22 ms·

I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these w

I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these will be unusable. I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes. With almost all other wireless over-ear headphones you can at least keep using them passively with a headphone jack when the battery inevitably degrades. Some even have user-replaceable batteries. I have been using old AKG headphones for > 15 years. Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.

dharbin 6y ago
According to Gruber's article, you can use these as wired headphones by plugging in a "Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable," but otherwise I agree with you. "Built to last" means more than the material choices (metal vs plastic), but also whether or not you can swap out the batteries.
- numpad0 6y ago
  > Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable ...without power?
  - pfortuny 6y ago
    You need the batteries (that is what is meant by "not working passively"). A passive headphone works without the need for batteries, at all. It may not have active noise cancellation or some other features, but it should work as a headphone.
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  They work via cable, but only actively (with power). Source: https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance-compatibilty-charging-digital-crown-value-for-money-08650191 https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance...
lisper 6y ago
What does it mean to use wireless headphones passively? Without power wireless headphones aren't going to make any sound, no?
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  I meant with a cable. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I updated my post.
- therealx 6y ago
  A lot of wireless headphones have a small wired jack you can use in the event of no power.
czr 6y ago
> Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company. $79 for airpods max battery service [0]. user-replaceable battery certainly would be nicer. but to describe as "throw-away" seems extreme. [0] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  I'd bet that Apple will stop servicing them after a few years though, as they do with all their products. And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product, since the 'battery service' is really just a full replacement. You'd have to physically destroy them to remove the battery.
  - bb123 6y ago
    A few years? They still repair the iPhone 6, a phone thats 6 years old now. If that gives you another 2 years of use, thats a total of 8 years.
    - cloogshicer 6y ago
      That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then? Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
      - billiam 6y ago
        Stainless and aluminum headphones that weigh a pound are made to last a century, not a couple of years. I have a closet full of incredibly durable, beautiful Apple products that will show up in an archeological dig of our sad epoch but were only supported by Apple for five years max.
        6y ago
otterley 6y ago
It is simply not true that Apple products with sealed batteries have zero value, and therefore can only be thrown out, when they expire. The market for Apple devices with dying batteries is quite strong: just browse eBay if you need proof. There’s an industry of buyers who refurbish these devices at a profit, and the purchase price for these used devices remains impressively high. Heck, I just sold a three-year-old iPhone X with a “service battery” warning for nearly $400.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  Counterpoint: My iPhone that was out of warranty and had the screen cracked after taking it in for third-party battery replacement. The official battery replacement was more than the resale value of the phone. Unlike a phone, high-end headphones are not inherently disposable. They can last many decades of regular use. This is a disposable product in a product category that is not usually disposable.
  - otterley 6y ago
    We just don’t know that yet. They just started shipping, what, today?
    - snypher 6y ago
      Don't know what? It's engineered trash from a trash company.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    $79 to replace the battery on an AirPod Max isn’t that bad if you just have to do it every few years. I’m sort of tired of my churn through AAA’s on my Bose QuietComforts.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      How much would you pay for replaceable AAA batteries? How long will they last? $79 is pretty bad.
exhaze 6y ago
Do you really believe this so strongly that you write this strongly-worded comment? Plenty of reasons why people would convince themselves to buy them: - I can easily return it if I don't like it (most never do) - the OS X/iOS integration will be way better than my current headphones (my poison) - I love Apple - 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  So other than your second point (which is in part a side effect of Apple locking down their platform so much) none of those have to do with the quality of the product. And none of them address the underlying issue that you'll be paying $550 for something that will be non-functional in a few years, while headphones with comparable sound quality and capabilities can be had for cheaper.
  - exhaze 6y ago
    I'm aware how people on this site think about products like this. Can you tell me why, despite the strong sentiment here, the product is still so popular?
    - HideousKojima 6y ago
      Because a significant part of a product's success is marketing and the psychology underlying it. Apple are masters at marketing, and for many consumers owning Apple products is seen as a way to signal status.
      - erichurkman 6y ago
        A big part of Apple's brand is that things generally work. I don't need to do a ton of research on the exact pros and cons of other products, I don't have to make sure that a particular brand's model wasn't silently replaced with a cheaper version with the same SKU, that service options do exist (though expensive), and that there's a robust secondary market of Apple devices.
coldtea 6y ago
>I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these will be unusable. First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway). Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there. >Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company. Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close. Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...
- cloogshicer 6y ago
  >Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... That is exactly what I'm criticising.
  - exhaze 6y ago
    Can you respond to me by clearly stating your point?
    - cloogshicer 6y ago
      My point is that in my original post I was criticising the buying behavior of people who would purchase this product. If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- rglullis 6y ago
bitcurious 6y ago
I wear headphones for about 5 hours every work day. If these are more comfortable than the alternative, I’m very ok with amortizing the added ~$300 over the ~1000 hours of extra comfort just in year one.
- nixpulvis 6y ago
  This is a fancy way of saying "I'll pay more for nicer headphones because I use them a lot". Sadly the point above is that you'll be forced to pay more again and again thanks to the fact they are wireless only so you'll need to replace the batteries.
  - askafriend 6y ago
    Who cares, $600 every 5-10yrs seems fine to me. These are computers on your head. I don't mind replacing the whole unit. But you don't even have to replace them entirely...Apple will replace the battery for $79. So if after 5-10yrs, you wanted to get the battery replaced, you can. It's almost like people on HN have never bought noise canceling headphones - none of the top models have user-replaceable batteries.
    - 0x008 6y ago
      They probably will be service EOL (“vintage”) after like 5 years. Even earlier if the sales aren’t good in the first place.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> I don't understand how anyone could buy these Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it. > I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes. That's not been my experience, mine have a few hours of lifespan after two years, but for earbuds that's not too bad. I regularly killed wired earbuds faster than that due to wear and tear. Everything else on this design seems to me like they'll be longer lived than their competitors. Steel headbands and magnet attached earcups sound much more durable than plastic and plastic. I'd be willing to bet that more headphones meet an early demise due to worn out earcups and broken headbands than batteries reaching EOL, so this might not be a bad trade-off for users willing to pay $500 for headphones anyways.
- 0x008 6y ago
  > Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it. But understanding it doesn’t mean you cannot criticize it?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dontTango 6y ago
It's a veblen good. Quality is secondary to cost. The entire point is to be impractical.
veidr 6y ago
I assume, barring some kind of cataclysm and reversion to barbarism (admittedly looking increasingly plausible of late), that there is no chance whatsoever that I am going to want to be using the same audio headphones in 2026 that I will be using in 2021. Not because the old ones will SOUND horribly worse than the five year newer ones, but because tech is tech — the new ones will work with all my 2026 devices, connect using the 2026 wireless standard, work with the 2026 cable (if any, besides the 3.5mm analog). The 2026 models will hopefully be able to download my voice profile and predefined commands and maybe will even unlock my front door when I approach, plus _____________ ????¿¿¿¿ Don't get me wrong — I love shit that will last a long time with finality, and I buy lots of things for that reason: knives and cookware and even furniture that I will hand down to my sons. But headphones? Not in that category any more than smartphones or computers.
- shostack 6y ago
  How much of that is natural evolution of technology vs planned obsolescence?
  - veidr 6y ago
    I don't dispute the concept of planned obsolescence — or even fraudulent sabotage. (Looking at you, Logitech, with the 7 mouse devices we bought which (while otherwise excellent) lasted between 14 and 17 months with a 12 month warranty!) But my point is that it's not relevant to computer/smartphone oriented wireless headphones. Most of us are gonna want new ones within 3-4 years regardless of what Apple plans. (Wired headphones, different story.)
  - hombre_fatal 6y ago
    When it comes to wireless audio, there's always something better in five years. For the same reason these headphones are probably better than whatever you're using right now. Though, in five years, a $60-80 battery replacement doesn't sound like a problem to me. This thread seems like roleplaying that it's a major life event.
    - 6y ago
ogre_codes 6y ago
My AirPods are going on 2 years, get used a lot and they still last for a typical 2 hour+ ride. I'm doubt you could get replaceable batteries into something the size of the AirPods and have them light enough to stay in my ears as well as they do. These beasts are obviously different.
jmull 6y ago
> I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable Well, the battery is replaceable in a straight-forward way. The exact process isn't really that important a buying factor considering you'll do it once in every 1000 days (or something on that order).
wittyreference 6y ago
My Bose QC35 are now seven years old or so, and they still charge up fast and hold it for a good long while. I don't know if they're as good as new, but they're close enough that I can't tell the difference. I don't see why the airpods max should be notably worse.
- navbaker 6y ago
  That's great to hear! I got a pair a year and a half ago and consider them one of the best purchases I've made for productivity at work. They fit over my behind-the-ear hearing aids, they are great for concentration when the kids are being kids, and the mic is fantastic for zoom calls. It's also the first time I've seriously used a bluetooth device and the novelty of being able to seamlessly switch between music on my phone, youtube on the computer, and work calls still hasn't worn off.
matchagaucho 6y ago
The Max marketing launch really made me think of the opportunity benefits associated with integrated voice commands, taking calls, Siri messages. I would try these on the premise that my remote workflow might be improved.
globular-toast 6y ago
It is a shame. My living room speakers, which I use for my hi-fi and home cinema setup, were manufactured in 1972. My amplifier was manufactured some time in the 90s. Things break eventually and some won't last as long as my speakers. That's fine. But we should reject things intentionally designed to break after only a few years. Reject convenience. Aim to reduce your footprint. This is especially important if you plan to reproduce.
- therealx 6y ago
  Same! I love my 70's bookshelf speakers and the amp is perfection. My sub is newer, but only early 2000's new (and I lucked into it)
bogwog 6y ago
Apple's just trying to convince headphone buyers to pay more for less. Even if they can't compete on quality with existing headphone makers, they'll undoubtedly make more money. Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words. But as long as other headphone manufacturers continue to sell quality and serviceable products, I won't be directly affected by it. I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. If they do, maybe I'll have to start looking at cheap Chinese brands.
- askafriend 6y ago
  What the heck are you talking about? The most popular noise canceling headphones are the Bose QC35 and Sony WH1000XM4. Neither of those have user-replaceable batteries. They haven't for years. And if you wanted to replace the batteries on the AirPods Max, it's only $79. If you can't afford it, don't buy them.
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. The fact that AirPods max can only be turned off by placing them in the case is such a weird design decision beyond the other absurdities of the product design. Hopefully Sony and others adopt the good ideas (like replaceable ear cups) while staying true to their customers.
  - oblio 6y ago
    > I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. You do know that these headphones will probably outsell the ones you mention 100:1 or more, right? :-)
- sorum 6y ago
  > Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words. Is this a reflection on Apple's product strategy or that there are inequalities in the world?
tengbretson 6y ago
The color and composition of these headphones makes me think that after one year of use the headband will look yellow and grimey and the fabric will get snags and runs in it. The build quality looks sturdy, but not meant to last.
ohyes 6y ago
My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a company that is actually focused on producing the best headphones. Apple has a huge R&D budget and I'm sure that they could make some very nice headphones if they wanted to, but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. If it were an innovation thing, I'd be down to get the hot new headphone experience, but these are just wireless can headphones with some noise cancelling, a product that's been around for quite a while now. (I've had Bose QCs for ~8 years now (the same set, mind you), I'm pretty happy with them. I'm also pretty happy with the earbuds that came with my phone. so it's not like I'm allergic to spending money on stuff I think will be worth it or I'm some audio snob).
- chimen 6y ago
  Mid range studio quality with active noise cancelation, great build quality, good BL codecs (aptx HD+ || LDAC)? Name that pair please. Those 8y Bose QCs are not even close to being a mid-range studio quality and are worst than a sony xm2 or xm3 in terms of ANC, built entirely of plastic also. You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason. The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
  - brokensegue 6y ago
    WH1000XM4 is still much cheaper than the apple headphones. I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
    - chimen 6y ago
      I have the WH1000XM4. It's like a Renault near a Mercedes when comapred with these ones (buld quality) or near BO n95. Depends what you want. My right earcup (right where it pivots) broke 2 weeks in. 100% plastic. ANC is good though I give them that. Also, "much cheaper" is only a feature when all other aspects match.
sschueller 6y ago
People would buy a bag of poop if Apple made it and Samsung would copy it when they see the sales numbers. Just watch as others copy these overpriced headphones.
carterklein13 6y ago
This viewpoint doesn't hold true far outside of forums like this one and certain subreddits. People just don't care about any of the things you noted, and if they see everyone wearing Airpods Maxes, they'll want Airpods Maxes. They'll see AKG as inferior, even though that's objectively untrue.
Reason077 6y ago
> "I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable" How many wireless headphones have "user replaceable" batteries? Certainly not any I have bought in recent years. If these last long enough to need a $79 professional battery replacement[1] in 5 years, then I'd say they're money well spent! [1] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
- fuzzer37 6y ago
  Why buy wireless headphones to begin with? I've had a pair of wired Audio Technica headphones for the past 5 years and have had no issues at all. Ear pads are user replaceable, headphone cable is detachable and standard, and I can use whatever DAC/amp I want (or just plug it straight into a device). Wireless just seems like a downgrade in every way
  - disiplus 6y ago
    I have a nice akgs wired headphones, but every time I stand up or move i pull on the cable or have to remove them. with my Bluetooth headphones I can go to kitchen grab something and go back quickly.
  - aluminum96 6y ago
    You surely must understand why some people like the convenience of wireless headphones?
    - core-questions 6y ago
      But not musicians (the latency makes it unusable), so the target market for extreme audio quality will be elsewhere, buying conventional analogue wired Audio-Technicas or Sennheisers; and not people exercising (they'll fall off your head), so the target market for that will be buying smaller earbuds. I have a pair of AT's that happens to have Bluetooth and the only time I've used it is when mowing the lawn as a sort of ear protection with podcasts as a side benefit. Shitty audio quality would have been fine for this situation! The market for this is the same thing as the market for a Gucci purse, basically, and that's fine, who cares; let it be for those people.
brabel 6y ago
I had for around 5 years a pair of in-ear wireless PowerBeats headphones... the battery life slowly degraded until I had to recharge it every couple of days listening to them for just an hour each day... and one day, just out of nowhere, the battery started lasting only 15 minutes, making them unusable. I thought it was ridiculous that an expensive headphone needs to be thrown away after only 5 years of light usage, but there you go... if you only had your AirPods for 2 years, sounds like I had a decent run myself :) I still bought the newer Powerbeats model because they're quite nice and I couldn't find anything similar with as good quality. The newer model's battery lasts forever (well, a couple of weeks of light usage took them to around 25%) but I know that, in a few years, it'll get to a couple of days maximum between recharges again... hopefully a bit more than the previous one with better and newer technology.
sfblah 6y ago
I wonder what you define as heavy usage for AirPods. I have 2 pairs, one of which is the first generation and I use only for running. I run almost every day for around an hour. I've had them for around 2 years, probably a bit longer. They still last more than 3 hours per charge. Maybe even 4. Are you using them for 4+ hours a day? Also, is there a way to interrogate them to see how many hours of usage they have or what the remaining battery life is? Edit: I've had a much tougher time with the Apple Watch I pair with the AirPods while I run. My first one only lasted about 1.5 years before its battery became unusable for running.
- 0x008 6y ago
  I used my AirPods for roughly 8 hours a day, probably half of it on the phone. They were done after less than a year. Battery empty after 45min and one side running on like 35% volume only.
rolph 6y ago
if you take headphone jack away from the earphones then you can take the jack away from the player device, [viceversa] then you can lockout any non apple earphones and perhaps blacklist nonvetted media
friendlybus 6y ago
People buy the dream. They know it's overpriced or premium. They don't care about a value proposition it's an opportunity to be on the leading front of the dream. When the product dies, the loss of functionality is less important than being dropped from the dream. Apple gives people a dreamscape where they can transform their homes and workplaces into a creative paradise and share in a world without material tech problems. 'It just works'. Replacing the current iphone with the next one is always attractive for the customer as long as it keeps everybody dreaming.
jiofih 6y ago
> when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power Sony’s XM3 is arguably the most successful noise cancelling headphone in the market and doesn’t do either (it does play unpowered but sound quality is significantly worse).

dharbin 6y ago

According to Gruber's article, you can use these as wired headphones by plugging in a "Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable," but otherwise I agree with you. "Built to last" means more than the material choices (metal vs plastic), but also whether or not you can swap out the batteries.

numpad0 6y ago
> Lightning to 3.5mm headphone jack cable ...without power?
- pfortuny 6y ago
  You need the batteries (that is what is meant by "not working passively"). A passive headphone works without the need for batteries, at all. It may not have active noise cancellation or some other features, but it should work as a headphone.
cloogshicer 6y ago
They work via cable, but only actively (with power). Source: https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance-compatibilty-charging-digital-crown-value-for-money-08650191 https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance...

lisper 6y ago

What does it mean to use wireless headphones passively? Without power wireless headphones aren't going to make any sound, no?

cloogshicer 6y ago
I meant with a cable. Sorry if it wasn't clear, I updated my post.
therealx 6y ago
A lot of wireless headphones have a small wired jack you can use in the event of no power.

czr 6y ago

> Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company. $79 for airpods max battery service [0]. user-replaceable battery certainly would be nicer. but to describe as "throw-away" seems extreme. [0] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery

cloogshicer 6y ago
I'd bet that Apple will stop servicing them after a few years though, as they do with all their products. And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product, since the 'battery service' is really just a full replacement. You'd have to physically destroy them to remove the battery.
- bb123 6y ago
  A few years? They still repair the iPhone 6, a phone thats 6 years old now. If that gives you another 2 years of use, thats a total of 8 years.
  - cloogshicer 6y ago
    That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then? Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
    - billiam 6y ago
      Stainless and aluminum headphones that weigh a pound are made to last a century, not a couple of years. I have a closet full of incredibly durable, beautiful Apple products that will show up in an archeological dig of our sad epoch but were only supported by Apple for five years max.
      - 6y ago

otterley 6y ago

It is simply not true that Apple products with sealed batteries have zero value, and therefore can only be thrown out, when they expire. The market for Apple devices with dying batteries is quite strong: just browse eBay if you need proof. There’s an industry of buyers who refurbish these devices at a profit, and the purchase price for these used devices remains impressively high. Heck, I just sold a three-year-old iPhone X with a “service battery” warning for nearly $400.

dougmwne 6y ago
Counterpoint: My iPhone that was out of warranty and had the screen cracked after taking it in for third-party battery replacement. The official battery replacement was more than the resale value of the phone. Unlike a phone, high-end headphones are not inherently disposable. They can last many decades of regular use. This is a disposable product in a product category that is not usually disposable.
- otterley 6y ago
  We just don’t know that yet. They just started shipping, what, today?
  - snypher 6y ago
    Don't know what? It's engineered trash from a trash company.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  $79 to replace the battery on an AirPod Max isn’t that bad if you just have to do it every few years. I’m sort of tired of my churn through AAA’s on my Bose QuietComforts.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    How much would you pay for replaceable AAA batteries? How long will they last? $79 is pretty bad.

exhaze 6y ago

Do you really believe this so strongly that you write this strongly-worded comment? Plenty of reasons why people would convince themselves to buy them: - I can easily return it if I don't like it (most never do) - the OS X/iOS integration will be way better than my current headphones (my poison) - I love Apple - 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.

HideousKojima 6y ago
So other than your second point (which is in part a side effect of Apple locking down their platform so much) none of those have to do with the quality of the product. And none of them address the underlying issue that you'll be paying $550 for something that will be non-functional in a few years, while headphones with comparable sound quality and capabilities can be had for cheaper.
- exhaze 6y ago
  I'm aware how people on this site think about products like this. Can you tell me why, despite the strong sentiment here, the product is still so popular?
  - HideousKojima 6y ago
    Because a significant part of a product's success is marketing and the psychology underlying it. Apple are masters at marketing, and for many consumers owning Apple products is seen as a way to signal status.
    - erichurkman 6y ago
      A big part of Apple's brand is that things generally work. I don't need to do a ton of research on the exact pros and cons of other products, I don't have to make sure that a particular brand's model wasn't silently replaced with a cheaper version with the same SKU, that service options do exist (though expensive), and that there's a robust secondary market of Apple devices.

coldtea 6y ago

>I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these will be unusable. First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway). Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there. >Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company. Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close. Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...

cloogshicer 6y ago
>Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... That is exactly what I'm criticising.
- exhaze 6y ago
  Can you respond to me by clearly stating your point?
  - cloogshicer 6y ago
    My point is that in my original post I was criticising the buying behavior of people who would purchase this product. If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
rglullis 6y ago

bitcurious 6y ago

I wear headphones for about 5 hours every work day. If these are more comfortable than the alternative, I’m very ok with amortizing the added ~$300 over the ~1000 hours of extra comfort just in year one.

nixpulvis 6y ago
This is a fancy way of saying "I'll pay more for nicer headphones because I use them a lot". Sadly the point above is that you'll be forced to pay more again and again thanks to the fact they are wireless only so you'll need to replace the batteries.
- askafriend 6y ago
  Who cares, $600 every 5-10yrs seems fine to me. These are computers on your head. I don't mind replacing the whole unit. But you don't even have to replace them entirely...Apple will replace the battery for $79. So if after 5-10yrs, you wanted to get the battery replaced, you can. It's almost like people on HN have never bought noise canceling headphones - none of the top models have user-replaceable batteries.
  - 0x008 6y ago
    They probably will be service EOL (“vintage”) after like 5 years. Even earlier if the sales aren’t good in the first place.

ashtonkem 6y ago

> I don't understand how anyone could buy these Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it. > I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes. That's not been my experience, mine have a few hours of lifespan after two years, but for earbuds that's not too bad. I regularly killed wired earbuds faster than that due to wear and tear. Everything else on this design seems to me like they'll be longer lived than their competitors. Steel headbands and magnet attached earcups sound much more durable than plastic and plastic. I'd be willing to bet that more headphones meet an early demise due to worn out earcups and broken headbands than batteries reaching EOL, so this might not be a bad trade-off for users willing to pay $500 for headphones anyways.

0x008 6y ago
> Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it. But understanding it doesn’t mean you cannot criticize it?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dontTango 6y ago

It's a veblen good. Quality is secondary to cost. The entire point is to be impractical.

veidr 6y ago

I assume, barring some kind of cataclysm and reversion to barbarism (admittedly looking increasingly plausible of late), that there is no chance whatsoever that I am going to want to be using the same audio headphones in 2026 that I will be using in 2021. Not because the old ones will SOUND horribly worse than the five year newer ones, but because tech is tech — the new ones will work with all my 2026 devices, connect using the 2026 wireless standard, work with the 2026 cable (if any, besides the 3.5mm analog). The 2026 models will hopefully be able to download my voice profile and predefined commands and maybe will even unlock my front door when I approach, plus _____________ ????¿¿¿¿ Don't get me wrong — I love shit that will last a long time with finality, and I buy lots of things for that reason: knives and cookware and even furniture that I will hand down to my sons. But headphones? Not in that category any more than smartphones or computers.

shostack 6y ago
How much of that is natural evolution of technology vs planned obsolescence?
- veidr 6y ago
  I don't dispute the concept of planned obsolescence — or even fraudulent sabotage. (Looking at you, Logitech, with the 7 mouse devices we bought which (while otherwise excellent) lasted between 14 and 17 months with a 12 month warranty!) But my point is that it's not relevant to computer/smartphone oriented wireless headphones. Most of us are gonna want new ones within 3-4 years regardless of what Apple plans. (Wired headphones, different story.)
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  When it comes to wireless audio, there's always something better in five years. For the same reason these headphones are probably better than whatever you're using right now. Though, in five years, a $60-80 battery replacement doesn't sound like a problem to me. This thread seems like roleplaying that it's a major life event.
  - 6y ago

ogre_codes 6y ago

My AirPods are going on 2 years, get used a lot and they still last for a typical 2 hour+ ride. I'm doubt you could get replaceable batteries into something the size of the AirPods and have them light enough to stay in my ears as well as they do. These beasts are obviously different.

jmull 6y ago

> I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable Well, the battery is replaceable in a straight-forward way. The exact process isn't really that important a buying factor considering you'll do it once in every 1000 days (or something on that order).

wittyreference 6y ago

My Bose QC35 are now seven years old or so, and they still charge up fast and hold it for a good long while. I don't know if they're as good as new, but they're close enough that I can't tell the difference. I don't see why the airpods max should be notably worse.

navbaker 6y ago
That's great to hear! I got a pair a year and a half ago and consider them one of the best purchases I've made for productivity at work. They fit over my behind-the-ear hearing aids, they are great for concentration when the kids are being kids, and the mic is fantastic for zoom calls. It's also the first time I've seriously used a bluetooth device and the novelty of being able to seamlessly switch between music on my phone, youtube on the computer, and work calls still hasn't worn off.

matchagaucho 6y ago

The Max marketing launch really made me think of the opportunity benefits associated with integrated voice commands, taking calls, Siri messages. I would try these on the premise that my remote workflow might be improved.

globular-toast 6y ago

It is a shame. My living room speakers, which I use for my hi-fi and home cinema setup, were manufactured in 1972. My amplifier was manufactured some time in the 90s. Things break eventually and some won't last as long as my speakers. That's fine. But we should reject things intentionally designed to break after only a few years. Reject convenience. Aim to reduce your footprint. This is especially important if you plan to reproduce.

therealx 6y ago
Same! I love my 70's bookshelf speakers and the amp is perfection. My sub is newer, but only early 2000's new (and I lucked into it)

bogwog 6y ago

Apple's just trying to convince headphone buyers to pay more for less. Even if they can't compete on quality with existing headphone makers, they'll undoubtedly make more money. Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words. But as long as other headphone manufacturers continue to sell quality and serviceable products, I won't be directly affected by it. I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. If they do, maybe I'll have to start looking at cheap Chinese brands.

askafriend 6y ago
What the heck are you talking about? The most popular noise canceling headphones are the Bose QC35 and Sony WH1000XM4. Neither of those have user-replaceable batteries. They haven't for years. And if you wanted to replace the batteries on the AirPods Max, it's only $79. If you can't afford it, don't buy them.
save_ferris 6y ago
> I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. The fact that AirPods max can only be turned off by placing them in the case is such a weird design decision beyond the other absurdities of the product design. Hopefully Sony and others adopt the good ideas (like replaceable ear cups) while staying true to their customers.
- oblio 6y ago
  > I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. You do know that these headphones will probably outsell the ones you mention 100:1 or more, right? :-)
sorum 6y ago
> Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words. Is this a reflection on Apple's product strategy or that there are inequalities in the world?

tengbretson 6y ago

The color and composition of these headphones makes me think that after one year of use the headband will look yellow and grimey and the fabric will get snags and runs in it. The build quality looks sturdy, but not meant to last.

ohyes 6y ago

My question is how someone can justify paying $550 dollars for headphones from Apple. I can get mid-range studio quality headphones for that price, from a company that is actually focused on producing the best headphones. Apple has a huge R&D budget and I'm sure that they could make some very nice headphones if they wanted to, but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. If it were an innovation thing, I'd be down to get the hot new headphone experience, but these are just wireless can headphones with some noise cancelling, a product that's been around for quite a while now. (I've had Bose QCs for ~8 years now (the same set, mind you), I'm pretty happy with them. I'm also pretty happy with the earbuds that came with my phone. so it's not like I'm allergic to spending money on stuff I think will be worth it or I'm some audio snob).

chimen 6y ago
Mid range studio quality with active noise cancelation, great build quality, good BL codecs (aptx HD+ || LDAC)? Name that pair please. Those 8y Bose QCs are not even close to being a mid-range studio quality and are worst than a sony xm2 or xm3 in terms of ANC, built entirely of plastic also. You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason. The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
- brokensegue 6y ago
  WH1000XM4 is still much cheaper than the apple headphones. I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
  - chimen 6y ago
    I have the WH1000XM4. It's like a Renault near a Mercedes when comapred with these ones (buld quality) or near BO n95. Depends what you want. My right earcup (right where it pivots) broke 2 weeks in. 100% plastic. ANC is good though I give them that. Also, "much cheaper" is only a feature when all other aspects match.

sschueller 6y ago

People would buy a bag of poop if Apple made it and Samsung would copy it when they see the sales numbers. Just watch as others copy these overpriced headphones.

carterklein13 6y ago

This viewpoint doesn't hold true far outside of forums like this one and certain subreddits. People just don't care about any of the things you noted, and if they see everyone wearing Airpods Maxes, they'll want Airpods Maxes. They'll see AKG as inferior, even though that's objectively untrue.

Reason077 6y ago

> "I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable" How many wireless headphones have "user replaceable" batteries? Certainly not any I have bought in recent years. If these last long enough to need a $79 professional battery replacement[1] in 5 years, then I'd say they're money well spent! [1] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery

fuzzer37 6y ago
Why buy wireless headphones to begin with? I've had a pair of wired Audio Technica headphones for the past 5 years and have had no issues at all. Ear pads are user replaceable, headphone cable is detachable and standard, and I can use whatever DAC/amp I want (or just plug it straight into a device). Wireless just seems like a downgrade in every way
- disiplus 6y ago
  I have a nice akgs wired headphones, but every time I stand up or move i pull on the cable or have to remove them. with my Bluetooth headphones I can go to kitchen grab something and go back quickly.
- aluminum96 6y ago
  You surely must understand why some people like the convenience of wireless headphones?
  - core-questions 6y ago
    But not musicians (the latency makes it unusable), so the target market for extreme audio quality will be elsewhere, buying conventional analogue wired Audio-Technicas or Sennheisers; and not people exercising (they'll fall off your head), so the target market for that will be buying smaller earbuds. I have a pair of AT's that happens to have Bluetooth and the only time I've used it is when mowing the lawn as a sort of ear protection with podcasts as a side benefit. Shitty audio quality would have been fine for this situation! The market for this is the same thing as the market for a Gucci purse, basically, and that's fine, who cares; let it be for those people.

brabel 6y ago

I had for around 5 years a pair of in-ear wireless PowerBeats headphones... the battery life slowly degraded until I had to recharge it every couple of days listening to them for just an hour each day... and one day, just out of nowhere, the battery started lasting only 15 minutes, making them unusable. I thought it was ridiculous that an expensive headphone needs to be thrown away after only 5 years of light usage, but there you go... if you only had your AirPods for 2 years, sounds like I had a decent run myself :) I still bought the newer Powerbeats model because they're quite nice and I couldn't find anything similar with as good quality. The newer model's battery lasts forever (well, a couple of weeks of light usage took them to around 25%) but I know that, in a few years, it'll get to a couple of days maximum between recharges again... hopefully a bit more than the previous one with better and newer technology.

sfblah 6y ago

I wonder what you define as heavy usage for AirPods. I have 2 pairs, one of which is the first generation and I use only for running. I run almost every day for around an hour. I've had them for around 2 years, probably a bit longer. They still last more than 3 hours per charge. Maybe even 4. Are you using them for 4+ hours a day? Also, is there a way to interrogate them to see how many hours of usage they have or what the remaining battery life is? Edit: I've had a much tougher time with the Apple Watch I pair with the AirPods while I run. My first one only lasted about 1.5 years before its battery became unusable for running.

0x008 6y ago
I used my AirPods for roughly 8 hours a day, probably half of it on the phone. They were done after less than a year. Battery empty after 45min and one side running on like 35% volume only.

rolph 6y ago

if you take headphone jack away from the earphones then you can take the jack away from the player device, [viceversa] then you can lockout any non apple earphones and perhaps blacklist nonvetted media

friendlybus 6y ago

People buy the dream. They know it's overpriced or premium. They don't care about a value proposition it's an opportunity to be on the leading front of the dream. When the product dies, the loss of functionality is less important than being dropped from the dream. Apple gives people a dreamscape where they can transform their homes and workplaces into a creative paradise and share in a world without material tech problems. 'It just works'. Replacing the current iphone with the next one is always attractive for the customer as long as it keeps everybody dreaming.

jiofih 6y ago

> when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power Sony’s XM3 is arguably the most successful noise cancelling headphone in the market and doesn’t do either (it does play unpowered but sound quality is significantly worse).