpoint! I’m not saying that everything the regulators want to do is good or in line with my views. But ultimately, I want to live in a world where policymakers set the framework and the market finds good solutions within that framework, not in a world where market players are given completely free rein and every political intervention is viewed as if someone had licked the sacred shrine of a deity with their tongue.
Most consumers are like pigs who simply eat whatever the market throws into their trough, because ultimately they have better things to do than to get deeply involved in every purchasing decision.
> If replaceable batteries were better, they would already be available.
Developments like those in the smartphone market involve complex path dependencies. That’s why you can’t simply assume that competition will lead to the product offerings converging on the best product. Furthermore, “better” needs to be defined in some way. If we leave that up to the market, it becomes a circular argument: (1) The better product prevails in the market. (2) The product that prevails in the market is the better one. This circular reasoning is the biggest flaw in market ideology. I don't understand why people can't see that. The market moves in a certain direction, and they say, “There it is—progress!”
> Regulation hinders progress.
Perhaps, at times, the opposite is true. Even if we set aside the fact that “better” is defined in a circular manner here, the path-dependence of market development sometimes causes the market to get stuck in a local optimum. Regulatory interventions in the market can then serve as an effective lever to help the market break free from that situation.
> If you want a removable battery, you're simply in the minority as a consumer.
That’s another point where I just don’t get market ideologues: why should I reject regulatory intervention on the one hand, but on the other hand, if the market doesn’t give me what I want, I’m supposed to just shut up and accept that there isn’t enough demand for my quirky, special requests? I’ve been missing removable batteries ever since they disappeared from the market. That must have coincided with the rise of smartphones. Come to think of it, maybe Steve Jobs is to blame. With iPods, there was still a public debate about the issue [1]. With the iPhone, it was just the way it was.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuTcavAzopg