I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much press as it has. It seems so overblown that I have to wonder if people with iPhone 7s have actually been refusing to use existing wireless headphones because they are actually waiting for these.

I've had a set of $25 Motorola wireless (Bluetooth) headphones that I use on my daily walking commute to and from work for many years. They work and sound great. They double as a wireless microphone and playback controls. I charge them every day via a USB cable. Woohoo.

I can't see anything specs-wise with the Apple headphones that is interesting. Auto-pause? Okay, cool, but I can press the pause button on my Bluetooth headphones from 2010. Switching between devices? I can enable or disable Bluetooth on my devices, I guess, if I had wanted to use the headphones with more than my phone (though I do not want that).

These new features seem incremental at best. The clamor for these—and the fact that their availability is a high-ranking news item on HN—seems to suggest I am missing something very fundamental. And yet, it feels that I am not. These are wireless headphones with a couple incremental features and an Apple logo.

> I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much press as it has.

They're tiny, they pair to multiple devices trivially, and are well designed. They're one of the big reasons Apple is supposed to have removed the headphone jack off the iPhone 7. "You don't need it, let us show you why" kind of thing.

The other reason is that this is releasing MONTHS LATE. It was supposed to be released at the end of October, now it's coming out end of December. That's HUGE.

When was the last time Apple screwed up the launch of something big like this? The biggest one people can recall is the white iPhone 4 which basically released 9 months late. At that point most people just waited the extra 4-5 months for the iPhone 4s.

Ignoring that they're neat little headphones, this is big news today because APPLE SHIPPED LATE. That just doesn't happen. Maybe quantities are low (Apple watch), but not a flat out delay on a major product after announcing a release date.

Eh, they'll pair trivially to other Apple devices (which ... NFC assisted pairing is not new).

It's months late, it's still not here yet, AND there's a "big" warning on the page that even when it is here it will only be in limited quantities and that prospective buyers are "advised" to check online for stocking levels... very un-Apple.

Looking at the list of specs you mentioned, yes, you missed something. There's another guy right above talking about the non-music related features, take a look.

The other two from that message that I didn't mention were auto-mono and a carrying case. Are those the other features you're referring to?

Auto-mono: I guess I see some people listening in only one ear sometimes, but that's not my way of listening to music or podcasts. The cheap Motorola headphones I use are traditional "headphones" and not earbuds. I prefer headphones over earbuds. But even if I used earbuds, I'm not interested in single-ear listening.

Carrying case: This is a big deal? On my walks, I "carry" my headphones on my ears. When I get home, I charge via a USB cable.

Whatever; I suppose I don't begrudge anyone for being excited by Apple headphones. I just find the hype level amusing and silly.

From my experience, Bluetooth audio's sound quality is abysmal. I figure that's why an alternative system is getting so much hype.

I would agree that old Bluetooth devices (especially those from around 2005 or earlier) often sounded poor. But modern Bluetooth devices (say 2009 onward) have generally sounded fine/great. I would go so far as to say that if you're listening to MP3s and not FLAC, then Bluetooth isn't your biggest signal loss.

I haven't done work in the Bluetooth space for years now, but a big problem with audio streaming in the Bluetooth 1/2 days was that devices wouldn't reliably adjust their page and inquiry scan intervals (time the radio spends listening for connections and answering device discovery requests, rather than sending data).

The effective remaining bandwidth fell far short of what the default Bluetooth codec, SBC, required. SBC was already pretty low end, more like MPEG Layer-1 audio. Even so, for point to point streaming if the devices cooperated well there was enough bandwidth for fairly good audio quality. It's just that it was a crapshoot what any pair of devices would get you.

The other big issue is that there wasn't, at least at the time, any standardized method for synchronizing the audio sampling rates of the source and sink. This could have been achieved by slaving the audio PLL to the connection master's frequency hopping clock, which the slave has to follow to even maintain a connection, but there wasn't any requirement to do so. Plus it'd be a massive layer violation in the Bluetooth stack. We basically ran a software PLL on the sink side to try to match what the source was giving us, but packet retransmissions due to loss could gum up the timing. You could get a pitch-bending effect as a connection was starting up, or had just suffered a lot of loss.

I imagine they've sorted most of that out by now.

> I imagine they've sorted most of that out by now.

I think they have. Giving some leeway to my bluetooth Motorola headphones since they are super-aural, to my ears—and I feel I am fairly picky—they are not significantly worse than my circumaural Sennheiser HD 380 pros on my workstation. I suspect the principal reason I feel my circumaural headphones sound a bit better is simply that they are circumaural.

Properly encoded MP3s are sonically indistinguishable in blind tests from FLAC, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.

That's actually my point.

I believe modern Bluetooth headphones are indistinguishable from equivalent non-Bluetooth headphones. If you can tell whether headphones are Bluetooth or not—the other components being equal—then you have particularly acute hearing. And if that's you, then you are probably a FLAC aficionado.

For what it's worth, I listen to MP3s on Bluetooth headphones and they sound great.

(Though to be clear, I've not actually researched the bit rate of Bluetooth, though I suspect it's high enough for 44 KHz stereo. To my ears, Bluetooth is indistinguishable from an analog 3.5mm connection.)

The quality has nothing to do with Bluetooth, it has everything to do with the digital-to-analog converter. A $25 headset is going to have the cheapest chip the manufacturer could find. Non-Bluetooth headsets don't process digital signals and don't have to do this conversion, it's up to the device you're listening on.

Okay.

Again, that's my point. Bluetooth has a undeserved/outdated bad reputation for adversely affecting audio. I contend that, all else being equal, I could not distinguish a modern Bluetooth wireless headphone from a wired headphone.

Yes, as you point out, they also need a DAC. So I will clarify my contention: all else being equal, I could not distinguish a Bluetooth wireless headphone from a wired USB headphone that uses the same DAC.

It's not all about the codecs. On my Sony MDR-1RBTs — which are admittedly a few years old at this point — you can hear the radio buzzing when there's nothing playing. I don't know if it's possible to design a pristine, noiseless set of Bluetooth headphones when there's just so little room in the earcups.

When did you have your experience? 2010?

Just go grab a pair of BT headphones with aptX support and you should be fine. Unless you are a tube amp and $1.5k headphone kind of person - then you most definitely aren't in the target segment.

Can you provide a link to your headphones so I can see if they are something I'd be at all interested in?

Motorola S305: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BH3I9U

They're from ~2009 or thereabouts. Traditional headphone form factor. Works great for my use case (pedestrian commutes to and from the office).

I had a pair of wired Sony's wayyyyy back in the day in this wrap around ear/neck band form factor that I really loved when I was a kid. Lately though, I find anything that covers my ear too warm and uncomfortable. This is why I'm excited about the AirPods. I wouldn't really classify these Motorola's as truly wireless because of the connecting band.

That's cool with me. A sense I have picked up from your reply and another message in this thread is that Apple is attempting to evolve the definition of "wireless headphone" to require no bridge between the two ears. I think that is a vocabulary change that is causing a lot of us to scratch our heads in confusion. Conventionally, "wireless headphone" has meant no wire to the device—no headphone cable and no 3.5mm connector. And by that definition, wireless headphones are old and boring.

That said, I'm not a fan of earbuds, wired or otherwise. So whether removing the bridge wire is a revolution is lost on me since I'm not interested either way.

Yeah... My bad, agree on the terminology. I think a more appropriate way to refer to them would be 'wireless earbuds'. In that case, I would say anything connecting them would be cheating and taking away from the truly amazing feeling of having audio delivered to your ears with no connecting wires to get caught on things, pull, vibrate when turning your head etc etc.

You can't just go out and get a $25 Bluetooth headphone and expect a consistent result.

The whole point of the brand is that you're getting a quality, consistent product.

I could buy a dozen of the Motorola wireless headphones I use and I expect the results would be consistently satisfying. In fact, a couple years back I did buy two spare pairs that are new in box in case I ever lose my current pair. At $25 a pop, I figured why not have some insurance.

But I understand you. If you've not previously used wireless headphones and you're satisfied with Apple quality, this new offering is a known quantity. I'm still not really feeling the innovation. Except of course, as someone pointed out, this is a subtle redefinition of "wireless" to mean not just removing the wire to the device, but also any bridge between the two ears. For me, that bridge isn't something I care to remove. But okay, that's cool.

It's Apple. Pretty much anything and everything Apple does right now gets lots of press, much of it of the fawning variety. Apple has a strong brand affinity, so people will shower love on anything Apple-related.

How is it anything more than a wireless version of the headphones they have been bundling for years?

It's like calling a Tesla "an electric version of the same cars that were on the road for decades". Each headphone has a new chip that could probably run a whole smartphone few years ago - but I mean, if the fact that they are wireless is not impressive, then I don't think we can convince you.

He's probably not impressed by the fact they're wireless because wireless headphones aren't new. I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well and cost $20. Wireless headphones just aren't impressive technology in December 2016. They've been done. Again and again. This isn't a Tesla situation by any means.

Apple might have executed particularly well, but I see his point.

>I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well and cost $20.

Wireless headphones that "work well" don't cost $20. And especially in this form factor (separate).

I'm not saying they're the greatest ever, but sync was easy, they play music without any problems, they hold a charge for a few days, and they haven't broken. What more does it take for a pair of Bluetooth headphones to work well? My expectations are pretty low.

They could absolutely be better, if for example, the charge lasted two weeks, or the sound was higher quality (I'm no audiophile but I'm sure if I was I'd find they could be better) but they're Good Enough.

Wireless headphones aren't new. Wireless headphones at that size/feature set/price point seem to be. The only comparable thing I know if is Samsung reportedly had some similar but they only had like 90m of battery life.

I'm curious how well the battery life claims hold up. It's impressive but sometimes the real world battery life doesn't measure up. The new MacBook Pros are a good example of this (even if the current battery life is temporary and may be fixed by OS updates).

Apple tends to be highly accurate on battery life measurements. If they 5 hours playing music I believe them.

The problem with the MBP is its 10 hours of a 'light workload'. And it meets that. But a HEAVY workload may be 4 hours and they don't advertise that.

I don't remember reviewers saying anything bad about battery life on the AirPods back in October.

Eh, you said it... YOU believe them. A lot of people here don't anymore.

Let's wait to see what real world use looks like. I mean, if you take the emoji touch bar at face value it's the coolest thing since sliced bread. However, real world use indicates that it might not be as useful as Apple wants it to be.

I think you misunderstood me. What I said is that Apple's numbers are highly accurate FOR WHAT THEY TESTED.

The problem here is that Apple hasn't given numbers about what it's like under heavy load. Or really any load it all. If you stick to doing the kind of things Apple does in their battery life test you WILL get what they say.

Unfortunately as we seem to be finding out if you go outside of that you're screwed. Obviously harder workloads always hit the computer more, but this year the delta seems much much higher. They are cherry picking tests that make their battery life look reasonable.

I should also note that this is not the first time Apple did this. The quoted battery life on the iPhone 7 is basically the same as before, but they made a slight change to the wording. This year there tests are all with wireless headphones. This is likely because it's always been down that using the speaker on an iPhone to listen to music will lower your battery life pretty significantly, and now that the new iPhone 7 has a double speaker arrangement it's likely an even bigger effect than before.

Apples not lying like so many PC makers used to do, they're playing lawyer games and choosing their words incredibly carefully.

This is not a good turn. Apple giving real life accurate battery estimates used to be one of the things that put them above PC makers in my mind. If they're going to start redefining the workload to doing nothing on your computer... why bother?

I was responding to this line by the parent commenter.

> Because it IS an entry into a nascent market. Apple sees this as a new IO device, not a "pair of fucking headphones".

It really is just a pair of headphones. This isn't a new market.

Are you seriously suggesting these are the first wireless headphones?

Honest question: can you point me to some other earbuds of the same size that are totally wireless (not even a bridging wire) and that also include a microphone, etc.?

The AirPods honestly do seem like a somewhat unique entry into the market to me, but it's such a crowded market that I could have easily missed a competitor somewhere.

That said, the lack of any sort of wiring is actually a negative to me, because that's primarily what makes it seem like these will be so easy to lose.

The Bragi Dash and the Samsung Gear Icon X both do this, and also include fitness tracking functionality. The Samsung ones can even be loaded with music and cache your fitness data so you don't need a phone with you.

Bragi Dash: $249.99 after $50 off

https://www.amazon.com/Bragi-Truly-Wireless-Smart-Earphones/...

I think this is hilarious, even as someone who owns multiple Apple devices. "This is revolutionary. Nothing else does anything like this." "These do." "Well they cost more!", or "doesn't look as cool". Moving goalposts.

And eh, I realize that Apple almost never goes below MSRP/list, but don't act like the "after $50 off" is some special promotion. It's not a rebate, even an instant one, just 'cheaper than list'.

'Hilarious' describes the claim higher up that Apple didn't do anything to see here because wireless headphones are $20.

In reality, the only thing close costs markedly more, not at MSRP but at real selling price.

There's a reality distortion field, but it's inverted.

Not hilarious, just tedious.

Holy shit, friend.

Motorola VerveOnes - $150

SmartOmi Boots Mini - $75

Rowkin Bit Stereo - $110

Rowkin Mini Plus - $60

Sol Republic Amps Air - $150

Your lack of awareness of the market does not mean that it does not exist. It is not helpful to pretend that your unwillingness to do simple research on the matter makes you an expert.

I will now predict your next objections:

"I don't like these companies"

"These are not exactly the same product"

"The colors are off"

"The Apple Store doesn't carry them"

I wasn't proposing an exhaustive sampling, but you also haven't satisfied the $20 claim above.

Even Reddit finds more plausible comps:

- Samsung Gear IconX ($200) 4GB of on-board storage+, fitness tracking+ -- 1.6 Hours

- Motorola VerveOnes ($200) Can look up last connected location if lost+ -- 2-3 Hours

- Bragi Dash ($300) Fitness tracking+, gesture control+, 4GB storage+, Audio passthrough+ -- 4 Hours

- Bragi Headphone ($150) Hardware buttons+, no case charging or BLE -- 6 Hours

- Earin M-1 ($200) claims good sound quality+, no mics- -- 3 Hours

- Jabra Elite Sport ($250) Fitness tracking+, waterproof+ -- 3 Hours

- Apple Airpods ($160) W1 Chip to quickly switch devices+, Can use either headphone independently+, 24 add hrs of charge in case, only comes in one size- -- 5 Hours

I'm not sure your list is made of nice things:

- "Sol Republic Amps Air Are Truly Wireless Earbuds That Kind of Suck" http://gizmodo.com/sol-republic-amps-air-are-truly-wireless-...

- "Review: Apple AirPods Are Pretty F--king Cool" http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/review-apple-airpods-are...

yeah this falls under "that isn't exactly the same product," above. I'm not sure, for instance, why you left 'can use either headphone independently' off the Gear IconX entry, because you can. I'm not sure why about half of these entries leave out the charge-case entry, because a lot of them have it.

But it's irrelevant. You can say "apple's product is better." You can say "these other products are terrible." You can even say "I hate everything that is not from Cupertino." But the claim here is that these things are some kind of revolution. The claim we are trying to rebut is not "apple airpods suck and are not worth buying." I, and many others, are merely explaining that there is nothing magical or even particularly new about airpods. They are an iteration on an existing product segment.

You, so far, have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

I didn't say any of these things you keep saying I'm saying, so I'm not trying to demonstrate otherwise.

i got smartomi boot. it is cheaper alternative for the apple airpods i buy with a discount code at cnet https://www.cnet.com/news/get-a-pair-of-waterproof-wire-free...

No one is suggesting that.

There are not many wireless earbuds in this form-factor / category.

I think you just did, not OP.

For starters, it has a CPU. Also it has an accelerometer. Also it has a microphone.

Hope this answers your question.