Slashdot Mirror
Apple Will Charge You $69 To Replace a Lost AirPod (macrumors.com)
Apple's AirPods finally went on sale earlier this week after being announced in September and delayed in October. Now that people are able to actually purchase these wireless earphones for $159, many are wondering what happens if they lose an AirPod. Apple has recently updated its repair and replacement costs for AirPods on its iPhone Service Pricing Page, mentioning a $69 fee for those who need to replace an AirPod or charging case. Mac Rumors reports: Apple doesn't appear to be offering AppleCare+ for AirPods, instead providing a standard one-year warranty that's available on all Apple products. If the AirPods need service during that one year period, all work will be covered for free. After the one-year warranty has expired, Apple will charge a $69 fee for out-of-warranty service repairs. Battery service for AirPods that lose battery capacity is free during the one-year warranty period or $49 out of warranty. If you lose or damage one of the AirPods or the charging case, Apple will charge $69 for a replacement, regardless of whether or not the AirPods are still under warranty. The pricing in Apple's support document is U.S. pricing, and will vary based on country.
Amazing. Manufacturer doesn't replace lost objects, has one year warranty*.
Shocked. Just shocked at this shameless corporate behavior.
* possibly longer in more civilized regions of the world
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
What if you could use this same cord to charge the batteries in those wireless headphones?
never drink kool-aid from a big vat
You'd better patent that one fast... or let Apple do it for you...
Every time I ask Apple users about the non-replaceable batteries, their reply is **always** -- (ie. without fail) "you just don't get it", without **ever** being able to articulate exactly what I don't "get". I don't see how not being able to replace a battery is an advantage. Yes, I "get" that you can make the device smaller (and thus lighter), but only marginally so, and at the expense of functionality and serviceability. The non-removable battery is not any type of advantage to me.
It's an advantage because replaceable batteries require a case that's resistant to impacts and punctures, and devices require a case. If you make the battery non-replicable, these two things can be the same case. That increases the capacity of the battery for the same volume and weight of device. It's that simple.
Exactly how much weight? .5 oz? .75 oz?
That's my point. The difference is so marginal and arbitrary I'd rather have the removable battery.
I'll make you a gentleman's bet that if the next Mac book had a removable battery, Apple would advertise it as feature (as loudly as possible), ***everyone*** in the audience at the Apple Dev. Conference would all clap in unison (as they *always* do, at *every* event, at *every* announcement, regardless of what it is -- like a congregation at a Texas mega-church), and all the Mac users would explain how wonderful a removable battery is and trumpet the development from the highest hilltops.
Every time I ask Apple users about the non-replaceable batteries, their reply is **always** -- (ie. without fail) "you just don't get it", without **ever** being able to articulate exactly what I don't "get". I don't see how not being able to replace a battery is an advantage. Yes, I "get" that you can make the device smaller (and thus lighter), but only marginally so, and at the expense of functionality and serviceability. The non-removable battery is not any type of advantage to me.
Apple and iPhone user here. I don't give a shit about non-replaceable batteries. I don't give a shit about airpods or headphone jacks either. And I really don't give a shit about the people who go insane about them, don't care. So if a replaceable battery in all of your stuff is mandatory for you, get that and be happy you have it, and happy you showed those hipster Apple users the error of their ways.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It's an advantage because replaceable batteries require a case that's resistant to impacts and punctures, and devices require a case. If you make the battery non-replicable, these two things can be the same case. That increases the capacity of the battery for the same volume and weight of device. It's that simple.
Sounds like some wonderful self-justifying horsecrap to me.
As someone else pointed out, just how much weight will you save? Maybe a whole ounce? Hearing aids are pretty lightweight and durable and they have replaceable batteries.
My wired earbuds are lighter than any pair of Airpods will ever be, and they'll never need a battery replacement. Because they're wired they're also damn hard to lose and they cost a lot less than $159 a pair.
Seriously, this whole "find bullshit reasons to justify a bad design" thing seems to be honed to a fine art among Apple apologists.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
. But I never ever have valued tradeoff of thinness at the cost of an unchangable battery. The iPhone would be a massively better product if it was 2mm thicker and came with an interchangable battery.
I am not so sure how it would be better. Sure, you could carry a spare battery but it's just as easy to carry a USB battery to recharge your phone if you use it so much that it goes dead quickly; with the added bonus of no having to worry your battery will accidentally get short circuited in a briefcase or purse. I used to carry a Treo, which had a replaceable battery, but even with tethering I never really needed one. I could see the case where a replaceable battery would be useful for an older phone whose battery is dying; however I wonder what % of iPhone users keep their phone long enough for that to be an issue and even then they can still replace the battery via an authorized service center. One downside I see is a replaceable battery might encourage the proliferation of cheap knockoffs that potentially could cause problems; and Apple getting the blame when people think their "genuine" $5 battery went kablooey.
So, I am curious how the iPhone would be massively better with a user removable battery.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Stop it. Just fucking stop it.
When an iPhone's battery dies for the last time for the vast majority of users, it is a paperweight. By giving the option of a removable battery, a $700 problem just became a $15 problem. Well, probably closer to $85 for iPhone, but the point stands.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "carrying around a battery" pack. Stop pretending to be stupid.
You fuckwit, he's obviously talking about the battery permanently dying, as in no longer chemically able to hold a useful charge; not just going flat and needing a recharge.
If you're happy to always carry around a portable usb charger permanently tethered to your phone, because its own battery won't charge anymore, then that's fine but you should know the vast majority of people aren't fucking retards and would rather just replace the phone's internal battery.