"Too many people here complain they can't dismantle things or replace parts, or don't have the portage they want in one thread, and then engage in techo-masturbation over a device that's 1mm thinner or half an ounce lighter in another."
I've never swooned over a device of any type for being smaller or lighter. If people want that, it's their prerogative to seek out such things in the marketplace. I do hold manufacturers responsible for spectacularly unserviceable devices like this one, though. Manufacturers have engineers; maybe if they worked on engineering ways to make devices serviceable AND small instead of using "it's too small to be serviceable" as an excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway, which is to build in planned obsolescence so that the devices have to be replaced fairly regularly.
Apple has long been the master of this; its devices were near the top of the heap as far as lack of serviceability before the Surface Laptop took that prize. Even so, some shops have figured out how to repair the various iThings. Then, of course, Apple famously issued an update to brick devices that had already been successfully repaired and were functioning perfectly with reasonably-priced (non-Apple) parts. That update didn't make the iPhone any smaller or lighter, but it did illustrate Apple's real motive-- a cynical desire to prevent people from repairing their expensive iPhones and forcing them to buy new ones, to the benefit of Apple but to the detriment of their customers and to the environment. The same could be said of the non-removable, remarkably short-lived battery in some of the early-generation iPods, not to mention Apple's efforts to block "right to repair" legislation across the US.
It's clear that the desire to make their products small and light isn't exactly the only thing Apple is trying to accomplish by making them difficult to service. Microsoft has joined them, and even one-upped them with this laptop that is specifically designed to be impossible to open without destroying it. Apple's devices are difficult to service, as are other Surface products, but this Surface Laptop appears to be impossible to service, by design.
Disposable items, more than any other thing, are cheap. Make this Microsoft lappy cost $150 and you might have a deal (depending on whether I can get something other than Windows 10 on there; I am guessing not). Of course, I don't mean the 4GB model; selling a non-upgradeable laptop with 4GB in this day and age is nuts. I don't care that it's higher-spec than the laptops that actually cost $150; those are within the price range that disposability would be somewhat acceptable.
For $1000 plus, though, there's just no friggin' way. I'll pay 30 cents for a disposable Bic pen, but I am not going to spend hundreds of dollars on a super premium pen set that can't have a new ink cartridge installed. Expensive things with consumable bits (batteries, SSDs, or ink cartridges, for example) need to be serviceable.
"Make whatever choice you want - I don't care. I do object to the selfish attitude - "It isn't what I want, so no-one else should be allowed to buy one either."
I believe you have created a strawman here. I don't recall anyone saying that no one should be allowed to buy glued-together, expensive, disposable devices. I'd go as far to say that anyone with any sense wouldn't want one, but never that it shouldn't even be allowed.
If manufacturers can sucker people into buying disposable pens, computers, or anything else for a thousand bucks, that's between them and their marks... ah, customers. At least we should try to make sure people are informed of the disposable nature of their goods before they shell out their hard-earned cash. I'd bet that most people don't really understand that this Surface Laptop can't have its battery replaced at all. They're used to smart phones and other things where replacement is difficult, but it would be reasonable for them to expect that it can be done in some fashion.