I don't doubt the ergonomics are amazing, but it's somewhat surprising to me that people are happy with such mediocre audio performance.
Apple AirPods are the real deal. Best new Apple product in years.
I would love to be able to buy better-sounding AirPods under an Apple/B&O label.
Instead, Apple bought the headphone maker whose products make money through a combination of visually-distinct brand-recognition and a high level of "fit and finish"—the same way their own hardware does. Beats slots into Apple's product-design paradigm as naturally as if they had created the brand themselves.
Well, why wouldn't they? Going by my argument, it was already being done "the way they would have done it."
It's like moving in with someone who already has the same cleaning habits that you do: you can just leave them alone and trust them to do the right thing, and then be happy with the results.
I'm not saying it would be a smart idea. I think Apple did the right thing. But Apple couple years ago may well have made a change like that.
It's obvious why Beats gets it, the question is whether anyone else will.
The best camera is the one you have on you right? Same thing.
[1] - BT just isn't great tech and there's odd interference/cutout, often around cars; open-case-near-phone-for-battery-level is clunky and inefficient; double-tap to play/pause (voice control for audio control is just non-sensical to me) often doesn't work if it's been more than a few minutes, and seems to prefer opening the Apple Music app which I never use
The problem is that Beats is charging $300 for a $150 set of headphones, not that beats is charging $300 for a $15 set of headphones. They're way better than anything you're going to get for free with your phone.
I'm not sure I can, in good faith, agree with this. The bass is blown way out of proportion to the rest of the track, the highs powered up to compensate for the bass, and the mids are lost in the power struggle. And this is in Beats' flagship "Solo" line.
That description of the sound? It applies to pretty much every default set of headphones out there.
They're hardly unusable, but I would have a hard time justifying paying $15 for them. Then again, I wear Kirkland jeans and conference swag t-shirts, as a measure of my "fashion" factor.
Sincerely, a snob.
Audio quality simply doesn't matter that much to me. Really small/no cords/relatively minimal bluetooth nonsense is amazing.
Sounds like a psychological issue, not a technological one.
... right until I dropped one onto the subway tracks.
Check out the Sennheiser HD 202! they're around 30 bucks last time I checked and great fidelity and durability for the price.
edit: ok ok sorry you're right, $15 > $30 "heck, it's even twice as much!" i guess my point is that there are things that won't break the bank that sound way better than you'd expect, that's all. :)
edit2: Oh, and i _ALSO_ frequently break or lose mine, that's why I don't like spending more than the 30 bucks. ;)
"You should buy this $30 pair!"
:)
I actually own a pair of Sennheiser HD 280's for when I'm at a desk, but they're not really appropriate for a commute; for that, I just have a cheap pair of JVC earbuds with a microphone/button.
I specifically buy them cheap because my hearing's not awesome anyway, and I don't really need excellent sound quality for listening to a podcast on the train, and I tend to wash a pair with the laundry or dip them into my coffee a few times a year, anyway.
edit: yep, you're right - but there are places where I need quality, and places where I need quantity :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbCWaY2KXo
I have a $400 pair of headphones, but I like these earbuds as well.
Also note that headphones/earphones are one item that are particularly resistant to effective A/B testing. It's hard to put on a different set and not know you've put on a particular set.
For music quality, I use Sennheiser Momentum Wireless 2. But for VoIP and podcasts, I usually grab the Airpods.
Especially since you can buy a set of wired earpods that actually sound really good for $5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZbCWaY2KXo
I bought a pair for myself and my girlfriend. I think they sound better than my Grados on certain material, and almost as good as my Portapros. (I suspect my pair of Grados SR60e is below average, because my dad's pair of the same model sounds better.)
Another pair of headphones that punches way above its price point: http://a.co/cRC61XE (Though, be prepared to eventually replace the plug or buy a new pair, but it will be awhile before that happens.)
Apple needs to step up its audio game.
Either way they're back ordered six weeks. Even if Apple were to improve the sound quality my guess is they couldn't produce them any faster so why bother?
Because cachet is a vital part of Apple's marketing strategy. If they could capture some of that kind of attention for doing something respectable, they would benefit.
Plus they have additional constraints on them because they're using Bluetooth.
That is significant. However, Bluetooth is improving. Other forms of technology are improving as well. We're getting to the point where very linear drivers combined with digital processing are starting to make a difference. Soon, we'll be able to make such devices cheaply, with sensors that are fast enough to make regular consumer devices perform like today's high end headphones.
Apple has traditionally cared about aesthetics enabling technology. Their screens are good, and while not high end with sound, they have sold decent sound hardware in their laptops. They were early with Toslink. Steve Jobs cared about decent sound as well.
Source: met a guy at airport who tried to convince me buy a pair. I explained they were not loud enough for the noisy plane environment. Had a long eye-opening discussion about gadgets all the way to the taxi.