Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty sure most (all?) manufacturers already do (the first part of) this. 100% can't be the point at which the battery literally stops taking new charge - if you did that they'd catch fire all the time. It's just that the manufacturers idea of what "100%" should be generally skews more towards the immediate battery life end of the tradeoff, whereas some users prefer to have "100%" closer to the maximizing long t…
You are right but I disagree. Yes, devices do not charge batteries to 100% as that is directly damaging. And they don't discharge to 0% for the same reason. So they charge to something slightly less. But that slightly less is for all intents and purposes the only definition of 100% we, as end users, have. It's like saying that your CPU is actually only running at 70% clock frequency but overclocking it to 100% would…
To take the phone example, mine usually ends the day around 85%. I just don't use it too often. But I sometimes absolutely do and would trade months of battery life for not being left without battery in the middle of nowhere. And the 20% can make all the difference.
A few years ago, I rented a car in a foreign country on a foreign continent. It didn't come with a USB port, and I didn't have a cigar adaptor. When I arrived at my destination, at night, my phone's battery was 10%. I sure as hell am happy that it was charged to a "full" 100% instead of dying on me one hour earlier.
Sure, I could have grabbed an external battery or something. Not sure how much environmentally smarter that is, since it would basically rot away in a drawer somewhere, since I would basically never use it.
---
[0] Where does this 80% come from? Would it be even better if I stopped charging at 60%? I rarely use more than 20% of my phone's battery, so that would be largely enough, but I sometimes absolutely do and would hate to have to lug around external batteries "just in case".