"Bulky" & "less optimised" is way cheaper, because you can actually do something about it, when there is some failure.
The too high so-called "optimisation" is what makes users buy a new phone every one or two years.
Discussion
„Cheaper“ comes at the price of quality, thus reduced longevity.
Also, by targeting people who buy news stuff, clothes, phones every month/year, you substitute one problem with another. Your arguments could be equally well addressed by „educating“ people to control their consumption, without the need to enforce new standards.
The actual question is: Will introducing replaceable batteries lead to less electronics waste? Given the current technological state, it’s unlikely (not saying it’s impossible). Will making people aware of the environmental damage caused by excess consumption lead to less waste? Likely yes, but much more time consuming.
Your first statement is wrong.
Remember old cheap "dumb" phones?
I had a friend, who literally had it washed in the washing machine by accident. He let it dry for 2 days, before turning it on, again.
Still worked.
Try this with a "smart" phone.
Yet, the "smart" phone is highly "optimised", much more expensive, luxurious, etc.
Similar thing with laptops.
Back then, bulky & heavy laptops could fall to the ground & it was fine for a long time.
Now, with all those so-called "Ultrabooks" etc., you have to watch out to not break it or it's screen during normal usage, outside.
These are just two examples out of many, where "cheaper", heavier & bulkier means, it actually lasts way longer, than a highly "optimised" edition of the same type of product. :)
Defining the technological advancement of an electronic device by how many washing cycles it can withstand or what height it can fall from without breaking is a very interesting, yet extravagant way of seeing the state-of-the-art. If we agree on this definition, I‘m 100% with you. Unfortunately, robustness is one of the many characteristics, which happens to be disregarded in the last years.
In my opinion, you are mixing two things: the overall dumbness of the mainstream population striving for overhype and ready to buy any shit they see on TV and the modern technology that is driven by competition, curiosity and investments.
Talking about the latter, the current state was a result of multiple decades of evolution, which seems to be the most optimal solution for the current market situation and the level of competition. Also, I‘m not saying enforcement of replaceable batteries won’t have any effect - it certainly will. It might not be the one you expect though.
You are correct, but you shouldn't have stopped at saying "current market situation" & rather expand on that.
The "current market situation" is based on the majority of people issuing a buying behaviour, which is manipulated extremely heavily by false advertisements about products from huge companies.
The majority of people doesn't know anything about electronics. They buy what friends buy & those friends buy whatever some ad showed during shopping & the manipulation victim didn't even notice consciously, because mostly the unconscious part was aware for this ad. It's like this thing, where people tell themselves "I think, I want this, but I don't know why".
So, to complete your correct assessment, I have to emphasise, that the "current market situation" is bullshit in the first place & the "optimised" products are therefore optimised to bullshit.
We need actual optimisation to things, that actually are pro consumer, not anti consumer. I. e. robustness, usability, openness & customisability. Not slim, unrepairable, X as a Service, etc.
These are the actual pro consumer values. Having a couple of millimeters thin "smartphone" which breaks on every fall or in two years for no reason other than "optimisation" to bullshit is simply against the consumer. This is how you design a product, if you hate the consumer & want to milk every single drop of money out of him.