Okay cool and now the headphones weigh a kilo because of shielding and nobody buys them.

>Okay cool and now the headphones weigh a kilo because of shielding and nobody buys them.

The problem here being.. that Bose loses money?

Or maybe, just maybe, they figure out a way to make headphones that are both safe and marketable?

The idea of free market includes the notion of failing in the free market. Which is exactly what Bose did here.

Literally nothing is perfectly safe.

1/1,000,000 chance of getting chemical burns is fine by me.

>1/1,000,000 chance of getting chemical burns is fine by me.

That's fine by me too, and Bose should market the headphones with the description "1/10^6 chance of getting chemical burns".

Then the people who don't find it fine by them can make a rational choice about buying or not buying that product.

See, the public has this unreasonable expectation about wireless headphones being as safe as wired ones. Silly public. Can't fathom why they would think that way, with all the warnings of potential chemical burns in the product manuals.

Oh wait.

Maybe? Your alternative seems to be to let a few people die every now and then, so that some companies can get better margins.

Nobody did die though, nor is it very likely they would. And this is one pair out of however many million they've sold. I'm not arguing there shouldn't be compensation in this instance, nor an investigation into why it happened. But hypothetically if it was some one in a million space particle (which is obviously unlikely), I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect Bose to design for that eventuality.

> I think it's pretty ludicrous to expect Bose to design for that eventuality.

That decision is, indeed, up to Bose.

But should they choose to continue making a headphones that have a 1-in-N-million chance of exploding, this should be clearly indicated on every pair they sell.

So that their competitors who choose to invest in safety would be able to reap the fruit if their labor in the free market.

How many times are you going to say "exploding" to describe something that didn't explode? You're clearly cognizant of the fact you are lying, so why keep doing it? Why not just describe what happened accurately? Is it a concern that you can't make your point if you relate to the facts in a more accurate fashion, without the repeated hyperbole?

That same process happens to every log I burn in my fireplace. We call it burning. I'd never describe it as exploding even though it matches that definition.

>That same process happens to every log I burn in my fireplace.

Pray tell where you get the self-igniting logs. Last time it lit a fire, it took some effort to get it going.

Also, feel free to take it to Webster. And The Free Dictionary[1].

Then come back to correct me that it's the battery in Bose QC-35 II that exploded, not the headphones, because surely it's an important detail worth debating.

[1]https://www.thefreedictionary.com/explode

It's less that I care about the their "margins" and more that I care about having headphones that aren't $600 and give me long-term neck problems from their weight.

Also nobody has died so...

>It's less that I care about the their "margins" and more that I care about having headphones that aren't $600 and give me long-term neck problems from their weight.

You are aware that wired headphones exist, right?

Also, quite a leap from "Bose shouldn't make headphones that explode while being used, like QC-35 II" to "if we ask for that, this will make all headphones heavy enough to cause neck problems and cost North of $600".

Self-exploding headphones were not a problem we had for most of the time headphones existed. There's no reason to introduce it, nor accept it.

>Also nobody has died so...

Oh, so someone has to die instead of merely being injured for you to care? That's hardly compassionate, but understandable.

How about we settle for the middle ground of the following being included with each pair:

"BOSE Quite Comfort QC 35 II. You might experience bodily injury during normal operation of this product. Also nobody has died, so..."

"Exploding" is a feature of the battery, not the headphone.

Lithium-ion are the best we have right now, and they "explode" (catch fire I think is more accurate) when damaged.

Do I want better battery chemistries that are more robust? Of course.

Am I going to hold this against Bose or any other battery-powered device manufacturer until we do? No.

Replying to this and jen729's comment, which I can't reply to for some reason.

I'm not entirely sure why this got downvoted (bit of a personal gripe with YC (anonymous down voting/spamming without a direct comment).. buuuut

This idea is only 'silly' if you think of it as a large amount of lead lining.

In this day-in-age, I'm sure the idea of a material/substance around it that stops combustion when something like this happens is surely not out of reach.. I'm as far away from a chemical engineer as you can get, but, if it requires oxygen to burn, maybe some incredibly strong substance around it to contain the chemicals if the battery expands. Or some to absorb oxygen around it.

I dunno, maybe I'm incredibly naive, but it feels like something that, if a portion of the companies that manufacturer/use the batteries put effort into something, it's something that could be made _more_ safe in some way?

and I got down voted :( Honestly like little daggers and makes me really never want to comment on HN.

Surely the idea of the world putting some effort into producing a material that can help stop this happening isn't completely stupid...?

>Surely the idea of the world putting some effort into producing a material that can help stop this happening isn't completely stupid...?

HN, the forum of innovators who are vehemently against innovation if it's for the sake of consumer safety.

I mean, come one people, it's a business opportunity. Figure out how to make non-self-exploding headphones, with a guarantee, and crush Bose in the free market on that selling point.

Sigh.

You're kinda arguing for wired headphones in a different part of this thread.

Bit of a stretch to say you're "pro-innovation" in this context.

>I'm not entirely sure why this got downvoted

Because we are on HackerNews, where the consequences of their own actions only exist for individuals and not the corporations they hope to be CEOs of one day.

I didn't realize that I'd need to argue, in 2021, that selling people dangerous products as safe is, in principle, wrong, but here we are.

To people asking "What did the OP expect", the answer is: whatever the instruction manual said on Page 1. And it surely didn't say: "WARNING: MAY KILL YOU DURING NORMAL OPERATION".

Once it does, we can have a discussion about everything else.

> whatever the instruction manual said on Page 1. And it surely didn't say: "WARNING: MAY KILL YOU DURING NORMAL OPERATION".

Tbh it probably wouldn't take much to get that added to the boilerplate warnings of every battery product sold, just in case.

The point is, the manufacturers of safe products will have a selling point by being able to differentiated themselves.

Heck, wired headphone makers will get a boost from that.