Apple has a huge R&D budget and I'm sure that they could make some very nice headphones if they wanted to, but up against a company that's been making really good stuff for 40+ years, I'm skeptical. If it were an innovation thing, I'd be down to get the hot new headphone experience, but these are just wireless can headphones with some noise cancelling, a product that's been around for quite a while now.
(I've had Bose QCs for ~8 years now (the same set, mind you), I'm pretty happy with them. I'm also pretty happy with the earbuds that came with my phone. so it's not like I'm allergic to spending money on stuff I think will be worth it or I'm some audio snob).
You people are so quick to bash on this company for no reason.
The only headset that I consider on par with this one is the recently released (at 800 euro) bang and Olufsen n95. The price is not always the sum of parts.
Also no one uses closed back headphones for studio work. What does “mid range studio quality” even mean.
The vast majority of professionals use speakers in a sound treated room for mixing. Those that use headphones do so very carefully, using EQ to get them to sound right (or getting used to the sound profile of the headphones). The most commonly used are Sennheiser open backs in this area - a pair of HD650 is probably most common. In general it’s fairly challenging to mix with headphones accurately though.
There has been relatively little innovation in headphones (and speakers) the last decade or so aside from DSP correction. The last really innovative (from an audio engineering point of view) headphone in my book is the HEDDphone with Air Motion Transfer drivers previously unseen outside some exotic speakers. But it’s $2000, weighs 700g and requires an amp to drive it.
I look forward to hearing the Apple headphones but am sceptical you can get as much of a boost with “computational audio” as you can with computational photography, compared to “dumb” headphones with similar drivers and tuning.
I think the spatial audio stuff is interesting and possibly better than previous attempts on headphones. I think well off people will buy these headphones for the convenience factor (works and sounds marginally better than the next best competitor), and Apple will probably release a less expensive version down the line.
There's lots of room to improve, for example, the quality of your voice as picked up by the mic, especially in windy environments. Speaking of that, walking outside on a windy day can be really intrusive with the XM3s because the ANC tries to 'cancel' the wind and you get weird sounds in your ears. Those seem like cases where Apple is well suited to make dramatic improvements via DSP. Tech like the noise canceling the HoloLens 2 applies to its mic (to cut out noise from around the speaker) seems well within their capability. I don't make much use of the XM3's "smart" features because they're pretty compromised. Their 'transparency' mode/partial noise canceling mode is really more intrusive than useful. It doesn't sound like I am partly-canceling background noise, it sounds like microphones are selectively filtering some of what they pick up into my music while I walk outside.
So I think there's definitely enough space for Apple to innovate on sound quality and other aspects of the wireless headset experience to justify the margin.
Edit: Also, multi-device pairing and handoff is super janky with the XM3s. Worth mentioning, I had the XM2s beforehand and the mic was literally unusable on conference calls no matter where I used it - people would complain and ask me what was wrong with my phone every time. Wireless headphones are not a solved problem.
XM3s hardware build quality is excellent. The biggest problem with XM3s is the crappy software. The iOS app that demands always on background location access. Although I’d learnt soon enough that it’s perfectly usable without the app.
This is where Apple really shines, in the integrated hardware and software experience. The multi device pairing support on Bose headsets is slightly better than on Sony headsets, although both done even come close to how well AirPods do it on Apple devices.
Which is why I'm sad that they'll become obsolete after a while. I'm sure they'd still make great studio headphones for listening at home in 15 years when the battery is long dead (if they worked passively).
I was told that the battery has to qualify for battery replacement on some devices. That's because they don't replace batteries on an iPad Pro - they always replace the entire device so unless you quality for the battery program, your only option is device replacement. Which they will do if I want but at a much greater cost. That's almost 1/2 the cost of what I originally paid for it.
I was told this directly by an Apple store employee this week. He said he literally can't select the battery replacement option unless he can prove that it is the battery and without the health report saying so, he doesn't know any way he could.
If that doesn't work out, easiest thing is probably to sell on Craigslist with some disclosure and buying a new one.
For the Airpods Max they currently list a price of 87€, but as far as I understand there's only one battery to swap. But 87€ every few years is still a high maintenance price, hoping they don't increase that price.
Also, Apple only offers service for a few years. I have a few bloated Macs that would need a new battery but Apple just doesn't service them anymore.
For many devices you can get replacement batteries from 3rd party sellers, but quality is hit or miss -- there's no guarantee the replacement battery is going to last (but in my experience Apple's replacement batteries are also unreliable sometimes).
Most of my Hifi gear is more than 15 years old. I doubt any of Apple's new audio products will last that long.
I don’t know if these will find the market Apple is hoping for, but seriously what is the point of this comment? Just to be negative for negativity’s sake? I’m not trying to be confrontational or dickish—I just don’t get it. Every time Apple launches some new expensive product it’s the same old story, people saying it’s going to be crappy and anyway who would buy it at that ridiculous price? and then it turns out that it’s actually not crappy, and some people buy it and like it a lot. I don’t see why we should expect anything different here.
> there’s a cheaper product out there that’s inferior to what Apple claims of their new headphones
If your claim is that Apple made a product using expensive and tough materials, more expensive than, say, Sony's counterpart, and thus that is better, you may be half-right.
But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
What we know now is that Apple did not include support for high quality audio codecs. That itself is quite a red flag.
I would not argue with this and in fact I specifically addressed the does-the-market-actually-exist concern in my comment.
> But if you claim that Apple made a product that sounds better than Bose or Sony's counterparts, and has better ANC, that is not verifiable, at least not until there are in-depth reviews out there confirming it.
I don’t claim any such thing. The point of my comment is that the parent comment implied that there is no real difference, then said that even if there is a difference who cares because does anybody really need better sound anyway?
So my point is, what is the point of that comment? What is it bringing to this discussion, suggesting that Apple’s new headphones may be overpriced wrt. their sound quality, and if not then they’re overpriced anyway? Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
I'm going to take a guess and say that, given the facts, there are reasonable doubts about Apple's offering, compared to other products. Mainly two: noise cancelling is not on par with Bose and Sony, as stated by early reviewers, and the lack of high quality codecs.
Functionality-wise then, they may be overpriced.
And I would be the first to admit that I like the overall design. I'm an Apple user myself. But I'm skeptical that Apple has achieved the technical proficiency to make some reasonably good sounding, wireless, ANC cans, that compete with either Bose or Sony.
I see this more as a luxury product or a status symbol, like Bang & Olufsen.
> Good sound is something some people care about and will pay for.
The people willing to pay +$500 for a pair of headphones would be even more skeptical than me, I presume.
Since we’re talking about it now, though ... Apple has a decent record building products that meet a reasonable quality bar, even in markets they’re relatively new to. So I think there is a good chance these will end up being regarded as pretty good headphones, worth the asking price for a certain class of consumer. There is also some chance that they will be regarded as overpriced Beats by Dre trash, though I think that window is closing as more positive impressions come in. Outcomes in between those extremes are, obviously, also possible.
Apple’s hardware design and engineering are first rate, and the things they build with speakers in them don’t sound half bad. Personally, I’d be surprised if these weren’t competitive on features alone, and I’ve paid up to around $1000 for (wired) headphones.
So, without a doubt, people will pay for these. And I don’t know what sources that other guy has, but all the early impressions I’ve seen mention much better ANC than the competition
Anecdote: I drive a newer BMW 328i. I live in the northern US where it snows, and it's a rear-wheel drive car so it sat on the lot because no one around here wants to buy an expensive car they have to park half of the year. I bought it certified pre-owned for under $30k, but the MSRP brand new was more like $50k with the package/options mine has. And yet I get so many comments about how it's an impractical car (It's a four door with a full size trunk and gets 30mpg...) and I must be rich for driving a BMW. Oftentimes I get this comment from people who drive pickup trucks that cost $60k-$70k, but that's apparently okay because Ford isn't a "luxury brand".
I got my "luxury car" for less than the average purchase price of a new car in the US, and I still get comments about how it's so expensive and I must be rich and I've had family tell me not to drive it to family events because it makes people feel like I'm showing off. Because when they think BMW, they think "fuck that's an expensive car" but it's not. BMW makes expensive cars, yes, but mine was not. Heck I was looking at replacing my SUV and the base-model Chevy Blazer costs more than my BMW.
But also yes, I've frequented some Toyota forums for my SUV and I've seen a lot of comments when someone wants to discuss their Lexus because "it's just a Toyota that costs $10k more!".
Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
> I doubt it's studio quality but I also doubt that of apple's offering (or the need for such quality).
Seems to me that the doubt is on charging $550 for mediocre sound or on whether better sound actually matters, depending on whether the sound turns out to be mediocre or not. That way we can be negative about Apple’s pricey new doodad regardless of whether it’s actually good or not—how convenient!
> Airpods don't have the best sound, several rival wireless earphones beat them to that.
I have not claimed otherwise and probably never will.
Why is being skeptical of a product announcement problematic? Is stone-faced indifference the only acceptable response? Can I also not speculate on a film's quality from its trailer?
Your comment was just pointless, unfair criticism. You start by pointing out that there exists a cheaper product that is broadly similar to Apple's new competitor. Then you claim that the latter probably won't exceed the quality of the cheaper product, and that even if it does, nobody could possibly want or need to pay the premium attached to that exceedance. So in the end you've put Apple in a box where their new product sucks no matter what, because it's not exactly the same as a product that already exists.
That's just obviously not valid, as previously noted—people pay a lot more than $550 for headphones that offer a lot less in the feature department than modern BT over-ear noise-cancellers. If you want to speculate on whether Apple will succeed in pushing the market higher in a way that makes sense for their business, that might actually be interesting, but you haven't offered anything nearly that substantive. It's just vague negativity of the kind that seeps out of the internet's pores whenever Apple releases something new, and it's usually wrong.
- Controls are annoying i.e. you have to swipe 20 times on the earcup and then waiting for a deafening beep to set the maximum volume.
- Loses track of current volume on different devices.
- Pairing with multiple devices rarely works.
- Audio quality is average.
The only reason people rave about is its noise cancelling.
IIRC you can swipe and keep holding to keep increasing/decreasing volume until you let go.
> Loses track of current volume on different devices.
That might be somewhat intentional, Android remembers volume per-device (or in case of wired headphones, one separate volume for all wired headphones). When you connect/plug in a device you plugged in before, the volume automatically changes. Sony could be offloading this logic to the device on purpose.
I have the B&O H9 3rd gen and I love them. I have no idea whether they stack up to what your write on the tech stack side of things, but the sound is phenomenal I think and that’s what matters to me. The mic is useless, but I don’t ever use them for anything but music anyhow.
IPhone was up against some groups with decades of making phones. Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience. SpaceX is up against companies that have made rockets for decades. Etc etc etc. I am surprised anyone on HN would be skeptical that a company with billions of dollars of cash at its disposal and world class engineering talent could do a passable job here all because an incumbent has experience. Also, are you suggesting that experience of one set of engineers with mastery of obsolete technologies 40 years ago is somehow a gate that a current company needs to pass through and excel at before they can compete with that company’s current engineers on current technology?
The iPhone wasn't the first phone, or even mobile phone. It was the first mass market SmartPhone.
Those products each have a differentiator. "Cool Wireless Headphones" isn't something new or novel.
That might well be, but the original AirPods were the first bluetooth headset I got that Actually Worked. BT earbuds quality was shockingly low before. It might well have been the classic Apple Timing phenomenon, when they release a product at the exact right time a technology is mature enough to work (e.g. large modern touchscreens etc), but they undeniably scored with what where, otherwise, pretty mediocre earbuds. They generally know what they are doing.
This said, $500+ for earbuds of any kind is too much, for my values, particularly this year when people and countries are literally starving. It's bad taste.
I don't even want to imagine what people will get with non-Apple audio sources.
But the AirPods Max may have a technical differentiator (not even just an Apple logo!) — AFAIK they’re the first wireless headphones without an on/off switch! (perhaps some of the earlier ones that don’t work once Apple stops replacing the batteries, as well?)
The iPhone was the first capacitive touch, finger friendly UI phone. The first OS release wasn't even that "smart" in that native apps could only be installed with a jailbreak.
Remember Blackberry?
Yes. Not a gate, but a bar they need to clear. Audio is not easy, and I disagree that most of the skills in question are obsolete. The electronics, sure. But the NC algorithms and driver are old yet still unsolved fields.
Of course, as you say, billions of dollars and poaching those employees will help them do it in less time.
> Tesla is up against companies with literally a century of experience.
And Tesla sucks at stuff that years of experience helps you get right. Like doors that close evenly, and windows seals that don't leak. The simple, little things.
Like most luxury goods, it's a status symbol, and thus the price justifies itself.
Premium products are more expensive than mass market products, typically with higher margins, but at the same time they tend to have greater value for the price than mass market products, provided the price isn't out of reach. Luxury products are much more exotic than premium, with much lower sales numbers, and their price is often almost entirely based on things like scarcity, manually intensive assembly, use of precious metals, etc.
A well-designed premium product should be as good or better than the equivalent mass market product in terms of getting what you pay for, but in the luxury world there's really no concept of value. It's expensive because it has to be and because the vendor wants it to be, but the value proposition is often nonexistent.
Rolls Royce is a luxury company. Rolex is a luxury company. Apple sells a product that's in the pocket of every other snot-nosed preteen.
However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
EDIT: There seems to be some misunderstandings of what a "luxury" good is. Something isn't luxurious just because it is subjectively a little bit better than the competition. Bosch makes the best dishwashers but they are not a luxury brand. Similarly, the Golf GTI is an absolutely incredible $30K car, but that does not make it luxurious.
A Rolls Royce is a luxury car because it is full of extravagance and opulence. There is absolutely no concern with keeping costs down, and there is no expense spared to make the car as comfortable and luxurious as possible. It also fits the economic definition[1] where spending on luxury cars increases with income. The richer you are, the more money you spend on luxury cars. This isn't true of Apple products because it is a mass produced, mass market good. A billionaire can't buy a better iPhone. That's the opposite of what it means to be a luxury, exclusive brand.
This is fundamentally true of all luxury goods, so this distinction is not meaningful. Which is why it is commonly used as a marketing tool, you can create this distinction at any level you want, to make your customers feel exclusive.
Sure, apple plays at the lower-price-broader-market end of this than say, McClaren automotive, but it's the same game.
Speaking personally, I have zero interest in brand except as a marque of quality. But for those who are optimizing for quality over price, Apple is a choice that rarely leads to disappointment.
That's a different proposition to most luxury brands, which primarily target aspiration. A Louis Vuitton handbag may not be a higher-quality handbag, but as I understand it, their consumers are buying it for the logo more than the craftsmanship.
> However, they charge a larger-than-normal markup, so people feel like it's luxurious.
This doesn't seem to me to be a complicated "dichotomy" to square/understand where with phone hardware, at least, any markup is sometimes "larger-than-normal". It's very easy to be a phone "luxury" brand when so many phones are sold with thin to no margins. Apple certainly props up their "luxury status"/"luxury image" with much higher margin products in the margins outside of phones, but it is easy to see why the bar for "luxury phone" itself is so low that it can also be a mass produced/mass consumed object.
Of course, unlike Apple, Rolex makes products that last decades. So older, less collectible models become affordable to people. But the fact that the "mass market" is willing to fight over the heavily used, least desirable of all Rolexes proves its exclusivity and "luxury".
Seriously? This comes up within the first few comments in just about every single internet thread about Apple I've ever seen.
The people Apple will make their money on selling $550 headphones to probably make a lot less per year than the readers of this comment do.
The exact same people that buy Beats headphones instead of AKG or Beyerdynamic prior to Beats getting acquired by Apple. In other words people who buy them as a status symbol, not for their function, because they themselves are not informed consumers.
For the $500 a pair of Airpods Max is going to cost, though, you can get some /serious/ headphones, that gets you straight out of dynamic transducers and into the entry grade planar magnetic and even entry electrostatic earphones.
There's simply no reason to spend that much on Airpods Max compared to the available market if you actually care about performance and sound quality.
Also they do seem to care more about nice materials and Style than other brands, which is reflected in their commercials as well.
If you happen to have a link handy, I'd love to see what you're referring to specifically?
There are a many technologies present in products like this that a company that is purely "focused on producing the best headphones" wouldn't normally concern themselves with such as a DAC, amp, DSP, microphone & wireless protocols. When these components are tightly designed together, Apple can disrupt much in the same way they're doing with their M1 line.
This luxury product looks cool. Paying a lot extra for that is not new. The price premium over competing products is just not that much for many Apple customers.
In case the noise cancellation when on a plane turns out to be head and shoulders above Bose and Sony...that extra 200 USD now does not seem so bad.
I can't imagine someone saying a wireless headphone with noise cancelling is "studio" anything. From the delay to the processing to everything, if I want to use a headphone for studio work, I'll want the flattest wiredest analogest of headphones because I don't want them to changing whatever comes in at all.
I think Apple may also be finding out the same thing. These are clearly awesome headphones, but it remains to be seen for whom these are not just cool, but indispensable.
Finding that out will help them continue to target the right customers when (I assume) they lower the price in the future and improve its capabilities.
(It's too easy to take apart and contradict and argue someone's specific personal circumstances as invalid/wrong/unjustified. That would only worsen my life, as I'm living those circumstances, so with apologies I'm not going to share the specifics of my segment for inspection and debate.)
1. Apple's Bluetooth hardware implementation has been top tier for me in multi-device use, in a mixed Apple and non-Apple environment, with predictable steps to resolve any issue I encounter, across the Beats and Apple headphones products that I've used since 2017.
2. Apple's minimal-choice approach to their headphones provides the bare minimum necessary to operate them in on-device functionality, which removes all opportunities for hidden settings, unusual interactions, and other "am I at fault?" interactions with my devices.
3. Apple's noise canceling implementation is strong enough to cancel out general background noise without preventing me from hearing someone speak to me, and weak enough that I can forget that I'm wearing headphones with noise canceling enabled, and doesn't induce nausea in me the way that new (but not old) Bose QuietComfort headphones do.
4. Apple's frequency prioritization for their products is more natural and less modified and bass-heavy to my ears than Beats and other popular products in the market, which aligns with the customizations I requested for my modified DT770s when having them recabled to balanced XLR.
5. Apple's surround virtualization algorithm has been better to my perception than that of Astro A50 headphones (the previous contender for best in class), while causing neither confusion nor nausea when used for extended periods of time.
EDIT: And to save time on replies, here's a per-item FAQ for each of the above, so that I might save folks some time on back-and-forth.
1. Yes, I have experienced significant Bluetooth frustration issues when combined with Apple beta operating system releases, and at one point was able to diagnose a 5GHz wireless interference issue that was fixed before general release to the public. Yes, the original AirPods v1 had sporadic issues, that were resolved by firmware and hardware updates. No, those issues didn't cause me to give up on Apple. Yes, I'm aware that other people have issues with Apple products. No, I'm generally able to resolve any issues within a few seconds. Yes, once in a while the audio blips out, as do my non-Bluetooth wireless headphones as well.
2. Yes, I know they don't use aptX with Android. No, I don't care what codec they use to communicate with my devices, even the Android devices. Yes, I'm aware that aptX is higher quality than Bluetooth AAC. Yes, I have a 192/32-int lossless DAC stack for my wired headphones. No, I'm not trying to simultaneously multi-pair my wireless headphones, or share them between multiple iCloud users or etc. Yes, I know that competing headphones can do all sorts of complicated things that I don't desire them to do for me. No, I don't want to be able to modify any settings on my wireless headphones.
3. Yes, I can still hear people talking. No, I don't get perfect silence on airplanes, even with -27dB custom-molded in-ear earplugs underneath them. Yes, the first time I tested the new QCs, I nearly barfed. No, I don't have that problem with the old QC-15s. Yes, there are settings for the 'level' of noise canceling on the new QCs, see also #2.
4. Yes, I know that Apple owns Beats. Actually, I have 'Beats Pro Studio Wireless 3', the one entry in the lineup that doesn't amplify bass like the rest of the Beats line is prone to doing. Yes, I prefer balanced sound in my listening experiences, both with wireless and wired headphones and in my car.
5. Yes, I know that the Astro A50 when combined with a modern Xbox and Dolby Atmos for Headphones no longer uses the A50 algorithm but instead uses a version of Atmos specifically tuned for my exact headphones. Yes, I know that Apple is using Atmos somehow as part of their virtualization experience. No, I don't expect Atmos to upgrade the notes in my music to sound higher fidelity. No, I don't expect that I'll get the full Spatial Audio experience on most of my devices. Yes, I know that it's possible to tune virtualization algorithms to create a better headspace, see also #2.
Interesting mention on the Astro A50s, I used to have a pair and I thought they were brilliantly comfortable and sounded superb in a gaming context. Unfortunately I destroyed the microphone.
The most likely (90%) cause of having to give up and return AirPods Pro Max will be if they can't fit over my annoying skull. Second most likely (10%), they end up weighing too much. We'll see!
Where are you seeing reviews that show that they're not of this quality?
$79 for airpods max battery service [0]. user-replaceable battery certainly would be nicer. but to describe as "throw-away" seems extreme.
[0] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
I have a pair of Audio Technica A700s, about $150 new that are now 12 years old; I'm on my 3rd set of earpads. AT gave me a new set free the first time I asked, and it cost me $10 with shipping to get new ones out of warranty. The current ones are 3rd party that are much better than the OEM pads and cost me ~$20.
So you buy a new set of earpads on those every 4 years. But we can also compare with the same-market-segment-as-AirPod-Max (wireless+ANC+mic) Bose QC35, where many people have to replace their earpads _every_ _year_⁰ at $35 a pair (or $20 for third party ones that might last longer but definitely feel worse). So the question I think will be how long the pads last on these. Do you have to replace them every year like with the Bose ones or only every 4 years?
⁰ - QC35 ear pad extreme comfort but lack of durability is basically a meme among owners now.
Price went up I see, but I've had them for 2+ years now, no complaints. The velour is comfy.
And regular AirPods are definitely a throw-away product, since the 'battery service' is really just a full replacement. You'd have to physically destroy them to remove the battery.
Apple's "few years" is "seven years after Apple stops selling them", for most countries: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624
This isn't a phone.
How many headphones do you have that are still usable after 7 years?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
And, why use the lightning port?! Aside from the price, choosing to not use USB-C for a charging port killed it for me. I like being able to charge all my devices off one power brick, and I'm not spending $600 on headphones if I need a stupid lightning port for the next 6+ years.
My laptop, my work laptop, my headphones, my phone, my tablet/e-reader (remarkable).
It's insanely liberating to know that I can pretty much always find a charger for everything, and I only ever need to pack a single wall-wart.
Flying? One charger. Road trip? One charger. Biking to work? One charger.
Better yet - Leave a charger at work, keep a charger at home, don't need to carry 5lbs back and forth every day.
Forgot my charger? Every person I hang out with has a usb-c charger floating around somewhere.
----
You know what I really don't want to have to carry around anymore? Fucking cable adapters. You know what no one will have if I forget my charger? Fucking cable adapters.
Honestly - I probably wouldn't have bought these headphones yet because I'm quite happy with my current headphones.
But I'm very, very close to no longer even considering devices that ship without a USB-C port. And that's a shame, because I otherwise really like the Max, and probably would have slotted it in when my current cans die.
Getting over the hump to convert to USB-C initially was fairly expensive, but my job is good and I can splurge. I don't want to go back.
But your comment seems like it might be contrived to begin with. This headset only really makes sense for iPhone users. That is the target. Those people are already carrying using lightning cables in their life. Pretty much anyone in the Apple ecosystem has to charge a multitude of things with lightning still.
I'm not really what's contrived about the other poster's comment. If these headphones look good and sound good and have good noise cancelling, why would I only want to use them with my iPhone? I'm sure they'll sound great whether I use them with my MacBook, or iPhone, or my Dell XPS, or my Windows desktop, or my smart TV.
The lightning port isn't a deal breaker, but it can be an ergonomic annoyance. I've recently been favoring on Galaxy S9 over my newer iPhone because all of my other devices charge via USB-C and the iPhone is the odd duck that requires extra work. I have a USB-C to lighting cable so it's not that bad, but it's still extra annoyance I would rather not deal with.
The guy I replied to 20 days ago here on HN, talking about Apple: "Don't buy their shit. Period."
No, they were never going to buy this headset. They are not the target market. What they demand would actually be detrimental to the target market.
Of the actual target market, the majority will have no problem with it needing a lightning cable. Their iPhones use lightning. Any iPad but the newest use lightning. The AppleTV remote uses lightning. The Magic Keyboard and the Magic Mouse use lightning. It just seems to be something that a person who would have no interest in this device would see as a problem (in the same way that people who don't use the Magic Mouse are absolute certain that the charger port on the bottom is an egregious deadly fault, while actual users just enjoy a fantastic mouse and it's an utter non-issue. It's why Apple should never listen to these people).
The chargers that ship with modern devices tend to be USB-C to USB-C (including Apple's own macbook charger).
I have absolutely no desire to fit a lightning cable into my life, and I'm hardly the only person I know who has a macbook and an android phone (about half of my company of 300 falls into the exact same bucket).
I don't typically buy Apple devices because I think they're oppressively locked down, but that's not really something I care that much about for headphones.
Plus, given the whole market for decent bluetooth headphones is ridiculously price inflated anyways, Apple's price here doesn't dissuade me nearly as much as normal.
Basically - I would absolutely consider picking up a Max, but lightning is a serious knock against the product.
No, there was no chance you were ever buying this headset. You may see it as legitimizing your grievances, but I don't think any reasonable person actually buys that.
You, 20 days ago, regarding Apple - "Don't buy their shit. Period."
Of the actual people who would buy this, I'd wager that 99%+ have iPhones. Being able to charge the headset with the same cable you use to charge your phone seems pretty obvious.
I just yesterday picked up a few more usb-c wall adapters and some 6 feet usb-c to lightning cables to get most of my day to day charging off of usb-a
I have a C cable on my desk, the charger is hidden under it, I don't want to replace the cable ever. This one cable can charge my phone, laptop, power bank, earbuds, gaming headset, Nintendo Switch, heck, it powers my soldering iron – of course I don't ever want to buy anything with a different port!
This is like complaining that the microwave at Best Buy doesn't have a Europlug because you're in Italy and that's what you use. Great, but not important to the actual buyer of the microwave in Milwaukee.
Regardless, this complaint is pretty spurious. The device is clearly marketed to iPhone/iPad users, who carry a USB to Lightning cable with them as a matter of normative standards.
People just like bitching sometimes.
I have a battery pack that doesn't charge with a lightning port, and can charge my phone without a lighting port (wireless).
When I'm traveling light, I don't need a lightning port for anything.
When I'm at my office, I can top off my headphones/iPad/etc off with the same cable I use to connect my laptop to my screen. I never have to worry about bringing an extra cable with me to work.
---
It's just too bad, that's all. Apple seemed like they were ready to phase out the lightning port in favor of USB-C and wireless charging. They've done such a great job with all their other audio accessories that a lot of tech-minded people like myself were looking forward to these.
I personally think it’s pretty silly that it has neither usb-c nor wireless charging, given the price point and when it’s being launched.
I get I'm not the target market but that doesn't make my point valid. Please don't negate it as bitching.
If by passively you mean plugged into a headphone port, the answer is that they can’t because they need power. Their big selling point is supposed to be computational audio. That obviously doesn’t work without the compute part, which in turn requires power.
iPad or iPhone only, apparently. Not with a Mac or Apple TV, or, of course, anything else.
(source: article)
Previously (think iPhone 4S and prior), the phone opened from the back. So a screen replacement necessitated deconstructing the entire device.
Could it be more accessible? Most likely. They could put in removable batteries (like older phones had), but they’ve chosen not to (presumably for space reasons (internal batteries take up less space)), and it seems the entire industry followed. But just because they’re not easily replaceable, doesn’t mean they’re not easily serviceable. It takes a bit, but an experienced person can do it about 30 minutes or even less. iFixIt’s guides help a lot here.
Sites/Apps were already breaking on my parent's iphone 6.
Apple supports devices longer than any other manufacturer. Case in point is iOS 14, which came out a few months ago and still supports the iPhone 6s, which came out in 2015.
When did five years become a massive time for support in general? For phones it is, but there are plenty of things with longer than 5 year support.
Not really in consumer electronics.
I don't like MS, but what they do right, they do right.
5 years is quite a long time for a phone, but nowhere near unheard of for PC's
And was sold until September 2018. Two years' support for a newly purchased phone shouldn't be considered particularly impressive.
Apple is very aggressive about transitioning stuff when a decision is made. In 1999, your new, pre-iMac laserwriter became a legacy product when iMac was released. MagSafe 1 laptops were orphaned for power adapters pretty quickly. Many HP and Lenovo devices utilize common power supplies that have been around for 10-15 years.
Other products, like AirPods are engineered with planned obsolescence. It's not a dig on Apple, it's part of their process and part of why they are so good at what they do -- Apple builds for a specific customer persona, which may or may not be you. Similarly, the need for commercial customers to have a common power supply is something that makes HP or Lenovo a good choice.
In the more open market, interfaces live a long time. My dad uses an Epson FX-80 dot matrix printer (which was purchased used when I was like 6 years old in the 80s) to print invoices, on a newish computer he found that still supports parallel interface.
That's fair if the device we're talking about is a phone. Those will of course become obsolete much sooner. But headphones don't get worse just by the passage of time. I'd love to still use them in 15+ years. Do you think Apple will still service them then?
Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
They didn't when they were just speakers on a strap, but that is a bad mental model for thinking about modern wireless headphones. Remember that a lot of these headphones now have CPUs in them, and they're integrating into a moving spec. The iPhone 6 mentioned here only supported Bluetooth 4, while the iPhone 12 supports Bluetooth 5.0, plus some other addons like LE and A2DP. And that's before we consider any protocols that manufacturers add on top of that, like Airplay.
Even Airpods aren't "fire and forget" devices nowadays. Apple is still shipping firmware updates for Airpods. It's fair to say that long term support for these will be much less costly than an old iPhone, but it's not free.
> Also, why not make it so that they can be used passively? What's the downside?
The simplest answer is probably "Apple customers don't want it". If you really care about using your headphones passively with a wire 20 years from now when the battery is dead and Apple won't service it, you were pretty unlikely to be buying Apple anyways. There are tons of available headphones on the market to serve that set of requirements. And since Apple really values clean lines, removing a jack that they don't think many of their customers will use is a no-brainer for them.
"Your wired headphones are reliable mechanical-electrical devices. Apple is making a computer that you wear on your head, and it just can't compete in areas like reliability, repairability, and Apple's profitability."
Google Glass also aren’t as reliable as my reading glasses, but here we are.
> Also, why not make it so they can be used passively? What's the downside?
My quasi-educated guess is part marketing, and part technology. The marketing part: Apple considers these AirPods Pros that cover your ears, and insist that they have all the AirPods Pro features. The technology part: from what I can tell, these headphones are DSP-ed up the wazoo, more like HomePods than AirPods, so there's a good chance that passive mode will sound like crap.
I know a practical counter-argument is "so what, there are other active noise-cancelling headphones that let you switch them to passive mood and they sound like crap when you do that and everybody's just okay with it," but, that is not Apple.
(For the record, the AirPods Max are not on my shopping list.)
We can argue that it's a trade-off that you should be free to make for yourself... but it's very in-character for Apple to just take a strong stance on that kind of thing.
With a 20 hour battery life I'm personally okay with it. If it was more like 4-5 hours then the need for a passive mode would be more pressing.
Re: passive listening, I don't know why they didn't. But I think it is fair to assume there was a real trade-off. Do you really think a smart business like Apple would make their excessively expensive headphones less functional for absolutely no reason?
Please don't — they're recyclable[1]. Recyclers wouldn't normally make money from recovering recyclable materials, but Apple pays[2] to make up the difference.
[1] https://www.apple.com/shop/trade-in
[2] https://onezero.medium.com/what-really-happens-to-airpods-wh...
Some people are going to buy a new pair of AirPods Max every year for $550. It hurts me deep down to know this fact, and it offends me on a level that's hard to describe with words.
But as long as other headphone manufacturers continue to sell quality and serviceable products, I won't be directly affected by it. I just hope Sony, Sennheiser, etc. don't follow Apple's lead. If they do, maybe I'll have to start looking at cheap Chinese brands.
I don't see this happening because those brands undoubtedly have a much larger share of the high-end headphones market, whereas Apple seems to focus more on a smaller niche with even more disposable income. The fact that AirPods max can only be turned off by placing them in the case is such a weird design decision beyond the other absurdities of the product design. Hopefully Sony and others adopt the good ideas (like replaceable ear cups) while staying true to their customers.
You do know that these headphones will probably outsell the ones you mention 100:1 or more, right? :-)
Neither of those have user-replaceable batteries. They haven't for years.
And if you wanted to replace the batteries on the AirPods Max, it's only $79. If you can't afford it, don't buy them.
Is this a reflection on Apple's product strategy or that there are inequalities in the world?
Especially in a situation as ridiculous as this one, where the alternatives are better in nearly every aspect that matters (except the logo).
Not the $10,000 Louis Vuitton handbag or the $80,000 bottle of wine or the other myriad of consumables and products that are clearly priced by what people can pay, rather than purely for their utility value?
You're going to be offended by a lot in this timeline my friend.
You're not going to have too much difficulty finding people with a strong distaste for those markets as well.
Heck, I just sold a three-year-old iPhone X with a “service battery” warning for nearly $400.
AirPods batteries, on the other hand, are completely unreplaceable, and believe me when I say we’d love to repair them. They’re small and Apple has filled the cavity around them with glue, meaning even if we had a replacement battery they’d be impossible to replace without damaging the AirPod itself. This is extremely upsetting to me, as someone who invests in and runs third-party repair shops at least in part for environmental reasons. Apple needs to do better on their smaller devices, AirPods included.
It's probably safe to assume that in light of how they're constructed, Apple does not repair a unit when received and send the original repaired unit back. The customer likely receives a refurbished unit. But we do not know what Apple subsequently does with the failed units, so it's unfair to assume without evidence that they incinerate them or bury them in a landfill. They may well possess some trade secret that allows them to be able to repair them in a factory and ship them out later as refurbished units. There are technologies that are much more economical at scale (especially achievable with Apple's resources) that are probably infeasible for a mom-and-pop shop. And possibly more environmentally friendly, too (cf. trains vs. trucks).
It isn't an assumption without evidence. It is an assessment based on a detailed breakdown of the product, a knowledge of the generally understood state of the technologies involved in reclamation. This isn't the random opinion of a shop owner. iFixit has a detailed breakdown and assessment, and they are generally considered experts in the field. What is unfair to assume without evidence is that Apple has some sort of super secret tech no one else knows about to repair them. That is simply a claim without evidence.
>Considering that Apple's battery service fee is $49 per AirPod, that tells me that the residual value of a failed AirPod (a single one, not both) is $99.50 - (depreciation) - $49, so $50.50 in the best case, and almost certainly nonzero in the worst case.
Airpods with Wireless charging case: $159 Retail. Wireless Charging case: $79 Retail. Assessed retail value of Airpods: $80 ($40 each).
Apple replacement of damaged Wireless charging case: $69 ($10 discount off retail). Airpods: $69 each ($30 more than they cost new retail).
Apple “battery repair” of Wireless charging case: $49 ($40 less than retail). Airpods: $49 each (again, $10 more than new retail value).
Given this, there is absolutely no evidence that the Airpods have any reclamation value to Apple and they are just selling you a new ear pod for more than you paid as part of the original product. Apple makes more money per unit on “battery repair” and damage replacement than off the original purchase.
Apple knows how to do all sorts of things in the manufacturing process that even competing companies having resources similar to Apple's scale (Samsung, LG, et al.) can't seem to accomplish. iFixit certainly doesn't have resources anywhere near Apple's. So I wouldn't put recycling/repair tech past them. It's certainly plausible.
The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case. There's a market for them (most likely in the black market because they're almost certainly stolen), but they're certainly going to be less than the cost of the combination less the price of a new charger.
Something being plausible is not evidence and doesn't support a claim. You are basically saying "you can't prove it isn't true", which isn't an argument at all. What is evidence is actual assessments and an understanding of the underlying technologies, something we do have and speaks against reclamation.
> The rest of your math is largely fictional because you can't buy a pair of new AirPods without the charging case.
This makes it pretty clear you aren’t even arguing in good faith. We have a device with 3 components (two of which are identical). We know the price of the combined 3, and we know the price of the 1 unique unit, that gives us a very accurate idea of the retail price of the 2 matching units. It is basic math, not some pie in the sky made up numbers. This is what Apple is selling them for, that is the retail value. What is fictional math is your asserting that if Apple is charging $50 for a replacement, the original must be worth about $50 back to Apple. Since their replacement cost is pretty much the same as their initial price point, you are just buying a replacement. This is pretty basic.
If I am charging $6 for a bag with an orange and two apples, and $3 for a single orange, we can be pretty sure the Apples are about $1.50 each. If you get a rotted apple and I say I’ll take it back and give you a fresh one for $1.40, I’m just selling you another apple. I can just throw the rotted one in the garbage.
There is no retail price because you can't buy them retail new. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. I don't contend your math is incorrect in the abstract, but in the real world, it's irrelevant. That's all.
Case in point: A quick eBay search shows that a used working AirPod is about $45. If you are correct, and only the abstract math matters, why would anyone pay $45 for a used working AirPod when, as you claim, it is only worth $40 new? Is the market that irrational? I kind of doubt it.
I also don't contend that the original is worth $50 to Apple (this was a best-case high water mark). It's almost certainly worth less because their incremental cost is less.
I'm strictly speaking in terms of real markets as they are observable today. Heck, even a non-working AirPod is still worth about $10 on the open market. Exchange it with Apple for $49 (assuming the battery is the only problem) and that makes the market value of a new (-ish?) unit $59. (This makes Apple's goodwill worth about $15 per unit.)
You are absolutely right in the iPhone & Mac space, but AirPods are famously unrepairable [0].
iFixit's verdict:
- AirPods are not designed to be serviced. No hardware components can be accessed without damage to the device.
- Sealed-in batteries limit the AirPods' lifespan, making them a consumable/disposable item.
[0]: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+2+Teardown/121471
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
$79 is pretty bad.
$79 every few years on a $500 set of headphones sounds plausible, the battery alone would probably be $40-$50 retail anyways; I'm just getting someone at an Apple store to replace it for me.
More concerning is that a set of new ear muffs costs $69. I've already replaced the ones on my QuietComforts two times ($20 using clones on Amazon), so that is going to add up a bit.
You can buy a pack of 12 rechargeable AAA for less than $10. A charger is $5.
Plus, it doesn't really matter the type of battery. You can find pretty much any of rechargeable battery (3.7V, 7.4V, nickel, Li-ion) for less than $15, retail. It's mind boggling to think that people on Hacker News (of all places) think that is sensible to subject yourself to something as anti-consumer and as environment-unfriendly as what Apple offers.
https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
I strongly suspect the the "service" is giving you refurbished AirPods with new batteries in them, but it's still cheaper than buying new AirPods. (Although somewhat marginally in the case of the non-Pro model.)
Also, someone else mentioned a $79 battery replacement for AirPods Max which suggests it is in fact serviceable.
How many wireless headphones have "user replaceable" batteries? Certainly not any I have bought in recent years. If these last long enough to need a $79 professional battery replacement[1] in 5 years, then I'd say they're money well spent!
[1] https://support.apple.com/airpods/repair/service#battery
I have a pair of AT's that happens to have Bluetooth and the only time I've used it is when mowing the lawn as a sort of ear protection with podcasts as a side benefit. Shitty audio quality would have been fine for this situation!
The market for this is the same thing as the market for a Gucci purse, basically, and that's fine, who cares; let it be for those people.
It's in some ways lesser than AirPods Max, but it's hundreds of dollars cheaper, you can choose the ear shape and quality that you want, and it lasts forever.
Because Apple offers luxury products. People who buy luxury products are willing to pay a premium for it. Not understanding that different people value different things from you is a very weird stance to take. I personally wouldn't pay the premium price to lease a luxury automobile, but I understand why other people do it.
> I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes.
That's not been my experience, mine have a few hours of lifespan after two years, but for earbuds that's not too bad. I regularly killed wired earbuds faster than that due to wear and tear.
Everything else on this design seems to me like they'll be longer lived than their competitors. Steel headbands and magnet attached earcups sound much more durable than plastic and plastic. I'd be willing to bet that more headphones meet an early demise due to worn out earcups and broken headbands than batteries reaching EOL, so this might not be a bad trade-off for users willing to pay $500 for headphones anyways.
But understanding it doesn’t mean you cannot criticize it?
It's almost like people on HN have never bought noise canceling headphones - none of the top models have user-replaceable batteries.
Edit: I've had a much tougher time with the Apple Watch I pair with the AirPods while I run. My first one only lasted about 1.5 years before its battery became unusable for running.
I'm doubt you could get replaceable batteries into something the size of the AirPods and have them light enough to stay in my ears as well as they do.
These beasts are obviously different.
Apple gives people a dreamscape where they can transform their homes and workplaces into a creative paradise and share in a world without material tech problems. 'It just works'.
Replacing the current iphone with the next one is always attractive for the customer as long as it keeps everybody dreaming.
I thought it was ridiculous that an expensive headphone needs to be thrown away after only 5 years of light usage, but there you go... if you only had your AirPods for 2 years, sounds like I had a decent run myself :)
I still bought the newer Powerbeats model because they're quite nice and I couldn't find anything similar with as good quality. The newer model's battery lasts forever (well, a couple of weeks of light usage took them to around 25%) but I know that, in a few years, it'll get to a couple of days maximum between recharges again... hopefully a bit more than the previous one with better and newer technology.
Well, the battery is replaceable in a straight-forward way.
The exact process isn't really that important a buying factor considering you'll do it once in every 1000 days (or something on that order).
Sony’s XM3 is arguably the most successful noise cancelling headphone in the market and doesn’t do either (it does play unpowered but sound quality is significantly worse).
Source: https://www.slashgear.com/apple-airpods-max-water-resistance...
...without power?
I would try these on the premise that my remote workflow might be improved.
Just watch as others copy these overpriced headphones.
The entire point is to be impractical.
Not because the old ones will SOUND horribly worse than the five year newer ones, but because tech is tech — the new ones will work with all my 2026 devices, connect using the 2026 wireless standard, work with the 2026 cable (if any, besides the 3.5mm analog).
The 2026 models will hopefully be able to download my voice profile and predefined commands and maybe will even unlock my front door when I approach, plus _____________ ????¿¿¿¿
Don't get me wrong — I love shit that will last a long time with finality, and I buy lots of things for that reason: knives and cookware and even furniture that I will hand down to my sons.
But headphones? Not in that category any more than smartphones or computers.
Though, in five years, a $60-80 battery replacement doesn't sound like a problem to me. This thread seems like roleplaying that it's a major life event.
These airpods aren't an investment, they are expensive and disposable as I doubt these will be usable in 10 years time. To me, that is a bad investment.
But my point is that it's not relevant to computer/smartphone oriented wireless headphones. Most of us are gonna want new ones within 3-4 years regardless of what Apple plans. (Wired headphones, different story.)
First, why would it have to be "user-replacable"? You could take it to Apple, and they'd replace it. Or you could take it to any third-party repair shop (after 5 years you wouldn't have a warranty to care about invalidating this way anyway).
Second, so? People buy all kinds of perishable products... Especially in technology, when after 5 years there will be better wireless headphones out there.
>Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.
Youn don't really believe company's sociatal/enviromental concerns, right? This is empty talk. If a company was "environmentally friendly" they would just close.
Nobody really needs AirPods or whatever Apple and others sell else over the environment, even if they were user replacable. Even more so when the first imperative of any company is "sell ever more stuff to ever more people"...
So aside from irrational consumerism, I am also in the camp of people that don't understand why one would buy this. It is not portable like earpads, it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
News flash: people don't care about the environment either. If they did they wouldn't be satisfied with token gestures, but do radical changes to the society/workplace/lifestyle (some of that kind, like reduced flights, WFH, etc., came as a result of COVID, but would have been met with huge uproar by the general population on environmental grounds).
>it is made to last like a "normal" headphone and all of the software (ahem, computational audio) stuff can be achieved with any normal computer or smartphone where most people already have and use it as the audio source.
Technically, not really, as it depends on embedded microphones, movement sensors, and such.
It's not just the "3d sound" experience of yore, which was solely processed and encoded as a regular audio stream.
I still reserve judgement for the people that will buy it and the companies that produce this.
That is exactly what I'm criticising.
If I understood correctly, you were arguing that people don't value longevity as much as other things, and I agree. But I believe that's worth criticising. I think people should value longevity more, for the sake of the environment, and their own wallet.
Plenty of reasons why people would convince themselves to buy them:
- I can easily return it if I don't like it (most never do)
- the OS X/iOS integration will be way better than my current headphones (my poison)
- I love Apple
- 2020 sucked, if I can't even go to Thailand this year, I'll at least treat myself to these. I deserve it.
If they're the pro-Apple lemming, how aren't you just the anti-Apple lemming with a statement like that?
How is this good tech discussion if, to talk about this gadget with you, someone has to work out how you were mislead to believe these things are paperweights in a few years and can't be serviced?
These topics always remind me of the Xbox vs PS2 debates my friends and I engaged on the internet at age 16. Just ridiculous claims in both directions. Funny how times never change.
As someone who's been using Apple products for over two decades at this point, I obviously have my own biases, but I would argue that Apple products have historically been popular because they've historically been pretty good. Historically at premium (and sometimes outrageous) prices, not universally the best for all needs, not even universally good, and as a company Apple and their decisions are certainly not above criticism, but in general their products are good.
That's still somewhat true - they do not yet dominate laptop or desktop markets, and outside the U.S. they are not (as) dominant in smartphones.
But they do dominate some of the newer product categories, just as they dominated portable music players - tablets, smartwatches.
I'm unsure how much of the headphone market they harvest.
My point of all this is that many got the pleasure of feeling unique and "smarter than the rest" by getting the novelty Apple items that most people were too ignorant to value. But it evolved over time and now maybe it's something else?
You deserve better than this
I purchased the regular AirPods and this point was reached even sooner, after ~2 years of heavy usage they don't work longer than 15 minutes.
With almost all other wireless over-ear headphones you can at least keep using them passively with a headphone jack when the battery inevitably degrades. Some even have user-replaceable batteries. I have been using old AKG headphones for > 15 years.
Yet another throw-away product from a self-proclaimed environmentally friendly company.