your airpods will die soon

[badgolferman]

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.

https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585439/

[Lewis]

In message <q70v4q$6ar$1...@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Summary: Batteries are still batteries. SHOCKING NEWS! SPECIAL REPORT AT
ELEVEN! CLIKC HERE!

--
Nothing says poor craftsmanship more than wrinkled duct tape.

[Wilf]

On 21/03/2019 22:02, Lewis wrote:
> In message <q70v4q$6ar$1...@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Summary: Batteries are still batteries. SHOCKING NEWS! SPECIAL REPORT AT
> ELEVEN! CLIKC HERE!
>

Quite so. However, it would be nice, and customer friendly, if such
batteries were user-replaceable like, for example, camera batteries. Of
course, then Apple couldn't charge £40 or so to replace them for you. I
accept, though, that such replaceable batteries might still be quite
expensive.

Wilf

[Alan Browne]

Li-ion batteries are nice, but they do degrade with time and use and
their capacity dwindles. It's just the way they are.

The article does not mention the use cases (how many hours of play time
per day, how many recharge cycles).

IAC: you can get the batteries replaced:
https://support.apple.com/en-ca/airpods/repair/service

--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester

[nospam]

In article <q70v4q$6ar$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The battery can no longer hold a charge, they say, rendering them

> functionally useless. Apple bloggers agree: łAirPods 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. łThatąs less than half the stated battery life for a

> new pair,˛ the writer William Gallagher concluded.

one out of tens of millions sold means nothing. batteries degrade, but
not all are going to be half. mine certainly aren't.

how long do you listen to wired headphones in a single session? if it's
less than 2 hours, then even the reduced run time won't matter.

but if it's longer, pop them in the case for a few minutes to recharge
for additional run time. they recharge *fast*.

and then there's the convenience of no wires, which is *significant*.

[nospam]

In article <q7128a$12ko$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf

<wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:

> >> 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. ģThatđs less than half the stated battery life for a
> >> new pair,ē the writer William Gallagher concluded.

> >
> > Summary: Batteries are still batteries. SHOCKING NEWS! SPECIAL REPORT AT
> > ELEVEN! CLIKC HERE!
>
> Quite so. However, it would be nice, and customer friendly, if such
> batteries were user-replaceable like, for example, camera batteries. Of

> course, then Apple couldn't charge Ģ40 or so to replace them for you. I

> accept, though, that such replaceable batteries might still be quite
> expensive.

it's not the price, but that they are too small to have user
replaceable batteries.

have you ever seen *any* bluetooth headset that small with replaceable
batteries? i sure haven't.

the bigger over-the-ear headphones have enough space, but those are
huge.

[Alan Browne]

No. Li-ion batteries are not very expensive considering their capacity.
I order mine online for my flashlights and headlamps for about $10 per
3000 mAh capacity in 18650 size. (18mm dia x 65mm long, flat top). If I
buy a diver's flash they'll use those too.

The Apple batts are much (much) smaller.

But these batteries deserve a lot of respect. A brief short circuit can
set them on fire in a few moments.

Personally I have no issue handling them, but I can see someone simply
dropping them in their purse w/o protection, they encounter a set of
keys ...

I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
iPhone (mostly with her Mac).

[nospam]

In article <NaKdnSI8PdBCkwnB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).

until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.

bragi is over $300, google pixelbuds are $159, the older samsung gear
iconx are $179 and the very new samsung galaxy buds are $129, which
were introduced just last month.

<https://bragi.com/products/thedashpro>
<https://store.google.com/product/google_pixel_buds>
<https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/galaxy-buds/>
<https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/audio/headphones/gear-iconx--black-sm-
r140nzkaxar/>

and those don't have user replaceable batteries either.

<https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/25/16017768/bragi-dash-pro-review-wirel
ess-headphones-price>
The Dash Pro costs $329, a small but significant step up from the
original Dash零 retail price of $299, and double the cost of AirPods.

[Lewis]

In message <q7128a$12ko$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
> On 21/03/2019 22:02, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <q70v4q$6ar$1...@dont-email.me> badgolferman <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Summary: Batteries are still batteries. SHOCKING NEWS! SPECIAL REPORT AT
>> ELEVEN! CLIKC HERE!
>>

> Quite so. However, it would be nice, and customer friendly, if such
> batteries were user-replaceable

Then the AirPods would be significantly larger and bulkier, which would
make them significantly worse.

--
The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere,
someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over
there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.

[Lewis]

In message <F6CdnSazFtIskQnB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-21 17:19, badgolferman wrote:
>> 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.

> Li-ion batteries are nice, but they do degrade with time and use and
> their capacity dwindles. It's just the way they are.

This is how *all* batteries are.

--
Everything you read on the Internet is false -- Glenn Fleishman

[Bernd Fröhlich]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> it's not the price, but that they are too small to have user
> replaceable batteries.
>
> have you ever seen *any* bluetooth headset that small with replaceable
> batteries? i sure haven't.
>
> the bigger over-the-ear headphones have enough space, but those are
> huge.

Tell that to someone wearing a hearing aid.
They are even smaller than airpods and do have replacable batteries.

[Wilf]

On 21/03/2019 22:22, nospam wrote:
> how long do you listen to wired headphones in a single session? if it's
> less than 2 hours, then even the reduced run time won't matter.

Agreed, unless you are on a long flight with no charge facility.

Wilf

[nospam]

In article <1o4tzur.14td2s11evky8aN%be...@eaglesoft.de>, Bernd Fröhlich

those aren't bluetooth.
false comparison.

[nospam]

In article <q72hs1$1elt$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf

<wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:

> > how long do you listen to wired headphones in a single session? if it's
> > less than 2 hours, then even the reduced run time won't matter.
>
> Agreed, unless you are on a long flight with no charge facility.

how often do you find yourself on a long flight? certainly not every
single day and probably not more than once or twice a year. in any
event, bring wired headphones for that situation. no big deal.

also keep in mind that the airpods case adds an additional 24 hours, so
whenever you have to go pee or they serve the meal, pop them in the
case for a quick recharge. also no big deal.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 09:34:34 -0400, nospam wrote:

> also keep in mind that the airpods case adds an additional 24 hours, so
> whenever you have to go pee or they serve the meal, pop them in the
> case for a quick recharge. also no big deal.

Hi nospam,

FACTS + LOGIC.

From badgolferman's article:
"Wireless headphones don't have to be difficult to repair; iFixit has
found that SamsungĒs Galaxy Buds, for example, are repairable,
because they are held together with clips and not glue."

"Because Apple glues AirPods together, tthe only way to separate
the battery from the case would be to use a knife, which means
risking an explosion."

As for soldering batteries in Apple devices, the article quoted the NYT at
o *Apple's actions are "an extreme act of consumer unfriendliness"*

EVERYTHING you ever say is simply a page out of Apple Marketing playbooks.
o You're extremely consistent in your incessant shills for Apple Marketing.

Your solution to the overall Apple problem of poor design is...
o *Buy even _more_ expensive Apple gear to work around the design flaws!*

Let's see how much revenue Apple generates using nospam's suggestion:
o $200 for AirPods with Wireless Charging Case
o $160 for AirPods with non-Wireless Charging Case
o $80 for the Wireless Charging Case for AirPods
<https://www.apple.com/airpods/>

Now for what happens in real life, let's look at badgolferman's article:
<https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585439/>
o Desmond Hughes paid $170 for AirPods only two years ago
o *Today, only 2 years latery, they are "functionally useless".*
o Apple Insider also reported vast degradation in their tests

Hmmm... that's a cost of about $80 per year (using easy math).
o And a two-year replacement cycle

*AirPods annual cost of ownership are about ~$80 per year EVERY YEAR!*
o In the next decade, that's about $800 just to keep AirPods "functional"
o Over a 50 year lifespan, that's $4,000 just to keep AirPods "functional"

The article goes on to say you can "swap" for new AirPods for $100
"Apple does allow consumers to pay for what it calls a
'battery replacement' for AirPods, but each 'replaced' pod is $49.

BTW, badgolferman's article also covered the immense waste
that Apple is producing, where Apple's claim to care about the environment
rings as shallow now as it has always rung (HINT: It's a gimmick.)

[Wilf]

Well I almost thought you were telling me I shouldn't be using airpods
on a flight ;)

Wilf

[Wilf]

On 22/03/2019 16:43, Jolly Roger wrote:

> Not an issue with AirPods since the case contains its own battery with
> enough charge to recharge them several times. Keep reaching if it helps
> you feel better though.
>

Obviously I'd have to be happy to be without the phones while they
recharged. Think wired is probably the way to go.

Wilf

[Lewis]

Airpods are a poor choice for airplanes.

Over-the-ear noise cancelling is the only way to fly.

--
'They think they want good government and justice for all, Vimes, yet
what is it they really crave, deep in their hearts? Only that things go
on as normal and tomorrow is pretty much like today.' --Feet of Clay

[nospam]

In article <q73617$dfk$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup>

wrote:

> >>> how long do you listen to wired headphones in a single session? if
> >>> it's less than 2 hours, then even the reduced run time won't matter.
> >>
> >> Agreed, unless you are on a long flight with no charge facility.
> >
> > Not an issue with AirPods since the case contains its own battery with
> > enough charge to recharge them several times. Keep reaching if it helps
> > you feel better though.
> >
>
> Obviously I'd have to be happy to be without the phones while they
> recharged. Think wired is probably the way to go.

for a flight, possibly. for the rest of the time, no.

<https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207012>
€ If you charge your AirPods for 15 minutes in your case, you
get up to 3 hours of listening time or over an hour of talk time.

pop them in the case when you go pee. no big deal.

[arlen holder]

On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:00:46 -0400, nospam wrote:

> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207012>
> € If you charge your AirPods for 15 minutes in your case, you
> get up to 3 hours of listening time or over an hour of talk time.

Hi nospam,

FACT + LOGIC

You always pull a page out of the marketing playbook
o Where you never take into account the "real world" nospam.

In the real world, clearly, the damn things *vastly degrade*.

o *Today, only 2 years latery, they are "functionally useless".*

o Apple Insider also reported *vast degradation* in their tests

<https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585439/>

[Lewis]

In message <gfkuq8...@mid.individual.net> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-22, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
>> On 22/03/2019 16:43, Jolly Roger wrote:
>>> On 2019-03-22, Wilf <wi...@replyto.newsgroup> wrote:
>>>> On 21/03/2019 22:22, nospam wrote:
>>>>> how long do you listen to wired headphones in a single session? if
>>>>> it's less than 2 hours, then even the reduced run time won't matter.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed, unless you are on a long flight with no charge facility.
>>>
>>> Not an issue with AirPods since the case contains its own battery with
>>> enough charge to recharge them several times. Keep reaching if it helps
>>> you feel better though.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously I'd have to be happy to be without the phones while they
>> recharged.

> Which might not be a problem depending on your mood etc.

You can also recharge one at a time. Pop one in the charger for 5
minutes, then switch. You're good for several more hours.

--
Well, we know where we're goin'
But we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin'
But we can't say what we've seen

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-21 18:40, nospam wrote:
> In article <NaKdnSI8PdBCkwnB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>
> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.

About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
began a deep decline. No way to replace them.

[nospam]

In article <r-6dnR4XiKZ2qwvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
> >> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
> >> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
> >> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
> >
> > until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>
> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.

whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.

they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
between each earbud.

they also didn't pair anywhere near as easily as airpods, nor did the
pairing work across multiple devices with no additional extra effort.

of the airpod type bluetooth headphones, airpods are among the
cheapest. samsung undercut them by 30 bucks a month ago.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-23 11:53, nospam wrote:
> In article <r-6dnR4XiKZ2qwvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>>>
>>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>>
>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
>
> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
>
> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
> between each earbud.

So what? They did the job fine. Around the house or out running. And
had a little battery reserve pack (smaller than a AAA battery) that one
could connect for a charge up of about 50%.

I never compared them to Airpods. Just that there were many nice
options for far less than the price of Airpods.

And frankly I find the Airpods as eminently losable. Indeed one way my
SO wears them, so we can converse (in the morning) while her program
plays, is one out dangling from the cord... hard to do that with the
Airpods...

[nospam]

In article <Rpidneb4WqqewAvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
> >>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
> >>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
> >>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
> >>>
> >>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
> >>
> >> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
> >> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
> >> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
> >
> > whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
> >
> > they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
> > like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
> > between each earbud.
>
> So what? They did the job fine. Around the house or out running. And
> had a little battery reserve pack (smaller than a AAA battery) that one
> could connect for a charge up of about 50%.

the so what is that they're not the same design or specs. i'm sure they
worked well, but there's a very clear difference between the two.

> I never compared them to Airpods. Just that there were many nice
> options for far less than the price of Airpods.

there are bluetooth headphones for as little as $10, but they are in no
way comparable to airpods or what you bought.

as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.

> And frankly I find the Airpods as eminently losable. Indeed one way my
> SO wears them, so we can converse (in the morning) while her program
> plays, is one out dangling from the cord... hard to do that with the
> Airpods...

actually, that's very easy. just use one airpod and leave the other in
the case.

in fact, using only one airpod is quite common for phone calls or for
non-musical content, such as podcasts.

if she puts the second airpod into her ear, it will start playing on
both.

using just one also means one airpod can recharge in the case while the
other is being used, providing more than 24 hours of continuous run
time, other than a couple of seconds to switch ears.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-23 12:33, nospam wrote:
> In article <Rpidneb4WqqewAvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>>>>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>>>>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>>>>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>>>>>
>>>>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>>>>
>>>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
>>>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
>>>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
>>>
>>> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
>>>
>>> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
>>> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
>>> between each earbud.
>>
>> So what? They did the job fine. Around the house or out running. And
>> had a little battery reserve pack (smaller than a AAA battery) that one
>> could connect for a charge up of about 50%.
>
> the so what is that they're not the same design or specs. i'm sure they
> worked well, but there's a very clear difference between the two.

I'm glad you figured that out.

[nospam]

In article <xqmdnSjT0rO0_wvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>>>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
> >>>>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
> >>>>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
> >>>>
> >>>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
> >>>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
> >>>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
> >>>
> >>> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
> >>>
> >>> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
> >>> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
> >>> between each earbud.
> >>
> >> So what? They did the job fine. Around the house or out running. And
> >> had a little battery reserve pack (smaller than a AAA battery) that one
> >> could connect for a charge up of about 50%.
> >
> > the so what is that they're not the same design or specs. i'm sure they
> > worked well, but there's a very clear difference between the two.
>
> I'm glad you figured that out.

you sure didn't.

[Alan Browne]

Classic nospammy withering retreat. Pathetic.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 11:53:01 -0400, nospam wrote:

> they also didn't pair anywhere near as easily as airpods, nor did the
> pairing work across multiple devices with no additional extra effort.

Hi nospam,

All you do is constantly make _excuses_ for the astronomical flaws in the
"courageous" (aka sleazy) decision to make more $$$.

Do you actually read directly from the Apple Marketing playbook
o On every post?

HINT: Over 99.5% of all Android phones have this basic functionality.
o Even some iPhones have functionality - but the percentage is waning fast!

[Lewis]

In message <230320191153015354%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <r-6dnR4XiKZ2qwvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>> >> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>> >> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>> >> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>> >> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>> >
>> > until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>>
>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.

> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.

> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
> between each earbud.

> they also didn't pair anywhere near as easily as airpods, nor did the
> pairing work across multiple devices with no additional extra effort.

> of the airpod type bluetooth headphones, airpods are among the
> cheapest. samsung undercut them by 30 bucks a month ago.

I don't think the Samsung ones let you use them between multiple devices
without re-pairing. I've used my AirPods with my iMac, MBP, iPhone, iPad,
and two different Apple TVs all without having to re-pair a single time.

--
I don't need no stinking taglines.

[Lewis]

In message <Rpidneb4WqqewAvB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-23 11:53, nospam wrote:
>> In article <r-6dnR4XiKZ2qwvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>>>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>>>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>>>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>>>>
>>>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>>>
>>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
>>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
>>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
>>
>> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
>>
>> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
>> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
>> between each earbud.

> So what? They did the job fine.

"My Yugo is just as good as your Bugati"

Uh huh. You're $100 BT set is not comperable to the AirPods, Try again.

> I never compared them to Airpods.

Yes you did. Right up there. Everyone can see it.

> And frankly I find the Airpods as eminently losable. Indeed one way my
> SO wears them, so we can converse (in the morning) while her program
> plays, is one out dangling from the cord... hard to do that with the
> Airpods...

You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.


--
The trouble with witches is that they'll never run away from things they
really hate. And the trouble with small furry animals in a corner is
that, just occasionally, one of them's a mongoose. --Witches Abroad

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:40:05 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.

I think Lewis doesn't comprehend the main point of badgolferman's article.
o The AirPods become "useless" according to badgolferman's article

The article clearly says Apple did it for themselves, not for the consumer:

o *Apple's actions are "an extreme act of consumer unfriendliness"*

Badgolferman's article clearly says the problem is they're useless:

o *Today, only 2 years latery, they are "functionally useless".*

o Apple Insider also reported vast degradation in their tests

The fact is that the AirPods are essentially useless after just 2 years.
o At least that "dangling cord" generally still works after just 2 years

HINT: Apple removed basic headphone functionality for 1 reason alone
o $$$ (the "courageous" decision was, in reality, simply sheer "greed")

Apple is one of the most consumer unfriendly companies on this planet.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 03:35:22 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> I don't think the Samsung ones let you use them between multiple devices
> without re-pairing. I've used my AirPods with my iMac, MBP, iPhone, iPad,
> and two different Apple TVs all without having to re-pair a single time.

Wired headphone work just fine without having to constantly "re-pair" them.

[nospam]

In article <q76vef$av0$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> > I don't think the Samsung ones let you use them between multiple devices
> > without re-pairing. I've used my AirPods with my iMac, MBP, iPhone, iPad,
> > and two different Apple TVs all without having to re-pair a single time.
>
> Wired headphone work just fine without having to constantly "re-pair" them.

wired headphones are 'paired' by plugging them into the device.

if you want to switch devices, you would need to manually unplug them
from one device and plug them into a different device *each* time you
want to switch.

also, with wired headphones, you are limited to being 6 feet away from
the device. that might not be a big deal for a phone, but it definitely
is a problem for a computer or tv.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 00:38:16 -0400, nospam wrote:

> wired headphones are 'paired' by plugging them into the device.
>
> if you want to switch devices, you would need to manually unplug them
> from one device and plug them into a different device *each* time you
> want to switch.
>
> also, with wired headphones, you are limited to being 6 feet away from
> the device. that might not be a big deal for a phone, but it definitely
> is a problem for a computer or tv.

Hi nospam,

The biggest problem with the airpods is that they're useless when the
battery is dead.

And, apparently, that battery itself is kaput after only about two years.

That means AirPods cost you about $80 every year for the rest of your life.

Apple marketing isn't stupid.

[nospam]

In article <q7744h$je8$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

>
> The biggest problem with the airpods is that they're useless when the
> battery is dead.

so are phones, tablets, laptops, flashlights, cameras, am/fm radios,
drones, cars, and everything else that uses batteries.

at 5 hours per airpod and 24 more hours in the case with a charging
port on the bottom, it is not an issue.

> And, apparently, that battery itself is kaput after only about two years.

nope

> That means AirPods cost you about $80 every year for the rest of your life.

nope

> Apple marketing isn't stupid.

you sure are

apple isn't the only company to make bluetooth headphones. bragi,
google, samsung and *many* others do too.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:34:01 -0400, nospam wrote:

> at 5 hours per airpod and 24 more hours in the case with a charging
> port on the bottom, it is not an issue.

Hi nospam,

You _clearly_ did not comprehend anything in the badgolferman article.
o The AirPods are _worthless_ pieces of shit at the two year mark, nospam.\

I repeat: According to the article, AirPods are worthless pieces of shit
o At the two year mark.

That's the whole _message_ in the article for Christs' sake, nospam.
o And you whoooshed on that?

You have only a MARKETING person's view of the real world, nospam
o You claim performance only on day 1 when performance is 0 at year 2

I repeat: The battery life is ZERO at year two according to the article.
o *All your bullshit to the contrary, the AirPods are _useless_ at 2 years*

*That means those silly idiotic looking AirPods are costing about $80 a year*
o Every single year of the rest of your life

Go bullshit someone else, nospam, like Lewis & Jolly Roger
o They eat up bullshit like it's their favorite desert

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 01:34:01 -0400, nospam wrote:

> apple isn't the only company to make bluetooth headphones. bragi,
> google, samsung and *many* others do too.

Badgolferman's article clearly says the silly idiotic looking expensive
AirPods are worthless pieces of shit in just about two years, nospam.

If you have article that claim the same lifespan on those bluetooth
headphones, then show us those articles.

Otherwise, you're just spewing excuses for the silly idiotic looking
AirPods only lasting two years in reliable reports, nospam.

Those silly idiotic looking AirPods are costing you $80 a year
o For the rest of your life

If your claim is that the others cost $80 a year for the rest of your life
o Then simply show us a reference nospam

You're billshit is so obvious that you fail the simple 3-word bullshit test
o Name just one

[RJH]

On 22/03/2019 21:40, arlen holder wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 16:00:46 -0400, nospam wrote:
>
>> <https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207012>
>> € If you charge your AirPods for 15 minutes in your case, you
>> get up to 3 hours of listening time or over an hour of talk time.
>
> Hi nospam,
>
> FACT + LOGIC
>

Um, where :-)

> You always pull a page out of the marketing playbook
> o Where you never take into account the "real world" nospam.
>
> In the real world, clearly, the damn things *vastly degrade*.
> o *Today, only 2 years latery, they are "functionally useless".*
> o Apple Insider also reported *vast degradation* in their tests
>
> <https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/585439/>
>

You can't just make this up, out of context. Well, *you* can :-)

Don't let drama spoil your crisis. Read a decent research methods book,
look at things like sample selection and size, and statistical significance.

-

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/03/11/heres-why-your-airpods-battery-life-is-getting-worse-and-what-you-can-do-about-it>

It's impossible to be completely statistically accurate about how long
AirPod batteries last because it depends on too many things.

-

That said, a few early adopters in the 9-5 piece's comments (about 4 out
of >200) are reporting significantly reduced battery life, and $69
replacement *each* isn't funny. If this does become an issue I see a
'discount' battery replacement scheme on the horizon.

--
Cheers, Rob

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-23 23:40, Lewis wrote:
> In message <Rpidneb4WqqewAvB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-23 11:53, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <r-6dnR4XiKZ2qwvB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>>> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I find the earpods expensive for what they are, and the Apple battery
>>>>>> service expensive too. But then I don't use, want or desire such
>>>>>> anyway. My SO uses BT headphones from Sennheiser with her Mac, iPad and
>>>>>> iPhone (mostly with her Mac).
>>>>>
>>>>> until a month ago, airpods were among of the *least* expensive options.
>>>>
>>>> About 2 years ago I got a BT set for my SO for about $100. So much for
>>>> that theory. They lasted all that time and worked well, but batteries
>>>> began a deep decline. No way to replace them.
>>>
>>> whatever you bought were nothing like airpods.
>>>
>>> they were bigger, with both sides connected, either in a one piece unit
>>> like traditional headphones (making it *much* bigger) or via a cable
>>> between each earbud.
>
>> So what? They did the job fine.
>
> "My Yugo is just as good as your Bugati"

Bad deflection. I didn't say "as good" I said 'did the job fine'.

Not everyone or every case needs the one Apple solution.

>
> Uh huh. You're $100 BT set is not comperable to the AirPods, Try again.

Sound quality is fine enough. Connects to Mac or iPhone interchangeably
w/o issue (the output list pops up on the iPhone).

That's good enough for the needs of my SO and she's pleased with them
(the latest pair esp. for the ear fit compared to the prior widget).

>
>> I never compared them to Airpods.
>
> Yes you did. Right up there. Everyone can see it.

I never said it was equivalent. Grow up and get over yourself.

>
>> And frankly I find the Airpods as eminently losable. Indeed one way my
>> SO wears them, so we can converse (in the morning) while her program
>> plays, is one out dangling from the cord... hard to do that with the
>> Airpods...
>
> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.

Indeed. Much less likely to lose one esp. when listening with just one ear.

[Lewis]

In message <EZidnTZPAPt-DQrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> On 2019-03-23 23:40, Lewis wrote:

>> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
>> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.

> Indeed. Much less likely to lose one esp. when listening with just one ear.

Ah, so you h ave never used AirPods and are arguing from a position of
utter ignorance. Good to know.

--
"I can't see the point in the theatre. All that sex and violence. I get
enough of that at home. Apart from the sex, of course." - Baldrick

[nospam]

In article <EZidnTZPAPt-DQrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

>
> Not everyone or every case needs the one Apple solution.

nobody said they did.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-24 10:52, Lewis wrote:
> In message <EZidnTZPAPt-DQrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-23 23:40, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
>>> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.
>
>> Indeed. Much less likely to lose one esp. when listening with just one ear.
>
> Ah, so you h ave never used AirPods and are arguing from a position of
> utter ignorance. Good to know.

Yes I have used them. Friend has them.

What my SO has more than meets her needs and she's unlikely to lose one
of the pods because she's listening with one ear only. (She wanders
around the house while listening to podcasts or videos - often with only
one ear plugged in.

Can't lose the other if its tethered...

I know it pains you that other people's solutions work fine for them,
but I'm sure you'll work it off.

[Lewis]

In message <LLWdnX2vKIhqPArB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-24 10:52, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <EZidnTZPAPt-DQrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>> On 2019-03-23 23:40, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>>> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
>>>> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.
>>
>>> Indeed. Much less likely to lose one esp. when listening with just one ear.
>>
>> Ah, so you h ave never used AirPods and are arguing from a position of
>> utter ignorance. Good to know.

> Yes I have used them. Friend has them.

Uh huh.

> What my SO has more than meets her needs and she's unlikely to lose one
> of the pods because she's listening with one ear only. (She wanders
> around the house while listening to podcasts or videos - often with only
> one ear plugged in.

You responded to a post that AirPods were the cheapest BT ear buds until
last month by claiming you bought something comparable for $100. that
was not true, then you claimed you weren't saying they were comparable.

Now you are claiming that a wire dangling from your ear is a *feature*

> Can't lose the other if its tethered...

By that logic, you should chain them to your neck.

> I know it pains you that other people's solutions work fine for them,

If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
not have to call you out on your bullshit.

No one "loses" an AirPod because they have only one in their ear. They
put it in the case or if they have taken it out to listen to something
else briefly, they hold it in their hand and then out it back in their
ear. Having a cord dangling from your ear so that you can use a single
ear bud is not a feature (I know, I have a headset like that, and it is
a pain in the ass). Having a weight swinging from your single ear pod
easily causes them to fall out unless you are careful to keep the free
swinging end from moving around (tucking into your shirt, for example).

And when that headset is low on charge, you get to go find a micro USB
card to plug them into and they are *unavailable* until they are
charged, unlike the AirPods which you can use one at a time. In fact, if
you were to exclusively use one at a time, you could listen to them for
TWO DAYS without having to plug anything in.

So, yes, you saved $60 for a measurably inferior product and you are
desperate to rationalize how they are somehow better despite their many
shortcomings.

If they work for her, that's fine, but do not pretend for a second that
they are equivalent to a set of AirPods, they are not, and anyone who
has actually used AirPods knows this. And no, you’re friend having
AirPods doesn't count.

--
there were far worse things than Evil. All the demons in Hell would
torture your very soul, but that was precisely because they valued souls
very highly; Evil would always try to steal the universe, but at least
it considered the universe worth stealing. But the grey world behind
those empty eyes would trample and destroy without even according its
victims the dignity of hatred. It wouldn't even notice them. --The Light
Fantastic

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-24 13:38, Lewis wrote:
> In message <LLWdnX2vKIhqPArB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-24 10:52, Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <EZidnTZPAPt-DQrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2019-03-23 23:40, Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You think that is a FEATURE? A dangling cord? As opposed to just having
>>>>> and AirPod in one ear? Yeah, great feature there.
>>>
>>>> Indeed. Much less likely to lose one esp. when listening with just one ear.
>>>
>>> Ah, so you h ave never used AirPods and are arguing from a position of
>>> utter ignorance. Good to know.
>
>> Yes I have used them. Friend has them.
>
> Uh huh.
>
>> What my SO has more than meets her needs and she's unlikely to lose one
>> of the pods because she's listening with one ear only. (She wanders
>> around the house while listening to podcasts or videos - often with only
>> one ear plugged in.
>
> You responded to a post that AirPods were the cheapest BT ear buds until
> last month by claiming you bought something comparable for $100. that
> was not true, then you claimed you weren't saying they were comparable.

Of course they're comparable. Deliver a BT signal to the headset and
make sound.

>
> Now you are claiming that a wire dangling from your ear is a *feature*

In my girlfriend's case, certainly: less likely to lose one of them.

>
>> Can't lose the other if its tethered...
>
> By that logic, you should chain them to your neck.

No, but go ahead and stretch your imagination for all the things it did
not mean.

>
>> I know it pains you that other people's solutions work fine for them,
>
> If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
> not have to call you out on your bullshit.

What irrelevant? nospam misled that one had to spend a lot to get a
function. That's just not so.

the rest? tl, dr.

Hissy fitting becomes you though, so keep banging away on the keyboard
while failing to see that other people do things differently. And
that's a good thing.

[Lewis]

In message <4YWdnYTaLYVQVgrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> On 2019-03-24 13:38, Lewis wrote:

>> Now you are claiming that a wire dangling from your ear is a *feature*

> In my girlfriend's case, certainly: less likely to lose one of them.

Said from a position of utter ignorance, still. Who do you know who has
ever lost an AirPod because they took it out of their ear to use one?

No one?

yeah, that's what I thought.

>> If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
>> not have to call you out on your bullshit.

> What irrelevant? nospam misled that one had to spend a lot to get a
> function. That's just not so.

Your dangly ear cord ear buds are not comparable to the AirPods. They
are not the same thing with the same features. Yes, they produce sound.
Yes, they connect over BT. No, they do not easily swap between multiple
devices. No they do not wireless charge over and over again. No, they do
allow you to recharge one ear at a time. Yes, if you want to use only
one you have to leave the other dangling from your ear, which you
consider a "feature". No, they do not easily fit the in the watch pocket
of your jeans WITH change. No, they are not easily storable without
getting tangles. No, they aren't cordless so the cord can get caught.

No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

> Hissy fitting

Yep., there you go, acting like the 12yo you obviously still are. Always
have to attack the person when you've painted yourself into another one
of your "I said a dumb thing and I can't back out now" corners.

It's so predictable, sad, and pathetic.

--
GRAMMAR IS NOT A TIME OF WASTE Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF10

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-24 15:25, Lewis wrote:
> In message <4YWdnYTaLYVQVgrB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-24 13:38, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> Now you are claiming that a wire dangling from your ear is a *feature*
>
>> In my girlfriend's case, certainly: less likely to lose one of them.
>
> Said from a position of utter ignorance, still. Who do you know who has
> ever lost an AirPod because they took it out of their ear to use one?
>
> No one?
>
> yeah, that's what I thought.

Totally irrelevant. Small things get misplaced and lost.

Maybe not *you* because you're perfect by all accounts <snicker>.

>>> If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
>>> not have to call you out on your bullshit.
>
>> What irrelevant? nospam misled that one had to spend a lot to get a
>> function. That's just not so.
>
> Your dangly ear cord ear buds are not comparable to the AirPods. They
> are not the same thing with the same features. Yes, they produce sound.
> Yes, they connect over BT.

Which satisfies the need. When she has it in one ear only, the other
drapes around behind her neck and dangles on her chest. If she wants
full sound there is no doubt at all where the other earphone is... Works
nicely for her and that is more than sufficient.

>
> No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well. Yeah. Because I see her using it daily. Literally daily.

>
>> Hissy fitting
>
> Yep., there you go, acting like the 12yo you obviously still are. Always
> have to attack the person when you've painted yourself into another one
> of your "I said a dumb thing and I can't back out now" corners.

No. But it's funny watching you get angry over so little.

>
> It's so predictable, sad, and pathetic.

What's sad and pathetic is your anger laden attacks on people who don't
do things as you do or agree with you or, perish the thought, don't use
the Apple product and prefer something else.

Go find a 12 year old to give you some pointers on being grown up.

[nospam]

In article <4YWdnYTaLYVQVgrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >
> >> What my SO has more than meets her needs and she's unlikely to lose one
> >> of the pods because she's listening with one ear only. (She wanders
> >> around the house while listening to podcasts or videos - often with only
> >> one ear plugged in.
> >
> > You responded to a post that AirPods were the cheapest BT ear buds until
> > last month by claiming you bought something comparable for $100. that
> > was not true, then you claimed you weren't saying they were comparable.
>
> Of course they're comparable. Deliver a BT signal to the headset and
> make sound.

...

> >
> >> I know it pains you that other people's solutions work fine for them,
> >
> > If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
> > not have to call you out on your bullshit.
>
> What irrelevant? nospam misled that one had to spend a lot to get a
> function. That's just not so.

i didn't mislead anyone.

airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
they cost more.

if you don't want that extra functionality, don't buy the airpods.

those who do want the additional functionality that airpods offer would
not be happy with what you bought, which is why they bought airpods.

there are similar products to airpods, which cost about the same, and
in some cases, *double* that of airpods. last month, samsung introduced
a set that's a little cheaper (and does a little less too).

the fact that you think that the only thing that airpods do is 'deliver
a bt signal to the headet and make sound' shows just how little you
know about airpods. they do a shitload more than that.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-24 16:41, nospam wrote:
> In article <4YWdnYTaLYVQVgrB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> What my SO has more than meets her needs and she's unlikely to lose one
>>>> of the pods because she's listening with one ear only. (She wanders
>>>> around the house while listening to podcasts or videos - often with only
>>>> one ear plugged in.
>>>
>>> You responded to a post that AirPods were the cheapest BT ear buds until
>>> last month by claiming you bought something comparable for $100. that
>>> was not true, then you claimed you weren't saying they were comparable.
>>
>> Of course they're comparable. Deliver a BT signal to the headset and
>> make sound.
>
> ...
>
>>>
>>>> I know it pains you that other people's solutions work fine for them,
>>>
>>> If you would stop misleading and posting irrelevant garbage I would
>>> not have to call you out on your bullshit.
>>
>> What irrelevant? nospam misled that one had to spend a lot to get a
>> function. That's just not so.
>
> i didn't mislead anyone.
>
> airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
> they cost more.

The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
the majority of need.

[nospam]

In article <88SdnezfHvOtkQXB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >
> > airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
> > they cost more.
>
> The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
> the majority of need.

then they can use the bundled wired headphones, for no additional cost
at all.

[Alan Browne]

My SO's morning routine is to listen to various podcast or youtube based
reports off of her Mac while she otherwise does the usual morning
routines of coffee, breakfast, makeup, dressing, etc. Wireless
headphones make that very easy. Short version. No.

[nospam]

In article <TJKdncdEPbeJjAXB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

<bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:

> >>> airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
> >>> they cost more.
> >>
> >> The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
> >> the majority of need.
> >
> > then they can use the bundled wired headphones, for no additional cost
> > at all.
>
> My SO's morning routine is to listen to various podcast or youtube based
> reports off of her Mac while she otherwise does the usual morning
> routines of coffee, breakfast, makeup, dressing, etc. Wireless
> headphones make that very easy. Short version. No.

in other words, more functionality than 'to play the sound'.

and from a mac, she could use the speaker 'to play the sound'.

[Lewis]

In message <88SdnezfHvOtkQXB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-24 16:41, nospam wrote:

>> airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
>> they cost more.

> The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
> the majority of need.

$1 headphones from Dollar Tree.

You have fun with those.


--
I AM SO VERY TIRED Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF20

[Lewis]

In message <TJKdncdEPbeJjAXB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
> On 2019-03-24 19:06, nospam wrote:
>> In article <88SdnezfHvOtkQXB...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>> <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
>>>> they cost more.
>>>
>>> The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
>>> the majority of need.
>>
>> then they can use the bundled wired headphones, for no additional cost
>> at all.

> My SO's morning routine is to listen to various podcast or youtube based
> reports off of her Mac while she otherwise does the usual morning
> routines of coffee, breakfast, makeup, dressing, etc. Wireless
> headphones make that very easy. Short version. No.

That goes entirely against your previous post. Can't you be
consistent for even a few seconds?



--
Kid 1: What are the four horsemen of the apocalypse?
Dad: War, death, famine and pestilence.
Kid 2: You forgot flatulence!

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 09:42:20 +0000, RJH wrote:

> It's impossible to be completely statistically accurate about how long
> AirPod batteries last because it depends on too many things.

How happy would _you_ be if _your_ AirPods were "functionally useless"?

[RJH]

You mean if they didn't work after 2 years? Not brilliant.

It'd mean a visit to an Apple store where, in all likelihood, they'd be
replaced FOC.

--
Cheers, Rob

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 06:02:30 +0000, RJH wrote:

> You mean if they didn't work after 2 years? Not brilliant.
>
> It'd mean a visit to an Apple store where, in all likelihood, they'd be
> replaced FOC.

Hi RJH,
I think you're a bit too CONFIDENT in your dead-wrong answers.
<https://joelleichty.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/dunning-kruger-effect.jpg>

I think you need to look up basic facts about an Apple AirPod warranty
<https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service>

"If you need service for your AirPods or Charging Case, there's no charge
if the issue is covered under the Apple _One Year_ Limited Warranty or
consumer law."

What's astounding is how little you know about your own products, and yet,
you're so CONFIDENT in your repeatedly dead wrong answers.
<https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIbw8rgWoAAH72q.png>

[RJH]

You could be right - but as you're not one to let facts get in the way
of a good story:

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act

My 'in likelihood' qualifier was based on anecdote (UK NGs, and a couple
of friends' experience), Apple's response to shoddy products in the
past, and my patchy knowledge of UK consumer law (not, IOW, contract -
read what you wrote).

Apple seems to be especially touchy about battery life nowadays.

--
Cheers, Rob

[arlen holder]

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:58:44 +0000, RJH wrote:

> You could be right - but as you're not one to let facts get in the way
> of a good story:
>
> https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act
>
> My 'in likelihood' qualifier was based on anecdote (UK NGs, and a couple
> of friends' experience), Apple's response to shoddy products in the
> past, and my patchy knowledge of UK consumer law (not, IOW, contract -
> read what you wrote).
>
> Apple seems to be especially touchy about battery life nowadays.

Hi RJH,

I like how you responded, using cited facts which is what adults do.

Note that on this newsgroup, almost always, if not always, the cites that
people like Lewis, BK, Jolly Roger, nospam, etc., provide almost never
actually say what they claim they say.

These apologists simply assume nobody reads the cites they propose
o IMHO, they're used to dealing with people who are literally stupid

They wouldn't last a week in a Silicon Valley startup with those cites
o And neither would you, RJH, since I happened to have _read_ your cite!

Since you posted a cite, I read that cite that you provided:
(which you were perhaps likely hoping I wouldn't do):
o Consumer Rights Act 2015
<https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/consumer-rights-act>

*With respect to warranty time periods, there's a 30-day time period:*
"your 30-day right to reject would not start until your goods are
delivered to you ... After 30 days, you will not be legally entitled to
a full refund if your item develops a fault"

*Then there is a "six month" period:*
"If you discover the fault within the first six months of having the
product, it is presumed to have been there since the time you
took ownership of it - unless the retailer can prove otherwise."

*Then there is a "longer" period:*
"If a fault develops after the first six months, the burden is on you
to prove that the product was faulty at the time you took ownership
of it ... In practice, this may require some form of expert report,
opinion or evidence of similar problems across the product range"

*Then there's an unrelated "six years" period (for your legal claim):*
"You have six years to take a claim to the small claims court for
faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and five
years in Scotland. This doesn't mean that a product has to last six
years - just that you have this length of time in which to make a
claim if a retailer refuses to repair or replace a faulty product."

Hmmmm.... where is there _anything_ that says that the AirPods have to last
more than two years, RJH?

FACT + LOGIC

The fact is that, in the UK, if the product was _initially_ defective,
you have rights for 30 days and six months, but after six months, you need
to prove (usually with an expert or overwhelming evidence) that the product
was _initially_ defective (i.e., it didn't meet the claimed life, in the
case of the AirPods batteries).

So let's now look at Apple's claimed lifetime for AirPods batteries, shall we?

What is the lifetime that Apple _claims_ for AirPods batteries anyway?
o I don't know ... so let's look at the Apple AirPods landing page
<https://www.apple.com/airpods/>

Hmmm....
o More magical than ever...
o Just like magic...
o Just as amazing...
o Up to 2x faster when switching...
o Up to 30% lower gaming latency...

Hmmm.... where's the beef?
HINT: The nospam-like "up to" speak is overflowing on that landing page.

Oh, here it must be, in the section titled "The power of 24-hour battery life"
o AirPods deliver an "industry-leading" 5 hours of listening time
o Up to 3 hours of talk time
o Put AirPods back in the case for 15 minutes to get up to 3 hours of listening time

Hmmmmm.... nothing about it lasting _any_ time, let alone any further than
the warranty period of 1 year in the USA. Even assuming a 2-year warranty
period, there is nothing in that AirPods landing page that give any claim
as to how long it normal for the AirPods batteries to become non
functional.

Note, there is a _ton_ of fine print at the bottom of that web page, but
most of it is to explain that the "up to" claims are based _only_ on
single-point well defined tests performed by Apple themselves.

Hmmmmm... RJH, I _love_ that you provided a cite to back up your claim, but
I don't see _anything_ in your cite that actually backs up your claim.

Do you?

[Alan Browne]

Wireless reception and sound wherever she is in the morning or evening.

>
> and from a mac, she could use the speaker 'to play the sound'.

Which would be a pain for her as she wanders around on her morning
routine and a pain to me to be subjected to whatever podcast she was
listening to.

[Alan Browne]

On 2019-03-24 20:51, Lewis wrote:
> In message <88SdnezfHvOtkQXB...@giganews.com> Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com> wrote:
>> On 2019-03-24 16:41, nospam wrote:
>
>>> airpods offer more functionality than what you bought, which is why
>>> they cost more.
>
>> The functionality needed by most is to play the sound. That satisfies
>> the majority of need.
>
> $1 headphones from Dollar Tree.
>
> You have fun with those.

You're not paying attention to how she uses them. See other replies.

[RJH]

On 25/03/2019 15:33, arlen holder wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:58:44 +0000, RJH wrote:
>

snip

>
> *Then there's an unrelated "six years" period (for your legal claim):*
> "You have six years to take a claim to the small claims court for
> faulty goods in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and five
> years in Scotland. This doesn't mean that a product has to last six
> years - just that you have this length of time in which to make a
> claim if a retailer refuses to repair or replace a faulty product."
>
> Hmmmm.... where is there _anything_ that says that the AirPods have to last
> more than two years, RJH?
>

snip

>
> Hmmmmm... RJH, I _love_ that you provided a cite to back up your claim, but
> I don't see _anything_ in your cite that actually backs up your claim.
>
> Do you?
>

Apparently (I am not a lawyer!), the 6 year 'thing' applies to higher
end items, and you're right, it's not a clear cut entitlement. It's more
the threat of small claims action and the publicity it generates. Small
claims action is a low cost online procedure.

One anecdote - the screen failed on a friend's top end 4 year old iMac.
He phoned and made an appointment for inspection at his local Apple
store. They swapped it over for a brand new better spec iMac on the
spot. No charge.

If my Apple earphones become 'functionally useless' after 2 years, I'd
take them back to Apple and cite the CRA 2015 if they refused to either
reimburse or replace.

FY(limited)I, this is the computer generated letter that consumer rights
website generates for a query of this kind:

***
6/03/2019

Dear Sir or Madam,

REFERENCE: Rob/Apple-Apple Airpod

I purchased the Apple Airpod from Apple. At the point of purchase I paid
£150.

The Apple Airpod is not of satisfactory quality. Battery failed and
functionally useless.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I
have with Apple that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of
satisfactory quality.

As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less
than 6 years I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be
repaired at no further cost to me.

I await confirmation that you will provide the remedy set out above
within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Rob Rob
***

So, to go back to the topic, I would have the reasonable expectation of
repair or replacement.

However, I wouldn't expect it to get to that if indeed, as you say,
airpods will 'die soon'. I would expect Apple to issue a fix of some kind.

--
Cheers, Rob

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:24:47 +0000, RJH wrote:

> Apparently (I am not a lawyer!), the 6 year 'thing' applies to higher
> end items

Hi RJH,

I _love_ that you provided a factual cite to back up your claim
o Where it's my habit to _read_ claims that people make.

So that's good that you provided a cite; the only problem is that the cite
merely says that after six months, you need overwhelming evidence to
_prove_ that the product was _initially_ defective.

What we _need_ is something from Apple (or the retailer) that says the
AirPods can last more than a measly two years.

Please note if the AirPods do last only two years, then the cost to
consumers is roughly around $80 per year for the rest of their lives (which
is astronomically expensive).

The "six year" period is completely unrelated, as it applies _only_ to
paperwork filing deadlines (sort of like a statute of limitations on the
paperwork).

> and you're right, it's not a clear cut entitlement. It's more
> the threat of small claims action and the publicity it generates. Small
> claims action is a low cost online procedure.

Hi RJH,

FACT + LOGIC

I appreciate that you didn't immediately devolve into JollyRoger & Lewis
style vitriol simply because you found out that your cite didn't say what
you thought it said.

I very much appreciate your civility, as it's a habit of an adult to handle
facts well, even facts that belie their current belief systems.

In general, facts _threaten_ the belief system of the apologists.
o For me, facts merely bolster my belief system

As adults, we can agree on the facts, which is that the cite you provided
says, as I recall, that for the first six months, it's up to the "retailer"
to prove the AirPods were not initially defective, but after those first
six months, the burden falls upon the consumer to prove that the AirPods
were _initially_ defective.

The good thing is that you don't seem to be an Apologist
o Hence, we don't need to waste more time on agreeing on that fact

What we should do is spend our adult energy on the "logic"
o Our logic is _based_ on those facts, which we both agree upon.

> One anecdote - the screen failed on a friend's top end 4 year old iMac.
> He phoned and made an appointment for inspection at his local Apple
> store. They swapped it over for a brand new better spec iMac on the
> spot. No charge.

I understand that some companies at some times go overboard.
o I've gotten _plenty_ of freebies from T-Mobile, for example

But you can't bank on that for an entire class of people
o Witness how crappily Apple treated iPhone battery owners

HINT: Secretly, drastically, and permanently throttling their phones
o And then, charging the customer the repairs for the defective device

Apple has a long history of being extremely consumer unfriendly
as _multiple_ reports have cited (and which I quoted in other threads).

> If my Apple earphones become 'functionally useless' after 2 years, I'd
> take them back to Apple and cite the CRA 2015 if they refused to either
> reimburse or replace.

Hi RJH,
I would do the same thing, but I'd have almost zero hope it would work.

The CRA2015, at least based on the facts in your cite, says you have to
prove to the retailer's satisfaction, that the batteries were _initially_
defective.

What if Apple says 2 years is the normal lifetime of those batteries?
o The problem here is that we're _missing_ a key factual datum

*How long does Apple claim the AirPod batteries will last?*

>
> FY(limited)I, this is the computer generated letter that consumer rights
> website generates for a query of this kind:

Hi RJH,
I appreciate the information where I think we don't have the facts.
o The main fact we need is how long does Apple claim AirPods last?

If Apple claims "up to" two years, then your claim stops right there.

> The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract I
> have with Apple that goods be as described, fit for purpose and of
> satisfactory quality.

Since a battery is a wear item, that sentence is, IMHO, missing a key
factual component, which is that the batteries were _initially_ defective.

Please read the CR 2015 article if you disagree with that statement.
o The whole point of the CR 2015 was clearly _initial_ defectiveness

I'm not a lawyer but I am of at least average intelligence (if that), which
means I can clearly comprehend what an article says and what the key points
of that article are.

The key points are:
o The AirPod has to be _initially_ defective
o The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was initially defective.

Like you, I'm not a lawyer, but I am an adult of at least average
intelligence (if that), so I assume that what you'd need is to find
something (anything) from Apple that says how long Apple expects AirPods to
last.

The fact that they replace batteries all the time, which we can presume is
a booming business for them, doesn't bode well for your argument that the
AirPods were initially defective.

They just don't last very long.

> As you are in breach of contract and I've owned the product for less
> than 6 years I am within my statutory rights to ask for it to be
> repaired at no further cost to me.

Hi RJH,
I doubt that sentence about 6 years is what should be written since it's
patently wrong.

The six years is, as I read it anyway, merely a statutory limit on
paperwork filing, which is unrelated to the actual device being initially
defective.

Presumably it might take you six years to compile enough evidence.
o So I would _strike_ that sentence from the letter outright.

> So, to go back to the topic, I would have the reasonable expectation of
> repair or replacement.

HI RJH,

FACTS & LOGIC.

Remember, Apple is well known to be extremely consumer unfriendly.

Given we can presume Apple does a booming business replacing AirPod
batteries, and given that even when we _know_ the device was initially
defective in the case of almost all current iPhones, the fact that Apple
initially secretly throttled devices, and then _charged_ consumers for what
is clearly an initial defect, seems to indicate otherwise.

Think about what I just said, which are facts.

FACTS:
o Batteries are wear items
o Tiny batteries particularly don't last all that long
o Apple has a well-established AirPods battery replacement program
o Even larger-than-AirPods batteries in the defective iPhones don't last
o And Apple clearly _charged_ consumers for the repair of defective iPhones

Those are all facts, right?

LOGIC:

The "logic" various adults deduce from those facts is variable
o You appear to deduce that Apple will replace the batteries seeminly FOC
o I have no expectation whatsotever that Apple will bend over backward

While we, as adults, can't reasonable disagree with the facts (only the
Apologists seem to spend inordinate energy disputing basic facts), I hand
you the right to disagree with me on my logical deduction above based on
those facts.

Adults can't reasonable disagree on facts; but we can disagree on the
weight we apply to each of those factual components in order to arrive at a
logical deduction.

> However, I wouldn't expect it to get to that if indeed, as you say,
> airpods will 'die soon'. I would expect Apple to issue a fix of some kind.

Hi RJH,

I use only FACT & LOGIC, so please be aware of what I said
o And of what I didn't say.

Just like I would want you to be aware of what your cite said
o And what it didn't say

The Apple Apologists _constantly_ make inferences that are not supported by
the facts, where all my inferences are always supported by facts.

So let's be clear that I'm not the one saying that AirPods "will die soon"
as I'm not the one who wrote those news articles, and certainly I'm not the
one who authored this thread.

My only take on the matter is that AirPods are a fantastic money-making
MARKETING machine for Apple, where they use teeny tiny batteries when none
were needed (e.g., I use wired headphones).

Since they used teeny tiny batteries, and since those teeny tiny batteries
are glued in place, they're not easily replaced by the consumer like a
normal button battery is, then it's a really bad thing for Apple customers
if they don't last much more than two years.

The articles are saying that "some" died in just two years, and what
they're implying, at least with the clickbait headline, is that if your
AirPods are around that age, they "will die soon".

While I can't disagree with the logic in the article, we're missing a key
fact, without which, we can't say whether the AirPods were initially
defective.
o We don't know how long Apple says AirPods will last

If it's true that AirPods last only about two years, then that makes them
an astronomically expensive alternative to wired headphones, in that they
cost about $80 a year every single year for the rest of your life.

[arlen holder]

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 15:45:48 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> Since a battery is a wear item, that sentence is, IMHO, missing a key
> factual component, which is that the batteries were _initially_ defective.

Hi RJH,
I realize you're being civil, but I also note that the apologists exist.

Hence, to forestall their almost inevitable silly semantic games,
I must _correct_ the sentence above to be factually correct.

NOTE: My facts have never been proven to be wrong(1)
o I care about my credibility which I maintain at a 100% correct level.

Instead of writing:

"Since a battery is a wear item, that sentence is, IMHO, missing a key
factual component, which is that the batteries were _initially_ defective"

I should have written:

"Since a battery is a wear item, that sentence is, IMHO, missing a key

factual component, which is that the *AirPods* were _initially_ defective"

Since Usenet is an ad hoc casual medium, I hope you'll excuse the faux pas.
o As a very well educated person, I care that my credibility is stellar.

--
(1) Since I'm human, and since I've posted thousands upon thousands of
facts on Usenet, I must have, at least once, gotten a material fact wrong,
but since my belief system is based on facts, nobody has _ever_ found a
material fact wrong, and Lord knows, they would _love_ to prove me wrong
(Witness the notorious Snit video, for example, where the apologists
gloated that they "thought" they had me wrong on a material fact for the
first time in over two decades of being on Usenet).
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> (Snit video, which apologists applauded)