We have to choose between swappable batteries, waterproofness, and compactness. most people are more concerned with waterproofness and compactness, and are perfectly happy to have a phone where the battery is not field serviceable.
Resealable waterproof cases that don't require adhesives are less reliable and bulkier. Nobody really wants a waterproof phone, with a replaceable battery, that has an o-ring seal that can be defeated by a cat hair.
The phones do exist, but you have to go looking for them.
There's another one on Verizon USA right now[1]. Same story: heavy, bulky, anyone who asks for it don't commit to it.
By the way, I was really surprised to learn that US Army special operations guys just procure whatever latest models of Galaxy S2x in a marginally special plastic case that clips onto a flip-down chest mount. If that's all they need for parachute jumping and covert operations as far as physical reliability is concerned, surely I am not going to need any more hardening for my daily uses.
On the other hand, I sometimes see these seriously rugged phones seriously beaten up appearing in used markets with warehouse or heavy industrial factory style damages. Clearly that's where IP56 protection is actually required and proven.
I wouldn't mind a Galaxy Xcover at all by the way, but here's one more war the corporations push people away from these devices: lack of software updates.
Waterproof phone* (excluding contacts for the battery and 3.5mm audio ports, which can be submerged without long term damage), and
Waterproofed battery* (safe to submerge, refuses to discharge unsafely).
I, personally, would also sacrifice compactness for robustness. I don't rock climb, but make a phone that can survive a tumble of multiple 10 meter drops and rolls and twists down a rock face. It must still be able to call EMS. That spec sounds bullet-proof enough to survive my relative's young kids worst antics.
The bottom line is you're not putting money where your mouth is. Real rugged devices can't have top notch performance because waterproofing and expanding wider operating temperature require insulation and therefore performance reduction but that's not important.
The very core of the problem is you - not personally but the vast majority would-be rugged phone buyers - just don't buy rugged phones, nor take it outdoors. People who'd demand rugged phones would just buy the latest and greatest iPhone, maybe with a case with reward points, and that covers almost every single use cases.
If there had been demand at all, the level of performance possible in a ruggedized phone will be the benchmark, and current high end will be considered over the top models with compromised ruggedness, but the reality isn't working that way at all.
And note that it comes down to what threat level it actually faces. I take my perfectly ordinary smartphone into the wilderness. It's never going to tumble down a rock face both because you'll never find me on one but because I have it lanyarded to me. It's fallen a few times, but the lanyard has kept it from hitting the ground.
You have to balance the cost of it being rugged vs the expected chance of the ruggedness keeping it from being damaged. And for most people the tradeoff isn't worth it.
We have to choose between swappable batteries, waterproofness, and compactness. most people are more concerned with waterproofness and compactness, and are perfectly happy to have a phone where the battery is not field serviceable.
Resealable waterproof cases that don't require adhesives are less reliable and bulkier. Nobody really wants a waterproof phone, with a replaceable battery, that has an o-ring seal that can be defeated by a cat hair.
The phones do exist, but you have to go looking for them.