"Not user serviceable" != "non-replaceable." Apple is happy to replace your iPhone battery for around $80.

What do you mean after a few years? Name one smartphone that doesn't have crappy battery life out of the goddamn box!

Seriously smartphone manufacturers, stop trying to shave 3 yoctometers off the thickness every 6 months and give me a phone that is thicker but has a battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time and cycles less deeply so it has a longer life.

The Moto Z Play, with its combination of 3510 mAh battery, Snapdragon 625 processor and 1080p screen has great battery life. Add in a power pack Moto Mod if you need even more. It's a mid-range phone for a mid-range price (and so comes with tradeoffs), but it's a solid phone and for battery life it's excellent. Mine just got the Android 7 upgrade too.

iPhone battery capacity:

4 - 1420 mAh

4s - 1432 mAh

5 - 1440 mAh

5s - 1570 mAh

6 - 1810 mAh

6s - 1715 mAh

7 - 1960 mAh

It dipped a bit from 6 to 6s but other than that they have been consistently increasing battery capacity.

(Btw, plus models have more; the iPhone 7+ for example has 2900 mAh. On the other hand, they drain more for the screen.)

I don't see how this refutes my claim that, in my opinion, there isn't a smartphone that has reasonable mileage on a single charge.

Battery capacity increases alone are meaningless when the hardware connected to it drains it just the same.

Also interesting is the SE, that has the same form factor as the 5s:

SE - 1624 mAh

You're talking about an increase of 54 mAh. I can't see that saving the day.

Get a battery case. The world has spoken bad rejected thicker heavier longer battery life phones. Thinner, lighter is easier to carry and use.

When you find yourself agreeing with everyone in the room it's time to leave.

What were these thicker heavier longer life phones of which you speak? I don't recall there being any of those to have rejected.

Maybe you mean ye olde feature phones or their predecessors. I don't think that's a fair comparison.