Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

They can, it's just that the trade-off isn't worth appeasing a few HN readers.

>The reason earbud companies use non-replaceable rechargeable batteries is simple: It makes the earbuds smaller. Earbud buyers generally prefer more compact devices, but that means the earbuds have less room inside for all the necessary components. Designers need to cram a Bluetooth chip and processor, an antenna, a battery, drivers, controls, and microphones into something that’s often the size of a thimble. Replaceable battery compartments require more earbud real estate, and in a competitive field where tiny is currently king, companies don’t want to risk their earbuds being flops by making them bigger.

https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/your-wireless-earbud...

View on HN

I think it is fairly impressive that Apple managed turn 200€ earbuds into disposable tech where users accept that they have to switch every two years or so. Before the arrival of the first generation AirPods, most people wearing AirPods today would probably have never even considered spending 200€ on a pair of earbuds/headphones, let alone do that regularly.

But I have to admit, my AirPods Pro are incredibly convenient

They're easily on the list of things I would replace immediately if I lost them, without even a second thought. The price is nothing for the amount of use I get out of them.

Another reason for the trend (in phones too) is better water resistance.

> It makes the earbuds smaller.

How can we verify that’s anything more than an urban legend? The same sort of rationalizations were made for the removal of the headphone jack, and they were proven false (the iPhone 7 had such a big empty space inside it that a YouTuber was able to fit Apple’s external lightning adapter in, drill a circle in the outer aluminum, and have a functioning 3.5mm jack). These CT scans seem to show some empty space where the stem meets the bud, perhaps they could detach there.

The reason is simpler than that. Battery will inevitably wear out, and it is a very deliberate planned obsolescence move.

I don't know about that. I still have my original AirPods, and they had no noticeable battery loss, and it's been over 3 years by now. They might have lost some battery if I tried to measure it empirically, but I have no way of knowing without measuring it explicitly, as I cannot really catch a battery loss of less than 5-10% with normal use over the course of 3+ years. But I use them all the time interchangeably with Airpods Pro, and both deliver on battery so far. Airpods Pro have already hit the 2-year mark for me as well, no issues either.

I had to replace one of the OG airpods because I lost it (around 2 years ago), but replacing a single airpod was only like $50.

I got the original Airpods and after less than two years the battery lasted like 15 minutes in one of the pods. They are a disposable product.

Are you claiming that this is a common experience? You sure you didn't dunk yours into water or something?

Because out of all people I know irl who had airpods for 2+ years, no one has reported any noticeable battery loss, let alone something as extreme as "only lasts 15 mins". I would be livid if mine lasted anywhere even close to that, but so far I am solidly in the advertised battery life range, even after 3 years of use.

Also, just fyi, it seems like your unit might have been defective, in which case Apple offers free replacement (regardless of whether you have any additional warranties or not)[0]. If you have AppleCare+ and your battery lasts less than 80% of advertised range, it is also free replacement (even if it wasn't a defective unit). And just the regular replacement regardless of warranty or anything like that is $49.

0. https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery

> Also, just fyi, it seems like your unit might have been defective, in which case Apple offers free replacement

Where did you hear that? That's not my experience at all. Apple denied that there was anything wrong with my iPhone 6S that suffered from sudden shutdowns for more than a year, before they introduced the iPhone 6S battery exchange program. That was a pretty frustrating experience.

> And just the regular replacement regardless of warranty or anything like that is $49.

In Europe it's 55€ per Airpod, so the total cost would have been 110€ (the second Airpod lasted a bit longer but still not enough to make it through a movie).

110€ seemed like a steep price to pay for two new Airpods with an old charging case that will cost another 55€ when its battery inevitably dies.

I have two pairs of originals. Both have trash batteries now. I bought the new Sony XM4s. Remarkable headphones.

Interesting! After 2 years, I'm down to 1 hour of battery life in my second generation AirPods. Fortunately I use one at a time, so I just swap back and forth between them when one dies.

My bigger issue is that my AirPods no longer give a warning when they're getting low on battery. The first time the sound chimes marks 3 seconds until it's about to die. I'm left scrambling to get my other one out as my phone reverts to handset audio (in my pocket).

My android garbage phone pauses media if Bluetooth goes away. The only thing that won't is a literal LTE/4g call, that goes to handset.

I was baffled at that comment too. iOS should pause playback on headphone disconnection (wired or otherwise) as well. My only guess would be some sort of rogue app that doesn't respond to OS notifications, so it continues to play sound even after disconnection. In that case the OS would obligingly send the audio stream to the default device (ie. on device speakers). That said the default apps (eg. music or podcasts) should be fine.

This happens most often on calls, since battery life is much worse (60%?) when speaker and mic are being used. That’s why I’m left scrambling to get the other earbud in — someone is talking whether I can hear them or not.

I disagree - it's clearly what consumers want. There are a million phone options, including ones with replaceable batteries, and overwhelmingly people choose the smaller form factor with nonreplaceable batteries.

I haven't seen a flagship phone with replaceable battery in forever. I absolutely want that and would pay more for it, but I won't compromise on performance and camera quality either. But Airpods I don't care about the battery being replaceable. Maybe because I expect to have to replace the pods before the battery is useless.

Also, good enough is good enough. If the battery lasts about 2 years people want the next model anyway.

I'm not sure I would have bought AirPods if I knew ahead of time that the battery would die in less than two years and replacing them costs as much as getting new Airpods.

You weren’t aware the batteries were not replaceable?

That is not what they said. It's one thing to have non-replaceable batteries, it's another to have batteries that only last two years or less - generally the size (in milliamp hours) of the battery is what determines its life, so the battery is sized to coincide with the release of new models.

If you're fine with that sort of planned obsolescence, cool.

That’s not what I said either. I said batteries that last as long as the user wants to use the device before they replace it are good enough. Not that they actually die by then.

My AirPods are almost two years old, I use them every day and they are still going fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com