How much is your house worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it today. That's it. There's no right price. If they can cover costs and make a profit (or better yet a huge profit), then they're pricing it right. Sure, it doesn't work for you. It doesn't work for me either, which is why I don't have a pair. But they seem to be profitable, so there are enough people out there that want them. I just got off a plane a couple days ago and three people within one row around me each had AirPods Max on. Go figure. They're the new status symbol, I guess.

It costs that much because people are willing to pay more for better sound, better noise cancelling, etc, even if the returns are diminishing. Perhaps a $500 pair of headphones only sounds 3% better than a $200 pair. But people will still shell out for better headphones. Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better. The existence of numerous successful products on the market is evidence that this is a niche where people are willing to pay for such products.

It's kinda like, who decided that TVs and phones should cost the same? Or who decided that a khinkali should cost 3 times as much as a xiaolongbao?

Reading your parent comment and the responses, I feel be missing the point others are trying to make. There's much less technology, components, and material in a headphone compared to laptops. The circuitry in the headphones is closer in complexity to a charger than a laptop.

The cost of something doesn't always correlate with the technology, components, and material. A Hermes bag doesn't even have a single circuit in it compared to headphones and laptops. Yet it costs more.

> people are willing to pay more for better sound, better noise cancelling

> The cost of something doesn't always correlate with the technology, components, and material

Doesn't this actually contradict what you claimed originally, though?

This is false equivalence. You're describing the luxury market, a vertical that is built on decoupling the raw material cost from the price tag. And in reality it is more nuanced than just raw material as there is a lot of cost in r&d/marketing/operations etc. Nevertheless, products targeted to general consumers are much more sensitive to that deviation.

> better sound, better noise cancelling

You just casually threw in these claims without backing them up, when it has been proven that the Sony model (and even the others) you listed outperformed the Airpods pro in those exact departments at the time of its launch.

My comment literally also says "Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better."

I also have "etc" in my first sentence, which may include such things as: a stylish aluminum exterior, bells and whistles such as spatial audio, a more seamless bluetooth connecting experience with Apple devices, and so forth. These do not matter for everyone, but some people clearly care about that.

It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?

> It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?

Sorry, this is not the case at all, I am just trying to understand the justification for your original comment on the justification of the price (and quality).

Apologies if it came out too aggressive.

My Sony XM3's still going something like 8 years now. Incredible value.

I have a lot of Apple gear, these would be obvious next choice because of integration, but I struggle to justify why otherwise. They heavy, going to pain to repair and cost much more.

I mean, if we're talking any pair of headphones... a good Television certainly costs more than that, why should good sound be less worthy if investment?

Wait til you find out about literally every other area of discretionary spending.