5 ms·
This has nothing to do with some evil planned obsolescence, it’s just that you can’t make a device that small while retaining (easy) battery replacement capabil
by hk__2 5y ago
This has nothing to do with some evil planned obsolescence, it’s just that you can’t make a device that small while retaining (easy) battery replacement capability.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/your-wireless-earbuds-are-trash-eventually/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/your-wireless-earbud...
- MaKey 5y agoTurns out you can: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Buds+Live+Teardown/135908 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Samsung+Galaxy+Buds+Live+Tea...
- rootusrootus 5y agoThose are huge, though. There's a trade-off.
- hk__2 5y agoThey have a 10-steps guide of "moderate" difficulty to replace the battery, and it may damage the water resistance of the buds. That’s definitely not what I’d call "easy" battery replacement. https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Samsung+Galaxy+Buds+Live+Battery+Replacement/144851 https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Samsung+Galaxy+Buds+Live+Batter...
- truculent 5y agoWell they had a choice to make it less small and repairable. But ultimately, they chose small and disposable. It may not be planned obsolescence, but it's still a choice made with a certain level of disregard for consumers.
- adwn 5y ago> [...] but it's still a choice made with a certain level of disregard for consumers. Yes, OR, they did regard their customers' preference for smaller headphones.