Here's why your AirPods battery life is getting worse, and what you can do about it

Posted:
in General Discussion
If you got AirPods at launch in late 2016, you're likely now only able to listen to them for less than half the time you did without recharging. AppleInsider tells you what's going on, and what you can do about it.

Spoiler: this was the charge on a pair of late 2016 AirPods after two hours of use
Spoiler: this was the charge on a pair of late 2016 AirPods after two hours of use


We're now into the third year since the AirPods were released and almost everything is exactly the same. We still love them, we are still forever marvelling at how great they are. True, we're also still conscious that they're expensive, but even after all this time, few companies have tried to provide the same quality in anything approaching this price.

Unfortunately, there is one thing that is significantly different -- and that's battery life.

Back in December 2016 when they were launched, you couldn't pry these AirPods from our ears. However, in 2019, you can take those original pairs much more easily by just waiting a while for their battery to die.

If you've had your AirPods for a couple of years, then you've gotten used to how their initially brilliant battery life reduces over time. However, you're unlikely to have ever got out a stopwatch to see the difference -- so we did that for you.

It's impossible to be completely statistically accurate about how long AirPod batteries last because it depends on too many things. If you make or receive phone calls via your AirPods, for instance, you will of course drain the battery faster. If you take them out and leave them on your desk without playing anything, they will drain anyway. Yet, if you store them back in their case whenever you're not listening, you are also recharging them.

So for some measure of comparison, we played continuous music and took no calls using one pair from December 2016 and another from August 2018.

Right from the start

Of course we charged up both pairs of AirPods but only the 2018 pair actually got to 100 percent. While the case on both could be fully charged, the 2016 pair only went to 98 percent for the left AirPod and 99 for the right.

Nothing will get these 2016 AirPods up to 100 percent charge
Nothing will get these 2016 AirPods up to 100 percent charge


There is always a difference between the left and right AirPods in any pair and it can be for a couple of reasons. Certainly when you make calls, only one AirPod acts as a microphone and so its charge goes down faster. It's possible, too, that Apple sends audio to just one of the AirPods and then that relays it to the other.

Apple doesn't state that but the AirPods are two distinct devices that appear to use just the one Bluetooth connection so it's possible and would make sense.

Consequently, after one hour of playing the 2018 pair, there was a small but significant difference between the two AirPod buds. The left bud from 2018 was down to 82 percent charge while the right was on 78. There was somewhat more of a difference with the 2016 pair. There the left AirPod had just 30 percent charge after one hour and the right one had 59.

After two hours, the 2018 AirPods were showing 67 percent charge on the left, 62 on the right. Whereas the 2016 pair were on 1 -- yes, one percent -- on the left, 29 on the right.

Those 2016 AirPods first gave us that baleful low battery sound after one hour and 19 minutes. We got a second at one hour and 59 minutes. Then at two hours, 6 minutes, they died.

Each AirPod contains a 93 milliwatt battery. (Source: iFixit)
Each AirPod contains a 93 milliwatt battery. (Source: iFixit)


Both 2016 AirPods died when the left one ran out of charge. This does mean that it's a little pointless knowing the charge on both, but Apple does usually give you an average of the two together. If you put the AirPods back in their case, close the lid and then reopen it, your associated iPhone shows a graphic of the charge and that's usually an average for the two AirPods.

It's only when you pull one out and you get the detail for both.

Even putting the AirPods back in the case long enough to check that graphic did change the result, though. That moment in the case will have recharged the AirPods a little so we can only say that the 2016 pair lasted around two hours, we can't be more precise.

That's less than half Apple's stated battery life for a new pair -- and none of this is surprising.

Not a shock

You already know that batteries deteriorate over time -- that's why we had the whole issue with iPhones in 2017. AirPods batteries are so small, that what would be a minor chemical depletion or other deterioration on an iPhone would have a marked effect on the AirPods battery life.

You can think of it the same way you would any physical damage. If an iPhone battery had a spot of battery damage the size of a ball-point pen tip, you couldn't notice the difference in life. Yet, with an AirPod's tiny battery, that same size problem is automatically more significant just because of the smaller battery volume.

Related to this, a source inside Apple who is not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, told AppleInsider that "Batteries aren't forever, and the smaller they are, the less eternal they are. The batteries in each AirPods bud is something like 1 percent of the volume of an iPhone [battery]."

You can understand Apple being skittish about advertising AirPods as losing half their battery life in two years, but these headphones are too expensive to be considered disposable.

"If you've got a dead or dying battery in an AirPod," said the same source inside Apple, "bring it in to the Apple Store with your proof of purchase if you didn't buy it directly from us, and store-stock depending, you'll walk out for a replacement single bud with a new battery for $49."

Apple's stated battery service costs. Note the word 'each'.
Apple's stated battery service costs. Note the word 'each'.


But here's the problem -- AppleInsider readers have told us that when they've gone in with what is clearly a dead battery, they're being charged the $69 out-of-warranty fee.

Apple should at least be clearer about this, and that includes to its own staff. In phone calls checking out the procedure for bringing in your AirPods to replace the battery, AppleInsider had to tell Apple retail and support staff that this service program exists.

What you can do

This is not a new program nor is it a short-term one. So if you have an ailing battery, you could go to an Apple Store now -- but maybe you should wait just a little longer. It's great that Apple has any kind of service program for this, but it is not the bargain it can be with replacement iPhone batteries.

That $49 replacement cost listed is for a single AirPod bud. In our example, the left one from 2016 is drastically worse than the right one but neither are close to what they originally were. Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair.

If you're forced to dole out the $69 per bud, that isn't tipping the math in your favor.

It also seems likely that Apple is going to update the AirPods and perhaps soon. We do know that there will be a wireless charging case for them whenever the company finally launches its AirPower charging pad, for instance, because Apple has said so. Even if a more substantial update doesn't happen until later in the year, it's worth waiting to see the cost of that new case.

Apple is expected to include that wireless case with all AirPods from whenever it's released. However, it's also likely to sell the case separately so that existing AirPod users can replace their old one.

Unless that case is sold for substantially less than $61, then a new case plus replacement AirPods is likely to cost around the same as a new pair. In which case, you'll be better off buying a new set and keeping the old one as a spare.



Keep up with AppleInsider by downloading the AppleInsider app for iOS, and follow us on YouTube, Twitter @appleinsider and Facebook for live, late-breaking coverage. You can also check out our official Instagram account for exclusive photos.
patchythepirate
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 42
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 742member
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    olsdavgregblurpbleepbloop
  • Reply 2 of 42
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,345administrator
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    The previous device absolutely required electricity to work. It just got it from the cable.
    macpluspluschristopher126GeorgeBMacdysamoriaredgeminipapatchythepirateschlackwlymlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 42
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 742member
    Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone. 
    Latkoschlackolsdavgregwlym
  • Reply 4 of 42
    tjwolftjwolf Posts: 264member
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone. 
    What is "previous" about this?  You're not required to buy AirPods - iPhones still come with your beloved wired headphones.  AirPods aren't about "need" - they're about convenience.  Until you've used them, you can't appreciate the freedom from wires, tangles, dropped phones (because you've pulled them off the table because you were still connected) they afford you.  Other than the iPhone, AirPods are Apple's greatest product - ever.
    StrangeDaysracerhomie3bloggerblogdouglas baileyredgeminipaNotsofastschlackflyingdpTuuborlolliver
  • Reply 5 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    Are you asking us to answer that question for you? The answer, of course, depends on your use case. Do you need or would you derive value from wireless? Then yes. If not, then no. If you're asking whether wireless should exist, or should be an option for anyone, then I'm left scratching my head. Of course it should. In my usages (ex: gym, meetings, bed), wireless is much more enjoyable than being on a short tether. 

    "Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair."

    ...this is faulty logic. Because of mic assignment, it is entirely possible for one of your APs to be more depleted than the other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you only need to replace that pod if it’s significantly more depleted. Like the author's, my L is much more depleted than my R. So that's $69 to replace the one. (The article is less clear than it could be -- having spoken to Apple support personally, unless the battery is in-warranty, the cost to replace it is $69. $0 if in-warranty and defective, but normal depletion from usage hours is not considered defective, FYI)

    I've had mine from Day 1, and use them daily. At least one of my pods is toast, as batteries are a consumable component. I do wish they were easier/cheaper for Apple to service. But my SO is a runner, and good running shoes cost as much (usually more!) than AirPods, and also last much less with daily use -- 6 months! Yet runners don't have this expectation that their purchase last FOREVER, the way some tech people do.)

    (edit: clarity on Apple’s stated service costs)
    edited March 11 racerhomie3LordeHawkwlymlolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 42
    tjwolf said:
    ....Other than the iPhone, AirPods are Apple's greatest product - ever.
    Couldn't have said it better! It's the most "Apple-like" device Apple has ever released! 

    Best.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 42
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,345administrator
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    Are you asking us to answer that question for you? The answer, of course, depends on your use case. Do you need or would you derive value from wireless? Then yes. If not, then no. If you're asking whether wireless should exist, or should be an option for anyone, then I'm left scratching my head. Of course it should. In my usage (ex: gym), wireless is much more enjoyable than being on a short tether. 

    "Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair."

    ...this is faulty logic. Because of mic assignment, it is entirely possible for one of your APs to be more depleted than the other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you only need to replace that pod. Like the author's, my L is much more depleted than my R. So that's $69 to replace the one. (The article is less clear than it could be -- having spoken to Apple support personally, unless the battery is defective and in-warranty, the cost to replace it is $69. Practically no one will have an in-warranty and defective battery. Normal depletion from usage hours is not considered defective. FYI)

    I've had mine from Day 1, and use them daily. At least one of my pods is toast, as batteries are a consumable component. I do wish they were easier/cheaper for Apple to service. But my SO is a runner, and good running shoes cost as much (usually more!) than AirPods, and also last much less with daily use -- 6 months! Yet runners don't have this expectation that their purchase last FOREVER, the way some tech people do.)
    The $49 appears to be even after the 1-year warranty has expired, at least according to some of the people inside Apple we've spoken to. As addressed in the article, this needs to be clarified.
    redgeminipa
  • Reply 8 of 42
    mfrydmfryd Posts: 112member
    I went to the Genius Bar a couple of months ago complaining of poor battery performance.  I told him I thought it was time to replace the batteries.   The Genius spent some time researching AirPods in his system.  He told me my only option was a service replacement at $69/each to replace the buds.  I asked if there was a lower price for just a battery swap, and was told "no,"  $138 to swap the ear pieces ($69/each) or $159 to buy new AirPods at retail.

    For the $21 extra I ended up paying $159 and bought a new set.    

    I am very annoyed that the Genius was unable to provide accurate information.  However, even at $49/each, I find it an appalling price to pay for  new batteries.  That's over 60% of the cost of a new unit for an expected, and normal, maintenance issue.  Replacing all three batteries at $49 each is over 90% of the cost of a new unit.

    Apple really should be better at disclosing that these are intended to be disposable units with an approximately 2 year service life.   I suspect most buyers think they are buying something that lasts longer and can be serviced.
     
    dysamoriagatorguyavon b7hammeroftruthschlackblurpbleepbloop
  • Reply 9 of 42
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,161member
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone. 
    So you're saying that you prefer the old, wired style ear buds -- so therefor we should not be allowed to buy wireless AirPods.  Got it.

    My grandson disagrees:  He wouldn't wear the ear buds but can hardly be separated from his AirPods.
    StrangeDaysracerhomie3redgeminipalolliverwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 42
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,982member
    No. Never. Will not buy. This product is disposable in much worse a way than even the Pencil. Thanks for letting us know that these perform like this, even this short of a time after they were released.
  • Reply 11 of 42
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,161member
    [Cue Fake Outrage)]
    So AirPods ONLY LAST 2 YEARS!!!!!!   A    M E A S I L Y    2      Y E A R S ! ! ! !   

    That's criminal !  We should break up Apple and put them out of business!

    Oh wait!   It wasn't very long ago that the life of a cell phone was only 2 years -- and they cost a whole lot more than a set of AirPods. 
    (And their batteries still only last a couple years -- but, because they aren't extreme miniaturization, they can be replaced.
    StrangeDaysracerhomie3redgeminipapatchythepiratelolliverwatto_cobralostkiwi
  • Reply 12 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    Are you asking us to answer that question for you? The answer, of course, depends on your use case. Do you need or would you derive value from wireless? Then yes. If not, then no. If you're asking whether wireless should exist, or should be an option for anyone, then I'm left scratching my head. Of course it should. In my usage (ex: gym), wireless is much more enjoyable than being on a short tether. 

    "Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair."

    ...this is faulty logic. Because of mic assignment, it is entirely possible for one of your APs to be more depleted than the other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you only need to replace that pod. Like the author's, my L is much more depleted than my R. So that's $69 to replace the one. (The article is less clear than it could be -- having spoken to Apple support personally, unless the battery is defective and in-warranty, the cost to replace it is $69. Practically no one will have an in-warranty and defective battery. Normal depletion from usage hours is not considered defective. FYI)

    I've had mine from Day 1, and use them daily. At least one of my pods is toast, as batteries are a consumable component. I do wish they were easier/cheaper for Apple to service. But my SO is a runner, and good running shoes cost as much (usually more!) than AirPods, and also last much less with daily use -- 6 months! Yet runners don't have this expectation that their purchase last FOREVER, the way some tech people do.)
    The $49 appears to be even after the 1-year warranty has expired, at least according to some of the people inside Apple we've spoken to. As addressed in the article, this needs to be clarified.
    It doesn’t tho. I spoke to a senior support rep at Apple. $49 applies only to in-warranty battery service. If you’re out of warranty, it’s $69 like the chart says. If the pod is in-warranty and defective it’s $0, but depletion from usage isn’t considered defective. 

    I went thru all this about a month ago. It’s a little disappointing to be sure, but with the state of miniaturization I guess I understand why it’s actually a replacement and not service. 
    edited March 11
  • Reply 13 of 42
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,345administrator
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    Are you asking us to answer that question for you? The answer, of course, depends on your use case. Do you need or would you derive value from wireless? Then yes. If not, then no. If you're asking whether wireless should exist, or should be an option for anyone, then I'm left scratching my head. Of course it should. In my usage (ex: gym), wireless is much more enjoyable than being on a short tether. 

    "Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair."

    ...this is faulty logic. Because of mic assignment, it is entirely possible for one of your APs to be more depleted than the other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you only need to replace that pod. Like the author's, my L is much more depleted than my R. So that's $69 to replace the one. (The article is less clear than it could be -- having spoken to Apple support personally, unless the battery is defective and in-warranty, the cost to replace it is $69. Practically no one will have an in-warranty and defective battery. Normal depletion from usage hours is not considered defective. FYI)

    I've had mine from Day 1, and use them daily. At least one of my pods is toast, as batteries are a consumable component. I do wish they were easier/cheaper for Apple to service. But my SO is a runner, and good running shoes cost as much (usually more!) than AirPods, and also last much less with daily use -- 6 months! Yet runners don't have this expectation that their purchase last FOREVER, the way some tech people do.)
    The $49 appears to be even after the 1-year warranty has expired, at least according to some of the people inside Apple we've spoken to. As addressed in the article, this needs to be clarified.
    It doesn’t tho. I spoke to a senior support rep at Apple. $49 applies only to in-warranty. If you’re out of warranty, it’s $69 like the chart says. 
    So did we, and sources inside Apple corporate and at retail, with conflicting info inside corporate and equally conflicting inside retail. Thus, the confusion.
    edited March 11 gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 42
    deminsddeminsd Posts: 113member
    mfryd said:
    I went to the Genius Bar a couple of months ago complaining of poor battery performance.  I told him I thought it was time to replace the batteries.   The Genius spent some time researching AirPods in his system.  He told me my only option was a service replacement at $69/each to replace the buds.  I asked if there was a lower price for just a battery swap, and was told "no,"  $138 to swap the ear pieces ($69/each) or $159 to buy new AirPods at retail.

    For the $21 extra I ended up paying $159 and bought a new set.    

    I am very annoyed that the Genius was unable to provide accurate information.  However, even at $49/each, I find it an appalling price to pay for  new batteries.  That's over 60% of the cost of a new unit for an expected, and normal, maintenance issue.  Replacing all three batteries at $49 each is over 90% of the cost of a new unit.

    Apple really should be better at disclosing that these are intended to be disposable units with an approximately 2 year service life.   I suspect most buyers think they are buying something that lasts longer and can be serviced.
     
    You're appalled because Apple normally charges a very reasonable "at cost" price for out of warranty repairs?  It seems just the opposite, with ANYTHING that Apple sells is neither reasonable or value.  So, it comes as no surprise that this price is not far off from just buying a new set.
  • Reply 15 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    spice-boy said:
    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't. This is a step backwards Apple for the environment and simple practical use. 
    Are you asking us to answer that question for you? The answer, of course, depends on your use case. Do you need or would you derive value from wireless? Then yes. If not, then no. If you're asking whether wireless should exist, or should be an option for anyone, then I'm left scratching my head. Of course it should. In my usage (ex: gym), wireless is much more enjoyable than being on a short tether. 

    "Since the AirPods die whenever one of the two batteries does, we need to replace both. That's immediately a $98 total charge or 60 percent of the cost of buying a new pair."

    ...this is faulty logic. Because of mic assignment, it is entirely possible for one of your APs to be more depleted than the other. Therefore, it is entirely possible that you only need to replace that pod. Like the author's, my L is much more depleted than my R. So that's $69 to replace the one. (The article is less clear than it could be -- having spoken to Apple support personally, unless the battery is defective and in-warranty, the cost to replace it is $69. Practically no one will have an in-warranty and defective battery. Normal depletion from usage hours is not considered defective. FYI)

    I've had mine from Day 1, and use them daily. At least one of my pods is toast, as batteries are a consumable component. I do wish they were easier/cheaper for Apple to service. But my SO is a runner, and good running shoes cost as much (usually more!) than AirPods, and also last much less with daily use -- 6 months! Yet runners don't have this expectation that their purchase last FOREVER, the way some tech people do.)
    The $49 appears to be even after the 1-year warranty has expired, at least according to some of the people inside Apple we've spoken to. As addressed in the article, this needs to be clarified.
    It doesn’t tho. I spoke to a senior support rep at Apple. $49 applies only to in-warranty. If you’re out of warranty, it’s $69 like the chart says. 
    So did we, and sources inside Apple corporate and at retail. Thus, the confusion.
    Apple’s chart could use better labels but ultimately it’s what the chart says: battery service is $49, $69 if “out-of-warranty”. $69 is also the “lost” pod replacement cost. 
  • Reply 16 of 42
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 742member
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone. 
    So you're saying that you prefer the old, wired style ear buds -- so therefor we should not be allowed to buy wireless AirPods.  Got it.

    My grandson disagrees:  He wouldn't wear the ear buds but can hardly be separated from his AirPods.
    Yes I prefer the old style air buds since they don't need charging, do not contain batteries which will need to be replaced etc... However I don't believe I said you or anyone else should "no be allowed" to but them. When you meet a person that does not eat meat do you assume they are trying to take away cows from you too? 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 42
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 742member

    [Cue Fake Outrage)]
    So AirPods ONLY LAST 2 YEARS!!!!!!   A    M E A S I L Y    2      Y E A R S ! ! ! !   

    That's criminal !  We should break up Apple and put them out of business!

    Oh wait!   It wasn't very long ago that the life of a cell phone was only 2 years -- and they cost a whole lot more than a set of AirPods. 
    (And their batteries still only last a couple years -- but, because they aren't extreme miniaturization, they can be replaced.
    Defend Apple's every move and product as most typical AI readers but seriously replacement batteries cost 80% of a new pair is ridiculous and not a green option from Apple. 
    Latkomuthuk_vanalingamblurpbleepbloopavon b7
  • Reply 18 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    spice-boy said:
    spice-boy said:
    Thank you for the correction however the previous ear plugs worked on the fly, did not a require a separate charging accessory and were included with the price of a new iPhone. 
    So you're saying that you prefer the old, wired style ear buds -- so therefor we should not be allowed to buy wireless AirPods.  Got it.

    My grandson disagrees:  He wouldn't wear the ear buds but can hardly be separated from his AirPods.
    Yes I prefer the old style air buds since they don't need charging, do not contain batteries which will need to be replaced etc... However I don't believe I said you or anyone else should "no be allowed" to but them. When you meet a person that does not eat meat do you assume they are trying to take away cows from you too? 
    Er, you certainly suggested that we (the public, consumers, humanity, etc) didn’t need this wireless option. Right here:

    Do we need yet another device which requires electricity to work when the previous device didn't.”
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 42
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,110member
    spice-boy said:

    [Cue Fake Outrage)]
    So AirPods ONLY LAST 2 YEARS!!!!!!   A    M E A S I L Y    2      Y E A R S ! ! ! !   

    That's criminal !  We should break up Apple and put them out of business!

    Oh wait!   It wasn't very long ago that the life of a cell phone was only 2 years -- and they cost a whole lot more than a set of AirPods. 
    (And their batteries still only last a couple years -- but, because they aren't extreme miniaturization, they can be replaced.
    Defend Apple's every move and product as most typical AI readers but seriously replacement batteries cost 80% of a new pair is ridiculous and not a green option from Apple. 
    Wait, you’re surprised that people on an Apple site like most Apple products? Are you lost? People love their AirPods, man, because they’re a great product. 

    It does suck that the batteries cost money to replace, agreed. But as wireless headphones/devices get cheaper this relative cost will increase as mandated by math. If you bought a cheapie $40 BT pair on Amazon, you’d be paying OVER 100%...if they even offer battery service at all (which they probably don’t). 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 42
    spice-boy said:

    [Cue Fake Outrage)]
    So AirPods ONLY LAST 2 YEARS!!!!!!   A    M E A S I L Y    2      Y E A R S ! ! ! !   

    That's criminal !  We should break up Apple and put them out of business!

    Oh wait!   It wasn't very long ago that the life of a cell phone was only 2 years -- and they cost a whole lot more than a set of AirPods. 
    (And their batteries still only last a couple years -- but, because they aren't extreme miniaturization, they can be replaced.
    Defend Apple's every move and product as most typical AI readers but seriously replacement batteries cost 80% of a new pair is ridiculous and not a green option from Apple. 
    It seems there’s one very important fact you can’t comprehend. The batteries inside AirPods CAN NOT BE REPLACED! You’re, essentially, buying NEW AirPods. If the charging case still functions well, and still holds good charge, you have an option to buy NEW replacement AirPods for a little less than buying another whole set with a new case. Doing this through Apple also means the old AirPods will be recycled. 

    Again, you ARE NOT BUYING A BATTERY REPLACEMENT! 
    patchythepirateStrangeDaysflyingdpwatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.