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.
To people who buy these, I have one word: Courage.
That's why I'll be offering a special device called an AirPods retention strap. It consists of a small cord connected to the end of each AirPod, that you tie to the device. It's so genius, and so obvious, I don't know why anyone never thought of doing that before.
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!
$159 for headphones? How stupid are people? Oh wait...
Apple is and always has been expensive for what you get. They make healthy profits by doing this. They are not going to change the business model just because folks complain. Now if they don't sell, THEN expect them to change the price, but I have a feeling they will sell like hotcakes like most of what Apple introduces. They have a knack for that kind of thing.
So, if you want those new fangled ear pods and get rid of that pesky cord, be prepared to pay Apple what they ask. I mean that cell phone you got was nearly $1K anyway, so what's a few hundred more? If you cannot afford this, then may I suggest you stick with that 6S and the live with the cord...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And this is why I bought the iPhone SE, because it has a headphone socket. If I am out of town and forgotten to bring my headphones, a pair of $9 throw aways will suffice for the day. And when I am on planes / trains I have a pair of active noise cancelling bluetooth headphones (that STILL cost less than a pair of EarPods ) and came with a 3 year warranty. Yes I appreciate the wireless, however leaving out the socket is putting form over function, and no its nothing like having a keyboard on the screen vs pull out keyboard. And NO, I dont want to buy a bloody dongle. ANY audio device without a headphone socket is like buying a car that has no wheels.
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.
If I lose a pen, I don't expect Bic to give me a new one for free.
How can a single AirPod possibly be replaced!? Surely each pair is personally handcrafted and matched by Jony Ive and his elves, each pair with a unique acoustic fingerprint that's as individual as your refined individual personality? To separate a single AirPod from its partner for life is enough of a crime against Humanity, but to flirtively attempt to mate it with another - surely not!
What kind of bumblefuck clickbait headline is that?
In other news, GM charges full price to replace your car if you lose it.
Jesus H. Christ on a motherfucking crutch, I didn't think slashdot, having reached the bottom of the hill, could keep rolling downwards.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
I have a mac and the latest iphone. I have no brand loyalty, I had androids for year and could go back. There are nice things about the Apple stuff. The mac books are good laptops. There is relative ease in moving and syncing data between computer and phone. 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. It would be better with an audio jack and a type-C interface. On balance I would have skipped the upgrade program and got the pixel if I were to do it over.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Actually, the fact the earbuds won't be used as much is a good reason not to use hearing aid (zinc-air) batteries. Once the tab is removed and the hearing aid battery is exposed to air the chemistry starts and battery only has 2-3 weeks or so before it's toast no matter how little it is actually used. In that sense, hearing aid batteries really are meant to be used heavily (all day) because they won't actually last much longer if you don't use them that way.
With that said, I'll apply the KISS principle and stick with wired earbuds (cheap and no batteries) along with devices that still work with them.
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 smug idiot hipster with your cell phone.
Lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries have significantly reduced capacity after 300-400 charge-discharge cycles. With a typical usage of carrying it during the day and charging it at night, that's one year.
A typical battery for a phone costs about $15 from the battery store, sometimes the phone manufactures charge more if you want want with their sticker on it. With an Android phone, after about a year you can get all-day battery life again by spending $15 and 60 seconds popping in a fresh battery.
Lenovo has a great solution in some of their laptops. One soldered-on battery and one replaceable battery. That way if the replaceable battery comes loose, your laptop doesn't suddenly shut down. You can switch to a spare battery without rebooting. If the soldered-on battery eventually does you can still use the laptop as if it weren't present. This is a great solution.
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.
Why do Airpods require an iCloud account for use ? Is there an actual technical reason or just because they can ?
(1) Requires an iCloud account and macOS Sierra, iOS 10, or watchOS 3.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?