Connect with us

Published

on

In this article

Second-generation Apple AirPods with wireless charging indicator
Todd Haselton | CNBC

When AirPods were first released in 2016, they were a marvel of miniaturization.

To ditch cords and go wireless, Apple packed several chips, microphones and speakers into each headphone, which weigh about 4 grams. Without a cord, the earbud gets its power from a tiny cylindrical battery that has about 1% of the capacity of an iPhone’s battery.

But lithium-ion batteries, like those used by the AirPods, wear out the more they are used.

Some owners have noticed that, after a few years, used AirPods eventually will last only an hour or so before needing to be recharged — a big decay from the four-to-five-hour battery life they have when new. Because each AirPod is so small and so tightly packed into its housing, it’s almost impossible to swap out the old battery for a new one. Most people give up and just buy a new pair.

The limited lifespan of AirPods is exactly the kind of problem that the “right-to-repair” movement wants to fix. Repair shops and lobbyists that support repair reform want lawmakers to implement a variety of rules, including increased access to manuals and official parts and consumer protections around warranties.

But one of their most important requests is for companies to design products with repair in mind, instead of packing gadgets with unlabeled parts and sticking them together with glue, forcing users to use a knife to take them apart.

This desire puts repair advocates at odds with hardware companies like Apple, whose business models depend on customers upgrading to the latest model every few years. When Apple offered cheap iPhone battery repairs a few years ago, it hurt sales as consumers were able to hang on to their old phones for longer instead of upgrading. Apple also charges customers for repairs and extended warranties.

“We design our products for durability in order to minimize the need for repair,” Apple wrote in an environmental report earlier this year. “But in the instance a repair is needed, we believe our customers should have convenient access to safe and reliable repair services, to get their product back up and running as quickly as possible.”

The right-to-repair movement gains steam

Policymakers have started to engage more closely with right-to-repair advocates in recent years. State-level bills have been introduced in a majority of states, but electronics companies have lobbied against them and none have passed.

In May, the Federal Trade Commission released a 56-page report on repair restrictions, concluding that repair restrictions have “steered consumers into manufacturers’ repair networks or to replace products before the end of their useful lives” — exactly the problem users are running into with their AirPods.

The Biden administration on Friday ordered the FTC to write new regulations targeted at limiting manufacturers’ ability to hamper independent or do-it-yourself repairs as part of a sweeping executive order. New repair rules have not yet been drafted.

“Tech and other companies impose restrictions on self and third-party repairs, making repairs more costly and time-consuming, such as by restricting the distribution of parts, diagnostics, and repair tools,” the White House wrote in a fact sheet about the order on Friday, linking to a story about fixing Apple products. Apple declined to comment on the White House executive order.

The FTC has not said what it plans to do, but repair advocates want a few key policy changes, as detailed in its May report. They want companies to be required to make official replacement parts available. They want access to tools that could make repairs easier without reverse-engineering the tools or parts themselves. And ultimately, they want products to be designed with longer lifespans.

Apple is not the only company that would be affected by these policies. Much of the recent pressure is on medical device companies and tractor manufacturers. But given Apple’s ubiquity, it has become a poster child for repair, especially because it promotes its environmental efforts as a corporate value.

Apple has launched a program it calls the “Independent Repair Program” which gives repair shops the option to enter into a certification process and contract with Apple in order to get access to authentic Apple parts, tools and manuals.

Apple has also reduced the price of its battery replacement for iPhones, and recent models have been designed to make it easier to replace a battery or cracked screen, according to iFixit. Plus, compared to other consumer electronics companies, Apple has a large existing network of stores and authorized repair shops.

Still, many Apple products remain challenging to repair at home or as a business with no contact with Apple.

The only AirPods battery replacement company

iFixit, a company that provides disassembly instructions and sells replacement parts for gadgets, gives AirPods models a score of zero out of 10 for repairability. According to iFixit, repairing these earbuds involves soldering, hot air guns and slicing through glue — that is, if replacement battery parts are even available. In the end, a would-be home repairer would have to put the four-gram computer back together again.

Apple provides “battery service” for AirPods, at the cost of $49 per earbud. But functionally, Apple simply gives you a replacement pair, and the old earbuds are recycled. It’s not a repair, it’s a replacement. And it’s expensive. AirPods originally cost $159, so opting for battery service costs more than half of the price of a new pair.

Apple sold about 72.8 million AirPods units in 2020, according to a CounterPoint research estimate, so tens of millions of consumers will face the same lack of choice in the coming years.

Replacement AirPods from PodSwap
CNBC

PodSwap is a Miami company founded by Emma Stritzinger and Emily Alpert which aims to keep AirPods “out of the landfill.” They’re not associated with Apple.

They believe they’re the only company performing AirPod battery replacements, although other companies “refurbish” old AirPods, the founders told CNBC. The company was formed after the founders experienced dying AirPods themselves and thought that upgrading or replacing them would be wasteful and impractical.

I recently replaced a pair of AirPods that were only holding a charge for 45 minutes — too short to complete a phone call. I paid $59 on PodSwap’s Shopify site and a few days later received a replacement pair of AirPods with new batteries. They weren’t my old AirPods, they were another set that had their batteries replaced.

Along with those new pods, PodSwap includes a box and a return label. It wants your old AirPods back. It then cleans and sanitizes the old pair, puts in new batteries and sends them out to the next person who wants to change the battery in their old AirPods.

But PodSwap faces many challenges that show why repair advocates want new rules. Alpert said the design of the AirPod makes it challenging for repair shops or companies like theirs to do a lot of battery replacements. PodSwap’s process uses both robotics and manual labor, the founders said.

“The process was developed through trial and error and a large number of units were ‘sacrificed’ and ultimately recycled. One major challenge we faced was overcoming the uniqueness of this product. Each AirPod is assembled with slight differences, which creates complexity in the disassembly,” Alpert said.

PodSwap includes a box to send old AirPods back.
CNBC

PodSwap plans to soon offer service for the AirPods Pro, a newer model that costs $249 and are, surprisingly, powered by a standard-sized coin battery.

But the AirPods Pro have many of the same problems as the first model — tight tolerances, potential damage while taking them apart, a lack of replacement parts, and a design that suggests the product was always designed to last a limited time.

“We have found the AirPods Pro’s batteries to be more difficult to replace,” Alpert said. “The ergonomic design and tight unforgiving tolerances make it exceptionally challenging to replace the batteries repeatedly, with a high degree of efficiency.”

PodSwap wasn’t totally seamless for me — I got sent a combination of “first generation” and “second generation” AirPods. They caused my iPhone to send error messages, but I sent an email to PodSwap and a day or two later I got a second replacement set, which worked.

After that, I sent my first replacement set and my old AirPods back. The AirPods I received look and work like new.

I plan on trying to get another four years out of them.

Continue Reading

Technology

AI chipmaker Cerebras announces CFIUS clearance, a key step toward IPO

Published

on

By

AI chipmaker Cerebras announces CFIUS clearance, a key step toward IPO

Toronto , Canada – 20 June 2024; Andrew Feldman, co-founder and CEO of Cerebras Systems, speaks at the Collision conference in Toronto on June 20, 2024.

Ramsey Cardy | Sportsfile | Collision | Getty Images

Artificial intelligence chip developer Cerebras said Monday that it has obtained clearance from a U.S. committee to sell shares to Group 42, a Microsoft-backed AI company based in the United Arab Emirates.

That clearance came from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, and it’s a key step for Cerebras in its effort to go public. Cerebras competes with Nvidia, whose graphics processing units are the industry’s choice for training and running AI models, but most of its revenue comes from a customer called Group 42.

Cerebras filed to go public in September but has not provided details on timing or size for the initial public offering. The regulatory overhang was tied to the company’s relationship with Group 42, which was the source of 87% of Cerebras’ revenue in the first half of 2024, made the IPO look uncertain.

“We thank @POTUS for making America the best place in the world to invest in cutting-edge #AI technology,” Andrew Feldman, Cerebras’ co-founder and CEO, wrote in a Monday LinkedIn post. “We thank G42’s leadership and the UAE’s leadership for their ongoing partnership and commitment to supporting U.S headquartered AI companies.”

Lawmakers have previously worried about Group 42’s connections to China. Last year Mike Gallagher, then a Republican member of Congress from Wisconsin, said in a statement that he was “glad to see G42 reduce its investment exposure to Chinese companies.” Microsoft later announced a $1.5 billion investment in Group 42.

Both Cerebras and Group 42 had given voluntary notice to CFIUS about the sale of voting shares, according to the Sunnyvale, California-based company’s IPO prospectus. Group 42 had agreed to buy $335 million worth of Cerebras shares by April 15, according to the prospectus. The two companies later changed the agreement to say Group 42 would be buying non-voting shares, prompting them to withdraw their notice, because they said they did not believe CFIUS had jurisdiction over sales of non-voting securities.

CFIUS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Just a handful of technology companies have gone public since 2021, as higher interest rates made unprofitable companies less desirable. But in recent months, Cerebras and a few technology-related companies have taken steps toward IPOs, and last week, AI infrastructure provider CoreWeave went public.

CoreWeave shares fell 7% on Monday, its second day of trading.

WATCH: Cerebras Systems likely to postpone IPO after facing delays with CFIUS Review, reports say

Cerebras Systems likely to postpone IPO after facing delays with CFIUS Review, reports say

Continue Reading

Technology

Tesla plunges 36% in first quarter, worst performance for any period since 2022

Published

on

By

Tesla plunges 36% in first quarter, worst performance for any period since 2022

White House Senior Advisor, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk attends a cabinet meeting held by U.S. President Donald Trump at the White House on March 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. 

Win McNamee | Getty Images

Tesla’s stock just wrapped up its worst quarter since 2022 and suffered its third-steepest drop in the company’s 15 years on the public market.

Shares of the electric vehicle maker plunged 36% in the first three months of the year.

The last time Tesla had a worse stretch was at the end of 2022, when the stock cratered 54%. That quarter included CEO Elon Musk’s sale of more than $22 billion worth of Tesla shares to finance his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, later renamed X. On Friday, Musk said his artificial intelligence startup xAI has acquired X in a deal valuing the social media company at $33 billion.

Tesla’s first-quarter drop wiped out over $460 billion in market cap. The majority of the quarter overlaps with Musk’s time in the second Trump administration, leading an effort to slash government spending and regulations, and terminating tens of thousands of federal employees.

Musk is leading what’s known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. As of Monday, the DOGE website claimed that, through March 24, the program had notched $140 billion in federal spending reductions, a number equal to less than one-third of Tesla’s valuation loss in the first quarter.

“My Tesla stock and the stock of everyone who holds Tesla has gone, went roughly in half,” Musk said on Sunday night at a rally he held in Green Bay, Wisconsin, to promote the right-wing judge he’s backing for Tuesday’s state supreme court election. “This is a very expensive job is what I’m saying.”

DOGE’s website contained numerous errors previously, causing the group to revise its own claims about its savings. And many of Musk’s allegations about waste, fraud and abuse in the federal budget have also been shown to be misleading or false.

Musk recently said on a Fox News interview with Bret Baier, that he and DOGE plan to slash $1 trillion from total federal spending levels by May.

Musk’s role in the White House is one factor weighing on Tesla’s stock, as it’s contributing to waves of protests, boycotts and violent attacks on Tesla stores and vehicles around the world. President Trump’s automotive tariffs are also a concern as they involve Tesla’s key suppliers, notably Mexico and China. Tariff fears sparked a broader selloff in tech stocks, with the Nasdaq closing the quarter down 10%, its biggest drop since 2022.

Tesla faces other headwinds, such as a steep decline in new vehicle sales, and pressure to deliver on Musk’s promises for robotaxis while rivals extend their lead in the market.

Musk has said Tesla will launch a driverless ride-hailing business in Austin, Texas in June, but some analysts are voicing skepticism about the company’s ability to meet that deadline.

For about a decade, Musk has promised that existing Tesla cars can be turned into robotaxi-ready vehicles with one more software upgrade. On the company’s fourth-quarter earnings call, Musk said that a forthcoming version of Tesla’s Full Self-Driving software will require a hardware upgrade as well.

While the first-quarter stock drop has been painful for shareholders, they’ve experienced similar volatility in the recent past. In the first quarter of 2024, the shares plunged 29% due to declining auto sales and increased competition. But the stock rallied the rest of the year to finish up 63%.

“Long term, I think Tesla stock is going to do fine,” Musk said at the Green Bay rally. “So, you know, maybe it’s a buying opportunity.”

WATCH: How cutting federal workers impacts government bloat

How cutting federal workers impacts government bloat

Continue Reading

Technology

Wall Street banks got meager payout from CoreWeave IPO

Published

on

By

Wall Street banks got meager payout from CoreWeave IPO

Michael Intrator, founder and CEO of CoreWeave Inc., Nvidia-backed cloud services provider, attends his company’s IPO at the Nasdaq Market in New York City on March 28, 2025.

Brendan McDermid | Reuters

Wall Street banks waited a long time for a billion dollar IPO from a U.S. tech company. They’re not making much money from the one they got.

The underwriting discount and commissions paid by artificial intelligence infrastructure provider CoreWeave, which hit the Nasdaq on Friday, amounted to just 2.8% of the total proceeds, according to a Monday filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That means that of the $1.5 billion raised in the offering, $42 million went to underwriters.

That’s on the low side historically. Since Facebook’s record-setting IPO in 2012, there have been 25 venture-backed offerings for tech-related U.S. companies that have raised at least $1 billion, with an average underwriting fee of 4%, according to data from FactSet analyzed by CNBC. Facebook, in raising $16 billion, paid out the lowest percentage at 1.1%.

Morgan Stanley, which led the Facebook IPO, had the coveted lead left spot on CoreWeave, followed by JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs. The three banks are typically the leaders when it comes to tech IPOs. They’ve been counting on a revival in the market under President Donald Trump after a lull dating back to the end of 2021, when soaring inflation and rising interest rates put a halt on new offerings.

But CoreWeave’s initial trading sessions aren’t providing much confidence in a rebound. After lowering its price to $40 from a range of $47 to $55, CoreWeave failed to notch any gains on Friday and fell 7% on Monday to $37.20.

Declines in the broader market have weighed on CoreWeave, but investors also have specific concerns about the company, including its reliance on Microsoft as a customer, its hefty level of debt and the sustainability of a business model built around reselling Nvidia’s technology.

CoreWeave is the first among venture-backed companies to raise $1 billion or more since Freshworks in September of 2021. Freshworks carried an underwriting fee of 5.3%, while UiPath, which hit the market a few months earlier, paid 5%. In April of that year, AppLovin carried a 2.6% fee, the last time a billion-dollar offering had a lower fee than CoreWeave’s.

Among the few more recent IPOs — which all raised less than $1 billion — the fees were much higher. For Instacart and Klaviyo in 2023 and Reddit, Astera Labs, Rubrik and ServiceTitan last year, payouts were all at least 5%.

As lead in the CoreWeave deal, Morgan Stanley was given the highest percentage allocation of shares for clients at 27%. JPMorgan received 25%, and Goldman Sachs got 15%.

Those percentage allocations typically correspond fairly closely to how much of the fees each bank receives, though with a slightly higher amount to the lead bank for the management fee piece.

David Golden, a partner at Revolution Ventures who previously led tech investment banking at JPMorgan, said “there’s a little ‘black box’ involved in the underwriting compensation” that’s not disclosed in the prospectus. Based on his experience with IPOs and the historical norm, Golden estimated that Morgan Stanley got at least $13 million for its work, amounting to just over 30% of the total payout, while the number for Goldman Sachs would be slightly above $6 million.

Representatives from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs declined to comment. A spokesperson for JPMorgan didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

WATCH: Cramer’s Mad Dash on CoreWeave

Cramer's Mad Dash: CoreWeave

Continue Reading

Trending