I can't purchase them because the CONTINUE button on the purchase screen is greyed out.
Select a colour and whether you want engraving or not.
Oh. I did select a colour but I didn't know I had to click on anything else. Thanks. I wonder how many other people are going to fail to purchase them because of this "feature" of the website.
The website is not the reason why people won't buy them. The ridiculous price, ugly appearance, and a case that looks like a purse or a bra is the reason why people will not buy these.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
You don't need a separate PSU to charge them, but you need a Lightning cable. Additionally, cables wear out more quickly than the PSUs and the cables use considerably fewer materials that are worse for landfills or add to the carbon footprint when mining.
I wish Apple would've dropped the PSU years ago as well as had the USB-C PSU in play with the cable for a couple generations before moving to the inevitable, but the Band-Aide is off and you people need to just accept it.
f you need a separate PSU then you may want to look into a GaN option that supplies higher power in a smaller package. Many 3rd-party options offers multiple ports, which is great for traveling.
Looking over the description page at Apple.com, I looked closer at the volume knob and must wonder out loud what in the world were they thinking when they decided to put that closer to the BACK than the FRONT on top of the headphones?
The volume knob will be THE MOST USED function of these headphones. And if a person is lying down on a pillow, as shown in their video/ad, the odds that the volume knob will be accidentally moved or triggered have increased hugely. And the physically awkward placement will also make it more difficult to reach in those cases when something very loud suddenly blasts over the headphones.
This is one of those slap yourself on the forehead moments. Form should never override function on something like headphones.
Here's another head-slapping problem with these, outside of the price as the competition (Bose, Sony) are $200 cheaper.....NO HEADPHONE JACK.
Now I know that Apple has moved away from headphone jacks in most of their products. But one of the key applications for this device is going to be airplanes (when we can all fly again safely). While you may have your iPhone, iPad or Mac with you for entertainment, most airlines have infotainment system screens in the seat back and how do you interface with all of them? A headphone jack.
This had to have been discussed with the design team. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why this was deleted and would be an instant deal killer to get me to abandon my Bose QuietComfort headphones, regardless of whatever cool tech Apple has included with this, or how well they might sound. Also, audiophiles would want a headphone jack to connect to sound systems and bypass the limitations of Bluetooth for an analog experience.
Apple charges $35 for a lightning to 3.5mm audio cable.
Clearly most of you aren't familiar with high-end headphones. They can range from 2-10x the cost of these Apple headphones, easy.
It's comical the way some idiots pick one feature of these headphones then compare their little POS headsets and claim some kind of victory.
And suggesting that these have to be binned when the battery dies? Idiocy. Replacing batteries in AirPods isn't really very practical, and comparing that to replacing the batteries in the Max is again another exercise in stupidity.
These are pricey for the casual listener. Not all that pricey when compared to a litany of high-end headphones, if these live up to the claims.
Clearly you are not familiar with Apple's marketing. These are a far cry from being high-end headphones. They are just excessively overpriced cans. You don't have to be so insulting to people in your comment. No professional recording studio or person would buy these. They will buy the high-end headphones from reputable companies in the industry that know audio very well. Apple is not that company. Apple is known for mediocre audio quality in their products. Apple does not even allow you to adjust tone quality in any of their speaker products. These are heavily marketed as BLUETOOTH headphones to use with your iPhone for playing back heavily compressed audio files. Something a professional audio person would never listen to. Yes, Apple charges an extra $35 for an audio cable, but again, that is not what Apple wants you to do. These are just overpriced ugly headphones that no one will be buying, except for a few fools that think anything with an Apple logo is somehow magical.
sevenfeet said: Also, audiophiles would want a headphone jack to connect to sound systems and bypass the limitations of Bluetooth for an analog experience.
What 'analog experience" do you imagine exists with modern headphones? What limitation to the audio quality do you believe exists with BT 5.0?
Really? Bluetooth audio is HORRIBLE compared to a wired connection. Heavily compressed music is not what people listen to when they appreciate the music they are listening to. Bluetooth is even awful in the acoustics of a car too. It is hilarious that Apple claims how high quality these are, yet they advertise them as Bluetooth with your iPhone for listening to heavily compressed audio files streamed over Apple Music.
sevenfeet said: Also, audiophiles would want a headphone jack to connect to sound systems and bypass the limitations of Bluetooth for an analog experience.
What 'analog experience" do you imagine exists with modern headphones? What limitation to the audio quality do you believe exists with BT 5.0?
Really? Bluetooth audio is HORRIBLE compared to a wired connection. Heavily compressed music is not what people listen to when they appreciate the music they are listening to. Bluetooth is even awful in the acoustics of a car too. It is hilarious that Apple claims how high quality these are, yet they advertise them as Bluetooth with your iPhone for listening to heavily compressed audio files streamed over Apple Music.
You don't understand how a DSP, DAC, Bluetooth 5.0, and audio codec work if you're claiming that all sound coming though a BT connection is worse than any sound coming through a wired connection.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
Or rather: IF they are going to include a cable in the box, it makes more sense to include the cable people DON'T have half a dozen of flying around at home. We're going to need USB-C cables more in the future than USB-A cables.
sevenfeet said: Also, audiophiles would want a headphone jack to connect to sound systems and bypass the limitations of Bluetooth for an analog experience.
What 'analog experience" do you imagine exists with modern headphones? What limitation to the audio quality do you believe exists with BT 5.0?
Really? Bluetooth audio is HORRIBLE compared to a wired connection. Heavily compressed music is not what people listen to when they appreciate the music they are listening to. Bluetooth is even awful in the acoustics of a car too. It is hilarious that Apple claims how high quality these are, yet they advertise them as Bluetooth with your iPhone for listening to heavily compressed audio files streamed over Apple Music.
You don't understand how a DSP, DAC, Bluetooth 5.0, and audio codec work if you're claiming that all sound coming though a BT connection is worse than any sound coming through a wired connection.
MacQuadra probably has experience with older Bluetooth audio codecs, which were HORRIBLE compared to a wired connection. Absolutely yes. Newer codecs sound a lot better, but they do add artefacts to those already existing from lossy compression in the original audio.
Not to throw this too far into audiophile hoo-hah discussion, but even the best Bluetooth audio codec is still lossy compression, and depending upon what already-lossy format the original audio is compressed to, quality is at best pretty good, but not identical to a wired connection.
Average listener can't tell, bla bla bla, yadda yadda.
It’s seems that a most posters on here have never looked at the pricing of HiFi equipment.
£5,000 for a turntable - no problem. £1,500 for a pickup cartridge - it’s over here sir. £150 for some speaker stand spikes - how many boxes would you like?
Prices in HiFi start somewhere near reasonable and go into the stratosphere - just have a look through some magazines if you want to have you eyes (and mouth) opened wide. In 1987 I bought a pair of QUAD ESL63s (loudspeakers) which cost me about £1,4000. Most people would not have paid that much for their speakers, amps and turntable combined. I still have them, they still sound incredible, I have never regretted buying them but they are at a friend’s house because I no longer have room for them and replaced with with some much smaller speakers. However, these speakers now are a limited in this lounge I now have so 4 months ago I bought a pair of QUAD headphone for £600. They are absolutely superb - but they are ‘just’ headphones with none of Apple’s high tech flash.
So, depending on the quality, these AirPods could be priced just right if you want something with all that Apple are including. Most people would never buy a pair of headphones that cost more than £100, but there enough people that definitely would to make Apple’s pricing perfectly sensible to me.
I think Apple’s look gorgeous, but I’ll stick with the QUADs ...
I think a lot of folks are quite aware that there is a high end market for HiFi equipment just like there is a high end market for just about every consumer product you can name, from watches to AV equipment to autos. I’d say that almost every Apple fan on this forum knows that you can spend 50K for a fully loaded Mac Pro, so there’s no lack of knowledge. Same deal with the Apple Watch Edition.
I think the main shock factor with the pricing on the AirPods Max headphones is that a lot of folks see the higher end consumer grade, non HiFi aficionado cans falling within a rough price gradient of $250-$400. Some of us were expecting Apple to go after the Sony, Bose, Sennheisser, etc., products in that price gradient, and crank up the quality over the Beats products that are also in that range. So yeah, we’re a bit surprised to see where Apple landed on the price. Who knows, after some reviews and personal test drives we may all come around - just like we’ve done with so many other Apple products.
I do understand what you’re saying about the higher end audiophile gear, but I think the AirPods Max headphones are the same kind of ballsy move that Apple made with the Apple Watch. Even people who were quite happy paying $500 and above for decent watches weren’t quite ready to lay out the cash for a tech gadget watch, especially when other vendors had put out junk that had a half-life measured in months. Nobody is going to be passing down a smart watch, even Apple’s, as a family heirloom. Once the custom battery is shot and the OS is obsolete it’s pretty much useless.
That’s my fear with the AirPods Max. It’s not like old school HiFi headphones that will continue to work with pretty much any audio gear you have. Yeah, you had to buy a ¼” to ⅛” adapter and maybe a decent DAC/Amp, but it’s going to be viable for decades and that’s worth paying for. So my price concerns with the AirPods Max is all around not knowing about compatibility and whether the investment in groundbreaking technology is worth the loss in traditional values that I’ve always been willing to pay for.
Like I said, the AirPods Max headphones are a whole new species of audio beast and there’s still a learning curve that needs to be traversed, whether we decide to go for it ourselves like we did with Apple Watch, which we now value for the tech it delivers versus bling factor, or we get dragged along kicking and screaming about our newly emptied wallets. We’ll see.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
Or rather: IF they are going to include a cable in the box, it makes more sense to include the cable people DON'T have half a dozen of flying around at home. We're going to need USB-C cables more in the future than USB-A cables.
That doesn't really work. If your assumption is that people are unlikely have the cable then a linked assumption would be that they are unlikely to have a charger for that cable. And they didn't include a charger.
I was about to order the AirPods Max when I realized I have to figure out first how I would charge them. Does Apple include a charging adapter? It says "Simply charge via Lightning connector." Down in the details of the BUY page it says "In the Box... Lightning to USB-C Cable". But I thought I read that Apple has stopped providing USB adapters with their iPhones, so does that mean I will have to buy a USB-C power brick? I don't already have one. All I have is USB-A power bricks, one from my iPhone 11 and one from my iPad.
Your iPhone 11 came with a USB-C power adapter. So you are good to go. One more problem solved.
Edit: Apparently only recent iPhone 11s come with USB-C to lightning. Oh well, I guess you shouldn't buy a $550 pair of headphones if you can't afford a $19 power adapter.
The roaring 20s are back again. This is pure decadence while millions of people are being evicted, foreclosed upon, losing their businesses, their jobs, their sanity, their dignity, while the ICUs fill up with corpses, the government spits on its citizens and corporate America takes the money meant to help them.
If you are being evicted, I would suggest not spending any money on wireless headphones. You know, like a responsible adult.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
Or rather: IF they are going to include a cable in the box, it makes more sense to include the cable people DON'T have half a dozen of flying around at home. We're going to need USB-C cables more in the future than USB-A cables.
That doesn't really work. If your assumption is that people are unlikely have the cable then a linked assumption would be that they are unlikely to have a charger for that cable. And they didn't include a charger.
That's not what I said. I said we're going to need USB-C cables more in the future. The assumption is that a) most customers will have USB-A to Lightning cables in the house, and that b) more chargers will be USB-C in the future.
I am a piece of anecdotal evidence. I have a bunch of USB-A power supplies around the house and the corresponding Lightning cables. However, newer devices charge so much faster with fatter power supplies that I am loathe to use the old adapters. When I leave the house, I only carry my 95W USB-C power supply, which will charge my MBP, iPads, and iPhone — using USB-C cables. Often, I'll have the 'Book on the power supply, and an iDevice chained to the 'Book via USB-C for charging.
Any additional charger I may be purchasing in the future will be USB-C, not USB-A
I definitely have more use for USB-C to Lightning cables than for yet another USB-A to Lightning cable.
I guess the easy thing to say is that I am not the market they are shooting for.
I have a really nice set of Bowers & Wilkins headphones that do not require batteries, work with anything with an audio output, do not process the signal to color it and have a nice case that does not look like a pop art bra.
For mobile I have the Beats Pro Wireless (Black) that I vastly prefer over the AirPods because they are not white (2005 is calling and wants the plastic back), have a much better (for my purposes) fit with the ear loops and work fairly well with everything from my desktop Mac to my iPhone. I am not doing critical listening when using the Beats- mostly radio and podcasts.
I am quite sure the phones are an engineering marvel, but just do not seem worth the money and I seriously doubt I will like the sound. Good speakers and headphones try to NOT color the sound and these things apparently heavily process the signal.
And Apple needs to stop pretending to be concerned about the environment while making throwaway devices. And if it needs a battery, make it user replaceable.
Yeah, good luck with that. I can buy a pair of Bowers & Wilkins PX7’s for £289 right now, they were down as low as £220 in October (an absolute steal at that price), no way would I pay twice that for these.
REALLY? What's your review on AirPods Max? What didn't you like about them? Were you the only person in the world to receive an advanced pair?
Well, the same applies to these vs cheaper headphones, not just the higher end product.
The Sennheiser 800 series headphones aren't really comparable on price because the price refers to categories that don't exist on Apple devices. For example, I believe the 820s are assembled by hand in Germany.
What counts is sound, comfort and what you get for your investment.
That's pretty subjective and blind testing will help some people decide.
Off the bat though, these do seem a bit weighty. It's BT 5.0 and not 5.2. It's unlikely to improve vastly on competing sets that are already so comfortable that you literally forget you are wearing them. Ditto noise cancellation. And the price puts it in a kind of no man's land. High end, power hungry, wired headsets aren't the competition here. On the wireless side, we already know there are cheaper options that already sound amazing.
Of course there's a technology angle which may prove to be similar to the HomePod in that a lot was made out of the computional side of things but it didn't really 'sell' the product at the end of the day. It ended up seeing discounts and some people didn't really hear much of a difference with other solutions.
Are you buying technology over sound? Is that where the investment is? And if that's the case (in justifying the price) does the sound still hold up anyway when compared to cheaper, yet potentially equal competitors?
We all hear differently and have different sound preferences but these will not be an easy to justify purchase for the majority of people.
As I said earlier though I'm happy they exist because choice and competition will push manufacturers to react. Maybe in this case and like with HomePod prices could come down as a result.
From Apple's website - "Charges with a Lightning connector"... 🤦♂️
It think it's genius. For anyone who has an iPhone (which is many hundreds of millions of a market segment), they don't have to buy a charger.
They do have to buy a charger because it is USB-C on the other end of the lightning cable. Those millions of iPhones all have a USB-A charger.
You've oddly overlooked that any Lightning cable will work. If you only have ways to charge via a USB-A port then use a Lightning cable with a USB-A connector on the other end. You know, what all "those millions of iPhones [with] a USB-A charger" came with.
Apple might as well not include a cable in the box either then.
Or rather: IF they are going to include a cable in the box, it makes more sense to include the cable people DON'T have half a dozen of flying around at home. We're going to need USB-C cables more in the future than USB-A cables.
That doesn't really work. If your assumption is that people are unlikely have the cable then a linked assumption would be that they are unlikely to have a charger for that cable. And they didn't include a charger.
That's not what I said. I said we're going to need USB-C cables more in the future. The assumption is that a) most customers will have USB-A to Lightning cables in the house, and that b) more chargers will be USB-C in the future.
I am a piece of anecdotal evidence. I have a bunch of USB-A power supplies around the house and the corresponding Lightning cables. However, newer devices charge so much faster with fatter power supplies that I am loathe to use the old adapters. When I leave the house, I only carry my 95W USB-C power supply, which will charge my MBP, iPads, and iPhone — using USB-C cables. Often, I'll have the 'Book on the power supply, and an iDevice chained to the 'Book via USB-C for charging.
Any additional charger I may be purchasing in the future will be USB-C, not USB-A
I definitely have more use for USB-C to Lightning cables than for yet another USB-A to Lightning cable.
It feels likely that I am not alone in this.
Ok, that's all fair enough. I can't imagine that's Apple's rationale for including the cable, but maybe.
I've got one of these, which covers all the bases (and means I don't lose access to both my MacBook Air's USB-C ports to daisy-chained charging)
It’s seems that a most posters on here have never looked at the pricing of HiFi equipment.
£5,000 for a turntable - no problem. £1,500 for a pickup cartridge - it’s over here sir. £150 for some speaker stand spikes - how many boxes would you like?
Prices in HiFi start somewhere near reasonable and go into the stratosphere - just have a look through some magazines if you want to have you eyes (and mouth) opened wide. In 1987 I bought a pair of QUAD ESL63s (loudspeakers) which cost me about £1,4000. Most people would not have paid that much for their speakers, amps and turntable combined. I still have them, they still sound incredible, I have never regretted buying them but they are at a friend’s house because I no longer have room for them and replaced with with some much smaller speakers. However, these speakers now are a limited in this lounge I now have so 4 months ago I bought a pair of QUAD headphone for £600. They are absolutely superb - but they are ‘just’ headphones with none of Apple’s high tech flash.
So, depending on the quality, these AirPods could be priced just right if you want something with all that Apple are including. Most people would never buy a pair of headphones that cost more than £100, but there enough people that definitely would to make Apple’s pricing perfectly sensible to me.
I think Apple’s look gorgeous, but I’ll stick with the QUADs ...
Talking of Quad... Your post made me remember I have an unused Quad 405 power amp in the cupboard. It literally hasn't been used. I bought it just before I emigrated to the States 30 years ago and brought it with me and forgot it.
Comments
I wish Apple would've dropped the PSU years ago as well as had the USB-C PSU in play with the cable for a couple generations before moving to the inevitable, but the Band-Aide is off and you people need to just accept it.
f you need a separate PSU then you may want to look into a GaN option that supplies higher power in a smaller package. Many 3rd-party options offers multiple ports, which is great for traveling.
MacQuadra probably has experience with older Bluetooth audio codecs, which were HORRIBLE compared to a wired connection. Absolutely yes. Newer codecs sound a lot better, but they do add artefacts to those already existing from lossy compression in the original audio.
Not to throw this too far into audiophile hoo-hah discussion, but even the best Bluetooth audio codec is still lossy compression, and depending upon what already-lossy format the original audio is compressed to, quality is at best pretty good, but not identical to a wired connection.
Average listener can't tell, bla bla bla, yadda yadda.
Some people can, and fact is fact.
I think the main shock factor with the pricing on the AirPods Max headphones is that a lot of folks see the higher end consumer grade, non HiFi aficionado cans falling within a rough price gradient of $250-$400. Some of us were expecting Apple to go after the Sony, Bose, Sennheisser, etc., products in that price gradient, and crank up the quality over the Beats products that are also in that range. So yeah, we’re a bit surprised to see where Apple landed on the price. Who knows, after some reviews and personal test drives we may all come around - just like we’ve done with so many other Apple products.
Edit: Apparently only recent iPhone 11s come with USB-C to lightning. Oh well, I guess you shouldn't buy a $550 pair of headphones if you can't afford a $19 power adapter.
I am a piece of anecdotal evidence. I have a bunch of USB-A power supplies around the house and the corresponding Lightning cables. However, newer devices charge so much faster with fatter power supplies that I am loathe to use the old adapters. When I leave the house, I only carry my 95W USB-C power supply, which will charge my MBP, iPads, and iPhone — using USB-C cables. Often, I'll have the 'Book on the power supply, and an iDevice chained to the 'Book via USB-C for charging.
Any additional charger I may be purchasing in the future will be USB-C, not USB-A
I definitely have more use for USB-C to Lightning cables than for yet another USB-A to Lightning cable.
It feels likely that I am not alone in this.
I have a really nice set of Bowers & Wilkins headphones that do not require batteries, work with anything with an audio output, do not process the signal to color it and have a nice case that does not look like a pop art bra.
For mobile I have the Beats Pro Wireless (Black) that I vastly prefer over the AirPods because they are not white (2005 is calling and wants the plastic back), have a much better (for my purposes) fit with the ear loops and work fairly well with everything from my desktop Mac to my iPhone. I am not doing critical listening when using the Beats- mostly radio and podcasts.
I am quite sure the phones are an engineering marvel, but just do not seem worth the money and I seriously doubt I will like the sound. Good speakers and headphones try to NOT color the sound and these things apparently heavily process the signal.
And Apple needs to stop pretending to be concerned about the environment while making throwaway devices. And if it needs a battery, make it user replaceable.
The Sennheiser 800 series headphones aren't really comparable on price because the price refers to categories that don't exist on Apple devices. For example, I believe the 820s are assembled by hand in Germany.
What counts is sound, comfort and what you get for your investment.
That's pretty subjective and blind testing will help some people decide.
Off the bat though, these do seem a bit weighty. It's BT 5.0 and not 5.2. It's unlikely to improve vastly on competing sets that are already so comfortable that you literally forget you are wearing them. Ditto noise cancellation. And the price puts it in a kind of no man's land. High end, power hungry, wired headsets aren't the competition here. On the wireless side, we already know there are cheaper options that already sound amazing.
Of course there's a technology angle which may prove to be similar to the HomePod in that a lot was made out of the computional side of things but it didn't really 'sell' the product at the end of the day. It ended up seeing discounts and some people didn't really hear much of a difference with other solutions.
Are you buying technology over sound? Is that where the investment is? And if that's the case (in justifying the price) does the sound still hold up anyway when compared to cheaper, yet potentially equal competitors?
We all hear differently and have different sound preferences but these will not be an easy to justify purchase for the majority of people.
As I said earlier though I'm happy they exist because choice and competition will push manufacturers to react. Maybe in this case and like with HomePod prices could come down as a result.
I've got one of these, which covers all the bases (and means I don't lose access to both my MacBook Air's USB-C ports to daisy-chained charging)