I tend to use passive headphones with 3.5mm jack, they have no electronics in them except the small speakers. They do not collect data. They are also used by musicians when doing audio mixing so its should sounds neutral and good.
That the headphones does not have electronics and batteries means they will last longer and thus be be better for the environment.
There is an even easier analysis. If you were designing your own headphones just for your own use, would you have them collect personal data? If your answer is no, then choosing headphones that do not collect data is a logical choice.
The author cites some idea of "trading" ongoing collection of personal data^1 for features but I can't see how that applies here, assuming the user has already paid for the product, e.g., he has already paid for the headphpones.
1. This does not appear to be a one-time, voluntary submission of data by the purchaser. For example, submitting one's name and a product serial number in order to register for a warranty.
I'd put it a bit differently. If I were designing headphones for my own use, would I have them collect personal data and then give that data to somebody else. I like collecting statistics about myself, because they are interesting. For example, tracking exactly when I go to sleep, start my commute (pre-corona, that is), go on errands. But that is data that is for my use, and not something that I would trust in somebody else's hands.
For headphones, I could see tracking the usage by day, and by time of day. I could see tracking the average volume, the dynamic range, the frequency ranges used. How often do I spend listening to music, to conference presentations, to movies? Those would be fun data to have, but not something that I'd want under the control of a different party for privacy reasons.
Usually depends on who controls that remotely accessible shared computer. If it is under my control, or under the control of somebody I personally trust, then yes. If it is under the control of somebody else, then no.
Partly, that is because I've been coming to the conclusion that the privacy promises of a company are rather meaningless. In the case of bankruptcy, collected data is treated as an asset, rather than as a liability to be disposed of properly. In the case of acquisition, the database gets transferred to a parent company. For example, with Google buying Fitbit, they will have have access to all data collected by Fitbit. Though (as of yesterday), Google is stating that they don't intend to use this for advertising, I don't trust that not to be "accidentally" merged with google tracking ids in the future.
Indeed, I do not mean to suggest that shared computing is necessarily a net negative. Sharing a remotely accessible computer among trusted friends/family has always been an interesting idea to me because it would allow such easy communication. The way I see it, this is the core idea that underlies "e-mail" on UNIX. A group of people sharing accounts on a computer. UNIX allows easy messaging between accounts. Another group doing the same thing on another computer. Connect the two computers over a telephone line and now we have messaging to people in another group. Today, if you and I can both connect to the same computer, where we both have accounts, that is still an easy way to do messaging, in my opinion. Computers are no longer prohibitively expensive. There is no requirement that the computer belong to a third party. The ongoing problem however is that there needs to be someone who can administer the computer. It is not easy enough for anyone to do. It seems the "sysadmin" is still needed as much today as in the past.
Also, for phone calls and conferencing, wired headsets have neglible latency, compared to bluetooth, which is likely at least 100ms. In itself, this isn't terrible, but add the other latencies in (e.g. wifi, inter-city network). Our brains do a great job of compensating, but I'm starting to think that this compensating comes at a cost (headaches, tiredness), especially if you're on conferences all day as many are in remote work.
Even though I get your point and I am convinced you're using "simple" aptly, I will nitpick the obvious: passive headphones can be deceptively simple or a marvel of engineering.
If you didn't get the chance to listen to some music through proper audiophile headphones, I do recommend to spend some time at the closest audio retailer and live the experience.
From the many people I have asked this question, I think the disconnect between toilet phone users and us is the availability of "Alone time".
Specifically no matter what you do in your house/work for some there is always low key chance of someone bothering you. This is not the case when you appear to be using the toilet.
One port, singular -- there's not enough knee real estate for multiple devices.
Open the laundry chute, it's in there along with a Thinkpad brick, both wired up from the basement. Ends have magnets that captivate them to the chute door for safe keeping.
A joke about "ports" or "drops" in the bathroom is trying to form itself in my mind, but I am actively suppressing it to protect myself and the community.
most phone support USB-C to ethernet. Always remember their are weirdos out there who are so into mobile games they have docked phones attached to cooling systems.
> they will last longer and thus be be better for the environment
This isn’t necessarily true.
My wireless headphones have been with me for years. My wired earbuds are cheap enough that I can lose or damage them without care. The former are far better for the environment.
My Sennheiser HD25 have been with me for 10 years and I stepped on them, dropped them used them outside in the rain, in sub zero degrees and three times a week while jogging.
10 years of that is a heavy thing to survive. In fact I know hardly any object that would have survived this long.
My Sennheiser RS180 died a few month ago after about 8 years or so. They had normal rechargeable batteries, but it seems it was something else that broke down (the batteries got replaced a few times).
For my Sennheiser MB 660 I just replaced the ear cushions after about 3 years, but I am still 'worried' that some day the built-in battery will give up. Not because I can't afford new ones, but because I hate if a product dies due to an old battery.
I own a few wired headphones/headsets, but there is none I used as much as my RS180 and when I think about it, I doubt that the cable would have survived the usage. Actually, I had to repair one of the wired headset once. The MB 660 can be used with a (removable) cable, but I use it only on airplanes or when the device I want to use has neither USB (dongle) nor Bluetooth.
While I am privacy savvy person, my bigger concern is about health. Having an active unit all day in such proximity to my brain, makes me wonder if they are actually that safe to use.
I wonder if wireless ones can be hijacked and requested to produce and ultra loud pulse to damage hearing. I suppose that's possible with wired ones buy I guess you'd need to broadcast plenty of energy for them to pick up, which makes it impractical, whereas with wireless ones you just need to get control of the signal. I'm guessing though.
Depends on the type of wireless headphone. I can envision that as possible if you can break Bluetooth encryption and crank up the volume, but there are RF wireless headphones where the digital signal doesn't contain volume level, which is entirely on-device and only controllable with physical buttons.
I bought $100 wired 'gaming' headphones 8 years ago and they still sound amazing and are as comfortable as when I bought them. I didn't give a shit about handling them well, since they were only $100 and seemed to have a very durable construction. The earpads are starting to get torn up from use, but those cost $10 to replace. The headband cushion is nonreplaceable but is only just starting to show any wear now.
Well-built wireless headphones have a lifespan of a few years; well-built wired headphones have a lifespan of ∞, as long as they are designed so that the wear parts can be replaced (earcups, headband cushion, cable).
Yes I had some 555’s for almost 18 years of DAILY use and abuse and the band up top eventually broke. I could replace it if parts weren’t more than a new pair.
The problem is that your wired headphones might break if you're not careful, but if you don't then they will work essentially forever. Your wireless headphones on the other hand will break at some point because the tiny lithium battery inside them will eventually stop holding charge. It's not a question of if but when.
As an addition to you post: my wired headphones do break, but I can solder things at maybe a .1 mm scale. With wireless headphones repairability is beyond my ability in many cases.
I am aware that most wireless headphones use built-in batteries nowadays, but strictly speaking, your argument doesn't relate to wireless headphones, but to products with non-replaceable batteries.
The Sennheiser RS180, for example, had rechargeable and replaceable batteries inside. Ironically, mine died a few months ago, but I am still not sure what the cause was.
Well duh. Obviously if you buy cheap headphones and constantly replace them that's bad for the environment. The grandparents point was that if you buy good wired headphones and use them for the same amount of time you'd use wireless ones it's far better for the environment.
Of course it's not a universal rule. But apples-to-apples, with a wired vs. wireless set of similar construction, cost, and intended use, the wired will outlast the wireless, solely due to the battery (not to mention the other complexities inherent to a wireless set).
> apples-to-apples, with a wired vs. wireless set of similar construction, cost, and intended use
These aren’t independent variables. Most consumers I know will pay more for wireless headphones. They’re more convenient, and they’re anchored at a higher price point.
As such, I’ve watched lots of friends go from buying cheap earbuds monthly to having a pair of AirPods for years.
There is a lot of moralising around wired versus wireless. I’m pushing back against that fad.
Seems to me that the baseline assumption should be if you spend more, net, on the wireless (or wired) headphones, the environmental impact is probably greater. A million reasons can be given why the cost isn't exactly proportional to the environmental impact, but any time someone starts by assuming it's unrelated, I think they are probably not making good decisions.
Me, too! I use the $1 ones from Dollar Tree. They are easy to replace, come with microphones if desired, and work just as well on calls as expensive solutions. They don't always last as long, but purchasing 10 at a time fixes that.
That the headphones does not have electronics and batteries means they will last longer and thus be be better for the environment.