Feb 19th, 2012

Ideally, manufacturers should release products with features that customers want. But some specs may be a bit impossible to feature together. There seems to be a new trend in the market – non-removable batteries. This allows manufacturers to pack things together and make devices much thinner. But is that really what we want?

Having a removable battery brings many improvements to the user experience. Batteries lose efficiency, for one, and one is usually able to just hit a carrier store and pop in the new battery when this happens. Plus, being able to chose third-party and extended batteries is something that we have grown accustomed to.

Devices like the Motorola Droid RAZR and the Droid 4 now come with a non-removable battery, ripping us out of such benefits. But Motorola decided to release the Droid RAZR Maxx, with a huge 3,300 mAh battery. This allows users to go up to multiple days without plugging in their device. And even though it is a bit thicker than the original, it is still amazingly thin.

But such is not the case for the Droid 4. Sure, it is a thin device considering it has a full slide-out keyboard. But we feel like Motorola could have given us a removable-battery by working on it a bit harder, or adding a millimeter or two.

So this raises the question – is it really worth it to make a device thinner by making it impossible to remove the battery? I know I prefer thicker, heavier devices over incredibly thin and light ones. This is the reason why I love HTC so much, its smartphones feel very solid.

But some people may prefer a thinner, lighter smartphone. If the battery is almost twice as big (like the RAZR Maxx), I wouldn’t mind a non-removable battery as much. And the device is still amazingly thin compared to the competition.

But tell us what you think. Go ahead and give us your opinion by participating in the poll, and hit the comments section to explain your reasoning.

local_offer    Motorola  Verizon