As a repair shop owner, I can shed some light on this. The iPhone X battery is relatively simple to replace as a third party. The only negative is that the phone won’t be as water-resistant as before; though we do replace seals, it won’t be sealed like the factory did. (I just had one of our stores replace the battery on my iPhone XS with an extended capacity battery, which was well worth the tradeoffs since my phone lasts an additional 3 hours now.) So your iPhone that just needs a new battery will sell for a lot.

AirPods batteries, on the other hand, are completely unreplaceable, and believe me when I say we’d love to repair them. They’re small and Apple has filled the cavity around them with glue, meaning even if we had a replacement battery they’d be impossible to replace without damaging the AirPod itself. This is extremely upsetting to me, as someone who invests in and runs third-party repair shops at least in part for environmental reasons. Apple needs to do better on their smaller devices, AirPods included.

Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.

It's probably safe to assume that in light of how they're constructed, Apple does not repair a unit when received and send the original repaired unit back. The customer likely receives a refurbished unit. But we do not know what Apple subsequently does with the failed units, so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill. They may well possess some trade secret that allows them to be able to repair them in a factory and ship them out later as refurbished units. There are technologies that are much more economical at scale (especially achievable with Apple's resources) that are probably infeasible for a mom-and-pop shop. And possibly more environmentally friendly, too (cf. trains vs. trucks).

> so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill.

It isn't an assumption without evidence. It is an assessment based on a detailed breakdown of the product, a knowledge of the generally understood state of the technologies involved in reclamation. This isn't the random opinion of a shop owner. iFixit has a detailed breakdown and assessment, and they are generally considered experts in the field. What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.

>Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.

Airpods with Wireless charging case: $159 Retail. Wireless Charging case: $79 Retail. Assessed retail value of Airpods: $80 ($40 each).

Apple replacement of damaged Wireless charging case: $69 ($10 discount off retail). Airpods: $69 each ($30 more than they cost new retail).

Apple “battery repair” of Wireless charging case: $49 ($40 less than retail). Airpods: $49 each (again, $10 more than new retail value).

Given this, there is absolutely no evidence that the Airpods have any reclamation value to Apple and they are just selling you a new ear pod for more than you paid as part of the original product. Apple makes more money per unit on “battery repair” and damage replacement than off the original purchase.

> What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.

Apple knows how to do all sorts of things in the manufacturing process that even competing companies having resources similar to Apple's scale (Samsung, LG, et al.) can't seem to accomplish. iFixit certainly doesn't have resources anywhere near Apple's. So I wouldn't put recycling/repair tech past them. It's certainly plausible.

The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case. There's a market for them (most likely in the black market because they're almost certainly stolen), but they're certainly going to be less than the cost of the combination less the price of a new charger.

> It's certainly plausible.

Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't an argument at all. What is evidence is actual assessments and an understanding of the underlying technologies, something we do have and speaks against reclamation.

> The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case.

This makes it pretty clear you aren’t even arguing in good faith. We have a device with 3 components (two of which are identical). We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. It is basic math, not some pie in the sky made up numbers. This is what Apple is selling them for, that is the retail value. What is fictional math is your asserting that if Apple is charging $50 for a replacement, the original must be worth about $50 back to Apple. Since their replacement cost is pretty much the same as their initial price point, you are just buying a replacement. This is pretty basic.

If I am charging $6 for a bag with an orange and two apples, and $3 for a single orange, we can be pretty sure the Apples are about $1.50 each. If you get a rotted apple and I say I’ll take it back and give you a fresh one for $1.40, I’m just selling you another apple. I can just throw the rotted one in the garbage.

> We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units.

There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all.

Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it.

I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less.

I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)

Not sure if your argument is strong in the context of their headphone products - which this thread is about.

You are absolutely right in the iPhone & Mac space, but AirPods are famously unrepairable [0].

iFixit's verdict:

- AirPods are not designed to be serviced. No hardware components can be accessed without damage to the device.

- Sealed-in batteries limit the AirPods' lifespan, making them a consumable/disposable item.

[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+2+Teardown/121471

They’re different devices altogether. They serve the same purpose, perhaps, but one is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the other. It’s like comparing a matchbox car to an actual car.

Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.

We don’t know yet if the batteries in the Max are serviceable or not... I suspect they will be, but could be wrong.

We do know they're serviceable given that Apple has already published a battery service for it. For that matter, Apple has a battery service program for normal AirPods as well. It isn't a service that economically doesn't make much sense for the cheaper airpods, but it's entirely reasonable for the Max monsters.

The service program is one that throws away the old AirPods, though…

Counterpoint: My iPhone that was out of warranty and had the screen cracked after taking it in for third-party battery replacement. The official battery replacement was more than the resale value of the phone. Unlike a phone, high-end headphones are not inherently disposable. They can last many decades of regular use. This is a disposable product in a product category that is not usually disposable.

$79 to replace the battery on an AirPod Max isn’t that bad if you just have to do it every few years. I’m sort of tired of my churn through AAA’s on my Bose QuietComforts.

Assuming they last 10 years (Apple stops selling them after 3 years and stops supporting 7 after that), you replace the battery ($79) and ear pads ($69) at the 5 year mark, that's (550+79+69)/120 months = ~$5.80/month or about $.20 per day.

How much would you pay for replaceable AAA batteries? How long will they last?

$79 is pretty bad.

AAA aren't cheap. More importantly, they are annoying to replace all the time.

$79 every few years on a $500 set of headphones sounds plausible, the battery alone would probably be $40-$50 retail anyways; I'm just getting someone at an Apple store to replace it for me.

More concerning is that a set of new ear muffs costs $69. I've already replaced the ones on my QuietComforts two times ($20 using clones on Amazon), so that is going to add up a bit.

I said replaceable AAA batteries. I should've said rechargeable.

You can buy a pack of 12 rechargeable AAA for less than $10. A charger is $5.

Ya, I tried going this route for toys. Frankly i gave up after a few months because they didn’t last as long as the real pain is battery replacement (which requires a screw driver these days because....rules).

Alkaline AAA batteries in Bose QCs old enough to have them have a claimed life of up to 35 hours. (Newer Bose QCs have glued-in rechargeable batteries just like the AirPods Max, because very few people actually prefer replacing batteries every “up to 35” hours to needing to plug in to recharge every “up to 20” hours)

You could use rechargable AAAs with an integrated charger, and when those wear out, swap them. I had some wireless headphones like that, and the charger was a nice stand to rest them on.

You're implicitly assuming that the AirPods Max could also run on one or two AAA batteries -- an assumption that may well be false depending on the energy consumption and voltage required.

You can run laptop cpus today on 1.2V, I doubt that would have too much of an issue powering over-ear headphones with 2.4V-3V of two AAAs in series.

Plus, it doesn't really matter the type of battery. You can find pretty much any of rechargeable battery (3.7V, 7.4V, nickel, Li-ion) for less than $15, retail. It's mind boggling to think that people on Hacker News (of all places) think that is sensible to subject yourself to something as anti-consumer and as environment-unfriendly as what Apple offers.

We will have to wait to see if they are really servicing ( replacing battery ) or just give you a new pair for $79.

We just don’t know that yet. They just started shipping, what, today?

Don't know what? It's engineered trash from a trash company.

Ok, that is a good counter example, but what about the example I gave in my original post? These very expensive headphones I bought (AirPods 1) only two years ago are now basically worthless.

Apple does offer "battery service" for AirPods:

https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery

I strongly suspect the the "service" is giving you refurbished AirPods with new batteries in them, but it's still cheaper than buying new AirPods. (Although somewhat marginally in the case of the non-Pro model.)

They’re different devices altogether. They serve the same purpose, perhaps, but one is nearly two orders of magnitude larger than the other. It’s like comparing a matchbox car to an actual car.

Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.