A man who knows a lot about iPhones said that the next big iPhone might have a better battery that lasts longer. It could also be lighter because of a smaller battery. The phone might use stronger metal for its back, but it would make the phone heavier and not cool down as fast. This might be because the people who make the rules in Europe want it to be easier to change batteries yourself. Read from source...

1. The headline is misleading and sensationalized, implying that the iPhone 16 Pro Max will have a major upgrade in both battery and material, when in reality it is only speculative and based on one analyst's opinion. A more accurate headline would be "iPhone 16 Pro Max May or May Not Get Battery Boost And Stainless Steel Upgrade, Says Top Apple Analyst".
2. The article relies heavily on the words of Kuo, without providing any evidence or data to support his claims. This makes the article untrustworthy and biased towards one source, which may have its own agenda or incentives. A more balanced approach would be to include other experts' opinions, research findings, or industry trends that could either confirm or challenge Kuo's predictions.
3. The article fails to mention any potential drawbacks or challenges associated with the proposed changes, such as the impact on battery life, performance, durability, manufacturing costs, environmental footprint, consumer preferences, etc. This gives a one-sided and incomplete view of the issue, which could mislead readers into making uninformed decisions or expectations about the future product.
4. The article does not provide any context or background information on why Apple would consider changing its battery material from aluminum to stainless steel, or how this aligns with its overall strategy and vision. This makes the article superficial and uninformative, as it does not explain the motivations, benefits, or trade-offs behind such a decision.
5. The article ends with an irrelevant and out-of-place plug for the Benzinga Tech Trends newsletter, which seems to be more of a marketing tactic than a service to readers. This lowers the credibility and professionalism of the article, as it suggests that the author's main goal is to attract subscribers rather than inform or engage them.