I might be convinced of that when they improve the battery technology. No company on the planet except for Apple can say "wireless is the future" and charge $159 for buds that last 5 hours.

The battery in my jaws neckband earphones should last 13 hours.

Btw a neckband should have been the ideal form factor for this - comfortable, great battery life, doesn't require expensive tech like earpods , hard to lose, buttons.

Neckbands look ugly and unwieldy, not saying people don't like them just that Apple would never make them.

That would make sense if wired wasn't far superior to wireless from a reliability and throughput standpoint

The iPhone's Bluetooth 4 is capable of 24 Mbps. If that's not enough throughput for your music listening, I'm not sure what to tell you.

I work in an office with a lot of 2.4 GHZ wifi going on - bluetooth anything (including keyboard and mouse) doesn't work worth a damned in that environment.

Wireless is a poor substitute for wired in most real-world usecases. Wireless gives you: unpredictable performance, latency, contention for available frequencies, and having to deal with batteries.

I think it's OK for wifi, only because most of the time the bandwidth of wifi is greater than the bandwidth of your ISP. But I think that's a problem with the state of ISPs, not a blessing of wifi.

Were you given early access to Apple's "wireless" AirBuds?

Yes, apparently he saw the keynote before anyone

Explain plz

My issue with this is there are wireless headphones today, you don't need to remove the headphone jack to support them. It's a step back for no compelling reason.

Another of Apple's core tenets is "milk those cows [customers] for all they've got". They couldn't care less about any other market segment than the pure luxury status-seeker segment.

If that were the case, they would discontinue OS X, but they've spent the last several versions adding features nerds use.