Slashdot Mirror
'Your AirPods Will Die Soon' -- The Shrinking Charge Capacities of Lithium-Ion Batteries (theatlantic.com)
Some of the same podcasters who first extolled AirPods are now complaining about them, reports the Atlantic:
The battery can no longer hold a charge, they say, rendering them functionally useless. Apple bloggers agree: "AirPods are starting to show their age for early adopters," Zac Hall, an editor at 9to5Mac, wrote in a post in January, detailing how he frequently hears a low-battery warning in his AirPods now. Earlier this month, Apple Insider tested a pair of AirPods purchased in 2016 against a pair from 2018, and found that the older pair died after two hours and 16 minutes. "That's less than half the stated battery life for a new pair," the writer William Gallagher concluded. Desmond Hughes, who is 35 and lives in Newport News, Virginia, has noticed a similar thing about his own set: At first, their charge lasted five hours, but now they sometimes last only half an hour. He frequently listens to one while charging the other -- not optimal conditions for expensive headphones. He's now gearing up to plunk down more money on another pair....
The lithium-ion batteries that power AirPods are everywhere. One industry report forecast that sales would grow to $109.72 billion by 2026, from $36.2 billion in 2018. They charge faster, last longer, and pack more power into a small space than other types of batteries do. But they die faster, too, often after just a few years, because every time you charge them, they degrade a little. They can also catch fire or explode if they become damaged, so technology companies make them difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to replace themselves. The result: A lot of barely chargeable AirPods and wireless mice and Bluetooth speakers are ending up in the trash as consumers go through products -- even expensive ones -- faster than ever....
Of the 3.4 million tons of electronic waste generated in America in 2012 -- an 80 percent increase from 2000 -- just 29 percent was recycled.
The article notes that Wednesday Apple announced a new generation of AirPods -- but "did not say whether the devices would have longer lives."
They also report that Apple "does allow consumers to pay for what it calls a 'battery replacement' for AirPods, but each 'replaced' AirPod is $49."
The lithium-ion batteries that power AirPods are everywhere. One industry report forecast that sales would grow to $109.72 billion by 2026, from $36.2 billion in 2018. They charge faster, last longer, and pack more power into a small space than other types of batteries do. But they die faster, too, often after just a few years, because every time you charge them, they degrade a little. They can also catch fire or explode if they become damaged, so technology companies make them difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to replace themselves. The result: A lot of barely chargeable AirPods and wireless mice and Bluetooth speakers are ending up in the trash as consumers go through products -- even expensive ones -- faster than ever....
Of the 3.4 million tons of electronic waste generated in America in 2012 -- an 80 percent increase from 2000 -- just 29 percent was recycled.
The article notes that Wednesday Apple announced a new generation of AirPods -- but "did not say whether the devices would have longer lives."
They also report that Apple "does allow consumers to pay for what it calls a 'battery replacement' for AirPods, but each 'replaced' AirPod is $49."
SHOCKING I SAY!
Why, they very notion that an overpriced product that gives inferior sound quality, and has a propensity to get lost, or ingested by toddlers, could have such a shortened service life compared to the older tech it replaced! Who could have forseen it! /s
I have a great idea. What if you had headphones that didn't use a battery but instead plugged directly into a hypothetical Jack on a source of sound? I know it sounds crazy but it would work and could even be made universal.
It's also an issue with the size of the batteries: the smaller the battery, the lower the capacity.
Then, add that you insist to wear those buddies into your ears all the time (also for fashion purposes). It's clear you will run more and more charging cycles that will worsen the situation.
Use the wired ones, instead.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
At first, their charge lasted five hours, but now they sometimes last only half an hour. He frequently listens to one while charging the other -- not optimal conditions for expensive headphones. He's now gearing up to plunk down more money on another pair
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I am writing this on my aging - but still fully functional - Samsung Galaxy Note 3. How can I use a nearly 6 year old phone you ask?
Why I can replace the battery! I'm on my third... (Well it was also a high end phone of the time, one of the first with 3 GB ram...)
But my point is; the reason it survive is I can change battery. And it is one of the last of its kind. Check gsmarena.com and you'll find almost no high end phones with replaceable batt from 2018 and forward.
But the are all ip 68 or whatever waterproof. Well I have yet to have a phone die of water. Most was replaced because of the battery (or because the keyboard broke). When I hear my colleagues getting new iphones, it is always the battery. My parents just bought a new one because of...
Am I the only one that believes, that the *true* reason all new devices are waterproof, is planned obsolescence?? ... Could be I'm just an old geek that doesn't care to buy a new phone that can the same (but slightly faster, of course) as the one I have. ... Or maybe you all drop phones in the toilet regularly? (really??)
If not, then spread the idea, and help save both money and the environment! Let's rebel! ... Regard my heading "by law" I mean, it doesn't have to be user replaceable, but eg that right-to-repair have an upper limit of what a new battery must cost, sufficiently low - like maybe 5% of the original price - to ensure that the can be replaced, and is not epoxy'ed inside.
He's now gearing up to plunk down more money on another pair...
Yeah, that will really teach Apple a lesson!
For Li ion you need to stay below 80% state of charge to extend the battery life. The depth of discharge doesn't matter so much (the 0% level has plenty of safety margin above the true lower limit.)
Source: https://accubattery.zendesk.co...
(Disclaimer: The data is for batteries charged to 4.25 V. It's not clear how it translates to newer high-voltage cells at 4.35 V.)
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
This should be no surprise-- any device with a lithium-ion based battery sealed inside it will have to suffer the downsides that all common lithium-ion batteries have to suffer. Excess heat quickly damages their ability to recharge. But also normal heat, over the course of two to five years, gradually damages their capacity to recharge.
Drone battery? Better hope they produce the same form factor in three years.
Sport camera or camera gimbal? If it has the battery sealed in, the whole thing will be junk before you finally get around to using it on that big action vacation.
Thousand dollar smartphone with a case made of glass and unicorn farts? Better sign up for an appointment at the Einstein Bar to get the next magical upgrade, er, next generation smartphone.
[
This is no surprise for anybody that actually understands electronics. 2..3 years is all you get with non-replaceable LiPo batteries and daily use. One of the reasons I consider a phone or other device with a non-replaceable battery to be defective by design and will not buy it.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You pay, say, $150 per year, and every 2 years you get a new pair of them.That is if you send in your old ones. If not, you pay an extra $50.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
One, the wires break a lot more if you're a clumsy twat or are too stupid to wear the thing so it's not pulling in the wrong place.
Two, you don't know how to find the break, cut it and solder a new plug on? I could do that when I was about ten.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The article reads "They [batteries] can also catch fire or explode if they become damaged, so technology companies make them difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to replace themselves." It should say, " The profit margin on new devices is very high, so technology companies make them difficult, if not impossible, for consumers to replace themselves."
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
As someone who still connects air traffic control sized, over the ear studio headphones to their device with a 3 foot coily 1970s cable, i say....mwah ha ha ha.
It's weird how my "old-fangled" wired earbuds still sound great. They must have a hell of a battery because I've used them for years and never gotten a low battery warning.
Can I pay more to own a set of earbuds that don't sound as good and die every few months, even though there's nothing really wrong with them?
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I saw that part too and I laughed. It was basically, "These suck so obviously I'm just going to buy another pair."
Apple really, really knows their target audience: short-sighted idiots with money.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
This is why I like my devices to have a headphone jack for use with corded headphones. No dongle, no recharging, no degraded rechargeable batteries.
No shit?
What cracks me up is the nudnik from the article that is preparing to buy *another pair*. As my grandfather use to say, "Don't let the same dog bite ya twice."