Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Apple

Apple Unveils $250 AirPods Pro (inverse.com) 98

Posted by msmash from the fwiw dept.
Apple today announced that it is releasing new AirPods Pro earbuds on October 30. Priced at $249, the premium version of its true wireless earbuds includes noise-cancellation feature to block out external sound. From a report: The new Pro model is available for pre-order starting today and will hit the shelves Wednesday, Oct. 30 - but, some hopeful buyers are finding they're already sold out online. The buds have ear tips that could fit deeper inside ears. The larger charging case also has a bigger, longer-lasting battery. Apple says the AirPods Pro can last "up to 5 hours" on a single charge and "over 24 hours" with the case. AirPods Pro cost $249 compared to $159 AirPods and $199 AirPods (with wireless charging case). Pre-orders start today at Apple.com. They deliver on Oct. 30 and will be available in Apple Stores the same day. Apple was widely expected to hold another event where it would have supposedly unveiled the refreshed AirPods and a 16-inch MacBook Pro, but the announcement today was made through a press release. The company has not clarified in that press release what kind of battery improvement the AirPods Pro offer. As it has been documented several times, AirPods' in-built battery becomes useless after a year of use, keeping the accessory on for just a few minutes at best. So unless Apple has somehow made a breakthrough here, it is likely the new AirPods, too, will die after a year of usage. Which means you're effectively paying Apple more than $20 a month for using their wireless earpieces.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Unveils $250 AirPods Pro More

Apple Unveils $250 AirPods Pro

Comments Filter:
  • Perhaps the batteries are slightly larger, in 2 to 4 years you get to chuck these as much as any other thing with lithium ion batteries...
    • Depends on how often you use them. Li-Ion batteries can last a very long time, and unlike NiMH or other rechargables, they do not suffer as much from sitting on the shelf or the charger for months or even years. It's mostly the nr of charging cycles that determines how long they last.
      Still it would be nice if they were replaceable.

  • Noise Cancelling? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by geekoid ( 135745 )

    Noise Cancelling on headphones used for walking around is pretty stupid. Plus, people will be driving with these on.
    I'll drop hundreds on actual high sound quality headphones. But 250 for these is absurd.

    • For just walking around yeah (though they've added a "transparency mode" which allows some noise in for driving/walking around which seems oxymoronic to me). Mainly the noise cancelling allows you to use the airpods on trains or planes without having to resort to buying a set of over the ear headphones. I'd argue the over the ear headphones will always sound better - but there's a lot of convenience to travelling with the smaller airpods.

      • You do not need "over the ear headphones" to be able to use in-ear headphones on trains or planes. You just need decent in-ear headphones.

        • But they help greatly with NOISE CANCELLING.

          • Re:Noise Cancelling? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @12:16PM (#59354964) Journal

            Great noise-cancelling gets you about 28-30 dB of attenuation of outside noise. That's Sony/Bose level of excellence, and a highly controlled "cancellation environment" inside the earcup (which the AirPods will never have, as they are inherently leaky by design). A decent fit on a real in-ear headphone (IEM) will get you at least 25 dB, and often as much as 33 dB of attenuation. With no extra distortion and power consumption which comes from ANC. Additionally attenuation works over pretty much the entire audio spectrum, and getting ANC up above 1 kHz is a near-impossible task (due to the physics of the situation - not enough phase margin when you get to wavelengths less than ~25 cm).

            Background: I've been developing headphones and audio systems for decades, and have done half a dozen ANC headphones - for very large companies - in the last 4 years. This includes using the Analog Devices ANC solutions based on the ADAU series DSPs, the AMS solutions, and a few home-brew solutions (both analog and digital).

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by aliquis ( 678370 )

              I thought just about only Etymotics offered 30 dB isolation from IEMs and of course the electronical ANC won't be perfect and will also ruin some of the sound quality but with IEMs you can hear your own blood flow, your bones from walking, the vibrations in your teeth if you brush them, vibrations in the wire from scratching against something or wind turbulence and so on. Though with the Etymotics maybe some of that is less because of deeper insertion and three folds closing the ear canal rather than just o

            • Thanks for your work. Would you care to recommend a set of IEMs that give decent passive attenuation please? I'm thinking for power tool usage or motorcycling...
              • Etymotic ER2XRs are good, around 35 dB of attenuation and very good sound quality. The Periodic Audio (esoteric small brand) Be units have a measured 33 dB of attenuation with their foam ear tips, and have won dozens of awards (including product of the year) for their sound quality and comfort. Both of those will sound very clean and provide at least 30 dB of attenuation. The Etys are more lean in sound, the Periodic's are more full/impactful bass (but still very clean midrange/treble). I think you can

          • Who really wants to drive with over the ear headphones on? Plus, glasses kill the advantage, so I may be biased.

            In ear noise canceling, with nothing to swing around your neck, go flying off your head, snag a seatbelt, shifter, or brake, etc., open up audio books while driving. You just need an easy to reach pause button for when conditions demand more focus, but audio books demand far less attention than having a two way conversation with a passenger, it's more like having a good navigator give you direc

            • Considering it's illegal to drive with headphones on, I'd guess only idiots.
              I wish cops would start pulling people over who have headphones/earbuds on.

      • You could always buy REAL in-ear headphones that actually seal to the ear canal. That's a good as an earplug - and the audio quality is typically much, much better (THD, especially below 300 Hz, is an order of magnitude or more lower than the "in concha" style of the Ear/AirPods).
        • Hi, sorry I think you have it backwards. Over the ear headphones with good drivers are MUCH MUCH better than any earbud. Bass is basically movement of air. Bigger drivers in over the ear headphones move air. Those little drivers in earbuds hardly move any air. Plus over the ear has better spatial characteristics and so forth.

          • Re:Noise Cancelling? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @12:47PM (#59355152) Journal

            Nope, you have it backwards. SPL is Sound Pressure Level. It's a ratio of swept volume by the transducer to the volume of air being pressurized. With an in-ear product, you're typically energizing 1.5cc or so. With an over-ear headphone, you're pressurizing 30-40cc (or more) of air - and you have leaks to contend with as well (which will negatively impact your SPL capabilities, which means higher THD for a given level).

            I've been developing audio products for several decades now, and I guarantee you've heard my work. Pro, consumer, mobile, you name it - including headphones for big names, and transducers for recording studio monitors. Microphones as well.

            • I'm curious-- it sounds like you're saying that the best quality sound comes from an in-ear headphone, not an over-the-ear headphones. I was under the impression that the best sound came from over-the-ear headphones with an open-back design. (I was under the impression that most high-end headphones follow this design).

              Does the size of the driver and the "travel" of the driver matter, when it comes to reproducing low frequencies? If so, wouldn't this be a disadvantage of in-ear headphones?

              • Open air designs are good, but they also let you hear EVERYTHING around you - so you hear the entirety of the world and your music - which can be quite detrimental to experiencing the music in the first place (like going to a concert and having the drunk guys next to you shout and yell and sing off-key the entire concert).

                In-ears, or at the next-best, over-ear closed back, at least create a consistent acoustic space for what you hear, and how you hear it. You'll actually get to hear the details that would

            • Interesting.
              But I still hate the feel of something stuck in my ears.
              • No fixing that, unfortunately! Personally I detest "hot ears" from over-ears, and since I have a 95 percentile head, few over-ears will fit without trying to squeeze my noggin like a walnut in a nutcracker (or that Duluth Trading underwear ad [youtube.com] for normal underwear).
    • }-- But 250 for these is absurd. --{ The holiday gift-giving season is coming up. Apple, if nothing else, has great timing.
      • $250 is far from absurd, the Bose QC20 I wear the last few years while motorcycling cost more than that. More importantly, the hearing aids I now wear cost more than 20 times that much - and of course do not actually restore hearing or even approximate it very well.

        I would pay thousands to send my QC20's back to my former self 20 years ago.

        And yes, I know about foam earplugs, have used them plenty, and no, they do not do the same thing.

        • You headphones will have an order of magnitude better quality and last at least ten times as long too. So yeah, $25 is closer to what Apple could ask anyone sane to pay for those.

          The production cost is probably closer to $2.50 anyway.

          • That's just what I'm waiting to see - if the new iPods measure up to the Bose in quality and effectiveness. I'm not going to give that up just to go wireless.
          • }--- last at least ten times as long too ---{ That's the real problem here. Apple is charging $250 for something that seems to be basically made for disposable usage.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      Noise Cancelling on headphones used for walking around is pretty stupid. Plus, people will be driving with these on.

      Putting stuff in your ears will make you less aware of your surroundings. But from my experience with noise cancelling headphones, they tend to let through "important" sounds better than their passive counterparts.
      What active noise cancelling is really good at is filtering out low frequencies, i.e. all the rumbling noise in the background. Compared to the same headset without noise cancelling, it is essentially a high pass. As a result, higher frequency sounds like voice tend to be heard more clearly. Furth

    • Noise Cancelling on headphones used for walking around is pretty stupid. Plus, people will be driving with these on.
      I'll drop hundreds on actual high sound quality headphones. But 250 for these is absurd.

      That's rich.

      You haven't even heard them (this is a new design) and you are disparaging their audio quality.

      They also have a "transparent" mode that allows you to hear the outside sounds at a user-selectable level.

    • Noise Cancelling on headphones used for walking around is pretty stupid. Plus, people will be driving with these on.

      And? I imagine you think that noise cancelling is some magic technology that makes the world silent rather than something which can effectively reduce a few bands of frequencies to a more tolerable level.

      As someone who uses noise cancelling headphones constantly let me tell you two important things:
      1) I am much more likely to hear you talk to me wearing noise cancelling headphones than normal headphones.
      2) I drive with noise cancelling headphones on the autobahn because hearing the wind rush and listening t

  • Now usable for THREE WHOLE YEARS! Though Apple still won't guarantee it.

  • Five hours? (Score:1, Troll)

    by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 )
    Five hours is absolutely pathetic for a set of wireless headphones, in fact it's barely usable. A good set of wireless headphones, such as the HD4.40's, which I'm wearing right now, have an activity listening battery life of 24+ hours, and they charge in less than 2 hours, which means you can pretty much charge them during your commute and get more then a full days wear out of them.

    $250 for a five hour experience is laughable at best and just a shameful statement to put forth, regardless of the fact it
    • 5 Hours is plenty for many people, and pretty impressive for earbuds. Don't know if it's worth $250, but I wouldn't call it laughable.

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 )
        I think laughable is being kind, because assuming you wear your earbuds at work, you can easily go through 6 - 7 hours of playtime, then if you hit the gym after work, that's another 1 - 2 hours, then if you do some work at home, you can count on another 1 - 2 hours, so in a single day you can easily burn 8 - 11 hours of playtime, and if you do that 6 days a week, that's 48 - 66 hours.

        Comparing the headphones I have one, with Apples, I would charge mine twice, and easily be able to meet the 60 hours thres

        • I think laughable is being kind, because assuming you wear your earbuds at work, you can easily go through 6 - 7 hours of playtime, then if you hit the gym after work, that's another 1 - 2 hours, then if you do some work at home, you can count on another 1 - 2 hours, so in a single day you can easily burn 8 - 11 hours of playtime, and if you do that 6 days a week, that's 48 - 66 hours. Comparing the headphones I have one, with Apples, I would charge mine twice, and easily be able to meet the 60 hours threshold (the official documentation says 24 hours of listening on charge, but I average more), the Apple version would take 12 charges to break the 60 hour mark, and I'd have to break midday to change them, which is just down right annoying. The minimum playtime anyone should accept would be 8 - 10 hours, because you could get through your work day and some activity afterwards, which is reasonable, but not ideal.

          I don't buy any Apple crap, but can you actually compare these with any other wireless ear-bud type headphones? The ones you referenced are much larger so of course they can support a much larger battery, making the comparison disingenuous. Can you list any specific models of superior ear-bud style headphones with superior battery life for comparison?

        • I think laughable is being kind, because assuming you wear your earbuds at work, you can easily go through 6 - 7 hours of playtime, then if you hit the gym after work, that's another 1 - 2 hours, then if you do some work at home, you can count on another 1 - 2 hours, so in a single day you can easily burn 8 - 11 hours of playtime, and if you do that 6 days a week, that's 48 - 66 hours.

          Consider that not everyone has your schedule.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • I agree, when you can go wired it's better option, but I switch between to many devices and some of them don't have headphone jacks, or jacks that 3.5mm, so the wireless option was just easier.
      • "5 hours oughta be enough for anybody!"
    • In theory you can throw them back into the case and get a decent recharge in about 10 minutes. Still annoying though.

    • Re:Five hours? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @12:19PM (#59354998)

      Sony's $230 1000XM3 noise cancelling earbuds only have 6 hours of rated battery life, not a huge difference. Bose's $300 QC30 have 10 hours, but have a bulky solid "neckband" with the battery and electronics that the earbuds are both wired to.

      5 hours of battery life for $250 seems roughly in line with the competition.

      • Sony's $230 1000XM3 noise cancelling earbuds only have 6 hours of rated battery life, not a huge difference. Bose's $300 QC30 have 10 hours, but have a bulky solid "neckband" with the battery and electronics that the earbuds are both wired to.

        5 hours of battery life for $250 seems roughly in line with the competition.

        Basic physics. You can only pack so much battery into a wireless earbud. A lot of Slashdotters are happy with Big Lot's 5 dollar wired headsets, so either the Sony, Bose, or Apple buds are not for them.

    • Put them in the charging case while you're pooping or talking to another human being. 15 minutes in there should give you another 3 hours of playback. Problem solved.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ruddk ( 5153113 )

      I thought that the last version wouldn’t last long enough. But I have found that since I store them in their case that I have in a pocket whenever I am not using them, I haven’t run out of power yet.

    • This deserves a +5 moderation. Not a Troll one.

  • Ok can we have it without the commintary. (Score:3)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @11:57AM (#59354870)

    With millions of users, several occurrences of early failures, it probably still within 6 sigma of a failure rate.

    All that said, I much rather have a good set of headphones for noise cancellation, then earbuds. Mostly earbuds are designed for people on the go. Where Noise Cancellation is just dangerous. While headphones are in general more comfortable and good for when you are sitting back and relaxing, with being big enough to say "Do not disterb me!"

    I don't own a pair of Air Pods myself. But I see a lot of them with them and they seem happy with them. If a product made by Apple is too expensive for my needs, I just don't buy it. It is that simple. There are often numerous acceptable and often better fitting my needs solutions available 3rd party that is compatible with some of the Apple products I already own.

    • No. Air Pods Pro come with Air Pod Prose.

    • no way a Chinese slave labor sweatshop (aka Foxconn) approaches 99.9997% defect free work.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • If the little peckerhead cannot watch where it is going it deserves to get hit and killed (or at least severely crippled). The problem is not the AirPods, it is the peckerheads!

        Hit em once or twice. That will learn them to watch where they are going.

    • They're too expensive for my personal taste, but I tried them out in the store and was surprised at how good they sound and how well they seemed to stay in my ears when I jumped and moved around.

      My kid has them and won't take the fuckers out of his ears, so I assume they're good at what they do.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Arkham ( 10779 )

      I have AirPods for talking while I walk around, and I have Bose QC35s for noise canceling or watching a movie on an Airplane. I can't imagine a scenario where an in-ear headphone replaces my QC35s, and I can't imagine wearing on-ear or over-ear headphones while waling down a busy street.

  • No Specifications (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Retired ICS ( 6159680 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @12:05PM (#59354912)

    I note that there are no frequency response specifications for these things, probably because they are designed for the same people who think that Mpeg II Layer 3 audio is good quality, that good quality can be sent over BlueTooth, and think that the speakers in their TV or "soundbar" produce "awesome" sound.

    I'll stick with wired in-ear headphones that have a 20 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response and 30 dB isolation, thank-you very much. You can keep your overpriced tinny $5 earbuds.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DNS-and-BIND ( 461968 )

      I'm so thankful that I'm not cursed with ears like yours. I can listen to any kind of music and it sounds great. It must be tough going through life like that, always upset that music sounds like shit. It's like complaining that Mom's cooking isn't any good because she's not a professional chef.

      At my parties I play the party music over bluetooth to my coke can speaker and it sounds great. Nobody ever complains.

    • the same people who think that Mpeg II Layer 3 audio is good quality, that good quality can be sent over BlueTooth,

      I'm not saying that these Apple products have good specs, but these things you've listed aren't bad by definition. MP3 sounds fine at 320Kbps. Bluetooth supports a lot more codecs than just SBC - it's down to the device and cheap ones will only have the minimum awful option. AptX is only one better example. A2DP allows up to 768Kbps of bandwidth, so you can bitstream your AAC file to earphones that support it directly - but it's battery intensive. That's why AptX exists.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bsolar ( 1176767 )

      probably because they are designed for the same people who think that Mpeg II Layer 3 audio is good quality, that good quality can be sent over BlueTooth

      AFAIK Bluetooth can stream AAC directly without recompression, which is the most likely scenario for an Apple user. It's definitely "good enough" for the vast majority of listeners.

      If you need/want something better, that's fine, but I don't think the kind of listeners pushing for such levels of fidelity would settle for any kind of in-ear headphones anyway.

      • "If you need/want something better, that's fine, but I don't think the kind of listeners pushing for such levels of fidelity would settle for any kind of in-ear headphones anyway."

        My KSE1500's are awesome. The SE846 (without Bluetooth) are excellent too. As are my ancient E5's. The current SE425's are comparable in price to AirPods but are far better sounding and not "throw away" trash.

    • MP3 at a sufficiently high bitrate (CBR or VBR) is transparent. This is readily provable using ABX testing methodology. HydrogenAudio's page on LAME [hydrogenaud.io] is a good quick reference (for LAME at least, YMMV depending on your encoder), though I don't think it's been updated significantly in a long while.

      That's not to say FLAC and even 24-bit 192khz FLAC don't have their place (music archival and scientific research respectively), but for general music listening, a properly encoded MP3 at a decent VBR level is su

    • I had 3 Hz to 22kHz for 90 DEM (~45EUR), 20 years ago!

    • I note that there are no frequency response specifications for these things, probably because they are designed for the same people who think that Mpeg II Layer 3 audio is good quality, that good quality can be sent over BlueTooth, and think that the speakers in their TV or "soundbar" produce "awesome" sound.

      Wow. That is just a whole lot of stupid in one post. Not the second half, but the fact that you think frequency response characteristics on any headphones are even at all relevant to the sound quality. Protip: If you spend more than $5 on headphones don't bother looking at the frequency response characteristics since 100% of headphones above $5 will achieve your vaunted 20Hz-20kHz frequency response requirement.

      Interestingly if you're so sure that MP3 isn't good quality there is a competition running with a

    • Yeah, there are those of us in the world that DO THINGS while we listen to music or podcasts. Your wired in-ear monitors are great and all, but wires are the bane of my existence as I try to move through my day. Even the wire connecting my earbuds is starting to get on my nerves, so the new crop of inexpensive truly wireless earbuds represent a major upgrade to me. If I had $250 to burn, I would get these AirPods, but I'm perfectly happy that Apple (and a few others) changed the landscape on truly wireless

  • Watch the recent Joe Rogan/Edward Snowden interview where Joe's airpods battery dies and he bitches about them sucking and it messes up the rest of the audio for the interview? And Snowden has no problem because hes using wired headphones?

    https://youtu.be/efs3QRr8LWw?t... [youtu.be]

    Anyway, good noise canceling headphones are one of those items where people can be desperate enough to spend any amount of money to make the noise outside go away... So I don't blame someone if they shell out the cash for that aspect alone.

  • ... do they have gold connectors?

    • ... do they have gold connectors?

      The hyper-oxygenated cables and the low-pass framistat-shielding is what really makes the difference.

  • They want $249 for earbuds with a five hour battery? Let me guess: People can't wait to buy them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      Sony's version costs $230, Bose's version costs $300. $250 is within the price range for that market segment.

      • Sony and Bose pulled those numbers out of thin air. Sony is competing on price, while Bose is competing on perceived brand recognition. That market segment's pricing was created by Apple.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Guspaz ( 556486 )

          Both of those products were on the market before Apple even announced their first-ever noise-cancelling earbuds. For several years, in the case of the Bose product. Apple didn't create the market segment for noise-cancelling earbuds. Or wireless earbuds. Or earbuds at a certain pricepoint.

      • Apple's hardware quality is nowhere near that quality! They are more in the $25 range. Sorry to burst the bubble.

    • I'm not stupid enough to buy them, but I'm smart enough to buy APL stock.

  • Can you really imagine any sound professional or audiophile using these earbuds? It's just an excuse to make a $250 price tag on a pair of ear buds seem less unreasonable.

    • Can you really imagine any sound professional or audiophile using these earbuds? It's just an excuse to make a $250 price tag on a pair of ear buds seem less unreasonable.

      I never knew they were marketed towards professionals and audiophiles.

      I understand that a special audiophile version of these buds is coming out with special rocks glued to the buds that eliminate listening fatigue, and eliminate battery noise in the 1-20 hz range, which is critical for the most discerning ears.

  • Get a decent set of wired in-ear headphones, and have earpieces custom-moulded (just about any hearing aid specialist can do this). The difference between standard in-ear rubber or foam tips and custom mouldings is gigantic.

  • Apple says the AirPods Pro can last "up to 5 hours" on a single charge and "over 24 hours" with the case.

    The wording here is a bit weird. It's not like you're going to listen 24 hours straight if you have the case with you. How fast do they recharge? Would an 8 hour work day be 5 hours of music, 1 hour of charging, then a final hour of music before driving home?

    As for a comment above talking about noise cancelling and people driving with them.... I already see people every other day driving with the big ass fucking cans on their head.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by berj ( 754323 )

      I've had mine for about 2.5 years and the batteries are still going strong (both the buds and the case). They charge very fast -- you get about 3 hours' listening time with about 15 minutes in the case. I use mine all day every day at work. it's pretty rare that they wear out before the end of the day. Generally I just pop them back in the case when I step away from my desk to get a coffee or use the restroom. Works a charm.

      I spend enough time without my headphones in during an average day (and thus I

  • 60 minutes (Score:3)

    by fulldecent ( 598482 ) on Monday October 28, 2019 @01:09PM (#59355282) Homepage

    My current AirPods can barely last 90 minutes.

    If I have two meetings back-to-back then I start getting the warning during the second call. Then I have to do this dance where I take the right ear out and put it in the charger until the left ear is just about to die. Then I put the left ear in and take the right out. The actual charge rate versus use rate is low, so you need to constantly swap left and right if you have several meetings.

  • $250 for headphones that work for 5 hours before needing a recharge and are expected to last a few years at most?

    I've been using a set of Bose QC15 for about 10 years. I get a couple days of use from a single AAA battery. Takes about a minute to go from dead to full charge (aka replace the battery). I've replaced the ear foam and cord for a few bucks each. At this pace, the headphone jack will out of use before my headphones die.

  • Does apple have any idea what "pro" means.
  • No, they weren't. They usually don't do events after October and new Airpods, a single new Macbook Pro (and availability of the new macpro) where widely expected not to warrant an event. "AirPods' in-built battery becomes useless after a year of use, keeping the accessory on for just a few minutes at best." Also not true. I got mine in October 2017 and have been using them at least one hour every day, after which the battery is far from depleted. Sure, it's Lithium Ion batteries, so they probably only ho
  • What's with announcing this for literally the same day the echo buds (also with active noise cancelling) are being released? https://www.amazon.com/Echo-Bu... [amazon.com]

  • Could you price these at $450 or above? That way I can really feel the deep, anal penetration when I buy them. At $250 it just feels like a midget humping me.

  • The OP apparently didn't read the linked article; the older AirPods last up to to 4 years, with the earliest failures reported at 18 months. So while it's still bad that you can't replace the battery, it's not "a year" as the writer says, so the cost/month of the headphones that last four years is $5/month, not $20/month. And it's not just Apple's AirPods - several competing bluetooth earbuds are the same, glued together with batteries you can't replace, for the same reason - smaller, more reliable devices (no battery door = no water). So while I'm all for replaceable batteries, let's not focus on Apple alone, and ignore Amazon and Microsoft also making bluetooth earbuds with glued-in batteries - it's a general issue, not an Apple issue. And the linked article also mentioned that Apple replaces AirPods with batteries that fail in a year for free, and after that at a discount - basically discounting you a new pair of AirPods when your current ones batteries fail.

    • How about 2h daily? (Commute)
      Or 8h daily? (Work shift)

      I bet your numbers are based on "an hour every weekend" or something.

      • Based on reviews and anecdotal data, probably a few hours a day. You really think these people are using their AirPods an hour a weekend? Or that that's what Apple is basing its numbers on? You would hear a lot more outcry if that were the case.

  • Are these just noise cancelling earbuds, or are they apple-specific and can only be used with "iPhone"?
     
    I've been using over the ear noise cancelling headphones for years but would be worth picking up a pair of earbuds for on-the-go with my android phone. Assuming the batteries aren't absolute garbage. Not yet sold on how much better the battery is this time around.

  • Air Pods Pro -or- Air Pod Pros -or- Air Pods Pros -or- Pro Air Pods -or- Air Pro Pods -or-

    I wish Jony was still here. He would know.

  • My ex gets really upset when she loses a $20 earring!

  • No, we never removed the headphone jack so we could sell $250 ear buds. No, that wasn't us. Musta been somebody else, somebody who just looked like us. Not us. We swear this on a black apple.

  • I bet those Apple tat wont sound as good as my KZ ATE headphones which are a lot cheaper. And when I want to go wireless I would never use buds. Better to use overhead headphones that can take a bit of bumping around. Earbuds remind me of those horrible bluetooth handsfree headsets that never took off.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai

Close