17" MacBook Pro Battery Replacement = $179

[Vincent Ferrari]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/07/macbook-pro-17-battery-replacement-179-and-other-notes/' target='_blank'>http://www.macrumors.com/2009/01/07...nd-other-notes/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Apple's only hardware announcement yesterday was the 17" MacBook Pro revision which brings the laptop in-line with the rest of the unibody laptops introduced in November. The new notebook brings a few welcome changes to the high-end Apple notebook, including a maximum of 8GB of RAM. The non-replaceable battery, however, has generated some complaints but Apple's promises that their technology should allow the battery to last 5 years before it needs replacing. When that time comes, Gizmodo was told that the battery replacement will cost $179."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/at/auto/1231419197.usr18053.jpg" /></p><p>*sigh*</p><p>I'm so not happy about the non-removable battery, and I'm so not buying any of the reasons it exists.&nbsp; If you have the 15" MacBook Pro, look at the battery cover.&nbsp; It's paper thin.&nbsp; Is Apple seriously telling us that a paper-thin battery cover would change the dynamics of the design that much that they couldn't make the battery removable?&nbsp; Secondly, a lot of folks are saying that the hard disk is accessible in the new model by removing the lower panel of the case.&nbsp; If that's the case, why is the battery inaccessible?&nbsp; Anyway, be prepared; if you buy the 17" MacBook Pro, replacing that non-accessible wonder of a battery won't be cheap.</p>

[Janak Parekh]

A key point here is that Li-Poly batteries can be flexible in shape. By removing the removable battery feature, you can nestle batteries closer to the components, wrap them around places, make them larger, etc. So, yes, I'd buy their argument.

The better question is if people would prefer a somewhat thicker laptop with a removable battery, and given the base size of the laptop, the answer is probably "yes" in your case. ;) I'm guessing Apple has done its research, though, and found many people don't replace the battery.

--janak

[Phronetix]

I also buy their argument, but am not holding my breath about the 8 hour claim. It'll barely get 6 hours I suspect in real world use, best case scenario. But what if it gets eight hours? That would be amazing.

This is where the Apple critics and I have always differed. A critic sees this release and says, "It's a deal breaker!" No replaceable battery, typical Apple, reducing my freedom to change my batter whenever I want, to have a second battery, yadda yadda yadda. This applies to other devices as well, and in some cases I will agree with the critics.

In this case, I tend to agree with Apple. What exactly IS the fuss? Each laptop I have owned has typically required a battery replacement once in it's life, and this one may not because of the increased lifespan, so if it does, the process is more complex and almost twice as costly. That's fair, I think, when you factor in the gains. As far as having two batteries, to swap out when needed. Well, if you do that, then you are in the vast minority. A loud minority judging by the usual sound-offs, but a small number of users. The rest of us rely on recharging, plugging in our machines.

You know, plugs, you can find them nearly everywhere.

[doogald]

Anyway, be prepared; if you buy the 17" MacBook Pro, replacing that non-accessible wonder of a battery won't be cheap.</p>

It's really not that much more expensive than a removable battery, and if it truly lasts 60% longer, the price ends up being the same.

I understand that you do not like nonremovable, but I feel pretty strongly that a very, very strong majority of MBP users never replace their battery. I'd bet that it's closer to 100% than 50%, too.

I'll be in the market for a new notebook exactly a year from now, and I'm leaning more toward an Air than a MB; here's hoping that they improve battery tech for that model as well by then.

[ucfgrad93]

I find it strange that they didn't include a replaceable battery. However, that said, I've never had a second battery for any laptop I've owned. I've always just relied on plugging it in.

As for the cost, I just checked Apple's website and a 2nd battery for your MB or 15" MBP will cost $129 so the cost to replace the 17" battery is not so unreasonable.

[ptyork]

If you live near an Apple store, then really this is probably no big deal unless you are a power user (like I once was) and require multiples. If you don't live near an Apple store, then does this include shipping? FedEx overnight both ways? Doubt it. I'm 150+ miles from an Apple store. Wouldn't consider this laptop...

Apple stores are near 90% of Apple users and 95% of Apple user don't use multiple batteries. I'm making these numbers up, but probably close. Anyway, it is just typical Apple. Not afraid to alienate the minority in the name of an almost insignificant degree aesthetics/ergonomics.

BTW, I get 2.5-3 hours on my 17" MacBook Pro that is supposed to get 5 with its 65kwH battery. So, 8 hours out of a 96kwH is probably is closer to 4 in real world usage. Sure that's with WiFi and 80% brightness, but at least for me that's real world.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Nobody replaces their batteries? Really? Even on Macs the batteries tend to get worn after 1 year plus. Unless you all tell me you buy new Macbooks every year...

I do like having multiple batteries (usually one slim and one extended battery). That way I can choose to travel lighter, have more battery life, or have even MORE battery life.

Apple's obsession with thin is the result of this sillyness. I'm agreeing with Janak on this one.

[Janak Parekh]

Nobody replaces their batteries? Really? Even on Macs the batteries tend to get worn after 1 year plus. Unless you all tell me you buy new Macbooks every year... I do replace my MBP's battery when it wears out. Apple claims the new batteries have many more charge cycles due to intelligent recharging. We'll see.

Apple's obsession with thin is the result of this sillyness. I'm agreeing with Janak on this one. You may call it silliness, but it appears the consumer likes it. Witness their sales. ;)

As for me, I'm mixed. I like the other features of Apple's products enough to outweigh the disadvantages of having sealed batteries, and I do like the thinness in certain cases (e.g., iPhone, maybe the Air). But I do agree that it's far from ideal for certain segments of the market, and given the 17" laptop is huge to begin with, adding another 5% wouldn't really matter.

--janak

[crimsonsky]

I replace my laptops before batteries reach the end of their useable life. My almost 2 year old MacBook had it's battery replaced a few months ago because it was one of the defective ones and was replaced free of charge, so it was like starting over again. And I use my MacBook plugged in about 90% of the time. So this would not be a deal breaker for me at all. (Of course, I can't afford the 17" MacBook Pro, so this is all academic anyway).

My son on the other hand uses his MacBook off battery probably 90% of the time, so I can see where for someone like him, not having a removable battery would be a big deal.

[ianbjor]

Chuq Von Rospach predicted this response before the laptop was announced. Good article:

http://chuqui.typepad.com/chuqui_30/2009/01/cue-the-complaints-17-inch-macbook-pro-without-a-removable-battery-venturebeat.html

I especially like the point about the 3rd party external batteries (i.e. one large enough to power a laptop). I remember seeing a review of this on Mobility Today -- I've always been intrigued by these things, but never really had the need to buy one.