It does it’s just Nintendo going out of their way to be awkward even to their own detriment.
Look at Apple, everyone gets USB-C iPhones now they could have made a USB-C version for the European market and a mag-safe port for other markets but that would have meant two different power boards and different body designs but each market which wasn’t worth it. Nintendo however have decided to actually put the cost into making two different body moulds and two different circuit boards one for non-replaceable batteries and one for replaceable batteries.
Nintendo have been anti-consumer for a long time but I’m surprised that they’re willing to waste money on it.
I think this is giving Apple too much credit, they played the largest role in the development of USB-C’s design. Started putting it on their MacBooks and IPads pretty early. They were more likely just trying to avoid another bad press cycle like when they switched to lightning. As we can see with the App Store and browsers they absolutely will be anti-consumer when they don’t think their is any real risk to them.
I mean the main point right now is to make stuff better for ourselves but there are examples of others benefitting from our legislation like the case of usb-c. Individual governments also help, like germany spending money on linux development and adopting it on government system in certain states.
It’s only making it more expensive for themselves. They want to have two production lines for two separate models… Well that effects their profit margin.
How often do the batteries in the non-user replaceable version fail, they can’t have the failure rate be too high or else word would get around. So they’re doing this against the cost of some theoretical future benefit may very well not come to pass. I suspect this decision hasn’t been properly costed out.
It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.
The other two markwts are too big to include and not profit from the resulting issues.
You juat have to make it unprofitable enough for two models to coexist to make them just fold and only make one.
For everyone who thought eu legislation would force corporations make better stuff globally, that’s how much they care about you.
And people still buying from nintendo is really disappointing
It does it’s just Nintendo going out of their way to be awkward even to their own detriment.
Look at Apple, everyone gets USB-C iPhones now they could have made a USB-C version for the European market and a mag-safe port for other markets but that would have meant two different power boards and different body designs but each market which wasn’t worth it. Nintendo however have decided to actually put the cost into making two different body moulds and two different circuit boards one for non-replaceable batteries and one for replaceable batteries.
Nintendo have been anti-consumer for a long time but I’m surprised that they’re willing to waste money on it.
I think this is giving Apple too much credit, they played the largest role in the development of USB-C’s design. Started putting it on their MacBooks and IPads pretty early. They were more likely just trying to avoid another bad press cycle like when they switched to lightning. As we can see with the App Store and browsers they absolutely will be anti-consumer when they don’t think their is any real risk to them.
cough cough … app store…
I thought EU legislation would make better stuff in the EU and it has.
I mean the main point right now is to make stuff better for ourselves but there are examples of others benefitting from our legislation like the case of usb-c. Individual governments also help, like germany spending money on linux development and adopting it on government system in certain states.
It’s only making it more expensive for themselves. They want to have two production lines for two separate models… Well that effects their profit margin.
See, it’s worth so much to screw over consumers
Is it though or is this just them being spiteful?
How often do the batteries in the non-user replaceable version fail, they can’t have the failure rate be too high or else word would get around. So they’re doing this against the cost of some theoretical future benefit may very well not come to pass. I suspect this decision hasn’t been properly costed out.
It’s quite obviously cheaper to not make it replaceable, otherwise they would do it globally. Companies are not that spiteful when it comes to money. The battery is probably already theoretically replaceable by repair shops with special tool or whatever, there was just an opening in the hull missing. So it’s likely just one or two pieces that have to be manufactured differently, the rest can stay the same.
The other two markwts are too big to include and not profit from the resulting issues.
You juat have to make it unprofitable enough for two models to coexist to make them just fold and only make one.