I find it funny to see so many people trying to blame the battery-issues on the fact that the phone had a non-removable battery. Guess what, it has no effect what-so-ever. If that really was the case, would there not be tens of thousands of phones exploding in peoples pockets?
Originally Posted by DADDYDC650
Don't need removeable batteries? How is that working out for Samsung?
Exceptionally well. The Galaxy S6 and S7-models broke every record there was. It's also much, much easier to make the phone water-resistant, and it looks much better in the process aswell (I have personally not seen a good-looking IP67/8 certified phone with removable batteries). Not to mention you don't get the annoying messages about checking the back-cover to make sure it's watertight.
Samsung also follows the target market. As someone who works in one of the three largest consumer-electronics retailers in Norway, the people who buy high-end/flagship phones don't really care about removable batteries. Number one priority is camera, followed by battery-life, design and performance. SdCards was another feature the market wanted, so they brought it back. They do listen to the customers, but when it comes to decisions, they follow the majority, not the minority of the market
Shame to see the phone going EOL so quickly. Didn't even go on sale in the nordics before the first recall happend, which put it on hold indefinitely. I really wanted to upgrade from my aging Note 3