Even in San Francisco walking across busy intersections I get significant enough interference that audio is dropped for 2-3 seconds.
Also is it just me or does the article just talk about how great AirPods are and how Apple really set it apart from competition this time and killed that silent launch but never really even tries to support or justify this opinion?
Interestingly I get the same in NYC. Asked a friend who gave me a detailed explanation which I have almost entirely forget right now... but something to do with car detection. If you happen to cross in the middle of the street you won’t notice the same drop effect.
Oh please, they sold us on a fake problem and then the cure by removing ports. That's not innovation. That's not a platform.
iPhones could all have usb ports and audio jacks and removable storage. Nothing is preventing any of that. Stop pretending Apple is moving the ball forward here.
Wires get tangled. To switch from your iPhone to Mac, you unplug the wire and plug it in again. Then there is the question of having to remain within wires length of the machine. AirPods actually made wireless headphones usable and dead simple.
> To switch from your iPhone to Mac, you unplug the wire and plug it in again.
So you are saying there is a standard-mechanism for interoperability between units from any vendor, and it’s mirrored in a highly discoverable physical interface which always reflects how things are connected, so there’s never any confusion or need for debugging? And no need for firmware updates or charging?
That sounds just about perfect to me, like a dream come true! When will the iPhone support this amazing, new technology without the need for proprietary dongles? I can’t wait!
The first time I bought wireless headphones was in 1998. It's great that they got smaller and sleeker and more reliable since then, but removing ports and then forcing people to buy another accessory that you then boast about how good the margins are on in your earnings call is not innovation.
I'm just getting quite tired of companies taking two steps backward, one step forward, and then marketing the hell out of this process to pretend like they made things better for us.
I'm not merely anti-Apple, it feels like half the tech industry is stalled and just forcing nonsense like this on us while pretending it's "innovation" and "progress". It's innovating in how high the margins can go, nothing more.
> “Another example involves utilizing AirPods to deliver different sound experiences to different people despite being in the same location and looking at the same thing. As an example, a single presentation shown in a school or office setting can end up delivering a dozen different experiences to those in attendance.“
Devil’s Advocate: Personalized, targeted advertising? A presentation that is different per user requires a model for that person, I’m not quite sure how useful this example is except if we’re talking about foreign language translation.
I think translation (or rather interpretation) is actually a wonderful use case. My experience with doing simultaneous interpretation for large conferences usually means that the cost of maintaining and providing listening devices is borne by the interpretation company. Providing your own listening device, especially such a high-grade device as what this purports to be, offers an interesting cost reduction and performance improvement.
Unfortunately, wireless headphones will never take off until they either permanently fix Bluetooth, or replace it with a better protocol that doesn't drop signal from my pocket to my head.
Seriously, get your shit together, guys. And no, AirPods aren't magically immune, in fact, their bifurcated nature makes it worse.
Edit: For those asking/stating "they already took off", not really. Most people do not own headphones, do not want headphones, and most people keep owning or keep buying wired headphones; even if the numbers say more wireless sold, it isn't backwards facing enough, and doesn't include all the wired pairs people already own, it also doesn't include ones included in the box.
The two largest complaints I always hear is either the device connectivity is garbage, the device audio quality is garbage, or the comfort is fucking horrible compared to similarly priced wired earbuds and IEMs.
Too many corners are cut to make these things work, and most consumers just aren't happy. So, they didn't take off if most people hate them, you have to have one hell of a RDF-boner for that industry to argue otherwise.
I have had the wire catch on something and rip out of my ears. Does that count as a dropped signal? That has happened to me more than AirPods dropping signal. And besides, is there anything you are listening to that is absolutely mission critical that a very occasional few second signal drop is that disconcerting? AirPods are great far more often than not.
I appreciate good sound and for this I have always preferred wired, however I have been wireless for a couple years now for one simple reason, as an insurance policy for my phone. As a desk worker I simply got up tethered and dragged my phone with me too many times. It's up to the individual to decide if Bluetooth hiccups (and a need to charge) are worth it in their case. I found for using in the office wireless was the way to go. If I am bundles up in a jacket with a phone and wired headphones I don't have as many issues. Ironically the only headphones I ever broke because of dangling wires were an early pair of "wireless" buds with a neck lanyard for the battery wired to the buds.
My Bluetooth earphones (not AirPods) work flawlessly. They work in wide open spaces, on crammed trains and along busy streets.
They stay in my ear when running, are super comfy to wear and have decent battery life too.
I was always very sceptical about Bluetooth earphones but shortly after buying the pair I have currently (which are now about 2 years old) I’m a total convert.
That all said, I can’t see myself ever buying AirPods specifically. I do have various Apple devices but I just don’t think AirPods are the best earphones on the market (despite what the loosely veiled advert we’re discussing claims).
Bose. But being 2 years old there are much better devices out there if you’re looking to spend at the AirPod price point. However my earphones can now be picked up cheap if you don’t want to spend the earth.
I agree. I was gifted a relatively cheap pair of 'sport'-type headphones and when they broke (I.e. a wire pulled loose from inside one ear bud) I had to order a new pair.
Having to charge them sucks but the freedom of no wires when jogging or sitting at my desk at work was unexpected and amazing.
They have taken off. People have said with their wallets that they don’t care about the issues that BT has because the past decade tech has trained people they have to deal with tech that works just so so.
Maybe bt just performs better for most people than your experience? I have cheap $50 Bluetooth headphones from Amazon and they almost never drop signal. Certainly less than once per listening session (a twenty minute train commute). I know it's happened but it's rare enough that I can't think of any particular circumstance.
My biggest complaint with BT is it sometimes connects to the wrong device so I have to do a little song and dance to connect it. Wires don’t have this issue.
My second biggest complaint was audio lag but that’s less of an issue now. Of course wires never had this issue.
I sometimes forget to put my phone in my pocket when I get up from my desk, and walk around the office to the kitchen which is 30 feet away and has multiple walls in-between, and there isn't a single blip in the audio streaming to my AirPods throughout the entire journey.
If you've experienced problems, maybe you had a faulty unit. My experience for the past year has been 100% seamless and it's been a decade since I've loved a new set of headphones this much.
I'm pretty sure you have a defective unit somewhere. Bluetooth isn't perfect, but it's definitely not "drop signal from my pocket" bad unless you have some weird specific-to-you problem.
AirPods work reasonably well. My cheap knock-off AirPods ($50 Anker Soundcore) work really well. I can drop my phone and walk into the next room and still have full audio without losing signal. The battery life is basically the same as my wireless headset, despite being a tiny fraction of the size. They sound just as good as any pair of $20 wired earbuds I've ever used.
Yes, they aren't perfect (the dual MacBook + iPhone pairing handoff thing seems sometimes problematic. And they are easy to lose). But they aren't trash. These products sell reasonably well because they work reasonably well.
I don’t fully agree with parent about all drawbacks for wireless headphones but I do agree with Bluetooth having issues. In particular in Apple hardware. My AirPods will drop out if I cover my iPhone 11 Pro with my hand in my pocket. My Bose NC 700 will either drop out or cause my magic keyboard to lose connection if they are too close to my MacBook Pro. I’ve learned to live with these things as I understand they are minuscule problems to have, but the point still stands. Bluetooth has issues.
I'd love the have a fixed BT or alternative:
- multi/broadcasting support
- separate device-per channel support
- better device management - priorities, user/sensor/audio context into driver (when to do hand-off and when not to)
have my BT "stolen" by the wrong device daily - a battle between by local headset/speaker, the car's BT stack, and my headphones...
It's great having a minijack to plug into as a backup -- I use it often in the car or w/headphones if I forget something or of BT is giving me a headache - don't think I'd buy a phone w/o one as long as I have a choice. (At least up to my Galaxy S10 there is still one.)
Away from my desk I've been using Bluetooth headphones exclusively for over a decade now, and it does happen just as much with non-Apple phones. It's just some configurations of phone antennas and device antennas are unhappy together when they're both on your body.
My anecdotal evidence is that AirPods have really solid Bluetooth reception with my iPhones.
> Bluetooth isn't perfect, but it's definitely not "drop signal from my pocket" bad unless you have some weird specific-to-you problem.
It's not that rare. Other people are mentioning busy environments, but even when I'm in an isolated environment my Aukey wireless earbuds, with the receiver on the left side, often have connection issues if I put my phone in my right pocket.
Bluetooth devices often have problems when you're outside, in large rooms, etc. because there aren't any nearby walls for signals to bounce off of, so they're stuck with the lower SNR option of going straight through your body.
I notice that with my airpods, they drop into a lower quality mode whenever I'm going for a walk. It's too bad, it means they can never be a replacement for wired earbuds for me.
n=1, but I experienced similar Bluetooth issues with the iPhone XS Max, which would constantly lose connection when compared to the iPhone 7 I’d had previously. The problems disappeared when I tried the iPhone 11 Pro, so I concluded the problem was with the specific XS Max I had, and got it replaced. I also noticed pairing issues in the defective Max with a first-generation Apple Watch. It was working better with the replacement Max, but connected best with the 7 or 11 Pro, all the same. So Bluetooth definitely seems to vary in quality from handset release to handset release, and more than I’d expected. Similarly, I’ve had bad luck with some computers but good luck with others, I’ve yet to pin down why. Generally the best Bluetooth connectivity range (for me, at least) is on the iPad Pro and the worst seems to be tied between watches and other small devices, or Windows computers because the apps aren’t optimized for Bluetooth AAC streaming as much, I think. With AAC streaming, I suspect the song I’m listening to has a larger cache on the headphone to make up for listening range issues, but I could be wrong there...
I think that's just physics, I noticed the same behavior with my Jabra headphones. If I have my phone lying somewhere I can walk away quite some distance but if I have it in my left pocket and only the right headphone in while walking outside ( which I usually do this way) the connection becomes somehow spotty. My guess is that in an open space where there is nothing to effectively bounce off the waves the only path left is through my body which is so much water that it dampens the signal to a point where it becomes unreliable
I prefer wired headphones because they are cheap and effective — I don’t get the appeal of spending $200 on something that’s semi-disposable when an equivalent is like $10.
That said, I use Bluetooth headsets at work sometimes, and haven’t had any of the issues that you describe. I frequently wander up to about 100ft in the office without audio issues.
I haven't had any wired earphones that didn't had a cable break within 2 years. I have used Sennheiser, Philips, Marshall and Shure. At least they all break within the warrantee period. The store where I get them doesn't bother with replacements and just returns me the money. That is how got new earphones every 1-2 years while only paying once.
From my experience wired earphones don't last unless you baby them.
I have a pair of wireless skullcandy crushers and have never experienced connectivity issues. They are also very comfortable and the haptic feedback is a really cool feature for hip hop.
Huh? I've been using Bluetooth headphones and hands-frees for years, and even in 2008 they did not have problems transmitting audio both ways in real time.
Perhaps the ones you happened to have are just bad.
Apple threads tend to follow a rather predictable pattern around here. Even for features like Bluetooth, for which Apple has the best implementation in the market, by far.
That may or may not be, but it stands to reason that Bluetooth will never be as reliable as wired, and that if you compare wired vs Bluetooth you will get better sound quality for wired at every price point.
I already have amazing sounding wired Shure in-ears and Beyerdynamic headphones. I’m not spending $500+ to have them replaced with inferior-sounding wireless options.
I was even given some $400 Bose BC700 (supposedly the “absolutely best wireless headphones you can get”) for free.
I returned them because they sound like shit. It’s like the music has lost all signs of life and all its action by the time it makes it to my ear. Not to mention the obvious phase-distortion caused by the ANC. Too much DSP, not enough hifi. What a joke.
And I will certainly not be considering Apple AirPods which IME has the worst sound I’ve ever heard on any so called “premium” head-sets. They’re basically a joke in the audiophile environment.
I don't know if I necessarily agree the line of thinking that Airpod users will buy more than one pair, but the potential to push Airpod Pro's syncing capabilities to other rooms is interesting.
A fun example would be to use Airpod Pros as walkie talkies with other Pro users in the same house or area.
Definitely would interested in tinkering with any Dev kit came out for building Airpod apps.
Buying more than one pair happens quite easily - I did, but I didn’t set out to do so. When the second generation came out, I upgraded for the wireless charging. I tend to sleep with one in (a pre-existing habit, and as I’m an “active sleeper”, one that benefitted from being freed from the tangle), so I kept the previous pair as my bed-pair. This usage is noticeably detrimental to the battery, so I figured keeping the old ones like this would save me doing the same damage to the next pair.
Now I’be upgraded again to the pros, but kept the gen2 because they better fit the times that I only have one in one ear (which the pros don’t seem to suit well at all).
So I now have three pairs, not because I wanted three pairs - but because the situational uses I’ve found for them, feel more appropriate than discarding them while they still work. And I can’t imagine this is going to be a very rare outlier, thanks to the huge ick component of their resale value.
The Pro Airpods simply don’t fit my ears. The left one could be made to fit with some determined wiggling, but the right one would never make a seal, and the phone would complain that the seal was bad. I returned them.
I can’t imagine that I am that unique. It’s especially odd, as I own the first generation “regular” airpods, and they fit just fine.
I've got the exact opposite problem. The AirPods Pro fit perfectly (I go running with them) but I could never get the regular AirPods to fit and stay in my ear (event while sitting still).
Interesting.
As a datapoint, I was unexpectedly gifted Airpod Pros for Christmas and all three tip sizes seal well in my ears according to the test app. The middle sized one is most comfortable. Regular Airpods fit fine.
That being said I'm planning on passing them on to somebody without Airpods (after buying new eartips!) because I already own regular Airpods and Bose QC35s.
I prefer the on-ear Boses for ANC and the Airpods for comfort (not completely in-ear, easy to take in/out for casual listening, less isolation than Pro's transparency mode, they fall out and pause playback when I fall asleep).
The Airpod Pros aren't bad, they would be a good compromise between the two for somebody who likes in-ear buds. I just don't have a use for them and find them overpriced.
I seem to have that issue with any in-ear earbud. Which is unfortunate, as I quite like them and would prefer them to my over-the-ear for most things (though I just got some noise canceling over-the-ear for Christmas, so that might change). But I can't get any ear bud I've ever tried to stay in my right ear when I'm running. iPhone defaults fall out, every Android default I try has fallen out (even trying all tips). All of them have always fallen it. It's quite annoying, honestly. I haven't tried the Pros (and really don't have a reason to now that I've gotten some over-the-ear noise canceling ones, other than form factor), but it's almost just not worth the risk.
Maybe I'll try them when these new ones finally start to die, or I have another use case/some extra money where it'd matter, besides running.
I would love to see the W2 chip available to third party makers such as JH Audio. I can't imagine Apple getting into the IEM market directly, but having the passive sound blocking of IEMs with the pairing quality of the W2, I'd be very happy.
I've got ears that don't really fit either the first gen or the AirPods Pro. Custom-molded IEMs would be great. With the detachable ear tips and looser fit of the AirPods Pro case, I'm hoping a third-party will come out with something similar to Etymotic's flanged ear tips.
Apple has enough verticality in product, and such a large profit margin that they could afford the development at both ends of the connection.
While any one android developer doesn’t have enough volume to justify the NRE. They would need a standards body or cooperation to justify it. To get there they typically wait for Google to do the heavy lifting.
Samsung is perhaps the only one with the financial power but their making is much lower than apple’s.
I agree there’s no engineering barrier in principle.
I think the vast majority of people on the airpods to airpods pro path are on because like most people they hate the apple hard plastic headphones.
The reason that the people that have both pairs they polled is because the people in their family/friend group that they would give them to don't have airpods specifically because they hate the hard plastic.
It is very interesting that they still look quite stupid when you see people wear them but it is enough of a different type of stupid than google glass that people won't laugh at you out loud in public.
From the article: "This technology prowess and manufacturing acumen goes to waste if people don’t actually want to be seen wearing the devices. Apple’s success at redefining luxury, combined with the company’s design-led culture, gives the company a large advantage in the area of understanding what people will want to wear on the body."
Apple, after all, is the company that successfully positioned white-wire earphones as cool. Users could easily have been ridiculed as "iDweebs", like Google's "Glassholes".
There's a great quote from someone whose name escapes me right now, about the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself. I've always liked that definition, and it seems accurate to me based on historical evidence (PCs - definitely a platform. Smartwatches - definitely not).
In this test, the airpods fail abysmally - not only do they not allow for revenue generation today, they don't even allow for third party developers to use their hardware features in any capacity. In fact, the main use-case for airpods appears to be efficiency and convenience when combined with Siri. All three "sources" described by the article fail to define for me the benefit users will gain from airpods as a platform, and instead have done an excellent job of convincing me that users will benefit far more from treating airpods as a product.
Compounding this is the fact that most computing platforms are primarily visual in their interactions with their users - this is clearly no coincidence. Visual interfaces allow developers to surface many pieces of information at once, and they allow users to absorb information at a pace that is variable (based on context) and comfortable to them. Aural platforms don't have this capability, and the context that they assume is often wrong. For example, I've been driving a lot these past few days, and one of the worst Apple-built experiences I've ever had occurred when I needed to stop for gas. Not only was I directed to a gas station I had already passed (driving on the freeway), but when I wanted to navigate to another gas station there was no way (obvious or not) for me to tell Siri to find me a gas station ahead of me. In fact, there was no way to confirm where any of the gas stations Siri found me were in relation to me, without looking at my screen.
One more thing: Aural platforms are exclusively serial. They surface one piece of information at a time, and in fact they would be less usable if they surfaced any more than that (or surfaced each piece of information any quicker). This alone, I feel, makes them unsuitable platforms in today's world.
Edit: randall found the quote, by Bill Gates: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]
More recently, the concept been distilled by the current Microsoft CEO, without indulging in apophasis.
He goes on to contrast the role of companies such as Microsoft with that of aggregators, which dominate a market by amassing far more content than rivals — like Google and Facebook Inc. in online media, or Amazon in e-commerce. Referring to how companies like these work, he says: “You commoditize supply. You’re even sort of commoditizing the demand, in some ways. That’s a very different dynamic.”
> the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself
They absolutely are. Apple makes money from the iOS ecosystem in two ways: through device sales, and through App Store purchases.
I'd agree that iOS is an example of a restrictive platform, in that ~30% of all revenue goes to a single gate-keeping party.
In any case, I messed up the quote a little, another commenter found the source and real comment: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]
If that’s the litmus test - that the owner is a gatekeeper that keeps a share of the profit - you have to include all of the console makers and Kindle.
Agree 100%... But keep in mind the iPhone launched in 2007. The App Store launched about a year later and was really what made the iPhone a platform (that satisfied the Bill Gates test, created wonderful network effects, etc).
Apple having a spot in everyone's ear sets them up quite well strategically. While Google, Amazon, etc have been battling it out with in-home devices, Apple went straight for the ear.
There seems to be some opportunity, maybe not at the same level as something with visual interface, but voice interface (hands eyes free) has lot of untapped potential - fitness, education/training jumps to mind.
Using 3D sound, you could surface multiple things simultaneously to the user. For instance, a user could instantly recognize three beeps at varying loudness and location relative to themselves.
We could also use simulated echolocation.
There’s many ways to simulate aural perception that mimics visual perpection.
The thing is there that Gates might have his own reason to gatekeep the word platform.
Obviously something does not become a platform when people write software for it and the value of that software exceeds the value of the company that creates the platform, because this would mean that the day when the value of that software is $1 less than the company then there is no platform but the next day when the value is $2 more there is one.
A platform exists when the company that creates the product has provided the means for third party developers to write software that runs on the product.
As to whether it is a successful or important platform that will be determined by the amount of revenue it generates and the amount of applications written for it and the amount of people that use it. If the software for a platform did not make very much money, comparatively to other endeavors, but there was a lot of it (think free software written for Linux) then the platform still might be important.
If these amounts are going up and the company making the product is also doing good you have a growing platform. if it's going down you have a decreasing platform. If it is going down real quick, or the company that makes the product is declaring bankruptcy or announcing they will be shutting off the possibilities for development on the product - thus standing in the way of the platform - you have a dying platform or will have one shortly.
Obviously aside from all this you will be able to find platforms that are well made and that you have confidence in their longevity and their company's support and platforms where you do not have much confidence. Platforms where you think it is worth investing your time to write software and reach customers, and platforms where you think that is going to fail by the end of next year. For some of the reasons you outlined above I believe aural platforms will underperform visual platforms, although this does not mean that one cannot make money from the platform or that they will not end up having their own niche.
I wouldn't say I know more about what makes a platform than Bill Gates, but I have less reason than he would to try to define what is a real platform or not.
I’ve been wearing jabras at the gym for the past 3 years and use the bose qc ii 35’s for my daily programming job. I’ve never had an issue. In fact, the jabras have a much longer range but don’t have the ability to connect to two devices at once like the bose products.
It's the top rated by Wirecutter right now. I mostly use them just paired with my phone but I haven't had trouble using then with whatever when I've needed to.
When I look at AirPods and AirPods Pro I don’t necessarily see a platform, but what I do see is the 2nd wearable hit from Apple (after the Apple Watch), and what is likely the basis for their AR platform.
Wearable, miniature, real-time allow-latency (audio) processing and with the precise indoor location tracking on the iPhone 11 series, I see Apple setting the technology stage (as the often do) for a true platform, AR, with these technologies coming together.
This is one of the pieces I’ve been meaning to write up for my audience of zero...
Things like that is why I hate Android followed this stupid trend of removing DAC. This was working perfectly fine, there was no good reason to "fix" it.
The point about people owning multiple AirPods is a weird tangent and not something I expect to play a major part of their strategy.
However I totally buy the rest of this and used to think something similar when they were first released. They haven’t done much in the meantime but with the Pros capabilities and the location detection of the iPhone 11 I think we’re only just at a place something interesting could be done.
This is peak tech journalism: uncritical wishful thinking.
A strong claim, I know, but hear me out.
1) these are very small bluetooth headphones.
2) They only work when attached to a smart phone
3) They are still headphones.
Another thing to note is that they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones ($50+ with non tangle wires)
Bluetooth headphones are great if you want to not have to fiddle with wires. But, they are capricious and run out of batteries.
The pros have both noise isolation _and_ reduction. But, they are still let in a boat load of noise, especially speaking.
For long term use, you have to sacrifice isolation for comfort. For the same price as airpod pros you can get custom moulded in ear monitors. 35db of noise reduction, and they don't hurt.
The real selling point of ear buds is the fashion part. People are wearing them because they are a signal of how rich/successful they are. (in the same way people wore those shitty ipod ear buds.)
As for a platform, what are they going to do to be useful? "intelligent noise"? but that requires situational awareness that doesn't exist on smartphones yet.
They will be swept aside as soon as decent AR wearable pop onto the scene. Be that in 3 or 15 years.
Then buy the black ones for 1/5 of the price and the same exact feature set. Apple is not king of audio hardware, they are the king of turning decent quality, well-packaged and integrated hardware into commodities and fashion statements. And what convenience? They're just selling a bluetooth thing online, same as everyone else.
I agree with GP about the tech journalism. I find it funny that the usual cast of journalists that write these articles have been doing so for years and stand to gain a lot from Apple's success, and are deeply embedded in Apple's press organizations.
Which wireless buds have the same exact experience as AirPods Pro? The seamless pairing with Apple devices is something only those buds have, and you really need to experience it to give it credit. My wife used many different headphones but absolutely fell in love with AirPods just because they are so easy and seamless to use.
Any Bluetooth earphones will pair easy enough. Once you’ve paired reconnecting is automatic and you only need to pair the once for the entire lifetime of any particular Bluetooth device.
I run a 3rd party Bluetooth earphones (not headphones) and honestly I find them nicer to use than AirPods because they’re comfier, stay in the ear better, have equivalent battery life and I prefer the sound “colour” too - though that’s in part because they fit better so the sound is better channeled down the ear canal.
My point being that there are a lot of great earphones (and headphones) on the market. In fact it was already quite a saturated market even before Apple entered into it. So people shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Apple are the best in class nor even the only high end audio manufacturer worth looking at.
I think pairing is decent on Bluetooth audio devices. However connecting still leaves some things to be desired. Most speakers/headphones can only connect to a single source at a time.
Even the top of the line and extremely well rated Sony WH-1000XM3 headphones will only connect (not pair) to a single bluetooth device at a time. If you want to switch audio from your laptop to your phone you got to manually disable the connection on one device, and connect again on the other. That is quite clunky if you have like 3 PCs (work/home) and a phone and would love to use your headphones with any of them.
As far as I understand the Airpods might at least not require to manually disable the connection when switching to a different device. But I can't say for sure, since I don't own a set.
My earphones are two years old and can be paired to dozens (I’ve not yet hit a hard limit) of devices and can be connected to two sources concurrently with the ability to swap connections between any of the other active devices on the fly using the earphones iPhone app (so you’re not manually disconnecting devices).
As an audiophile I also don’t think Sony are the greatest example because in my experience Sony haven’t been making the best audio equipment for several decades (despite their price point and cult following).
unfortunately they (airpods pro) seem
to stay connected to only a single device, which is a shame. my other daily use headphones (qc35) can be connected to 2 devices in the same time and it helps as when someone calls me
on the phone it pauses the laptop music and switches to the call.
I’m getting heavily downvoted for that comment and I do understand the appeal of Apple hardware (I happen to be bought into the Apple ecosystem as well) but as an audiophile who’s always shopped around for equipment over the last 3 decades I can assure you there are plenty of other companies out there releasing good products. Some, in fact, are even out innovating Apple. But you often have to shop around to find them.
For example last week I was playing around with some cans which literally mapped the inside of your ear then created a unique sound profile for the wearer (they also did all the same features as AirPods too).
people that aren’t as passionate as you are aren’t willing to invest the time to find _the best_ headphones. these are good enough and much better than average, convenience matters a lot. so, yes, you’re right, they’re not the best overall, but they are best for me now with the time i am willing to invest into the purchase decision.
It doesn’t take that much time to look into and if your spending a few hundred bucks on new hardware wouldn’t you rather invest a few minutes before hand rather than impulse buying the first thing that came to your mind?
Also I don’t think that’s a good enough argument for downvoting comments that are quite literally factually accurate.
Indeed but I’ve got my own theories about what’s happening here and I think it’s less to do with people being open to alternative suggestions and more about protectionism of the Apple brand.
It’s not me who has the issue with preferences though because I’m the one getting downvoted for saying there are plenty of options on the market :)
I actually have no issue with AirPods specifically (aside that they don’t come with a selection of silicon gloves for different ear shapes - that’s standard with every other earphone but it’s an extra cost with Airpods). However this is a technical forum and the last time I checked it was considered proper etiquette to discuss similar products when similar products do exist. Which is what I did.
As an aside, it’s a real pity the media machine is so obsessed with Apple because there are genuinely some really interesting earphones and headphones out there from independent companies making real innovations in audio tech. But they often get overlooked now that Apple have entered the earphone market.
> it’s a real pity the media machine is so obsessed with Apple because there are genuinely some really interesting earphones and headphones out there from independent companies making real innovations in audio tech
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Other people aren’t like you. They care more about what Apple is doing with AirPods than about what other companies are doing with their headphones.
Again, I get that. I’m not criticising people for caring about airpods. However I am getting downvoted for suggesting there’s other products out there. Thus it’s not me who needs to be more considerate of other people’s preferences.
I think you’re judging comment unfairly. This is a technology and business forum so the entire bloody point is to talk about technology and businesses. Yet for some reason when it’s a topic about Apple hardware people get really defensive if you happen to mention the competition (like one normally would in any other HN conversation). That’s not my issue; I’m not the inconsiderate one here.
But like I said, I’m own a lot of Apple hardware myself and do see the appeal of it. I also wouldn’t vote someone down if they offered some input on other hardware out there :)
Look, you started this by dismissing AirPods owners’ preferences as being primarily about signaling wealth. Frankly, most people find accusations like that pretty insulting.
Also, FWIW, I haven't been downvoting you (I can't, since you're the first descendent on my responses).
EDIT: found the comment I had in mind:
> Indeed but I’ve got my own theories about what’s happening here and I think it’s less to do with people being open to alternative suggestions and more about protectionism of the Apple brand.
FWIW, my take is that people who enjoy the Apple brand proposition (spend more, but you'll generally get a very high level of attention to detail and things will mostly just work) are pretty sick of people who enjoy tinkering telling them that they're idiots for buying Apple. This comment of yours kinda gets into that territory by suggesting that people are downvoting because they're upset about challenges to the Apple brand (which is a petty and childish motivation) rather than they just don't share your priorities.
The thing is, I wasn’t saying Airpods owners (priorities) were wrong. All I was saying is that there is actually a glutton of devices that perform the same way as airpods do when a former poster suggest airpods were unique in the market. It’s a factually accurate post and it’s not critical of airpod owners. So getting downvoted for that kind of comment is weird and there’s literally no reason anyone would do this if it wasn’t for brand loyalty. I bet if this was a Bose, Sony or any other household electrical brand thread which wasn’t Apple, my posts would have been upvoted because that’s literally how those posts are received in any other topic on HN.
I’m sure if you look through other Apple threads you see a similar pattern of comments that aren’t negative nor factually inaccurate but still get downvoted too. I see it happen a lot on HN these days and frankly I’m sick of people abusing their voting privileges.
Researching isn't necessarily productive nor does it necessarily confer any real insights. I still am not sure how to research the right Lenovo laptop for me if I were willing to buy one. It's a mess. Same with headphones: in just minutes of research, you're stuck basically reading marketing and reading forum recommendations. Both of which will likely steer many people to Airpods anyways.
You're taking it for granted that you have some specific needs, know how to evaluate the product space for those needs in mere minutes, and are happier with a cheaper product.
Frankly, having owned various bluetooth headphones over the years, what I always love or hate about them isn't something I knew until I owned them. How much I like/hate their button UI, how they fit and stay in my ears, how reliably they pair or handle bad connections, if they can work through my thick kitchen wall so that I can leave my iPhone in the living room, etc. aren't things I can just research ahead of time. Yet they are 99% of what matters to me. Makes sense to me that people just cough up the $160 for the almost unanimously-loved Airpods instead of enduring the trial and error of evaluating buds.
I do get your point but people are just making the same gamble with airpods as they would with any other device if they buy without researching. For example a great many people have issues with airpods even just staying put in their ears (unfortunately earphones aren’t something you’re allowed to try before you buy - at least not in the U.K.).
Though at least with Apple, their brand is more visible and generally more consistent so I can see why people might consider it less of a gamble than buying a comparatively priced audio brand.
The way one person described how much better apple airpods ($160) are is exactly the way I describe how my $20 non-apple non-white bluetooth airpods are better.
I have gone through three different "pod" phones before settling on the airpods. This included the premium Jabra ones. And I actually use the airpods with Android phones, which is actually a substandard experience compared to using them with iPhones and they're still miles ahead in user experience.
I'm not an apple fan, I hate using my work Mac and refuse to buy another iPhone after trying one for two years. But the airpods are the bomb even in spite of the substandard speaker quality. Anyone who has to use their headsets to talk any length of time are doing themselves a disservice if they've never used airpods. In fact I'd say that the airpods are the only thing apple has gotten fully right since Jobs.
FWIW, I’ve seen the complaints about how they sound, but to me they sound great. Only issue with original AirPods was inability to seal out external sound, but it looks like AirPods Pro solve that.
> Then buy the black ones for 1/5 of the price and the same exact feature set.
they don't have the same exact feature set, though. airpods just work, reliably. no fiddling, no repairing. No frustrating set up. That's what you're paying for. The extra 80% of effort for that last 20%. And for many people, it's worth it.
i have a pair of TaoTronics TT-BH053, $40 on amazon right now, and they do all the things you list. I'm not sure if I'll ever try the airpods due to price, but these bluetooth earbuds/microphone work fucking amazing. Maybe I need to reseat the buds every once in a while, but that seems like my general bluetooth experience...the protocol kinda sucks, but revolutionary non the less.
I see Chinese people in Tokyo wearing them all the time. Even when not listening to music and just talking to friends. It really is like some kind of fashion accessory.
Anecdote: I'm a college student, and around half the people I see on campus (including me) wear these around while talking to their friends. It's kind of cool but also kind of a problem.
On the other side: my son is a high school student and they have a rule to remove the headphone(s) if they are talking, talking in headphones is a bad manners for them.
Also anecdote, but I wear mine frequently when commuting or listening to a bit of background music at work and because there is no cord or significant weight I will often forget that I have them in. I once wore them in to work from my commute and did not notice that they were in until I went to put on a hat when going out to lunch and brushed one out of an ear.
I have the AirPods Pro and find myself often using them with nothing playing just for the noise canceling. The noise canceling is not quite as good as some over ears I've used, but the combination of comfort and noise canceling from APPs makes them superior in my eyes. I often forget I have the APPs on.
APP also has an interesting pass through mode where there is some noise canceling, but sounds like voices are highlighted.
If people were buying solely for the convenience factor, they wouldn't be putting up with the $160 price tag to get a blutooth version of the headphones that came free with the phone. There are plenty of good and cheap headphones on the market if convenience was your only concern.
Reading your comment, it sounds like you haven’t really used them to understand how practical they are.
IIRC people were mocking the first generation of airpod because of their ridiculous look, and people adopted them in spite of their look. Now that they are more mainstream it’s easy to forget.
1) first gen have no noise isolation/cancellation, which means I can't use them in noisy environments.
2) I have children. They will be eaten, played with and generally put places I am not party to.
3) pros have noise cancelling, which is ok but they don't work in places where peak noise is 75 db+ (ie loud train/car), The noise isolation is uncomfortable to get a good seal, though its less for some people.
But again, you are missing the broad thrust, they are headphones, not a platform.
> Another thing to note is that they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones ($50+ with non tangle wires)
No, this is your assessment of user experience. It’s opinion, not fact. Perhaps some $50 wired headphones sound better but different people value different things.
For a long time I thought “pft what’s the big deal with AirPods, I’m fine snaking the headphone cable down my shirt when I go for a run”. Then I bought some on the recommendation of a friend. For me the user experience is far from substandard — it’s great. The charging case means they rarely run out of juice, the tap to stop/start and Siri is great for running, they sound good, I can walk around the kitchen while cooking with them paired to my laptop, I find them comfortable, etc.
Fashion: I don’t care. What I’ll look like didn’t factor into the decision to buy them at all. As it happens I can easily afford them but didn’t buy for a long time because I don’t like to spend frivolously.
In short: just because you think AirPods (or Apple?) sucks doesn’t mean others don’t find them valuable.
> No, this is your assessment of user experience. It’s opinion, not fact. Perhaps some $50 wired headphones sound better but different people value different things.
Ok, 3.5" headphones are objectively: cheaper, simpler mechanically, more reliable, easier to use, easier to connect to different devices, never run out of battery or require charging, you can't lose 1/3 of them, and oh, yeah, they tend to sound better at the same price point. They tend to sound much better at the same price point since all you need to focus on are coils and membranes, not bluetooth stacks and batteries and inductive charging coils. A set of Shure SE315s will blow AirPods Pro out of the water on sound quality and noise isolation.
Yes, wireless headphones are wireless. That's all though. You can achieve all the rest with the jack, but you could achieve all of that wireless while the phone still had the jack.
None of this makes AirPods Pro a platform. They're neat wireless headphones. Among the best wireless headphones probably. But that's still all they are.
I've used AirPods Pro, and I've used me SE535s with an inline mic. It's gonna be SE535s by a country mile for me, even to the extent I have to go through the additional hoops of stupid dongles to hook them up. [1]
But that’s the thing. A lot of people are willing to compromise just for the wirelessness.
People apart from tech-people or audiophiles don’t really care about the points you listed or if they do, the convenience that comes from the wirelessness is more important.
Being wireless counts for so much for me. For myself and many other people, the experience of wireless headphones is hands-down superior to wired headphones. I would never go back to wired ones.
Wires are a pain. They get tangled, they mean your phone and headphones need to always be close (which adds a certain amount of friction, once you get used to the alternative), but most importantly (for me) they get caught on things all the time.
> Hi! I’m Johnny Average Consumer.
> This phone was a thousand dollars!
It's not accurate to describe the average consumer as being in the thousand dollar phone market. They are premium products, and not one that the average consumer can afford. That's one reason why Apple's phone global market share wavers around 10-15%.
Anyone buying AirPods has already bought an iPhone (a thousand dollar phone), so I think you can replace ‘Johnny Average Consumer’ with ‘Billy iPhone Consumer’ and the rest of their points still hold
And seeing that the Apple Watch is already generating more revenue than the iPods at peak, there are lot of people with a $350 Watch, a $600+ iPhone and AirPods.
> Anyone buying AirPods has already bought an iPhone (a thousand dollar phone)
Not everyone buying an iPhone today is buying a current, model (carriers are selling back to the iPhone 8), even if they are the base iPhone 11 is about $700 not $1000, and even flagship models are often bought on promotion with steep discounts (AT&T has one with, in the right circumstances, a $700 discount on the 11 Max Pro, bringing it to around $400 on the promo.)
Wow, it's almost like there are millions of different people with a wide range of preferences and wealth! Maybe there is room in the market for this product after all. Maybe that explains how it has already sold in the tens of millions.
It's funny because I own both AirPods and 315s. I always have thought "Why did I pay so much for the 315s when I can get a crappy ol pair of wired headphones for $20 that work well enough." There wasn't a fantastic bluetooth connected option, I have owned 6-10 bluetooth wireless solutions, but nothing matched airpods.
> Wow, it's almost like there are millions of different people with a wide range of preferences and wealth!
Isn't it also almost like discussing the average consumers is a way to consciously limit the scope of the discussion so that it isn't about some <1% of the world's population?
> I don’t care. I’ll pay for convenience. This phone was a thousand dollars!
Did you mean for "Average Consumer" just to be your name? Because an average consumer certainly did not pay $1000 for their phone. Already here you represent an outlier.
> What about that horrible wire? It gets tangled in my pocket and I rip my headphones out when I run.
About 20% of Americans engage in activities like running or jogging. Again, you're an outlier.
I can't say for sure that you're an outlier hear because these figures represent a mean and not a median. I'm taking "the average consumer" to mean "the median consumer" because "the mean consumer" doesn't exist.
> I charge my AirPods Pro every few days. This is a non-issue.
Again, I'm not sure that you are an outlier here because of averages vs medians.
If you spend 18 hours per week just listening to music, If even half of that is spent listening to music from your only device, you'll be charging your airpods at least twice a week.
If airpods are additionally used for calls, some two hours a day, you'll have to charge them even more often.
If AirPods are an ubiquitous platform for augmented hearing, "adding context" to what you hear, you'll be charging them at least twice a day.
That's closer to what my peers are spending. They are outliers, though, living in a developed country, working well-paying jobs, almost all tech nerds. I have a hard time imagining that the world wide average or even a national average for Australia is anywhere near that. That said, I haven't found any non-paywalled comprehensive survey data on the subject so I'll leave it at that.
> I don’t care. I’ll pay for convenience. This phone was a thousand dollars!
The average US smartphone consumer is paying like $500 (substantially less anywhere outside of North America) and saying their limit is substantially less than even that, if you look at both actual average price data and surveys of what consumers say they are willing to pay, so (1) not buying a $1000 phone, (2) not aware of how much they are actually paying for a phone, and (3) not as willing to pay extra for convenience as you suggest.
I agree they aren't a platform (yet?). I just don't understand why you're conflating this with an assertion that AirPods can't possibly offer any additional utility over a basic set of wireless headphones. I for one don't want to know what Shure offers or deal with adding microphones or whatever. I don't care about that. I just want to pay someone a sum of money I am okay with paying for a product that will do what I want. I don't even care if it doesn't sound quite as good as the best possible offering; for me part of the utility is not needing to think about all this stuff. (That doesn't mean I would blindly buy anything Apple makes or whatever my friends tell me, but in this case I felt pretty confident I'd be happy with my choice and I was.)
I'm glad you're happy with your setup and choices. It wouldn't work for me but it does for you. That's all that should matter to you.
Not sure about that part - especially for bigger (over-ear) headphones. My last 2 pairs of wired sets all died because the cable or connector inside the headphones got loose due to mechanical stress. Resoldering was not an option since it was not possible to open the case in a non destructive fashion.
At least that failure-mode does not exist in bluetooth headphones. And so far I had not an issue with my pair (but it's only a year old). But long term the battery might certainly become a potential issue.
I used to review consumer electronics as a side gig, and one year Shure was nice enough to send me one of every in-ear headset they made. This was around 2005 or so. The gear was excellent, fantastic sound quality, but they all broke. Even the $700 pair. The cable got pinched or something. Shure replaced them (even though at this point they were out of warranty), and the replacement pair broke a year later. Wires suck.
On this point, wireless headphones are massively superior. You only need to plug in wireless headphones when you’re not using them. You need to plug in wired headphones all the time when using them. This enables things like “using two hands to carry an object across a room, without wearing a pocket, while listening to headphones”. This is a huge practical upgrade that most people find impossible to give up once habituated.
Headphones, no matter how high cost they were in the first place, always end up with a wire failure on the connecting part after a few years. I have come to hate them with passion for this single reason.
>Yes, wireless headphones are wireless. That's all though.
And that's exactly what makes them easier to use and better sounding if you don't sit still.
Wires get caught in clothes and tend to pull on the earbuds. They scrape and bang against clothes, chin, neck and chest, making a lot of noise in the process.
Does that mean I'm going to pay hundereds for headphones or believe in Excalibur - sorry AirPods - as a platform any time soon? Unlikely. I guess I'll just continue to put up with the occasional bluetooth pairing issues.
> A set of Shure SE315s will blow AirPods Pro out of the water on sound quality
The internet really needs to get off it’s high horse about this. The fact is 99% of people can’t tell the difference.
Just like 99% of people don’t care about the headphone jack being removed. This is evident by the market mocking Apple and then following Apple when they realised that it’s true.
Rather than not being able to tell the difference, most consumers don't care about the difference. Everyone has their own acceptable level of sound quality, even enthusiasts. That being said the airpod pros' fidelity are known to be quite good in audiophile circles.
For another point of reference, that’s larger than the iPod revenue when it peaked in 2007.
So the entire narrative that Apple hasn’t released a successful product since Cook took over is provably false. Both the Watch and AirPods lines are larger than the iPods ever were.
Wired headphones wouldn’t work too well when I just have my cellular watch at the gym....
But even back in the iPod days, I hated wired headphones when I was running or doing anything at the gym.
And how are they “easier to use”? I open the case, they pair to either my iPad or iPhone without a manual pairing process. I put one in my ear, it changes the sound to be monaural from stereo. I also don’t have to go through an unpairing process for it to connect seamlessly to
my watch, iPad, iPhone, or AppleTV.
I only picked the 315s since they're give or take the same price point as AirPods Pro and have infinitely better sound quality because they only do one thing.
> Ok, 3.5" headphones are objectively: cheaper, simpler mechanically, more reliable, easier to use, easier to connect to different devices, never run out of battery or require charging, you can't lose 1/3 of them, and oh, yeah, they tend to sound better at the same price point.
The utility value of AirPods or similar products is way higher. They are easier to use because they don’t need plugged in. They provide a superior user experience because you’re not tethered. They are easier to every-day-carry and thus always available.
There will always be exceptions: audiophiles, etc. For most of us, it’s no contest.
Another disadvantage of AirPods (and most other wireless headphones): they're terrible for the environment. Builtin batteries which will wear out, glued shut so no way to replace the batteries, tied to a stack of radio/protocol/codecs which will be obsolete sooner or later.
They are throw-away products. Just look at all the original 1st gen AirPods which now see their batteries failing - each one by itself is small, but given the sales numbers it's huge mountains of electronics trash.
For the price of AirPods you can get a good pair of wired headphones which can last 20+ years. Replace tips or ear cushions as needed, on good headphones they are easily replaceable. No batteries or protocols or codecs to ever worry about.
> What on earth do you value in a $160 pair of earphones then?
Well, all the things I just listed.
It may be true that I could get 90% of the functionality of AirPods for half the price, but that would mean researching what to buy, dealing with incompatibilities, and losing 10% of the features AirPods offer. But I loathe researching what to buy and dealing with wonky hardware. I'm fine with paying a bit of money to avoid these hassles.
So while $160 is not "cheap" I felt confident that a) I'd get something I liked, b) that they'd work well, c) that I was okay with spending $160 on them. Would I spend $320? No. But I'm happy with what I got and what I paid. You or anyone else might not be, and that's totally fine as well.
I never said they suck. What I failed to get across is that they are compromise.
Technically they are amazing. I mean look at how small they are.
But they are not a platform. They are not superior headphones, they excel because they are small. not because they do anything better than any other headphone. I've not mentioned sound quality because that's full of mysticism. Airpods to me sound fine, in a low noise environment.
I have bluetooth headphones, they work, they are sound isolating. They look like shite, and so do I when I wear them. I use them commuting, in the office (sometimes) and when I'm cleaning or doing DIY (30db is attenuation means I can listen without going deaf.) I bought them because they are noise isolating.
However I curse when they run out of battery. I curse when I go through congested 2.4gig areas.
As for value, fashion is a value. People buying them because they look sleek is a value judgement. Loads of people think they are valuable, otherwise this article wouldn't have been written.
I thought that the AirPods were ridiculously overpriced when they came out and wondered why anyone would get them. I’m still kind of on the fence about the usefulness of them, the control, and the fit.
Then I heard rumors about Apple coming out with noise cancelling AirPods about the same time I was getting fed up with my “open office”. As soon as I read the first reviews of the AirPods Pro, I ordered them. I have no regrets. The integration with iOS, noise cancelling, transparency mode, control with the stem, etc is great.
While controlling the volume without having to use Siri would be nice, for me it’s not a big deal, I just use the crown on my Apple Watch.
I won’t have any truck with the “Apple stuff is just about fashion, it’s the only reason people buy them”. BS, that just clearly not the case.
But it also seems incontrovertible to me that Apple gear is a status symbol. Some people really do buy them for the fashion angle, including the phones. One being true doesn’t preclude the other.
A $1000 dollar computer might not be a status symbol in the western world, but a $1000 phone in your pocket, for many consumers, is. Apple's marketing and use by social media influencers has turned their brand into a status symbol. Apple isn't the most valuable brand because there tech is better, but because they have marketed themselves as a lifestyle company that makes life easier and more elegant than the competition.
Well, seeing that you can get a new iPhone for less than $500....
Besides, Apple has 50% of the phone market in the US and it’s even larger once you move up the income scale. Statistically, anyone who is an “influencer” would have an iPhone.
The $1000 iphone sell for around $2000 non-black-market price in my country. Which is roughly 60% of the gdp per capita of the country. 60% of gdp per capita in america is roughly $35k.
So if you had a handheld $35k device would that be considered a status symbol in the US? Maybe but not a $1k one.
That comes across quite snobbishly to be honest. People pay several thousands for jewelry or watches as they expect them to last many years or decades.
$200 dollars is a lot of money for a device that in most cases will last a year or two and there are plenty of alternatives that do the same for a fifth of the price. Especially in the context of teenagers using them as a status symbol.
But also people pay dozens of thousands to hundreds of thousands for a vehicle that will last a little bit longer than an airpod (at least from a status point of view).
My point is, a status symbol is something unachievable by most people regardless (like a Yacht or a Ferrari). An airdpod can be bought by almost anyone in the US if that's their priority.
You can have a useable vehicle for 5 years with a $10,000 upfront cost and $5,000 in maintenance. That’s something people need to operate in the US. Yes, a brand new Tesla is a status symbol just the same as $250 purely optional luxury items are.
If your question is “Doesn’t everyone have disposable income?” The answer is no.
It doesn't surprise me considering how much they charge for a monitor mount. But that's incredible people will pay that much for some bluetooth earbuds. They better be a platform or something more for that much...
> The real selling point of ear buds is the fashion part. People are wearing them because they are a signal of how rich/successful they are.
In Germany, it seems to be mostly a status signal of young teenagers, who wear them constantly. Was probably the most requested gift in my daughter‘s class, where everyone is around 12.
Don‘t see that many grown-ups walking around with them.
My mother is over the moon with her airpods (not pro) and the iphone 5s I gave her a year ago: now she can watch tv, listen to music and sit where she fancies without worrying about anything else.
Yes, she is short of hearing. This device despite having alternatives just solved her problem.
The alternatives may be there. These things are just known, easy to use and useful.
This is just another mean and snide ‘I hate that people like a product that I don’t understand’ HN rant.
The error you’re making is a very common one here - reducing the product to its base functionality description rather than looking at how well they have been implemented. You think they’re bettered by better specs on paper like custom moulding, but paper ideas don’t always achieve a better user experience in the end.
I think AirPods are a revolutionary achievement in user experience. I haven’t used wired since. The form factor and the pairing are peerless.
To write such criticism, you have to mention if you have your own experience of using this product.
"AirPods is a Platform" in that article is a bullshit, here I agree - while there's no apps running on the device, it's not a platform.
But their quality is not "substandard", far from it. And they have a lot of features, not just noice cancellation. There are reasons to love them and you didn't even try to find full description of their features before complaining.
A platform is about integration, not necessarily the ability to run "apps". Take Amazon's Echo for example: solidly a platform, does not run any apps per se.
1. Because I hate wires, absolutely detest working with them.
2. The listening experience of AirPods is great. The noise cancellation opt-in mode is sufficiently great. I sit in a bus, turn cancellation on and boom people are just moving their lips.. There is a little bit noise I can happily ignore.
3. They fit in my ears very well. I have tried a lot of variations of headphones over the decade and the AirPods fit more than good enough (surprisingly).
4. I love the case it comes with, easy to transport.
5. Charging levels are great for my need, 5-8 hours listening to podcasts, some music and playing games.
I’m standing at a bus stop right now, not bothering to fiddle with wires in the cold. So I’m not listening to podcasts when I normally would. I will get wireless headphones when my current set breaks down. I surely won’t notice bitrate difference on the bus anyway.
So I don’t know about the platform thing, but wireless wins in the end, always. Because bitrate is just one detail that isn’t so important anyway.
For similar reasons, I listen to a lot of music on my Sonos, even if it has poorer sound quality than my stereo. It’s just so convenient.
That's unfair to wired headphones. You could be at a bus stop and not bother to get the Airpods case out of your bag or pocket, put them in and then fiddle with your phone to start playing a podcast.
All wired earbuds can have "non tangle wires" with the correct method of storage:
- Place the buds in your palm
- Make the "rock" sign with the hand they're in, trapping the buds with your two middle fingers
- Wrap the cord around the two outer fingers in a figure of 8 motion
- Pinch in the middle to remove from your fingers and place everything in a pouch of some sort
Now when you want to use your headphones again they will "magically" not be tangled!
Of course this doesn't stop them getting tangled up in stuff whilst in use, and does require that you have a pouch for storage, but it is the best technique I ever learned for saving myself from the frustration of having to untangle a mess of wire when trying to use my headphones.
Airpods pro do not have passive sound isolation. They are an open back design. That’s one of my biggest issues with them as that removes their usefulness in loud environments and removes the chance of resonance based bass.
Don't be a tech philistine! Just look at the sales of these things and you'll note there's a phenomenon going on that makes all your points moot.
The user experience is still amazing with the airpods, despite all their problems: battery life, sound quality. Etc... The airpods have hit on a balance of usability and tech that was much needed.
Also, I love my airpods and I've only ever used an Android phone.
Disagree. I thought so too, but then I tried another brand of Bluetooth ear buds (earfun: $50, waterproof and noise isolating but no transparency or noise cancellation):
- leave your phone in one room, on the charger, keep listening/talking in another.
- put on a soft hat that covers your ears, and nobody knows you're listening (better security)
- give one earbud to a friend and listen to the same thing.
- silent disco applications
3-15 years is a long time, and wireless earbuds will evolve. For example, imagine that they support 10+ hours battery charge, or WiFi for longer range, or "sync" multiple sets of earbuds to create a true silent disco, and on and on.
AR glasses may be complementary to wireless earbuds, not a replacement: this provides better battery life and features/roadmap for both devices.
I feel that your comment is basically in the same ballpark as "no wireless, less space than a nomad, lame." You're looking at things from a tech geek's perspective that doesn't match the market's perception of the product.
Also quite a bad example of tech journalism in the really weird writing - repeating a couple of phrases multiple times verbatim, like it was written a bot or is SEO optimised or something.
I really don't understand the signalling argument - it just seems obviously incorrect. Who are you signalling to? In places where airpods are frequent, pretty much everybody can afford them - certianly in the social circles of the people who wear them. It's a very poor status symbol, and I imagine that the people making those claims are just projecting their own insecurities on the rest of society.
I had a really weird experience with my AirPods Pro.
I was cooking with the noise cancelling turned on and I sliced off half my fingernail with a potato peeler, right down between the nail and the finger. It was pretty gross.
But I had the noise cancelling on and as I looked at my finger I had this weird out of body experience where I couldn’t feel anything and just felt completely separate from it - I had to take the AirPods out before I could come to grips with the situation and do anything about it.
That noise cancellation is powerful stuff. I can see how it could transport you maybe even as much as VR
There are a whole bunch of reasons (physiological and psychological) why getting a cut like that produces a delayed sensation of pain. Psychologically, if you're deeply concentrated in something (e.g. immersed in listening to music), you might be subject to a form of delayed perception. Physiologically, the cut area may not send pain signals until an inflammatory response mounts against the bleeding. These could combine to produce a significant delay in your (conscious) perception of the wound, even without something like the AirPods.
(One could argue the degree to which it isolates you from the environment acoustically might also be insulating you from heeding your environment at all - sounds like something that might be worth studying!)
Apple could easily add eSIM to AirPods (probably makes more sense to put into care) to enable fully wireless life experience. Make them even smaller and it could challenge neuralink for a while (especially for Alexa generation).
The Apple Watch is hundreds of times bigger in volume and putting eSIM inside was a huge engineering challenge, one that still comes with MANY caveats. I don't see how it's feasible to put eSIM in earphones with current and next-gen technology.
The AirPods themselves have no UI (Siri isn't a viable replacement, sorry) so you'd most likely still have a device nearby like phone/watch/etc from where you can control it so might as well stream the content from it and do away with the need for LTE.
Wi-Fi would be quite useful though, so they can keep working outside of Bluetooth range (big house, office building, etc) by falling back to the Wi-Fi and talking to the phone over it.
I think apple's plan here is a combination of watch+airpods, which works already btw. You can connect watch to airpods directly and play music via esim of the watch.
There's something very Her-esque (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/) over the AirPods, at least when they were first released. There's something futuristic but also realistic about it. Can't really put my finger on it.
One of the features that I feel is glossed over very quickly is Live Listen[0], especially for an article about it being "a platform". For those that have family members with hearing loss they are a godsend in noisy environments like a cafe. Just put an iPhone with tons of processing power and an array of microphones on the table and let it filter out most of the noise and send it to the AirPods with impressive low latency. It's truly amazing, if you have AirPods and an iPhone you should try it. They outperform more professional solutions by miles. I have only tried it with AirPods, but I can only imagine how well it works with proper hearing aids that are tuned to the frequency range.
I wish they'd make an audio loop "bridge" of some sort for Live Listen, as hearing aids are expensive and available technology from government usually lags behind 10+ years.
The whole point of hearing aids is to be easily forgotten and to last a day without the need to charge. I'm quite sure that with a good computer, profesionnal microphones and some good headphones with a jack you'll have a better solution with lower latency than an iphone and airpods, but that misses the point of hearing aids
My father doesn't even use his $1000+ hearing aids because he says they just amplify everything and don't help.
If Airpods + an iPhone on the table can help him out, like making table conversation more accessible, that would be a big deal. I'll have to look into it.
The point of Airpods + iPhone here is that they are still highly portable, people today already carry both around just for fun. Your desktop PC + mic setup is not.
The whole point of hearing aids is to hear better. That they last a few days on a single battery or charge is a nice addition.
And probably, a a whole sleuth of gear and cables can probably provide better quality, but it's not something you can easily bring with you to a cafe. Or use, because it would be a mess to set up when you need it. When I say low latency I mean truly low latency. It's at the level where your brain easily tunes it out. Comparable to using cables. Remember, transmitting data over RF can be very low latency, it's typically the pre-processing that adds latency and whatever protocol overhead you have. It seems like Apple has done some great work to get pre-processing and protocol overhead down to a minimum.
And you also have hearing aids that can be connected to iPhones and use the Live Listen. I just wish someone would provide an audio loop bridge for those that are stuck with older variants, as hearing aids are tuned to the frequency range of the person that needs them. AirPods, not so much.
I'll have to try this, I had given my dad (who uses hearing aids) a pair of bone conduction headphones which he described as "the best he'd heard anything in 10 years".
What I'd really like is a way to combine the bone conduction technology with Live Listen.
Another good example of why it would be really great with an audio loop (these inductive loops) bridge, or what you'd call it, of some sort. Then you could use almost all existing hearing aids with this, as it's supported by most hearing aids.
I work with teenagers and there is a distinct lack of social stigma around having a conversation while wearing (at least) one earbud. Older folks immediately find this rude as it implies the listener is only paying half attention, or can’t be bothered to turn off their music. Young people simply don’t care as much - while will be important if AR is ever going to take off as we will need to bridge our social acceptance beyond the ‘glasshole’ phase.
- there was a famous scene in “Clueless” (1995) where the “rich” girls were walking down the hall in school with cell phones and they were seen to be out of touch. Now, that’s perfectly normal.
- only “nerds” walked around with their calculator and video game watches and now millions of people have “wrist computers”.
- When I was in school, if you had a pager, everyone assumed you were a drug dealer.
The attention drain will expand from smartphones to augmented reality, visual and auditory. Teenagers already engaging in a mild, early form of audio AR without stigma predicts this will happen. I do not look forward to this future and the inevitable struggles we will go through in finding a way to use AR responsibily without impacting mental health and social cohesiveness. I'm sure AR will be important to our future and will be a great enabler but it is not without its risks, the main one being stolen attention.
Unfortunately, designing products with social/mental/moral welfare tends to push them into a higher price point vs mass market. Caring about “mental health and social cohesiveness” will not win out against feeding users’ vanity, individualism and pleasure drive.
It’s a task to think about though. How much veiling and social intermediation will people accept (or socially require) before the deep alienation sets in?
> In essence, we are moving away from pulling data from various apps to receiving a curated feed of data that is dynamic - always changing and tailored to our needs.
Is there any indication that users (not designers, developers, businesses or "the industry") actually want this?
Isn't that what Google Reader, Flipbook, etc are? Isn't that what many news websites are?
It's just a question of degree. I'm sure some people want all their info to come from just 1 site, but most people want it separated into manageable chunks. Car info from this site, computer from that site, etc.
For instance, I come to Hacker News for most of my computer-related news. I use reddit for most entertainment, though there's some computer stuff there. I use Flipbook for random things that I wouldn't think to subscribe to on Reddit.
And people use Facebook, etc for things that their friends like and want to share.
I would also add that there is a custom chip design in the airpods (m1?). In terms of "sucking the oxygen out of the market", it's a lot easier when your competition can't even come close to the level of tech savvy you put into your hardware
How is it a failing of their competitors "tech savvy" that Apple put a custom chip for which they are able to embed support in the OS, and won't share / license?
It's not so much a failure by the competition. My point is that Apple raises the bar so much by building a custom chip. A custom chip raises the bar on user experience: faster bluetooth connection times, longer battery life. What does the R&D cost for that chip? $100 million? Thats a complete guess - but totally within the realm of possibility given how much cash Apple sits on...
Do you think the next viable competitor can spend that kind of money?
Forget platforms, the real prize is making the form factor comfortable enough for side sleepers and making the battery last 8+ hours (duration of a good nights sleep).
The number of people on the planet with bedroom noise problems is vastly larger than the number of audiophiles. Plus the value created per customer would be dramatically higher.
Solve these issues and I can see AirPods being a $50B / year business.
It seems like we've hit a point where someone could have airpods and a mobile enabled iwatch and accomplish 80% of what needs to be done communication-wise, namely text, email, voice calls. Has anyone tried this? It might actually encourage more voice calls due to the interface constraints which might be a nice side effect (for some).
I do this every day. I leave my iPhone home and just use my Apple Watch and AirPods. Works great, and as long as my iPhone is on at home on WiFi it will relay just about everything.
I have tried it as an experiment to lower my mobile phone usage.
I wanted the ability to make calls, check texts, pay using mobile payments, and play music without the distraction of mindlessly grabbing for my phone to browse the Internet whenever a moment of boredom surfaces.
It works quite well. I turned off notifications for emails and texts. Instead, I check those once an hour or so. If a conversation becomes longer than a message or two, I call the person or tell them I’ll text them later.
I haven’t been fully able to ditch the phone, but I didn’t intend to. I experimented with this set up mostly for nights and weekends.
295 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 342 ms ] threadAlso is it just me or does the article just talk about how great AirPods are and how Apple really set it apart from competition this time and killed that silent launch but never really even tries to support or justify this opinion?
Speaking of AirPods, their sound quality isn't all that great. I ended up getting the Galaxy Buds which were cheaper and sounded better.
I have the same problem and I use wired earbuds for a walk through the busy streets.
iPhones could all have usb ports and audio jacks and removable storage. Nothing is preventing any of that. Stop pretending Apple is moving the ball forward here.
Exactly why wires are so easy!
So you are saying there is a standard-mechanism for interoperability between units from any vendor, and it’s mirrored in a highly discoverable physical interface which always reflects how things are connected, so there’s never any confusion or need for debugging? And no need for firmware updates or charging?
That sounds just about perfect to me, like a dream come true! When will the iPhone support this amazing, new technology without the need for proprietary dongles? I can’t wait!
I'm just getting quite tired of companies taking two steps backward, one step forward, and then marketing the hell out of this process to pretend like they made things better for us.
I'm not merely anti-Apple, it feels like half the tech industry is stalled and just forcing nonsense like this on us while pretending it's "innovation" and "progress". It's innovating in how high the margins can go, nothing more.
Devil’s Advocate: Personalized, targeted advertising? A presentation that is different per user requires a model for that person, I’m not quite sure how useful this example is except if we’re talking about foreign language translation.
Seriously, get your shit together, guys. And no, AirPods aren't magically immune, in fact, their bifurcated nature makes it worse.
Edit: For those asking/stating "they already took off", not really. Most people do not own headphones, do not want headphones, and most people keep owning or keep buying wired headphones; even if the numbers say more wireless sold, it isn't backwards facing enough, and doesn't include all the wired pairs people already own, it also doesn't include ones included in the box.
The two largest complaints I always hear is either the device connectivity is garbage, the device audio quality is garbage, or the comfort is fucking horrible compared to similarly priced wired earbuds and IEMs.
Too many corners are cut to make these things work, and most consumers just aren't happy. So, they didn't take off if most people hate them, you have to have one hell of a RDF-boner for that industry to argue otherwise.
Also, /r/headphones says hi.
Apple as always probably has the top selling SKUs. But that tail is long.
They already have taken off. It's happened
They stay in my ear when running, are super comfy to wear and have decent battery life too.
I was always very sceptical about Bluetooth earphones but shortly after buying the pair I have currently (which are now about 2 years old) I’m a total convert.
That all said, I can’t see myself ever buying AirPods specifically. I do have various Apple devices but I just don’t think AirPods are the best earphones on the market (despite what the loosely veiled advert we’re discussing claims).
Having to charge them sucks but the freedom of no wires when jogging or sitting at my desk at work was unexpected and amazing.
My second biggest complaint was audio lag but that’s less of an issue now. Of course wires never had this issue.
If you've experienced problems, maybe you had a faulty unit. My experience for the past year has been 100% seamless and it's been a decade since I've loved a new set of headphones this much.
AirPods work reasonably well. My cheap knock-off AirPods ($50 Anker Soundcore) work really well. I can drop my phone and walk into the next room and still have full audio without losing signal. The battery life is basically the same as my wireless headset, despite being a tiny fraction of the size. They sound just as good as any pair of $20 wired earbuds I've ever used.
Yes, they aren't perfect (the dual MacBook + iPhone pairing handoff thing seems sometimes problematic. And they are easy to lose). But they aren't trash. These products sell reasonably well because they work reasonably well.
It's great having a minijack to plug into as a backup -- I use it often in the car or w/headphones if I forget something or of BT is giving me a headache - don't think I'd buy a phone w/o one as long as I have a choice. (At least up to my Galaxy S10 there is still one.)
To be perfectly honest, that doesn't sound like a bluetooth problem at all. That sounds like an Apple defect in their product.
My anecdotal evidence is that AirPods have really solid Bluetooth reception with my iPhones.
It's not that rare. Other people are mentioning busy environments, but even when I'm in an isolated environment my Aukey wireless earbuds, with the receiver on the left side, often have connection issues if I put my phone in my right pocket.
I've been on a morning tram and lost connection between my pocket and head with the same device/headphone pair.
Newer versions of Bluetooth have made great improvements to reliablity, but they can't defy physics and interference.
That said, I use Bluetooth headsets at work sometimes, and haven’t had any of the issues that you describe. I frequently wander up to about 100ft in the office without audio issues.
From my experience wired earphones don't last unless you baby them.
Perhaps the ones you happened to have are just bad.
I already have amazing sounding wired Shure in-ears and Beyerdynamic headphones. I’m not spending $500+ to have them replaced with inferior-sounding wireless options.
I was even given some $400 Bose BC700 (supposedly the “absolutely best wireless headphones you can get”) for free.
I returned them because they sound like shit. It’s like the music has lost all signs of life and all its action by the time it makes it to my ear. Not to mention the obvious phase-distortion caused by the ANC. Too much DSP, not enough hifi. What a joke.
And I will certainly not be considering Apple AirPods which IME has the worst sound I’ve ever heard on any so called “premium” head-sets. They’re basically a joke in the audiophile environment.
A fun example would be to use Airpod Pros as walkie talkies with other Pro users in the same house or area.
Definitely would interested in tinkering with any Dev kit came out for building Airpod apps.
Now I’be upgraded again to the pros, but kept the gen2 because they better fit the times that I only have one in one ear (which the pros don’t seem to suit well at all).
So I now have three pairs, not because I wanted three pairs - but because the situational uses I’ve found for them, feel more appropriate than discarding them while they still work. And I can’t imagine this is going to be a very rare outlier, thanks to the huge ick component of their resale value.
I can’t imagine that I am that unique. It’s especially odd, as I own the first generation “regular” airpods, and they fit just fine.
That being said I'm planning on passing them on to somebody without Airpods (after buying new eartips!) because I already own regular Airpods and Bose QC35s. I prefer the on-ear Boses for ANC and the Airpods for comfort (not completely in-ear, easy to take in/out for casual listening, less isolation than Pro's transparency mode, they fall out and pause playback when I fall asleep).
The Airpod Pros aren't bad, they would be a good compromise between the two for somebody who likes in-ear buds. I just don't have a use for them and find them overpriced.
Maybe I'll try them when these new ones finally start to die, or I have another use case/some extra money where it'd matter, besides running.
Also I expect the growing trend of disconnecting from technology will hit immersive technology forms like audio particularly hard.
The W2 chip, that’s what.
I've got ears that don't really fit either the first gen or the AirPods Pro. Custom-molded IEMs would be great. With the detachable ear tips and looser fit of the AirPods Pro case, I'm hoping a third-party will come out with something similar to Etymotic's flanged ear tips.
While any one android developer doesn’t have enough volume to justify the NRE. They would need a standards body or cooperation to justify it. To get there they typically wait for Google to do the heavy lifting.
Samsung is perhaps the only one with the financial power but their making is much lower than apple’s.
I agree there’s no engineering barrier in principle.
The reason that the people that have both pairs they polled is because the people in their family/friend group that they would give them to don't have airpods specifically because they hate the hard plastic.
It is very interesting that they still look quite stupid when you see people wear them but it is enough of a different type of stupid than google glass that people won't laugh at you out loud in public.
Apple, after all, is the company that successfully positioned white-wire earphones as cool. Users could easily have been ridiculed as "iDweebs", like Google's "Glassholes".
There's a great quote from someone whose name escapes me right now, about the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself. I've always liked that definition, and it seems accurate to me based on historical evidence (PCs - definitely a platform. Smartwatches - definitely not).
In this test, the airpods fail abysmally - not only do they not allow for revenue generation today, they don't even allow for third party developers to use their hardware features in any capacity. In fact, the main use-case for airpods appears to be efficiency and convenience when combined with Siri. All three "sources" described by the article fail to define for me the benefit users will gain from airpods as a platform, and instead have done an excellent job of convincing me that users will benefit far more from treating airpods as a product.
Compounding this is the fact that most computing platforms are primarily visual in their interactions with their users - this is clearly no coincidence. Visual interfaces allow developers to surface many pieces of information at once, and they allow users to absorb information at a pace that is variable (based on context) and comfortable to them. Aural platforms don't have this capability, and the context that they assume is often wrong. For example, I've been driving a lot these past few days, and one of the worst Apple-built experiences I've ever had occurred when I needed to stop for gas. Not only was I directed to a gas station I had already passed (driving on the freeway), but when I wanted to navigate to another gas station there was no way (obvious or not) for me to tell Siri to find me a gas station ahead of me. In fact, there was no way to confirm where any of the gas stations Siri found me were in relation to me, without looking at my screen.
One more thing: Aural platforms are exclusively serial. They surface one piece of information at a time, and in fact they would be less usable if they surfaced any more than that (or surfaced each piece of information any quicker). This alone, I feel, makes them unsuitable platforms in today's world.
Edit: randall found the quote, by Bill Gates: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]
[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/
Bill Gates. You're looking for Bill Gates.
https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/
He goes on to contrast the role of companies such as Microsoft with that of aggregators, which dominate a market by amassing far more content than rivals — like Google and Facebook Inc. in online media, or Amazon in e-commerce. Referring to how companies like these work, he says: “You commoditize supply. You’re even sort of commoditizing the demand, in some ways. That’s a very different dynamic.”
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2019-12-21...
By this logic smartphones are not a platform?
I'd agree that iOS is an example of a restrictive platform, in that ~30% of all revenue goes to a single gate-keeping party.
In any case, I messed up the quote a little, another commenter found the source and real comment: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]
[1] https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/
Edit: iPhone does something like that amount per fiscal Q.
Apple having a spot in everyone's ear sets them up quite well strategically. While Google, Amazon, etc have been battling it out with in-home devices, Apple went straight for the ear.
https://developer.bose.com/bose-ar
There seems to be some opportunity, maybe not at the same level as something with visual interface, but voice interface (hands eyes free) has lot of untapped potential - fitness, education/training jumps to mind.
Using 3D sound, you could surface multiple things simultaneously to the user. For instance, a user could instantly recognize three beeps at varying loudness and location relative to themselves.
We could also use simulated echolocation.
There’s many ways to simulate aural perception that mimics visual perpection.
Obviously something does not become a platform when people write software for it and the value of that software exceeds the value of the company that creates the platform, because this would mean that the day when the value of that software is $1 less than the company then there is no platform but the next day when the value is $2 more there is one.
A platform exists when the company that creates the product has provided the means for third party developers to write software that runs on the product.
As to whether it is a successful or important platform that will be determined by the amount of revenue it generates and the amount of applications written for it and the amount of people that use it. If the software for a platform did not make very much money, comparatively to other endeavors, but there was a lot of it (think free software written for Linux) then the platform still might be important.
If these amounts are going up and the company making the product is also doing good you have a growing platform. if it's going down you have a decreasing platform. If it is going down real quick, or the company that makes the product is declaring bankruptcy or announcing they will be shutting off the possibilities for development on the product - thus standing in the way of the platform - you have a dying platform or will have one shortly.
Obviously aside from all this you will be able to find platforms that are well made and that you have confidence in their longevity and their company's support and platforms where you do not have much confidence. Platforms where you think it is worth investing your time to write software and reach customers, and platforms where you think that is going to fail by the end of next year. For some of the reasons you outlined above I believe aural platforms will underperform visual platforms, although this does not mean that one cannot make money from the platform or that they will not end up having their own niche.
I wouldn't say I know more about what makes a platform than Bill Gates, but I have less reason than he would to try to define what is a real platform or not.
The article vastly overpromises and underdelivers
Do you know if the product line has improved since then?
Wearable, miniature, real-time allow-latency (audio) processing and with the precise indoor location tracking on the iPhone 11 series, I see Apple setting the technology stage (as the often do) for a true platform, AR, with these technologies coming together.
This is one of the pieces I’ve been meaning to write up for my audience of zero...
However I totally buy the rest of this and used to think something similar when they were first released. They haven’t done much in the meantime but with the Pros capabilities and the location detection of the iPhone 11 I think we’re only just at a place something interesting could be done.
A strong claim, I know, but hear me out.
1) these are very small bluetooth headphones.
2) They only work when attached to a smart phone
3) They are still headphones.
Another thing to note is that they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones ($50+ with non tangle wires)
Bluetooth headphones are great if you want to not have to fiddle with wires. But, they are capricious and run out of batteries.
The pros have both noise isolation _and_ reduction. But, they are still let in a boat load of noise, especially speaking.
For long term use, you have to sacrifice isolation for comfort. For the same price as airpod pros you can get custom moulded in ear monitors. 35db of noise reduction, and they don't hurt.
The real selling point of ear buds is the fashion part. People are wearing them because they are a signal of how rich/successful they are. (in the same way people wore those shitty ipod ear buds.)
As for a platform, what are they going to do to be useful? "intelligent noise"? but that requires situational awareness that doesn't exist on smartphones yet.
They will be swept aside as soon as decent AR wearable pop onto the scene. Be that in 3 or 15 years.
Or people just really like the convenience of well implemented wireless headphones.
I agree with GP about the tech journalism. I find it funny that the usual cast of journalists that write these articles have been doing so for years and stand to gain a lot from Apple's success, and are deeply embedded in Apple's press organizations.
I run a 3rd party Bluetooth earphones (not headphones) and honestly I find them nicer to use than AirPods because they’re comfier, stay in the ear better, have equivalent battery life and I prefer the sound “colour” too - though that’s in part because they fit better so the sound is better channeled down the ear canal.
My point being that there are a lot of great earphones (and headphones) on the market. In fact it was already quite a saturated market even before Apple entered into it. So people shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Apple are the best in class nor even the only high end audio manufacturer worth looking at.
Even the top of the line and extremely well rated Sony WH-1000XM3 headphones will only connect (not pair) to a single bluetooth device at a time. If you want to switch audio from your laptop to your phone you got to manually disable the connection on one device, and connect again on the other. That is quite clunky if you have like 3 PCs (work/home) and a phone and would love to use your headphones with any of them.
As far as I understand the Airpods might at least not require to manually disable the connection when switching to a different device. But I can't say for sure, since I don't own a set.
As an audiophile I also don’t think Sony are the greatest example because in my experience Sony haven’t been making the best audio equipment for several decades (despite their price point and cult following).
For example last week I was playing around with some cans which literally mapped the inside of your ear then created a unique sound profile for the wearer (they also did all the same features as AirPods too).
Also I don’t think that’s a good enough argument for downvoting comments that are quite literally factually accurate.
I actually have no issue with AirPods specifically (aside that they don’t come with a selection of silicon gloves for different ear shapes - that’s standard with every other earphone but it’s an extra cost with Airpods). However this is a technical forum and the last time I checked it was considered proper etiquette to discuss similar products when similar products do exist. Which is what I did.
As an aside, it’s a real pity the media machine is so obsessed with Apple because there are genuinely some really interesting earphones and headphones out there from independent companies making real innovations in audio tech. But they often get overlooked now that Apple have entered the earphone market.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Other people aren’t like you. They care more about what Apple is doing with AirPods than about what other companies are doing with their headphones.
I think you’re judging comment unfairly. This is a technology and business forum so the entire bloody point is to talk about technology and businesses. Yet for some reason when it’s a topic about Apple hardware people get really defensive if you happen to mention the competition (like one normally would in any other HN conversation). That’s not my issue; I’m not the inconsiderate one here.
But like I said, I’m own a lot of Apple hardware myself and do see the appeal of it. I also wouldn’t vote someone down if they offered some input on other hardware out there :)
“Frankly, most people find accusations like that pretty insulting.” ;)
Like I said, I’ve been open minded. I don’t feel others have shown the same respect in return.
Also, FWIW, I haven't been downvoting you (I can't, since you're the first descendent on my responses).
EDIT: found the comment I had in mind:
> Indeed but I’ve got my own theories about what’s happening here and I think it’s less to do with people being open to alternative suggestions and more about protectionism of the Apple brand.
FWIW, my take is that people who enjoy the Apple brand proposition (spend more, but you'll generally get a very high level of attention to detail and things will mostly just work) are pretty sick of people who enjoy tinkering telling them that they're idiots for buying Apple. This comment of yours kinda gets into that territory by suggesting that people are downvoting because they're upset about challenges to the Apple brand (which is a petty and childish motivation) rather than they just don't share your priorities.
I’m sure if you look through other Apple threads you see a similar pattern of comments that aren’t negative nor factually inaccurate but still get downvoted too. I see it happen a lot on HN these days and frankly I’m sick of people abusing their voting privileges.
You're taking it for granted that you have some specific needs, know how to evaluate the product space for those needs in mere minutes, and are happier with a cheaper product.
Frankly, having owned various bluetooth headphones over the years, what I always love or hate about them isn't something I knew until I owned them. How much I like/hate their button UI, how they fit and stay in my ears, how reliably they pair or handle bad connections, if they can work through my thick kitchen wall so that I can leave my iPhone in the living room, etc. aren't things I can just research ahead of time. Yet they are 99% of what matters to me. Makes sense to me that people just cough up the $160 for the almost unanimously-loved Airpods instead of enduring the trial and error of evaluating buds.
Though at least with Apple, their brand is more visible and generally more consistent so I can see why people might consider it less of a gamble than buying a comparatively priced audio brand.
...but that sounds good to me? Was that supposed to be a negative point why to not buy their products?
I'm not an apple fan, I hate using my work Mac and refuse to buy another iPhone after trying one for two years. But the airpods are the bomb even in spite of the substandard speaker quality. Anyone who has to use their headsets to talk any length of time are doing themselves a disservice if they've never used airpods. In fact I'd say that the airpods are the only thing apple has gotten fully right since Jobs.
they don't have the same exact feature set, though. airpods just work, reliably. no fiddling, no repairing. No frustrating set up. That's what you're paying for. The extra 80% of effort for that last 20%. And for many people, it's worth it.
FWIW, if you think people buy Apple devices because of lists of features, you’ll simply never be able to make sense of Apple’s success.
Why, assuming they’re not playing anything or have noise cancelling on?
APP also has an interesting pass through mode where there is some noise canceling, but sounds like voices are highlighted.
IIRC people were mocking the first generation of airpod because of their ridiculous look, and people adopted them in spite of their look. Now that they are more mainstream it’s easy to forget.
1) first gen have no noise isolation/cancellation, which means I can't use them in noisy environments.
2) I have children. They will be eaten, played with and generally put places I am not party to.
3) pros have noise cancelling, which is ok but they don't work in places where peak noise is 75 db+ (ie loud train/car), The noise isolation is uncomfortable to get a good seal, though its less for some people.
But again, you are missing the broad thrust, they are headphones, not a platform.
No, this is your assessment of user experience. It’s opinion, not fact. Perhaps some $50 wired headphones sound better but different people value different things.
For a long time I thought “pft what’s the big deal with AirPods, I’m fine snaking the headphone cable down my shirt when I go for a run”. Then I bought some on the recommendation of a friend. For me the user experience is far from substandard — it’s great. The charging case means they rarely run out of juice, the tap to stop/start and Siri is great for running, they sound good, I can walk around the kitchen while cooking with them paired to my laptop, I find them comfortable, etc.
Fashion: I don’t care. What I’ll look like didn’t factor into the decision to buy them at all. As it happens I can easily afford them but didn’t buy for a long time because I don’t like to spend frivolously.
In short: just because you think AirPods (or Apple?) sucks doesn’t mean others don’t find them valuable.
Ok, 3.5" headphones are objectively: cheaper, simpler mechanically, more reliable, easier to use, easier to connect to different devices, never run out of battery or require charging, you can't lose 1/3 of them, and oh, yeah, they tend to sound better at the same price point. They tend to sound much better at the same price point since all you need to focus on are coils and membranes, not bluetooth stacks and batteries and inductive charging coils. A set of Shure SE315s will blow AirPods Pro out of the water on sound quality and noise isolation.
Yes, wireless headphones are wireless. That's all though. You can achieve all the rest with the jack, but you could achieve all of that wireless while the phone still had the jack.
None of this makes AirPods Pro a platform. They're neat wireless headphones. Among the best wireless headphones probably. But that's still all they are.
I've used AirPods Pro, and I've used me SE535s with an inline mic. It's gonna be SE535s by a country mile for me, even to the extent I have to go through the additional hoops of stupid dongles to hook them up. [1]
[1] https://www.shure.com/en-US/products/earphones/se535
People apart from tech-people or audiophiles don’t really care about the points you listed or if they do, the convenience that comes from the wirelessness is more important.
Wires are a pain. They get tangled, they mean your phone and headphones need to always be close (which adds a certain amount of friction, once you get used to the alternative), but most importantly (for me) they get caught on things all the time.
> Ok, 3.5" headphones are objectively: cheaper,
I don’t care. I’ll pay for convenience. This phone was a thousand dollars!
> simpler mechanically,
Why would I know or care?
> more reliable,
You may have a point here, but the convenience of wireless overrides this for me.
> easier to use,
What about that horrible wire? It gets tangled in my pocket and I rip my headphones out when I run.
> easier to connect to different devices,
I only have one device.
> never run out of battery or require charging,
I charge my AirPods Pro every few days. This is a non-issue.
> you can't lose 1/3 of them,
But I mangle the wire on my old headphones all the time, so this feels like a fair trade-off.
> and oh, yeah, they tend to sound better at the same price point.
I’m neither an audiophile nor particularly price conscious.
> A set of Shure SE315s will blow AirPods Pro out of the water on sound quality and noise isolation.
I’ve never heard of those and wouldn’t know where to buy them.
> Yes, wireless headphones are wireless. That's all though.
This is such a naive statement. I’m sorry, but it totally ignores everything that Average Consumer wants.
> None of this makes AirPods Pro a platform.
Not yet.
> They're neat wireless headphones. Among the best wireless headphones probably. But that's still all they are.
Once you’ve tried a pair of truly great wireless headphones you’ll never go back.
Yours, Average Consumer
It's not accurate to describe the average consumer as being in the thousand dollar phone market. They are premium products, and not one that the average consumer can afford. That's one reason why Apple's phone global market share wavers around 10-15%.
Not everyone buying an iPhone today is buying a current, model (carriers are selling back to the iPhone 8), even if they are the base iPhone 11 is about $700 not $1000, and even flagship models are often bought on promotion with steep discounts (AT&T has one with, in the right circumstances, a $700 discount on the 11 Max Pro, bringing it to around $400 on the promo.)
I'm happy I can easily use my headphones with a 9mm plug on my crappy work laptop as well
> Ok, 3.5" headphones are objectively: cheaper,
Perfect, I have no money.
> simpler mechanically,
That's nice I guess
> more reliable,
Neat
> easier to use,
Oh yeah I can just plug it in, easy.
> easier to connect to different devices,
Yeah I can just plug it into those, lots of stuff has that sound hole.
> never run out of battery or require charging,
that's true, plus I couldn't use them while they're charging, so if I forget it's a big issue.
> you can't lose 1/3 of them,
That is something that could happen.
> and oh, yeah, they tend to sound better at the same price point.
I'm no audiophile so I'd probably spend less to still get a decent pair.
> A set of Shure SE315s will blow AirPods Pro out of the water on sound quality and noise isolation.
$300 is pricey for mini-speakers
> Yes, wireless headphones are wireless. That's all though.
They play noises too I've heard.
> None of this makes AirPods Pro a platform.
Okay.
> They're neat wireless headphones. Among the best wireless headphones probably. But that's still all they are.
Okay.
I guess my point is we can make up any kind of person, call them and average consume and present them with thoughts and opinions that match our own.
Your comment was nothing but dismissal under the name of 'an average consumer'
Yours, Average Consumer
Isn't it also almost like discussing the average consumers is a way to consciously limit the scope of the discussion so that it isn't about some <1% of the world's population?
Did you mean for "Average Consumer" just to be your name? Because an average consumer certainly did not pay $1000 for their phone. Already here you represent an outlier.
> What about that horrible wire? It gets tangled in my pocket and I rip my headphones out when I run.
About 20% of Americans engage in activities like running or jogging. Again, you're an outlier.
> I only have one device.
https://www.cisco.com/c/m/en_us/solutions/service-provider/v...
I can't say for sure that you're an outlier hear because these figures represent a mean and not a median. I'm taking "the average consumer" to mean "the median consumer" because "the mean consumer" doesn't exist.
> I charge my AirPods Pro every few days. This is a non-issue.
https://www.ifpi.org/downloads/Music-Listening-2019.pdf
Again, I'm not sure that you are an outlier here because of averages vs medians.
If you spend 18 hours per week just listening to music, If even half of that is spent listening to music from your only device, you'll be charging your airpods at least twice a week.
If airpods are additionally used for calls, some two hours a day, you'll have to charge them even more often.
If AirPods are an ubiquitous platform for augmented hearing, "adding context" to what you hear, you'll be charging them at least twice a day.
I should have made it clear that I am in Australia. AU$1k ≈ US$700.
This seems promising, in case anyone has an account: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283334/average-smartphon...
> I don’t care. I’ll pay for convenience. This phone was a thousand dollars!
The average US smartphone consumer is paying like $500 (substantially less anywhere outside of North America) and saying their limit is substantially less than even that, if you look at both actual average price data and surveys of what consumers say they are willing to pay, so (1) not buying a $1000 phone, (2) not aware of how much they are actually paying for a phone, and (3) not as willing to pay extra for convenience as you suggest.
I'm glad you're happy with your setup and choices. It wouldn't work for me but it does for you. That's all that should matter to you.
Not sure about that part - especially for bigger (over-ear) headphones. My last 2 pairs of wired sets all died because the cable or connector inside the headphones got loose due to mechanical stress. Resoldering was not an option since it was not possible to open the case in a non destructive fashion.
At least that failure-mode does not exist in bluetooth headphones. And so far I had not an issue with my pair (but it's only a year old). But long term the battery might certainly become a potential issue.
On this point, wireless headphones are massively superior. You only need to plug in wireless headphones when you’re not using them. You need to plug in wired headphones all the time when using them. This enables things like “using two hands to carry an object across a room, without wearing a pocket, while listening to headphones”. This is a huge practical upgrade that most people find impossible to give up once habituated.
And that's exactly what makes them easier to use and better sounding if you don't sit still.
Wires get caught in clothes and tend to pull on the earbuds. They scrape and bang against clothes, chin, neck and chest, making a lot of noise in the process.
Does that mean I'm going to pay hundereds for headphones or believe in Excalibur - sorry AirPods - as a platform any time soon? Unlikely. I guess I'll just continue to put up with the occasional bluetooth pairing issues.
The internet really needs to get off it’s high horse about this. The fact is 99% of people can’t tell the difference.
Just like 99% of people don’t care about the headphone jack being removed. This is evident by the market mocking Apple and then following Apple when they realised that it’s true.
This is very true too. I agree.
No, they absolutely can, they just don't think the difference is worth the cost. That's not the same thing.
> Just like 99% of people don’t care about the headphone jack being removed.
[citation needed]
This means AirPods as a stand-alone business is somewhere between a $5B-$15B/year.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-airpods-pro-production...
So the entire narrative that Apple hasn’t released a successful product since Cook took over is provably false. Both the Watch and AirPods lines are larger than the iPods ever were.
http://www.asymco.com/2019/12/12/ipods-pro/
Yes I realize that the $4 billion quoted in the article was for the Christmas quarter.
But even back in the iPod days, I hated wired headphones when I was running or doing anything at the gym.
And how are they “easier to use”? I open the case, they pair to either my iPad or iPhone without a manual pairing process. I put one in my ear, it changes the sound to be monaural from stereo. I also don’t have to go through an unpairing process for it to connect seamlessly to my watch, iPad, iPhone, or AppleTV.
Shure SE315s headphones are for audiophiles. I have 3 pairs of the cheaper model. I love them.
AirPods are for on-the-go. Since getting a dog, I've become addicted to podcasts. AirPods are fantastic.
The utility value of AirPods or similar products is way higher. They are easier to use because they don’t need plugged in. They provide a superior user experience because you’re not tethered. They are easier to every-day-carry and thus always available.
There will always be exceptions: audiophiles, etc. For most of us, it’s no contest.
They are throw-away products. Just look at all the original 1st gen AirPods which now see their batteries failing - each one by itself is small, but given the sales numbers it's huge mountains of electronics trash.
For the price of AirPods you can get a good pair of wired headphones which can last 20+ years. Replace tips or ear cushions as needed, on good headphones they are easily replaceable. No batteries or protocols or codecs to ever worry about.
Well, all the things I just listed.
It may be true that I could get 90% of the functionality of AirPods for half the price, but that would mean researching what to buy, dealing with incompatibilities, and losing 10% of the features AirPods offer. But I loathe researching what to buy and dealing with wonky hardware. I'm fine with paying a bit of money to avoid these hassles.
So while $160 is not "cheap" I felt confident that a) I'd get something I liked, b) that they'd work well, c) that I was okay with spending $160 on them. Would I spend $320? No. But I'm happy with what I got and what I paid. You or anyone else might not be, and that's totally fine as well.
Technically they are amazing. I mean look at how small they are.
But they are not a platform. They are not superior headphones, they excel because they are small. not because they do anything better than any other headphone. I've not mentioned sound quality because that's full of mysticism. Airpods to me sound fine, in a low noise environment.
I have bluetooth headphones, they work, they are sound isolating. They look like shite, and so do I when I wear them. I use them commuting, in the office (sometimes) and when I'm cleaning or doing DIY (30db is attenuation means I can listen without going deaf.) I bought them because they are noise isolating.
However I curse when they run out of battery. I curse when I go through congested 2.4gig areas.
As for value, fashion is a value. People buying them because they look sleek is a value judgement. Loads of people think they are valuable, otherwise this article wouldn't have been written.
They are superior headphones because they are small. Being small is part of their qualities as headphones, not apart from them.
Then I heard rumors about Apple coming out with noise cancelling AirPods about the same time I was getting fed up with my “open office”. As soon as I read the first reviews of the AirPods Pro, I ordered them. I have no regrets. The integration with iOS, noise cancelling, transparency mode, control with the stem, etc is great.
While controlling the volume without having to use Siri would be nice, for me it’s not a big deal, I just use the crown on my Apple Watch.
They are 150-250 bucks a piece. If people are wearing them as status signal then we have real gone downhill a lot.
A $1000 watch (not computer) may be a status thing. A $1000 computer is not.
But it also seems incontrovertible to me that Apple gear is a status symbol. Some people really do buy them for the fashion angle, including the phones. One being true doesn’t preclude the other.
People have been saying that Apple devices are a status symbol since the iPod was introduced in 2001.
You can even by AirPods via installments with T-mobile. Anyone can afford them.
Besides, Apple has 50% of the phone market in the US and it’s even larger once you move up the income scale. Statistically, anyone who is an “influencer” would have an iPhone.
So if you had a handheld $35k device would that be considered a status symbol in the US? Maybe but not a $1k one.
$200 dollars is a lot of money for a device that in most cases will last a year or two and there are plenty of alternatives that do the same for a fifth of the price. Especially in the context of teenagers using them as a status symbol.
My point is, a status symbol is something unachievable by most people regardless (like a Yacht or a Ferrari). An airdpod can be bought by almost anyone in the US if that's their priority.
If your question is “Doesn’t everyone have disposable income?” The answer is no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United...
In Germany, it seems to be mostly a status signal of young teenagers, who wear them constantly. Was probably the most requested gift in my daughter‘s class, where everyone is around 12.
Don‘t see that many grown-ups walking around with them.
But.
My mother is over the moon with her airpods (not pro) and the iphone 5s I gave her a year ago: now she can watch tv, listen to music and sit where she fancies without worrying about anything else.
Yes, she is short of hearing. This device despite having alternatives just solved her problem.
The alternatives may be there. These things are just known, easy to use and useful.
but they are not a platform.
You had me going right up to the punch line.
The error you’re making is a very common one here - reducing the product to its base functionality description rather than looking at how well they have been implemented. You think they’re bettered by better specs on paper like custom moulding, but paper ideas don’t always achieve a better user experience in the end.
I think AirPods are a revolutionary achievement in user experience. I haven’t used wired since. The form factor and the pairing are peerless.
"AirPods is a Platform" in that article is a bullshit, here I agree - while there's no apps running on the device, it's not a platform.
But their quality is not "substandard", far from it. And they have a lot of features, not just noice cancellation. There are reasons to love them and you didn't even try to find full description of their features before complaining.
1. Because I hate wires, absolutely detest working with them.
2. The listening experience of AirPods is great. The noise cancellation opt-in mode is sufficiently great. I sit in a bus, turn cancellation on and boom people are just moving their lips.. There is a little bit noise I can happily ignore.
3. They fit in my ears very well. I have tried a lot of variations of headphones over the decade and the AirPods fit more than good enough (surprisingly).
4. I love the case it comes with, easy to transport.
5. Charging levels are great for my need, 5-8 hours listening to podcasts, some music and playing games.
So I don’t know about the platform thing, but wireless wins in the end, always. Because bitrate is just one detail that isn’t so important anyway.
For similar reasons, I listen to a lot of music on my Sonos, even if it has poorer sound quality than my stereo. It’s just so convenient.
All wired earbuds can have "non tangle wires" with the correct method of storage:
- Place the buds in your palm
- Make the "rock" sign with the hand they're in, trapping the buds with your two middle fingers
- Wrap the cord around the two outer fingers in a figure of 8 motion
- Pinch in the middle to remove from your fingers and place everything in a pouch of some sort
Now when you want to use your headphones again they will "magically" not be tangled!
Of course this doesn't stop them getting tangled up in stuff whilst in use, and does require that you have a pouch for storage, but it is the best technique I ever learned for saving myself from the frustration of having to untangle a mess of wire when trying to use my headphones.
The user experience is still amazing with the airpods, despite all their problems: battery life, sound quality. Etc... The airpods have hit on a balance of usability and tech that was much needed.
Also, I love my airpods and I've only ever used an Android phone.
Whoa, that little? Any recommended places to look into this?
- leave your phone in one room, on the charger, keep listening/talking in another.
- keep listening in the shower or tub.
- keep listening outside, phone inside (or vice versa).
- don't need clothes with pockets
- put on a soft hat that covers your ears, and nobody knows you're listening (better security)
- give one earbud to a friend and listen to the same thing.
- silent disco applications
3-15 years is a long time, and wireless earbuds will evolve. For example, imagine that they support 10+ hours battery charge, or WiFi for longer range, or "sync" multiple sets of earbuds to create a true silent disco, and on and on.
AR glasses may be complementary to wireless earbuds, not a replacement: this provides better battery life and features/roadmap for both devices.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B07R5MKX3K
Small and wireless has been a desirable trait for a long time. I think you're underselling that a bit.
> they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones
A lot of people disagree with this. A lot of people prefer the portability of small wireless music over big cans with "better" sound.
Completely disagree with this.
I was cooking with the noise cancelling turned on and I sliced off half my fingernail with a potato peeler, right down between the nail and the finger. It was pretty gross.
But I had the noise cancelling on and as I looked at my finger I had this weird out of body experience where I couldn’t feel anything and just felt completely separate from it - I had to take the AirPods out before I could come to grips with the situation and do anything about it.
That noise cancellation is powerful stuff. I can see how it could transport you maybe even as much as VR
(One could argue the degree to which it isolates you from the environment acoustically might also be insulating you from heeding your environment at all - sounds like something that might be worth studying!)
The AirPods didn't even have any music playing, just the ANC turned on.
bluetooth audio IS lo-fi, on purpose, but whatever floats your 64kbps Real Audio boat, I suppose...(I'm an OGG Vorbis person myself, lol)
Wi-Fi would be quite useful though, so they can keep working outside of Bluetooth range (big house, office building, etc) by falling back to the Wi-Fi and talking to the phone over it.
One of the features that I feel is glossed over very quickly is Live Listen[0], especially for an article about it being "a platform". For those that have family members with hearing loss they are a godsend in noisy environments like a cafe. Just put an iPhone with tons of processing power and an array of microphones on the table and let it filter out most of the noise and send it to the AirPods with impressive low latency. It's truly amazing, if you have AirPods and an iPhone you should try it. They outperform more professional solutions by miles. I have only tried it with AirPods, but I can only imagine how well it works with proper hearing aids that are tuned to the frequency range.
I wish they'd make an audio loop "bridge" of some sort for Live Listen, as hearing aids are expensive and available technology from government usually lags behind 10+ years.
[0] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209082
If Airpods + an iPhone on the table can help him out, like making table conversation more accessible, that would be a big deal. I'll have to look into it.
The point of Airpods + iPhone here is that they are still highly portable, people today already carry both around just for fun. Your desktop PC + mic setup is not.
Although $1,000 is not quite what high end hearing aids usually go for. I usually see prices closer to $3000+.
And probably, a a whole sleuth of gear and cables can probably provide better quality, but it's not something you can easily bring with you to a cafe. Or use, because it would be a mess to set up when you need it. When I say low latency I mean truly low latency. It's at the level where your brain easily tunes it out. Comparable to using cables. Remember, transmitting data over RF can be very low latency, it's typically the pre-processing that adds latency and whatever protocol overhead you have. It seems like Apple has done some great work to get pre-processing and protocol overhead down to a minimum.
And you also have hearing aids that can be connected to iPhones and use the Live Listen. I just wish someone would provide an audio loop bridge for those that are stuck with older variants, as hearing aids are tuned to the frequency range of the person that needs them. AirPods, not so much.
I thought the whole point of a watch was that you didn't need to charge it for months and it would tell you the time in exchange.
Now people seem to be OK with charging their watches once a day.
What I'd really like is a way to combine the bone conduction technology with Live Listen.
- there was a famous scene in “Clueless” (1995) where the “rich” girls were walking down the hall in school with cell phones and they were seen to be out of touch. Now, that’s perfectly normal.
- only “nerds” walked around with their calculator and video game watches and now millions of people have “wrist computers”.
- When I was in school, if you had a pager, everyone assumed you were a drug dealer.
It’s a task to think about though. How much veiling and social intermediation will people accept (or socially require) before the deep alienation sets in?
Is there any indication that users (not designers, developers, businesses or "the industry") actually want this?
It's just a question of degree. I'm sure some people want all their info to come from just 1 site, but most people want it separated into manageable chunks. Car info from this site, computer from that site, etc.
For instance, I come to Hacker News for most of my computer-related news. I use reddit for most entertainment, though there's some computer stuff there. I use Flipbook for random things that I wouldn't think to subscribe to on Reddit.
And people use Facebook, etc for things that their friends like and want to share.
Do you think the next viable competitor can spend that kind of money?
The number of people on the planet with bedroom noise problems is vastly larger than the number of audiophiles. Plus the value created per customer would be dramatically higher.
Solve these issues and I can see AirPods being a $50B / year business.
I wanted the ability to make calls, check texts, pay using mobile payments, and play music without the distraction of mindlessly grabbing for my phone to browse the Internet whenever a moment of boredom surfaces.
It works quite well. I turned off notifications for emails and texts. Instead, I check those once an hour or so. If a conversation becomes longer than a message or two, I call the person or tell them I’ll text them later.
I haven’t been fully able to ditch the phone, but I didn’t intend to. I experimented with this set up mostly for nights and weekends.