Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>I don't understand how anyone could buy these, when the battery is not user-replaceable and they don't work passively without power. After ~5 years max, these will be unusable.

First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway).

Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there.

>Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.

Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close.

Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...

Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying. Much less so when people have choices that are cheaper and more sustainable at the same time.

So aside from irrational consumerism, I am also in the camp of people that don't understand why one would buy this. It is not portable like earpads, it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.

>Even if we accepted the first imperative for a company, there is no imperative for people to keep buying.

News flash: people don't care about the environment either. If they did they wouldn't be satisfied with token gestures, but do radical changes to the society/workplace/lifestyle (some of that kind, like reduced flights, WFH, etc., came as a result of COVID, but would have been met with huge uproar by the general population on environmental grounds).

>it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.

Technically, not really, as it depends on embedded microphones, movement sensors, and such.

It's not just the "3d sound" experience of yore, which was solely processed and encoded as a regular audio stream.

We share the cynicism. I completely agree that there is a huge difference between what people say they want and what they actually end up choosing. That doesn't make it any more defensible, though.

I still reserve judgement for the people that will buy it and the companies that produce this.

>Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products...

That is exactly what I'm criticising.

Can you respond to me by clearly stating your point?

My point is that in my original post I was criticising the buying behavior of people who would purchase this product.

If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com