I'd say that given gun makers received legal immunity from liability, yes, they have taken steps to escape responsibility that other industries do not enjoy. That they fix a broken gun is not the same thing as being held liable if that broken gun led to an accident. My point is that the immunity granted went well beyond the scope you are describing here. The language of the immunity does not stop at lawful use of a firearm - it could have, but didn't. And the manufacturers achieved this with the lobbying effort of the organization they fund - the NRA. To reiterate, it is not "outrageous" to say that the NRA operates, at least at times, in the interests of gun *manufacturers*. This is sometimes (often) coincident with the interests of gun owners, but this is at least one (very prominent) example of the interests of manufacturers being held above the potential liability claims of gun owners. I am not trying to be hyperbolic here - just open-minded. Consumer electronics groups can (and often do) lobby in efforts that are beneficial to users. An open marketplace with competitive products is good for consumers and for manufacturers. Yet if CEA lobbied Congress to hold device manufacturers without liability if their computers exploded (or, say, came with rootkits installed), it would be reasonable to point out that CEA was operating in the interests of the manufacturers -- not the users.

Membership dues provide less than half of the NRA's funding - a very large amount (tens of millions) come through sales of guns. How various organizations under the umbrella of the NRA get funded

So the NRA at least has a financial interest in the success of the gun manufacturing industry.

The quid-pro-quo for the gun manufacturing industry came when the NRA pushed and got passed legal immunity for liability related to the use of the gun industry's products, even in the case of defective and unsafe products. This was unprecedented. Manufacturers of defective or unsafe weapons now enjoy legal protection that Ford never received when manufacturing the Pinto.

The NRA does not act solely as a gun-manufacturers rights organization, but it is both significantly funded by gun manufacturers and has acted to protect the financial interests of the gun manufacturers. It is not "outrageous" to point this out.

Yes, I carry an extra battery (or batteries) when I'm traveling. (Especially someplace like Las Vegas). I might want to use my phone a good bit for an extended period of time without ever really getting sufficient time to charge it. Ever notice how people who have devices with "fantastic" battery life still crowd the charging areas? It's not always plausible to be able to charge up, especially on the go. Having a swappable battery is quite a lot less stressful than figuring that if you don't elbow out the other 150 people on your flight for those 5 charging spots, your phone might not make it through the day. Good for you if you're not traveling from the East Coast to West Coast in a single day and having 20+ hour "days", but that's not me. If you travel, swappable batteries are *nice*. Just ask the Mophie people, who specialize in basically making this functionality available to people with iPhones.
You're also totally ignoring the fact that even high-quality batteries have a limited life-cycle -- usually about 300 charge cycles. In other words, by sealing the battery inside, you've made the entire device disposable. I prefer to just replace the battery after about a year & get back the full battery performance I had with the device when it was new.
Finally, this is a Nexus device. By definition, the people who will be interested in this are tinkerers. This means they may run development software on it, including firmware. Guess what's a key step to reliably resetting the device in the case of bad firmware? You guessed it - battery pull.
Non-swappable battery is a dealbreaker, sorry.