[stouset]

> and can't be charged while being used

I'll just address this point, because it is categorically incorrect and something many people misunderstood when they were first released.

There are two of them. You can use them independently from one another. When you hear the "low battery" tone, it's trivial to remove one and continue to use the other. By the time the tone plays again in the one you continued to use (signaling critically low battery), you just swap which earbud is in the case. The one that was in the case will be almost fully charged at this point.

The effect is that you can pretty much use them indefinitely without a full interruption. And using only one at a time is mostly unnoticeable.

[EpicEng]

That's all well and good if using one were the same as using two. Of course, it isn't...

[stouset]

I really wish I could put myself into the shoes of people who think that fifteen minutes of using only one earbud is a big deal, but I honestly just can't.

[cakoose]

Your point that you can use one while charging the other was valid and helpful.

But saying "I'll just address this point, because it is categorically incorrect" was unnecessarily aggressive. With that opening, I think people expected a solution with no caveats.

[ericd]

From that opening I just expected that the idea that you had to use two would be a frustratingly widespread misconception and completely wrong. Given that I had that misconception, that the UX implies that it’s the case (remove one and it stops playing music), and it is apparently completely wrong, I’d say the parent was pretty spot on.

[exergy]

To me, that blows big holes in the argument that Airpods are better than wired earphones. It's compromises up and down the chart with the sole benefit being wirelessness? Are people nowadays really that rich that they can dump 150 USD EVERY two to three years just to get rid of a wire?!

Also, I just can't fathom people's willingness to let so much tech into their lives. Laptops, tablets, smartphones, smartwatches, airpods... all of which need to be constantly charged, and replaced once their batteries die, because they cannot be swapped out, meaning the rest of the apparatus lies impotent in a dumpster for a thousand years or more, never to biodegrade... it's depressing and wearisome to picture.

[stouset]

> It's compromises up and down the chart

What compromises?

They're literally always on my person. At all times. Without even having to think about it, because they just come along with my phone and keys whenever they change pockets.

I can wear them all day and basically forget they're there, even when pausing audio to have conversations with people physically in front of me.

For phone calls, they're measurably more convenient since I can just leave my phone on my desk and continue whatever it was I was previously doing.

The "compromises" I have to make, on the other hand are completely insignificant. Sometimes I have to take one earbud out. Sometimes the case is low on battery so I plug it in at the nearest cable on my desk or nightstand. The audio quality is perfectly fine, I have never noticed a difference unless I was explicitly trying to look for one.

> Are people nowadays really that rich that they can dump 150 USD EVERY two to three years just to get rid of a wire?!

Why do you seem to believe that these will only last two or three years? Mine are 2.5 years in and I can't say I've noticed any kind of battery degradation. Surely they won't continue to last indefinitely, but every other wired headphone I've used has had the wire fray sooner or later anyway.

> Also, I just can't fathom people's willingness to let so much tech into their lives.

I can't reply to the other comment you made, but I find it telling that you've decided that you get to be the gatekeeper for what is "too much tech" and what's not. From that comment, "Every person deserves... a laptop... and a smartphone". And headphones too, apparently. But wireless headphones are where we as a society should draw the line?

Somehow I don't think I'd be surprised to find you having this same conversation ten years ago deriding how rich people must be to afford a $1,000 cell phone every few years, when flip phones are just as good and aren't full of compromises like software keyboards.

[exergy]

My wired phones are also on my person. At all times. Without even having to think about it. I can also wear them all day and forget they're there. Actually even better because foam is softer than the hard plastic of the airpods.

The compromises are that you have to charge them all the time. You cannot wear them constantly on an 8 hour flight. One-size-fits-most. They come packaged with an expiry date. Yours are going fine, but on balance, I'd say a careful user could make wired, QUALITY, earphones last longer than Airpods. The audio quality, despite you confident proclamations, isn't even in the vicinity of wired stuff you can get for that price range.

Guilty as charged about being a self-annointed gatekeeper. I'm driven to a low-level despair at our relentless forward march towards a scorched planet. Nevertheless, to conclude the argument, yeah, wireless throwaway airpods and home theaters ARE perhaps where we should draw the line. Where would you draw the line? Or do you think it's all dandy even if we never draw the line?

As to your last point, you're probably right. I have in all seriousness considered moving back to a flip phone. Since I don't have any social media, all that smartphones give me is access to boarding passes for flights, and GPS. But meanwhile, I turn it off at night and make the battery last two to three days between charges.

[ovao]

That we can’t all have home theaters (weird example) and wireless earphones does not mean no one should.

[icanhackit]

People collect cars, watches, shoes, expensive clothing. On the extreme end there's figurines, paintings, antiques -- at least the former items have utility, the latter are mere articles for signalling to others.

Does it really blow your mind that the ability to move freely without being tethered to a phone is a selling point? I can give an example where it really helps for me: I'm a nudist.

But even when clothed I like walking around able to take a call or listen to music without snagging a cable on one of the many protrusions in this world like door handles, kitchen cupboard handles etc which can also lead to an expensive phone launching from my pocket onto the floor.

If you're worried about pollution, Airpods should be on the low end of the concerns list.

[jamiek88]

Off topic but any good resources you know of for those interested in nudism? You rarely come across someone who will talk or even admit to it so sorry if that is out of line asking.

[icanhackit]

/r/nudism on Reddit is ok, not ground-breaking but it's a nexus to other resources as well being a place for general discussion.

[heyoni]

Does Apple not recycle their devices anymore? You’re drawing the line in the wrong place. Phones and laptops really can’t get much better, so your other comment makes sense and we should hang onto those for as long as possible. But you know what? Headphones aren’t, and Bluetooth needed to be saved because pairing sucks.

[hombre_fatal]

Are you sure $150 every 2-3 years actually sounds like a lot of money to you? Especially on something as important as listening to audio? I don't even think you believe this. My headphones last longer than that, but that's irrelevant to my counterargument.

Show me your receipts and I'll find things I "can't fathom" and all sorts of environmentally questionable decisions. You clearly are willing enough to let technology into your life yet care so little about the environment to post here on your high tech device, to use your own argument. You would lose the game you started very quickly.

[exergy]

Perhaps I would. I have terrible gear acquisiton syndrome when it comes to music and also outdoors-gear. In my defense, though, both of those hobbies tend to have BIFL gear. Guitars and tents last a long time.

[ryanlol]

>Are people nowadays really that rich that they can dump 150 USD EVERY two to three years just to get rid of a wire?!

Surely you know where you are posting? Fuck yeah there’s a plenty of people here that can afford to throw away 150 USD several times a day.

[asudosandwich]

It helps in a pinch if you’re on a really long conference call and the batteries start to run low. I’ll pop one briefly back in the case to top it off and not have to miss anything said.

[EpicEng]

Sure, it's a fine workaround for a dying pair, but the GP said:

>I'll just address this point, because it is categorically incorrect and something many people misunderstood when they were first released

[stouset]

GP said they "can't be charged while being used". Which is categorically incorrect. They can, and on the scale of Things That Are a Big Deal, it's an 0.3 out of 10.

[EpicEng]

They can't both be used, and c'mon; is this really a debate? You cannot use _both_ of them and charge them at the same time. The best experience comes from using _both_ of them simultaneously. So, it's a workaround. It's fine, it's whatever, but it's also silly to get haughty about it as if there were no impact whatsoever.

[jerkstate]

I've got an easy fix for you, just buy two pairs, and charge the pair that you're not using!

[tlholaday]

Given zero interest rates, and the fact that AirPods used half as much will last twice as many days, the two-pair implementation is financially equivalent to the one-pair implementation.