In the older bose headsets you could slap an AAA batteries and be good for a while. These types of batteries won't disappear anytime soon.

Anyway, in 5 years when bose stops producing the qc35 battery pack no one will be able to replace them whereas people using bose qc25 will just have to get new AAA batteries. Either apple talks the talk and walks the walk or it simply shut up about climate, no one cares about virtue signalling if it's to fuck the user for 3% more margin in the end. I'm surethey could have designed it better and fit at the very least user replaceable batteries.

> In the older bose headsets you could slap an AAA batteries and be good for a while. These types of batteries won't disappear anytime soon.

You'll generate far more waste from AAA batteries in the time it takes for the Airpod batteries to require disposal.

There are rechargeable ones.

Yep, just like in the Airpods. And just like the ones in the Airpods, they'll eventually stop holding a charge. The only difference is, they're significantly bigger than the Airpods, and have more of the toxic waste.

And you still are having to throw away the batteries - the most toxic part of the device. By mass, the three batteries are most of the mass.

> Is there some type of battery technology out there that would be better?

I think the argument is yes, there is - end user replaceable battery.

And since most of the mass of the AirPod + case is the battery, how is it really helping with the environment if the battery is the most toxic part?

It's much more ecological to recycle a battery than to recycle a 100% working product because the internal battery died.

When more than 50% of the mass is the battery?

Yes, as then the whole product doesn't have to be produced from scratch - just the battery.