As someone who gets a ridiculous amount of use out of their pods, I really hope this business pans out. I think the product is great, but batteries are consumable products. In fact, I would hope that one day it would be mandatory to offer battery replacements for all products you sell. (Do correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think Apple currently does this for pods?)
what's frustrating is that while batteries are consumable products they could last much longer if they stay between 80 and 20% capacity without overheating. (this is similar to what tesla does) I wish there was a "battery care" settings on all electronics that would respect limits like this so that I could get thousands of cycles out of my devices instead of only <1000.
Apple has added a feature which tries to do this intelligently to some extent but it's not the best at guessing what my needs are.
The majority of the time I do not need max or even half of max battery life from my devices. airpods I only use for an hour or two at a time for example and my phone is usually close to a charger.
Ex EV battery engineer here.
You’re right that the cycle life of a lithium battery typically doubles per 0.05V (‘tik’) undercharged from 4.15V (and on the other end of the scale as well, less so).
This typically corresponds to around 7-10% capacity per ‘tik’, so to effectively triple your battery cycle count would reduce the runtime by approximately 30%.
Interesting effect here.. the amount of power in each cycle is less because you’re undercharging the battery. And for each consecutive ‘tik’, 0.05V is approximately more power because the discharge curve becomes flatter (voltage != state of charge). It doesn’t scale like you’d think. Seriously diminishing returns!
Could you tell me if the "under X%" claim is true about battery? I saw an old study that didn't seem to be affected by how low the charge got, just heat (fast charge) and time spent charging over 80%.
Lenovo and other manufacturers provides configuration app to limit State of Charge for battery over a decade ago. Apple just implemented similar feature (but automatic) in 2020. Without that, battery is unnecessary degrading while plugged into AC with 100% SOC.
As seemingly half my coworkers needed batteries replaced on 2018 macbooks last year roughly as applecare ran out due to not being able to charge and work at the same time.
I think I got a pretty high number out of my first MacBook Pro before the battery swelled up like a bad bruise. But my current work laptop is now at 87% capacity with 82 cycles, so I don't have a lot of confidence in the battery lasting to 1000.
For cars, maybe, but my org has had a long line of HP laptops with swollen battery packs within a year of use. No doubt there are companies out there that would rather have the extra hour of runtime on some journalists review fact sheet than a battery that doesn't put their customers at risk.
I hounded Dell for months and got them to replace I guess 2 or 3 dozens of Optiplex DL270 motherboards and it felt good: forcing them to take the cost for their shoddy work.
The times I had an issue with an HP business laptop I called them and either a technician came to my office and replaced the part (a screen in that case) or they sent a spare after confirming I was capable to change it myself.
Good point, and it is/does for many products. EVs beyond Tesla all do this for instance.
I do wish there was a little more of treating your users like adults though. If I have enough battery to make an urgent call, but it puts me under the 20% recommended, I want to make that call at the cost of long term battery life.
My products treat users like adults, I wish it was a more common consideration.
My Note 8 phone has a charge battery notification at 15 percent.
I just replaced that phone, and yes with another one because I happen to like that model a lot, and my old one did 1500+ cycles with respectable battery capacity remaining. I replaced it due to a cracked screen, not battery trouble.
My general experience has been to avoid fully charging the battery and leaving the device on the charger, plus avoiding high demand use under 15 to 20 percent adds very considerably to longer term battery health.
This has played out across a number of devices, lenovo laptop, various phones.
After, say a few hundred cycles, it's very important to avoid taking the battery below 5 percent or even to zero. When that happens, the battery capacity is reduced every time, and it's by a significant amount.
As batteries discharge their voltage drops. This is known as a discharge curve. The curve is based on a constant current, different current draws have different curves.
Battery capacity is guessed by the Voltage output at the current draw when measured.
Laptops usually throttle components, reducing current draw, when they fall below certain percentages. This prolongs the battery so that last 10% really does last longer.
This article goes into some nitty gritty details if you're curious.
10% vs 30% corresponds to whatever arbitrary voltage they select but I doubt they are selecting for battery durability over all else since marketing max run time is so important.
Automotive engineer that doesn’t work on EVs here… there is a lot that goes into the battery. Heating and cooling elements for instance. You’re right, max runtime is the number one factor, but this can be gamed just like MPG ratings.
I’m not sure many reviews are checking 0-60 times at 20% battery for example.
My EV has a hilarious “miles remaining” number that INSTANTLY changes when the HVAC is on, doesn’t matter if it’s only slightly on or not, I instantly “lose” 8 or 9%. It’s pretty loose. As to what I actually get? Doesn’t really matter, never even compared to rating, mfgs know we use these cars for city travel.
The small percentage of EVs you see on long haul highway, owners already know to carefully plan their trips.
Depends on the locations and cars in question; on the east coast there are lots of DC Fast charging stations between anywhere and anywhere else.
This is double true for Tesla where there are superchargers nearly everywhere. With access superchargers, road trips are roughly as complex as driving a diesel with a 5-8 gallon tank.
Also the tesla UI is very good at managing the trip so it is trivial to offload the "how do I get there including charging" task to the UI.
Well the good thing about these kinds of buds is that your rarely discharge them heavily. Because you always put them back in the case. Mine never go below 50% (don't have airpods but cheapie €20 xiaomis that work surprisingly great).
But it would be nice to have an option to avoid 100% yes.
There are a lot of complaints about the buds not charging in the case, most likely due to not making full contact with the charging pins. The buds have no auto-sleep feature for some reason, so they'll stay connected until the battery runs out.
Not only is this annoying, it also adds tons of unnecessary full discharge cycles.
The new wireless charging cases are also bad - they seem to stay warm even when no longer charging, which probably degrades the batteries as well.
I don't think you could get thousands of cycles, but you might be able to go from <500 to ~1000. Higher quality cells might achieve the same thing though. Apple guarantees 1000 cycles on its laptops, like a sister comment states.
Consider a Tesla that gets ~250 miles of range per full cycle. The battery would reach 1000 cycles after 250k miles of driving, at which point you have a pretty old car. Depending on factors like time, environmental conditions, driving style, a battery replacement might be necessary at some point in the car's life. So the batteries in EVs probably cannot sustain thousands of cycles. The battery capacity is large enough that the overall cycle count is reasonable within the lifespan of the vehicle, and the battery cooling system keeps degradation reasonable given the high demands EV batteries must fulfill.
Apple actually does this both with your iPhone battery and your AirPods but it’s automatic and you can’t ask to switch to that mode. I see it holding my AirPods at 80% overnight quite a bit. They call it “optimised battery charging”.
I use my AirPods so much all day every day I do wish I could ask it to use that mode permanently.
Li-ions are charged in Constant Current mode from cutoff voltage(2.75V-3.2V) until maximum voltage(4.2-4.3V), and charged some more in Constant Voltage mode until cutoff current(<0.1C) is reached. Nominal voltage is in the middle at 3.7V.
I believe these (cutoff voltage, CC->CV switch, cutoff current point) are commonly referred to as (0%, 80%, 100%) levels respectively, if safety margins and psychological tweaks are not considered.
Which leads to an assumption that it is this Constant Voltage region that is often said to be damaging to cells, though I don’t know exactly why.
Neither 0% nor 100% are dangerous, but lithium ion batteries wear out a lot faster if you cycle them all the way instead of only staying within 20-80%.
Look at an airpod. Why should the battery be consumable but not the airpod? They have about the same amount of electronics. The average airpod user throws out more than an airpod's worth of plastic per day. I get junk mail with electronic trash that is bigger than an airpod.
Airpods are used with iPhones that have 20x the amount of electronics, so should last 20x as long.
People's real concern is the price which is higher than they guess because they think airpods are like regular headphones in longevity.
This was exactly my thought when I saw the headline. The air pods are so small, they're not contributing a large part to plastic waste.
It's the same story with trying to get rid of plastic straws.
In both cases, I don't want to dismiss the problem - it's just that there are bigger fish to fry to make a much large impact to the bottom line of plastic pollution.
Now, after reading through the "Our Story" of Podswap's website, I can see that the real selling point is: "Our batteries keep dying prematurely, and we don't want to fork over the cash for a whole new pair."
Recycling is great - keep it as a value proposition, but it shouldn't be the main marketing push here.
> It's the same story with trying to get rid of plastic straws.
The plastic straw thing is not to make an impact on the environment, it was chosen to make an impact on everyone's life.
Yes, we could do something bigger, but people won't notice because they can't see the effect in their day to day life.
Ban plastic straws though and EVERYONE notices and talks about it constantly everywhere. And if even one person starts using less plastic because of that, it was a success.
If someone feels they are already doing their part by sacrificing the convenience of plastic straws, how does this make them more likely to reduce plastic use elsewhere in their life? I would expect the opposite.
This strikes me as the same basic reasoning as blocking traffic to protest various social causes.
If you're "making an impact on everyone's life" in the form of making their lives more annoying and inconvenient, those people are going to resent you and the cause for which you inconvenienced them.
I disagree. I think if anything, it'll lead to people being more angry/disillusioned about recycling. It's the equivalent of your teacher/parent/manager micromanaging you on trivial tasks. Let the person figure out what they want to do but make sweeping changes that are meaningful (e.g. reg cap on companies producing/importing disposable plastic goods).
> And if even one person starts using less plastic because of that, it was a success.
I can buy not relying on the first order impacts of banning plastic straws for the coat-benefit analysis, but relying on second-order effects doesn’t mean you get to toss out cost-benefit altogether.
Podswap has stock of both new "blank" bud cases and batteries.
Crack open buds using some kind of jig. Scoop out the electronics. Solder to new battery. Cram it all back together.
That's how I'd do it.
Bonus points for choice of colors. I'd love clear or forest green or deep purple.
Watching a few air pod tear down videos, I find it weird the battery itself isn't part of the case. Like just use white instead of black. Have the barrel twist lock into place. Makes the battery replaceable. And that extra millimeter of diameter would probably be 50% more mAh.
I know replaceable batteries is un-Apple. But that's what I'd do.
Their FAQ is pretty clear that they actually replace the batteries somehow. I'm glad someone figured out how to do that, but I agree with you that the airpod batteries (like the batteries in everything else) should have been replaceable in the first place.
1. Every new product designed should have a cost associated to it for proper disposal. Thus total cost of ownership is a "green cost" which is not just acquisition but also proper disposal.
2. Another option is to put burden of mandatory proper recycling back on the original manufacturer of the product using the same supply-chain that is used for sales. Thus consumers should be able to drop electronics at retail store -> supplier -> manufacturer, eventually leading to proper disposal.
3. Incentives from government and/or from culture for manufacturers whose products support R2R (Right to Repair). Thus encouraging reuse and refurb market.
4. Certify for and incentivize towards extending Total life of equipment. e.g. low-durability electronics carry a low-durability tax.
Which isn't that bad. The oil came from under ground. Stick it back there and its not too bad. The real problem is when it ends up in rivers and oceans.
> Which isn't that bad. The oil came from under ground. Stick it back there and its not too bad.
I’m curious what you based this on?
Did you fall victim to ultracrepidarianism / the fallacy of transferable expertise [1]?
” The millions of tons of plastic swirling around the world’s oceans have garnered a lot of media attention recently. But plastic pollution arguably poses a bigger threat to the plants and animals – including humans – who are based on land.
Very little of the plastic we discard every day is recycled or incinerated in waste-to-energy facilities. Much of it ends up in landfills, where it may take up to 1,000 years to decompose, leaching potentially toxic substances into the soil and water.
Researchers in Germany are warning that the impact of microplastics in soils, sediments and freshwater could have a long-term negative effect on such ecosystems. They say terrestrial microplastic pollution is much higher than marine microplastic pollution – estimated at four to 23 times higher, depending on the environment.” [2]
Sticking something back into the ground in a safe way is non-trivial. That is to say, expensive - more expensive than waste-management companies in developing countries care to pay. Among other things, you need to make sure it won't be broken down by UV radiation from the Sun, weathered by wind and washed into the rivers, and that nothing leaks out and reaches the water table.
> Sticking something back into the ground in a safe way is non-trivial. That is to say, expensive - more expensive than waste-management companies in developing countries care to pay
You do realize the waste is created by global north capitalists (and consumed by global north capitalists and the working class), right? So why mention that it is expensive for global south countries ('developing countries'), as if it's ok that the burden of our waste is on them?
In other words the global south countries have to deal with their own waste, as well as being used as trash dump by the global north capitalists. And if they are creating a lot of waste, it's because they buy planned obsolescent black box products from global north companies (companies who 'kicked away the ladder' in the first place [1] [2]).
> So why mention that it is expensive for global south countries ('developing countries'), as if the burden is on them?
Wait, that's totally not what I wanted to say.
I mention it is expensive for companies there - companies operating there (including multinational), and companies shipping there. So they just don't do it, period. That they can get away with it is the very reason waste goes there, instead of staying in the West.
Of course I'm not blaming the developing countries: I'm blaming the companies of "global north capitalism" for exploiting the communities that can't afford to reject a deal that's ultimately bad from them. The problem is that the waste can be exported like this in the first place.
> I mention it is expensive for companies there - companies operating there (including multinational), and companies shipping there.
> I'm blaming the companies of "global north capitalism" for exploiting the communities that can't afford to reject a deal that's ultimately bad from them.
Got it, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
> The problem is that the waste can be exported like this in the first place.
Yes, I 100% agree with you.
>> waste-management companies in developing countries
That threw me off because in my experience often a service like this is taken care of by governments/local municipalities. So now I understand that you are talking about corporate entities managing waste.
My understanding from that video is that there's a network of companies involved - some on the export side, and some on the import side. Some of the latter are purely local operations - like the people operating the dump in that documentary.
In cases like that video, I find it hard to blame the locals: it's not like they have a more reasonable alternative to make money. But that's not always the case when it comes to waste management. For example, Poland is infamous for having illegal toxic waste dumps. Some local companies offer importing and properly disposing of the waste, but in reality they just bury it in the ground. For these people I wish long jail sentences, because we do have alternatives in this country; our economy does not necessitate for people to create environmental disasters (which then cost the taxpayer much more when discovered, as government then has to clean it up).
Seriously, I never understand the "environmental waste" argument as applied to AirPods.
The pair of buds weighs a third of a single disposable AA battery. There's less plastic than in an average Chinese takeout container.
If you want to complain that they're expensive to replace then go ahead. But as soon as anyone brings up the environment, give me a break. We're not talking about a 65" television that weight 55 pounds, c'mon. Each bud is four grams of mass.
If people threw out twenty pairs of AirPods a day, then sure let's worry about the environmental issue. But when they replace one pair every two to three years? I don't think so.
1. The parent comment is referring to waste in the environmental sense. Nature does not care how expensive the trash was--just the volume/composition
2. It's a big stretch to call AirPods "disposable" I (and many others) keep them for years. In the long run everything is rubbish; an expensive electronic device that lasts for years and years is not "disposable"
> Nature does not care how expensive the trash was
No, but the price is often a stand-in for how much energy/carbon it took to make the product, which is what I always assumed was the case here. I'd love to be wrong...
I suspect that the airpods are expensive because of how difficult it is to manufacture them rather than material use. They probably require the latest factories with time consuming manual labor to pack them all in the case and glue it up. As well as a thick markup that you $1 battery doesn't have.
I think the problem is volume > individual cost. Apple sold 60 million AirPods in 2019[1]. That number has surely gone up in 2020 and may even be larger in 2021.
If we use the 4 gram number, 240 million grams is about 264 tons. In recycling terms, that is really nothing - the equivalent of about 10 well packed sea containers or 13 tractor trailers. Some decent size single facilties can do that in a day.
But a gram of AirPods is more expensive to recycle than a gram of plastic, because it’s more complex. That makes it more expensive, and presumably less likely to be recycled after being discarded.
The recycling isn’t the expensive part, it’s the collection. If someone had 20 tons of these, they might actually be able to be paid for the value. It would most likely go to a battery smelter and they would burn / melt off the non-battery in the slag. Imagine collecting 20 tons 4 grams at a time though, and when they come in it is not 100 or 1000 units at a time, it’s one mixed with many other categories of material.
The real complexity is in a clean, sorted and segregated stream to recycle large quantity’s at once, and I don’t see that given the fractured state of current collections.
I'm on my second pair of airpods since launch. (Left pod on the previous pair stopped connecting).
As for wired headphones, no pair lasts over 2 years in my use. The cord always gets tangled and broken and off to the bin they go. No matter how thick, thin or even swappable the cord is, I still manage to break them.
Welcome to manufacturing. How much ore do you think it takes to make a roll of aluminum foil that sells for $3?
Obviously it takes more than 4g of raw materials to produce AirPods. But it takes extra material to make pretty much everything. So comparison-wise, it's still a tiny, tiny amount next to your TV or even laptop.
For whatever reason, AirPods, of all things, have become a go-to example of environmental waste and throwaway culture.
It's bizarre to me. I'm fairly confident that for minutes of pleasure / embodied energy, AirPods score higher than almost anything else I own, certainly among things with a battery and chip. They also last multiples of the time I would get out of wired earphones, which always die in a few months from work-hardening the copper wires until they break.
My model is this: some people just hate Apple. It's an identity thing, phones are very personal and bring out tribal instincts (blue vs. green speech bubbles!), and AirPods are a visible signifier of "team Apple". So some people just, don't like 'em ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The reasons are downstream of that.
I also think that, since the only consumables are the battery and speaker membranes, it's great that someone wants to replace the batteries when they go bad. Membranes as well! Making consumer goods last longer is virtuous.
This seems way too conveniently dismissive of the environmental issue. Apple is the 800 lb gorilla that sets industry expectations. They have been gluing batteries and making repair difficult across their product line for a decade. This leads to higher consumer costs and manufactured goods filling landfills prematurely. As one of the most visible companies in the world making repair difficult, the criticism is well-deserved. The airpods are perhaps the height of unrepairable apple tech.
Sure any valid criticism of Apple is going to invite a pile-on from the apple haters but it does not follow that the original criticism is invalid.
Apple laptops and phones objectively last longer than the competition.
Most of that is software support. Some of it is that they make few models, and sell at a premium, so there is a robust secondary market in used devices. They continue to make and sell batteries for old models, and there are plenty of counterfeits available if you want to risk it.
Apple recently (late last year) replaced the battery on my Mom's iPhone 6, which will turn seven this year. I saw an estimate that half of all iPhones 4 are still in use, mostly in developing nations. That was two years ago, but, still.
As for laptops, same basic principle applies, except I have to give a shoutout to the Thinkpad T series for sheer longevity. You have to want a Thinkpad T, but if you do, they're excellent and durable computers.
But with that one (sterling) exception, Macbooks last about twice as long as anyone else's computers. You can easily confirm this yourself by checking eBay. The butterfly keyboard era may have put an end to that, though, which is a damn shame, but we can hope the return of the scissor keyboard will bring it back.
As for the AirPods. What are we talking about on this page again?
> Apple laptops [..] objectively last longer than the competition.
Massive citation needed. Especially if you're going to talk about software support here since MacOS kills software support for old hardware long before Windows or Linux does.
The comment of "check eBay" isn't very compelling. Check it for what? What's your hypothesis and methodology here? Especially since you're claiming it's objectively longer lasting?
> Apple laptops and phones objectively last longer than the competition.
I'm not sure if you've spent much time watching Louis Rossman's youtube channel, but it is full of examples of Apple telling customers a device needs to be replaced when simple repairs are possible. [1][2][3]
Apple worked with US Customs and Border Patrol to seize replacement batteries for laptops that apple will no longer service. [4]
Rossman has a lot of videos so I did not find original sources for the following, but he has also called Apple support about replacing a charging port on a phone. Apple support told him the charging port was soldered to the motherboard and the phone needed to be replaced. But that charging port on that device is attached via a cable and is not soldered to the board. It can be replaced for a few dollars in five minutes.
Rossman also says that apple prevents third party chip manufacturers from selling to repair shops. So Rossman could repair certain macbooks with a $6 chip from (I believe) Intersil, but Apple (being an 800lb gorilla) has asked Intersil not to sell those chips to anyone else. So apple won't replace that chip on your motherboard but they also won't let anyone else do it.
It's great that apple will replace batteries, but I seem to recall there was significant consumer (or government?) pressure to offer those replacements. And I would be curious if they do that worldwide or only where legally required.
But watching Rossman's youtube channel, it is clear that repair is about much more than batteries. It's good that their products are long lasting, but at some point they will all eventually break. Millions of apple products must break each year. Apple could help extend the lives of those products, saving customers money and cutting down on waste. Instead, they seem eager to blame every problem on water damage and quote $1200 for repairs which could be done for a few dollars. (the first three video links make that clear)
I don't see the point in defending Apple here. I am sure other companies are bad too, but Apple is the industry leader and their failure to embrace repair sets expectations across the board. If it was consumer pressure that led to their battery replacement program, we may be able to apply similar pressures for right to repair. But only if we're willing to acknowledge the problems with their behavior and push back against them.
"Apple could do a lot better" isn't incompatible with "everyone else is even worse".
Everything you've objected to here falls under right to repair, which I support. I understand why Apple would want to exert control over the parts which go into their devices, because flaky secondary-market parts which fail will be blamed on Apple, not the fly-by-night chop shop which put them in; but I don't find it compelling and think the entire industry should be forced to allow it.
This is what a reply looks like, by the way. What you did wasn't so much a reply as using my post as a launch-point for your own rant.
In particular, not a word of what you said went to refute or even address the quoted part of my post. There's no if by the way: Apple has been replacing batteries since they popped out of devices, at no point has that service not been available, ever. Instead of looking this up, you used your own mental ambiguity to say a bunch of things which implied they're worse than they are. That's lazy.
I support RTR. I find Rossman annoying and abrasive, but he makes good points.
However, we are never going to live in a world of repaired devices. Feature development and performance increases happen too quickly.
Most people buy new phones every two years and upgrade not because the device isn't working or its become unusuable.
The better path, the one that Apple is pursuing, is improving the reclaim-ability of materials in devices.
I'd rather trade my old laptop in and buy a new one that has been made from the reclaimed materials of my old laptop, than have my older, slower, less capable one repaired.
> However, we are never going to live in a world of repaired devices.
This is not a binary thing. Devices are repaired all the time. For example cracked screens are one thing that people still repair. We already live in a world with repaired devices. The question is whether or not we should allow big companies that profit from new device sales to lie to customers and interfere with third party repair.
> Most people buy new phones every two years
I would suspect that "most people" do not. I did that when I was 24 and obsessed with having the latest tech. Now my phone is 5 years old and fine. Most people in the USA for example do not earn enough money to buy a new phone every two years. Those folks would love to be able to repair things and use them a bit longer.
> The better path, the one that Apple is pursuing, is improving the reclaim-ability of materials in devices.
This is not an either/or choice. Remember the phrase is "reduce, reuse, recycle". Recycling is fine, but re-using uses less resources and so should be a component of a real sustainability program.
> This leads to higher consumer costs and manufactured goods filling landfills prematurely.
Citation needed. Apple claims, and I'm fine with taking it with a grain of salt, that because batteries aren't replaceable like old Nokia phones, they can make the battery larger, possibly reducing consumer costs and how often batteries are changed. It's not just Apple, either. Consumers seem to not care.
It seems obvious to me that this is true at least with laptops. And whatever costs are saved by a 5% larger battery must surely be offset by the higher costs of replacement when the battery ultimately dies?
I don't know it's so clear to me that this is true that I've not felt the need to research it. By all means if you have sources to the contrary I'd be happy to read them.
To me, we could save significant environmental waste if everything we manufactured was made to be repaired. I designed several pairs of 3D printed headphones [1] which are now the only headphones I wear, and the idea that I can replace any part if it breaks seems significant to me.
It takes a long time for modern batteries to get to a point of unusability and replacement. Yes, Apple and others want consumers to purchase the new product and that is often the case because of the fast advancement of technology. This is worse with android phones because the support cycle is much shorter.
I often drop my phone and it’s great not having to worry about my phone’s battery falling out making me lose my data.
I’m glad there is a small section of the market with brands like Fairphone and Lenovo still offering replaceable batteries because it is very important to some consumers, but most people dont care or think about it at all.
This is orthogonal to the question of whether or not the practice is environmentally friendly. Most people have been buying gasoline for 50 years but that’s also causing environmental problems. All of these manufactured devices take a lot of resources to create. Often “unusability” means the operating system has outgrown the hardware, but we can easily imagine Apple allowing third party operating systems on their unsupported phone and tablet devices. This would extend the life of the hardware, significantly reduced waste, and lower people’s cost of living. But even when Apple devices can be fixed for free the company will quote exorbitant repair prices and suggest the customer replace the device. (See links below which I also shared in another comment)
From this we can see that Apple is not making the effort to keep old devices functional and they will mislead customers about it to sell them a new device. This leads to hardware waste and higher costs for consumers.
Why is it always about Apple being so bad? Sure, I’ll agree their market share and ecosystem let’s them take advantage of their customers, but Apple is one of the few companies where normies are still comfortably using 5+ year old phones and computers. I’ve heard MacBooks make great Linux machines, too. They are far above the curve for longevity of devices.
If AirPods are making people lose sleep because they aren’t environmentally friendly, then let me introduce you to PuffBars or any of those disposable nicotine vapes that aren’t rechargeable or refillable and often lose all battery life before juice. Or simply the entire lithium lifecycle is incredibly wasteful regardless of the product it is in.
I want to point out EVs aren’t going to last significantly longer than a MacBook will and contain much more lithium that needs to be dealt with.
I get that it’s fun or hip to be anti-Apple, and I’ll agree that they could be better from an environmental standpoint, but they are doing a lot better than most and there are a lot more environmental travesties occurring than the small batteries in AirPods.
Apple is, arguably, the largest tech company on earth. Their behavior has a significant impact on earth and on the market. And they are actively hostile to the concept of repair. Why wouldn't we criticize that?
I do criticize other problems with our consumption online and in my published writing. I am not making this critique because it is "fun or hip to be anti-apple". I believe the consumption patterns of people in the USA (like myself!) are literally unsustainable and we must change our outlook on engineering, production, and consumption to be more ecological or we will keep on destroying the natural world until there is nothing left.
I also want to do the environmentally friendly stuff in a way that is economically beneficial for people. So when Apple quotes $1200 for a repair that could cost a person $50, I worry about what this 2+ Trillion dollar company is doing to the average person, and how this mindset among corporate executives towards consumer gouging affects our world at large.
Their behavior is actually hurting people. They could improve without even making engineering changes to their designs. Let us not go around online forums making excuses for people who abuse consumers for profit while also generating unnecessary e-waste.
I absolutely agree with you that Apple abuses their market position, we need right to repair, and that our consumption as humans needs to drop dramatically. I do the best that I reasonably can to lower my footprint (I’m vegan, car-free, Amazon-free, I don’t fly in planes, etc). We live in an economic system that thrives from overconsumption and we both know from living in this plant that people largely don’t care or can’t be bothered enough to lower their consumption in meaningful ways.
Apple’s products have a lifespan and support cycle longer than their competition. Linux is the only software I know of with longer support, but even still it can be hard to get by on old hardware because of the unnecessary bulk of essential websites.
I understand critiquing Apple and it would be nice if I didn’t have such rosy glasses towards them, but I think they have better values and are better for the end consumer more than any company close in size.
Apple charges $200 for a battery replacement on a MacBook Pro for labor on a $50 part. That’s less gouging than an auto repair shop. I know I’m not citing sources, but claiming a 2400% margin on repair is disingenuous.
What meaningful changes can Apple make without engineering changes?
Im not trying to make excuses for Apple execs, I just don’t understand all the hatred towards Apple when companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google are much worse for the end-user and how they influence our consumption.
I love the idea that you have designed and made your own headphones. I'm also glad that these work for you.
However, your argument about reducing environmental waste is flawed. AirPod, in total, weigh less and use far less plastic than your design.
Given the scale of production, the raw material to final product path will be short and relatively low impact. Your process involves much more packaging, transport and middle-man costs.
Feature set wise, your design is also significantly less.
I'm very supportive of people making product that is better suited to them, but the idea of this approach being somehow less wasteful is completely ridiculous.
Because the airpod is a small device, this is true. However in general I believe open source hardware and infinitely repairable devices across the board would lead to less waste than proprietary technology with restricted repair.
My vision is not that one person designs open source headphones. My vision is that the primary suppliers of consumer products make their products open source. That would be a very different world, but I argue that it would be one with significantly less material waste.
In such a world, headphones would be both well designed and infinitely repairable.
You can't just blame this on "the Discourse" or Apple haters. I have owned countless devices with batteries over my life. None has made me as acutely aware of its battery degrading as Airpods. Eventually I couldn't even make it through a full workout or work call on a single charge. They basically became worthless through nothing but normal usage. There was no visible physical damage. I treated them exactly how I was supposed to treat them according to Apple and still only got 2-3 years out of them. That is frustrating. It also is unlike many other Apple products as lots of people are perfectly satisfied with their 5+ year old Macbooks and iPhones.
I don't own anything powered by li-ion where the battery lasts more than 2-3 years.
Both my MacBook and iPhones I've had the battery swapped after not being able to hold a charge for more than ~25% of original after 2-3 years. I'm still satisfied, but I absolutely had to get the battery swapped. Twice in one case.
AirPods are no worse in this regard. After all, why would they be -- li-ion chemistry is the same.
Seriously? Nothing? I have a Game Boy SP with it's original battery. Still has a few hours runtime. Not as good as new but it's still usable. My Vita still holds a few hours too and it's almost 10 years old at this point. I've heard of people's airpods not holding any charge after a year or two. Mine still work but they are very degraded and can't handle a 1 hour phone call anymore.
>Both my MacBook and iPhones I've had the battery swapped after not being able to hold a charge for more than ~25% of original after 2-3 years.
I have never experienced this with the laptops or phones I have owned. I am still rocking an iPhone X that is almost 4 years old and I just checked the battery health and it shows max capacity at 86%. That matches with my expectations as the degradation is barely noticeable and I still have no problem making it through an average day on a single charge.
Are you by chance leaving these devices charging for extended periods of time? That appears to be one of the primary problems with Airpods. The design choice of making the carrying case a charging case means that the individual Airpods spend almost all of their life at 100% charge. That degrades the battery quicker than normal usage. If you treat your laptop as a desktop and have it plugged in 24/7, you are doing a lot of unnecessary harm to your battery which might explain what you are experiencing.
I am guessing your are just trolling by throwing food into that list, but I have had clothes and wired headphones last for over a decade with proper care. There is no way to properly care for Airpods that would extend the life of their batteries past a few years.
> last multiples of the time I would get out of wired earphones, which always die in a few months from work-hardening the copper wires until they break
Hmm...
> It's just the Discourse in action... I'm fairly confident that for minutes of pleasure / embodied energy, AirPods score higher than almost anything else I own, certainly among things with a battery and chip
It's interesting to reduce environmentalism to "joy per unit size * time." To its credit, if you do the accounting right, a lot of environmentally really bad things, like gasoline and meat, have very poor joy per (size time), while being a tourist in a conserved rainforest has very high joy per size time.
But it's still flawed. Like Bitcoin has high joy per unit size and time, it turns cheaper electricity into more money you can spend on jetskis. No intellectually honest person claims that is environmentally friendly. You've chosen a framework that's idiosyncratically very friendly to electronics and things nerds are into, that I'm not sure would even make sense to people in almost any time prior to 1970. They by and large lived without the joys of electronics and did nothing to address the environmental disaster they're dying too soon to experience. Surely you see the same thing happening now, and right to repair is just one of many fronts of forward-thinking people trying to right those wrongs.
I'm not advocating for "end to end emissions" as the framework either, because what you're saying people hate on Apple for is almost always true about Tesla. People complaining about electric cars having higher emissions are both wrong and saying that stuff in bad faith.
But to go on social media and complain about the "Discourse" you are participating in is definitely intellectually dishonest. AirPods are shitty in their own unique way, and I'm not sure if any intellectual is seriously advocating, in their raw quoted form as opposed to a headline, that the way that they are shitty is exclusively your reductive perspective on "environmentally friendly."
You misread me, my case was joy * time / embodied energy.
How else should we justify the use of energy except through such means? Subjectively I mean, I wouldn't suggest actually quantifying it.
I don't burn energy in the winter because I like to spend money, I do it because there's an interior temperature below which I'm miserable. Once I've achieved that homeostasis, the only think left to me is to do it with as little energy as possible.
> AirPods are shitty in their own unique way
That's just like, your opinion, man.
Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, I will never reply to you again.
I own AirPods, I like them, but it sucks that they die when their battery dies, and they have to be thrown away for pretty much no good reason - just because that's how Apple designed it, and it could have many design priorities, and one of those priorities is to not throw nice shit away after two years.
In the spirit of advancing curiosity, it was interesting to just see, is it possible to reduce environmentalism to something like "joy * time / embodied energy"? Bitcoin is mined because a bitcoin is worth more than the electricity used to mine it, so if your joy * time is "making money quickly" - which it is for a lot of people! - it seems really attractive to mine bitcoin but it isn't environmentally friendly.
The point is that the environmental focus on airpods is irrational. look at everything in your trash can this week.
If you are upset that they are too expensive, don't buy them. The price isn't going to waste; it has an enormous profit margin over the BoM. (a lot, perhaps most, of the true cost is fixed overhead, so buying more airpods makes them more efficient!)
My trash can almost never has electronic waste in it? It seems really odd that you're seemingly claiming that it's common for people to regularly throw away ewaste to such a degree that airpods are a rounding error.
You’re just saying, “if it’s small it’s okay” again. It’s not that reductive. I agree that plastic is bad. I also think throwing away AirPods is bad, for a different reason than plastic is bad, but really, are they the same reason? It’s so much more interesting when it’s not as reductive as “small things are okay to throw away” or whatever like, really simplistic thought is going on here.
Even with a pretty big pricing gap ($100 for Apple and $60 for Podswap, per pair), this seems like a risky business to enter. What makes them think that Apple won't drop the price of their service by $30 and put them out of business?
Apple could do swaps much more efficiently due to their physical stores (where you could swap in real-time), and most people would pay a $10 premium over Podswap to have the Apple name behind their purchase.
The only thing that would give me comfort about Podswaps' business model is the fact that Apple undoubtedly would prefer to sell you a new pair rather than fix up your old pair.
That’s true, and I wasn’t suggesting they would undercut Podswap on price — just that they would drop their own price somewhat and eat up enough market that this business wouldn’t be sustainable.
I’ve used podswap for my Gen 1 AirPods and it was fantastic. It took a couple cycles for everything to be back to normal (full charge, full volume) but they were up front that it takes a few recharges for everything to settle in.
This is a great idea and I wish we had this in the UK. I was quoted £65 to replace my failing, right AirPod and £130 to replace both of them when RRP for new ones are £160.
I'd much rather replace the batteries of my existing ones then buy a new pair but with such a small price difference to get a pair it doesn't seem worth it.
The web site states: "The first-ever battery replacement program."
I'm not sure this is true. Apple had an AirPods battery replacement program before COVID-19. I had my wife's done. I wanted to get mine done this past January, but it didn't seem to be an option anymore. Maybe because of the pandemic and the global supply chain problems and such.
"Only current" battery replacement program, maybe. But not first-ever.
According to the company's web site, they send you replacement AirPods before you send your old ones in. So no, they are not replacing your batteries and sending them back to you.
I've gotten close. One thing I have noticed is when I drop the case on the floor it's not at all uncommon for it to open and for one or both of the buds to fly out. One time this happened to me while I was in the security line at the airport and I had to awkwardly back out of the line and look around but luckily I found the errant pod.
I'm mostly losing them in my bed since the Airpods are a solid, partner-compatible way to fall asleep to music.
My biggest annoyance with the Airpods Pro is that no one sells custom molds. The right one fits with the small plug, but none of the three sizes that ship with the Airpods seem to be compatible with my left ear, it's extremely loose. In any case it's uncomfortable walking with them out on the streets or driving with my bike simply because I'm always afraid they will randomly fall off and get lost or destroyed.
I've heard, anecdotally, of people losing their airpods often. I haven't yet, but curious how common that problem is?
It must be a thing, since Apple lets you use your devices to find your missing AirPods, and they are even part of the FindMe network.
I've sometimes wondered how many AirPods have been flushed down toilets around the world. Even if only .001% of AirPods meet their demise this way, considering the number of AirPods sold, it must be a pretty good number.
The Find My network stuff isn’t coming until the fall. Right now they only update their location when connected to your phone, which is basically useless.
I love my Tozo T6, screw apple. $25 and I have better sounding way more cheaper product. I wouldn't care at all if my $25 headsets fail after a year or two. I'd get 6 pairs instead of one Apple. My other bluetooth earbuds worked over 2 years and had no battery problem until I lost them.
Are they actually replacing the battery at all? Or are they simply sending you “AirReps”? The clones these days cost $30. Most folks wouldn’t recognize the difference, except for the poor microphone recording quality.
This looks great! I just forwarded the link to a friend of mine, that was complaining to me, this morning, about a pair of original AirPods that had a bum battery.
I was hoping this was going to be a service for people who lost one AirPod to build a set. Apple’s pricing of an AirPod replacement puts it $30 from a new set
Over here I'm still using 3$ Panasonic earbuds from 2012.
I spent $15 dollars so I could have 1 in my car, 1 in my laptop bag, 1 next to my computer, and 2 backup for when I lose them or have new location. Haven't lost them yet.
Maybe you really do need wireless and it's worth the effort of charging and replacing batteries. Or maybe you are being sold a veblen good and your brain is exploited by a trillion dollar corporation's marketing department.
> We currently accept AirPod Generation 1 & 2. If you would like AirPod Pros, you can join the waitlist here [http://eepurl.com/hqjLSr] and be notified when we offer that service is available.
I recently got an update to my pros that said that they now only charge based on my usage pattern in order to reduce battery wear. I think this means they only charge when they believe I'm about to use them so as not to wear them by constant charging. It was pretty unexpected as it goes against what I believed to be apple's incentive model.
If anyone finds an Airpod on the street or in trash/landfills, they should be able to take it to the nearest Apple store or mail it and get 20-40$ back for it.
This should be the law for _all_ and any products, not just electronics.
Large corporations have cleverly shifted the responsibility of recycling on the consumer, while they get to reap all the profits and benefits. This was recently well explained in a John Oliver segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fiu9GSOmt8E
I agree that manufacturers should bear responsibility for recycling unwanted/returned devices - but why should they be forced to pay a bounty for lost/stolen devices?
You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point. It’s clear you have an axe to grind, but at the same time, where do we draw the line of individual responsibility?
It’s not like we haven’t known for decades we were killing the planet…and yet here we all are. Why does the average Joe get off the hook here?
IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality. What's going to be easier: a never-ending campaign of trying to educate and motivate millions of different average Joes to properly recycle [some item], or simply legally preventing those items from being created by a few centralized sources (or requiring them to take responsibility in some other way)?
Same thing with with 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis. A lot of people will say "well they shouldn't have taken those loans." Yes, true, but it would have been much easier if they were never allowed to be offered in the first place. Some people are against the "save the people from themselves" mentality, but it really seems to be a lot more effective and there's not a strong argument for allowing practices that are likely to result in average Joes taking deleterious actions.
> IMO, we draw the line based on effectiveness, not idealized morality.
A huge chunk of judicial history is about just this issue. It’s a lot more effective to just throw all accused in jail without a trial: you’re likely to get all the accused (effective) but you’re also likely to round up as many innocent people (immoral).
Society came together and decided that the morality of locking up an innocent person was so obscene that the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone was guilty.
It’s ok for everyone to come together and admit we have a tragedy of commons that needs collective action, but I think this incredible willingness to hand-wave individual responsibility is really concerning these days.
The average Joe has known for decades and the problem continues. Ergo, we can’t rely on individual action to solve it. We need society-scale solutions. Corporate action is the only tool civilization has for this.
> You can’t just claim that they’ve shifted responsibility without arguing your point.
The point itself is enough. Bottle and car battery deposit schemes show that the system works to significantly reduce littering. Most people take them to the recycling on their own and those who can't be bothered always get picked up by people.
A 10-20€ deposit on phones, a 5€ deposit on small scale stuff like chargers and earphones and a 1€ deposit on batteries would definitely get electronics stuff back into circulation.
Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
Generic electronics recycling is very expensive. I had to recycle an old 55" rear projection TV and it cost $150. Good luck getting the average person to pay that instead of disposing of it (illegally).
Blame your municipality.
When I lived in the southwest, the city required the trash companies to pick up or recycle EVERYTHING for free. From old paint to batteries to giant tube TVs to washing machines. Everything, or they didn't get the trash hauling contract.
This was to make it as easy as possible for people to dispose of things properly, rather than dump them in the desert.
If your city doesn't make this happen, it's a failure of the city to negotiate the contract properly and allowing the trash companies to shift the expense onto the homeowners.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public. The public shouldn't have to bear the costs of the negative externality of other people's consumption. It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods. Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
Furthermore, single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure. The portion of stuff that is actually recycled is very low as much is contaminated with non-recyclable materials. I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle. The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
That just moves the cost of recycling to the public
The public has an interest in a clean desert, since the desert surrounding the city was the primary source of recreation for the people living there.
It is also essentially a regressive tax since the wealthy consume/dispose of more goods
Trash fees were based on the assessed value of your home, so the wealthy paid more in trash fees than the poor.
Also most areas don't have a single exclusive trash service (monopoly).
As noted in the original comment, there were multiple trash companies in this city. All had to adhere to the same rules.
single stream recycling in America, on average, is a complete failure
It wasn't single stream. There were four bins. One each for garbage, glass, metals, and plastics.
I'd either expect such a trash/recycling service (as you describe) to be quite expensive or actually recycle very little of relative to what could be recycled.
I rented my house, so I couldn't tell you if it was expensive, or not. But as I stated above, the price was based on the value of the home. I doubt anyone ever changed their mind about buying a house because the cost of trash disposal in City A was $10/month more than in City B.
If the manufacture's & end consumers of goods were forced to confront the cost of disposal at the time of purchase it would create a large incentive for companies to make products with less waste and products that are easier to recycle.
I agree. But that's not the reality today. We may get there 50 years from now, but people don't want to live surrounded by 50 years of garbage in order to fulfill a social theory.
The goal isn't to just to recycle everything that currently can be recycled but to make everything easy to recycle.
Which was exactly what this did: Make it easy for people to recycle everything that could be recycled.
> It would be more efficient and cheaper for companies to create a recycling process and include that in the purchase price.
A totally fair point (one that I also happen to agree with) but not in the spirit of OP’s comment, which suggests some sort of moral trickery by the likes of Apple.
So you're paying $60 to get your earbuds replaced, but you can't use the service if they have any external/cosmetic damage. Something here doesn't add up, is this just because Airpods don't have replaceable batteries?
> can't use the service if they have any external/cosmetic damage
My guess is that you're not getting your own airpods back, but someone else's. Quick turnaround that way and I think people want that for a product like this.
Positioning in Miami isn't ideal for turnaround, somewhere more central or a courier hub (Memphis or Louisville) would make more sense.
As repair-turnaround time is no longer an issue, and Airpods are small, they can fedex them to a low-cost country for repair. Miami has tons of connections to S. America, so maybe somewhere there.
Just a Fedex SmallBox holds a couple hundred airpods (they're 0.75inches if they were a rectangle, and smallbox is 200sqin), so they can really take low-cost to an extreme. If China, well, the batteries were going to be shipped from there anyway and that's most of the bulk anyway, but cylinders do pack better.
Many of these steps are scalable - could pre-tin battery leads, find a better solvent than alcohol to soften adhesive, custom heat protection cap rather than kitchen foil, dip metal cap in ultrasonic solvent bath, etc.
Maybe they have some domestic gigworkers in case they get really busy, but otherwise, save that dollar.
