> sells wireless earbuds at 169$

Just to play devil's advocate, those $169 AirPods are by far the cheapest fully wireless earbuds on the market, and at launch were ~$100 less than the only other competitor available. Most estimates peg Apples margin on them in the low single digits...

> Most estimates peg Apples margin on them in the low single digits...

Any references for this. My gut feeling doesn't match up with this. I can't imagine the bill of materials being more than 1/3rd of the cost?

Unless those estimates are including the R&D cost, I imagine these are low volume, and that Apple spent a lot of money on developing them.

Given the long lead time on orders for, what, nearly a year now, it seems likely these are not trivial to manufacture.

And these are really tiny computers and highly optimized batteries, so I'd be surprised if the BoM is that low, but determining that is definitely not my strong suit.

And beyond that, there's plenty of more than decent APT-X capable bluetooth headphones on the market at reasonable prices if you aren't looking for "fully" wireless. My Jabra Halo Smart cost me around $80, has audio quality anyone who isn't an audiophile can enjoy and enough battery I only charge them every couple days (mind you, I'm only using them for maybe 1-3 hours a day).

I don't see Apple getting rid of them, especially considering the acquisition of Beats, but the AirPods really feel like the Airport base stations - setting a standard of quality to try and guide the industry along.

>I'm pretty sure a company that recently acquired Beats, the notoriously overpriced headphone companies, and sells wireless earbuds at 169$ is most certainly not making "pennies" on headphones.

Maybe read their financial statements then?

(And I'm pretty sure they lost more money still for buying Beats that they've made from selling Beats products at the moment -- even though both was spare change for them).

Or "envision a future" where they "sell more stuff."