Hacker News Reader

Comment by glhaynes | Hacker News Reader

I believe Apple charges $199 for a battery replacement, which is definitely not cheap, but might be worth it if you were still happy with the rest of the machine. I'm not sure how long it takes them to do it, though. I'd expect they'd continue to offer that service for quite a few years to come.

As other posters have mentioned, it seems to me like the glued-in batteries don't rapidly decline like the old ones did. I don't have any numbers, though, just impressions.

View on HN

Last time I did a battery replacement with Apple (for a mid-2009 Macbook Pro 5,5) it cost ~$120 off-warranty.

Doing the research, seems like different machines have different battery replacement costs from Apple:

http://www.apple.com/batteries/replacements.html

* $129 for non-retina 11", 13", and 15" Macbooks (air and pro)

* $179 for the 17" Macbook pro

* $199 for the retina Macbook pros.

Apple batteries cost no more than competitors' batteries, and that includes getting them exchanged. Sure, it's annoying you can't do it yourself, but that's about the extent of the downside.

Of course you cannot get third party batteries … but surely no one would get those for laptops amyway. (Well, some batteries are not yet glued in, so those can easily be replaced. But i don't think getting third party batteries is very wise.)

I used a third party battery with double the previous capacity for an Asus laptop without any issues

Well, not all explode, certainly.

Lithium batteries are fucking dangerous. I don’t think it’s very wise to use third party ones, at least not the big ones.

imo very conscious decision on part of Apple (and PC makers) to provide short battery half lives, rather than spending more money to deal with the size and heat/cooling constraints of laptops, especially the thin lightweight variety.

not only saves them money short term, but helps push users to new versions before they really need to jump...

Is there evidence for this? Is there a better battery tech the entire industry should be using instead? Seems unlikely.

is it possible the better batteries don't (generally) exist because the manufacturers are not motivated to invest the r&d in the first place? i certainly have had too many laptops that don't provide optimum cooling (and they could, at more expense) when we know heat is a limiter of battery life.

Not to support the "evil executives" hypothesis---obvious market(ing) forces are a sufficient explanation for the dominance of LiCoO2---but I would easily opt for a laptop that offered an LiFePO4 ("iron phosphate" [0]) option. The drawback would be slightly reduced initial capacity; the advantage would be much greater cycle life. Also, less spontaneous combustion.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery

Can you point to data showing competitors that are doing it better? Seems like the battery life problem impacts everyone pretty equally, and the batteries being used inside Macbooks are pretty similar to those used by every other manufacturer.

agree, this is not specific to macbooks. bottom line is today's batteries only achieve (relatively) limited charge/discharge cycles and i don't believe (could certainly be wrong) there is much business motivation to improve that.

I'm sure manufacturers keep an eye on some minimum standards for battery life over product life - they do have a financial incentive to do so, both from a brand quality perspective and in terms of the cost of each visit to the Genius Bar / warranty claim. I replaced the battery on my MacBook twice under warranty, I can't imagine that laptop ended up being profitable for Apple.

There's plenty of business motivation in fields that combined exceed PCs monetarily, such radio, military, space, automotive, aeroplanes, power grid, anywhere you use energy

Reply on news.ycombinator.com