Apple Launches $549 AirPods Max Over-Ear Headphones (cnet.com) 118
More than a week after Black Friday, Apple's announced its AirPods Max over-ear headphones for $549. It's available for preorder now, and will ship Dec. 15. From a report: Apple said its AirPods Max are designed with similar features to its $249 in-ear AirPods Pro, but in an over-ear design. As a result, it offers many of the same features as its AirPods cousins, including simple setup and connections, active noise cancellation, transparency mode to pipe sound from the outside world into your ears along with whatever you're listening to, and "spatial" simulated surround-sound audio. It also comes in five colors, including silver, green and pink. "With AirPods Max, we are bringing that magical AirPods experience to a stunning over-ear design with high-fidelity audio," said Greg Joswiak, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, in a statement Tuesday.
Holy fuck. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Holy fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Just wait until next year's $999 iPods Max Pro, which will be available in rose gold with an optional large apple-with-a-bite-taken-out sticker. Discerning consumers will be able to choose the precise location to place this distinctive sign of their good taste and affluence.
(Disclaimers: Warranty void if used in an advertised manner. May not function as expected if you hold the device wrong. Uses a proprietary connector that may change next year.)
air-head? (Score:5, Funny)
next up: desktop Ipads so heavy you can't lift them. How is set of headphones cans and "airpod". They should have called it an "air-head"
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they're only $999, unless you want a charging stand. That'll be another $300.
Re: (Score:2)
Does not align with any industry standards. Companies attempting to create software/hardware compatible with the new iPods Max Pro will be sued into oblivion.
Re: (Score:2)
Fools and their money are soon parted.
The only fool is one who passes judgement on a product without having any data about that products primary purpose.
So how do these headphones sound, and are they comfortable to wear? I mean I assume you know the answer to these questions otherwise it would be quite embarrassing for you.
But don't worry man. I too am an Apple hater. I won't buy these regardless of how good they may be. So you're in good company. But at least I recognise and am open about my hate.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Make no mistake, I'm not defending Apple. I've never owned an Apple or Beats brand audio product. But I did want to point out how they aren't just "bluetooth".
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/wh... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I own really terrible BT headphones, and some very good BT headphones. How they sound doesn't have much to do with BT.
That being said, these Apple headphone had better be made of gold (and also shit gold eggs) to be worth $500+. For half that you can get very good BT headphones which support better BT audio quality than the Apple ones do.
Re: (Score:2)
They sound like any bluetooth headphones, since the protocol is the limiting factor.
Your ignorance is as amazing as your name is nutty. What bluetooth does to audio in terms of quality hit is completely different than what the headphone drivers actually do to audio.
You can play a 48kbps mp3 and it'll still sound better on a high end bluetooth headset than a low end cabled one.
If you think that 256kbps AAC is the limiting factor then you're as nutty as your name suggests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are that fooled into spending money, I guess I can't stop you.
If you're deaf and don't enjoy music then that's your problem. Not everyone enjoys everything equally. I love music (not like, but love). I invest a lot of time and money into the hobby and my ideal weekend is sitting in my chair with a whiskey and listening to music for hours on end.
I think "fools" are those who spend more than $1500 on a car. At least I would if I were you that is, but the reality is I don't judge others by what they enjoy, and when I'm not interested in something and I don't understand s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, that pricing is obscene. I'm sure the sound quality isn't any better than a $90 Sony MDR7506.
That may be the case, but these are wireless, noise cancelling and has built in microphones for conversations etc. The competition isn't wired headphones - either the $100 Sony you mention or the $1400 Sennheiser HD800 I like at home - but Bose NC700, Sony WH1000XM4 and similar entries from B&W, Denon, B&O etc.
Still expensive, will be interesting to see reviews.
Re: (Score:2)
People like to pretend that they are audiophiles and that they really can tell a difference between the products. For me, even if I can tell the difference, What I can get isn't worth that extra costs.
All Digital sound is a loss of the actual sound. Reproducing accurate sound is actually trying to put a round peg and a square hole. As Binary Data can represent points on a curve, but not the actual curve, Then you normally have a capacitor to smooth out the gaps, which creates a good approximation howeve
Re: (Score:2)
trying to put a round peg and a square hole.
To be needlessly pedantic, not hard if the diameter of the peg is just slightly smaller than the perimeter of the square hole. ðYðY
The "any key" joke is very old ... (Score:2)
A basic understanding of digital audio is expected from someone with a 6-digit UID.
Only by idiots. We had trolls and those who misunderstood technology in the "old days" too. Do you not realize that the "any key" joke is a very old joke whose humor is rooted in reality? The reality of the 80s, 90s, 00s, etc.
Re: Holy fuck. (Score:2)
Theyâ(TM)d have to be pretty special to be more expensive than the Sony XM4. They are just beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds to me like "less space than a nomad". The value of a product like this is judged on the whole package, not just a single metric such as sound quality (though admittedly important for headphones). Too many geeks focus narrowly on technical specifications. The value includes the sum of its parts - including its interactions with existing products - in the iPod's case it was with the installed Mac base and how easily it worked with Mac OS).
I will admit that for me, the price is high. That's because
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds to me like "less space than a nomad".
Oh, I'm sure these will be all over the place in a few months, like the original ipod or the airpods.
I'm not an Apple guy but I can freely admit they make good stuff (mostly) that does what people want. But I think at this point the biggest reason this is guaranteed to sell like hotcakes is just the branding. Just an example: a friend of mine used to constantly complain that his $10 earbuds keep breaking, and I kept telling him to buy a quality pair like the Etymotic IEMs or Sennheiser over the ear cans I'v
Re: (Score:3)
One of Apple's key to success is that when designing its products, it considers its other products and how the new product will work with them. I have been following Apple for a long time and what has struck me is how people systematically misunderstand or underestimate this. In many ways, it is the major differentiating factor in their product, which adds a lot of value. In the case of the iPod, it wasn't just a music player. It was a music player that worked well with a Mac (the first version was Mac-only
Re: (Score:2)
The digital crown is a surprising appearance on these headphones.
I get that it's a good way to navigate the UI on the watch, but I couldn't imagine it translating well to an iPhone due to the way our fingers and hands interact with the iPhone. Will it really be easier to use the digital crown on these headphones compared to 'normal' vol up/down buttons which double up as a 'hold for Siri' function?
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to say until people get their hands on them, but arguably a dial is a more intuitive physical control than a pair of up/down buttons, when it's on the side of your head where you can't see the buttons.
Re: (Score:2)
I had an MP3 player that worked well with MacOS too. In fact, it worked well with every OS, because it was a class-compliant USB mass storage device. As an upshot, I never, ever had to mess with iTunes and could treat myself to the lean but massively modular and scriptable foobar2000. Superior in every aspect except for money-vacuuming.
Plenty of people make products that work well with each other. Especially technology as mature and standardized as headphones. Adding lock-in on top if that can only be const
Re: (Score:2)
One of Apple's key to success is that when designing its products, it considers its other products and how the new product will work with them.
Yeah. Now they're *finally* including USB-C to lightning cables in their products instead of USB-A - years after dropping A ports.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that there's a reason that people love Apple's brand. It's not because the graphics are pretty, it's because they've spent decades building high-quality products that generally work quite well, so, like other high-end brands, they've earned the trust of many customers who are happy to pay more for better. In particular, Apple's very good at solving a holistic problem, not just the point solution. Look at how the iPod crushed the other "MP3 Players" because Apple realizes that the real value was
Re: (Score:2)
The question is what is being brought to the market.
The iPod was really small at the time compared to others that was much bulkier. These are headphones, much like other headphones out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I see you are man of quality taste. I've had my Sony MDR-7506 headphones for almost 20 years. Even replaced the velour earpads before the right ear finally stopped working. It is kind of funny to see that they are still [amazon.com] being sold.
I've long since upgraded to the Sennheiser HD 650 but for anyone looking for a nice "upgrade" Massdrop, sorry, drop.com, has the Sennheiser HD 58X [drop.com] for $170 which sounds damn good for the price point. Note: It is open-back.
Re:Holy fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Holy fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation needed.
I am suspicious that anyone "needs" to spend $549 on headphones. Ever. Even professionally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fine then. Your $2000 guitar, presumably, has *something* about it that makes it better than a $500 guitar. Something more than just its name, I hope. Something that, when you became aware of it, made it a better choice for your intended purpose than a $500 guitar. I don't know anything about guitars, and you presumably do, so I won't pass judgement on your purpose.
What do Apple's $549 headphones have that makes them a better choice than $90 headphones, beyond a name? TFA didn't mention anything. Neither d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am ready to be contradicted on this point.
You don't need to be contradicted because you made no point and have no basis for your post. The quality aspect of a headphone is entirely how it feels and sounds, and you neither have information on either, and if you had you haven't provided any.
You don't need to be contradicted. Simply pointing out you're rambling cluelessly is sufficient.
Re: (Score:2)
What do Apple's $549 headphones have that makes them a better choice than $90 headphones, beyond a name?
They do Dolby Atmos 3D sound from Apple TV. It's an option I've seen on my Apple TV. HomePods can do Atmos too when paired with an AppleTV. I've been interested in 3D sound for a long time, going back to Creative's EAX and--even better--Aureal's A3D, so I find the feature intriguing.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with this. In this specific example, one would normally (COVID aside) try out both guitars and then be able to make an informed decision as to whether the additional cost delivers a noticeable and value added improvement.
You can't do that with these headphones. Likely, once you've worn them you won't be able to return them because they are a "personal item".
Re: (Score:3)
Your guitar will normally keep its value over time. Electronics like this will be on eBay for $25 in the next 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Your guitar will normally keep its value over time. Electronics like this will be on eBay for $25 in the next 3 years.
Buying used headphones is freaking gross.
Re: (Score:2)
I am suspicious that anyone "needs" to spend $549 on headphones. Ever. Even professionally.
Even cheap pro-level headphones are in the multiple hundreds of dollars range. I have some [antiquated] Sennheiser HD420s (they are open-air DJ headphones) which I got for $20 and re-foamed. The modern equivalent is probably the HD 560S, with a $199 MSRP. And I had to hunt up some foams that I could cut down to work, because they discontinued the originals, most people are not going to go to that kind of effort (even though it's not much.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they are. Piss on that. I'm just saying that hundreds of dollars for high-end headphones is perfectly ordinary now, and when you add the Apple tax and the value of shiny into the value proposition I can see why they cost so much.
Remember, though, I'm a cheapskate. I just told a story about how I'm using garage sale headphones. They are great though ;) I have them hooked up to a M-Audio Mobile Pre, which works with both Windows and Linux, and probably Mac too. It also came from a yard sale, or
Re:Holy fuck. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am suspicious that anyone "needs" to spend $549 on headphones. Ever. Even professionally.
MikeMo used the word "like" not "need", so I see no reason to ask him for a citation.
Nobody needs to buy a Ferrari. Nobody needs to buy a Rolex. Nobody needs an Armani suit. You don't need a beer (though I agree it might sometimes feel like it). Apple, in general, creates products where plenty of people want to buy them despite their premium price. It is perfectly understandable that you don't see the value, so you are free not to buy. Criticizing others for wanting it, though, is a form of snobbism - "I don't see the value, so those who buy it are just wasting their money".
Re: (Score:2)
Very well. I hereby regret and offer to withdraw the word "need" from my post.
My question then, is: what features of Apple $549 headphones would lead someone to choose them over $90 headphones? I would like an answer. My snobbery probably still exists but I am suppressing it in order to learn something.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From their advertising (https://www.apple.com/airpods-max/), it looks like they put a lot of emphasis on the comfort (materials used, etc). This by itself might be a reason to want them, especially if you wear them all day. It seems that their value proposition (which you don't have to accept) is the combination of a bunch of features. High-quality sound, comfort, long battery life, easy-to-use controls, integration with iOS - and of course style (which is easy to dismiss but is clearly important for many p
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not going to try and justify the Apple pricing (despite being an apple user with many of their products), a good set of earphones can easily be worth a lot more than $90. I just picked up a set of IEMs for $150 (used to sell for north of $300) and to me they are an extremely good deal. They're comfortable, provide an extreme amount of noise isolation (Isolation is far better than cancellation, imho), to the point where I can use them in place of industrial earplugs. They also fit inside my ear, al
Re: (Score:2)
So I once had a set of Shure earbuds. They ended up being replaced under warranty by a more expensive model, and so I ended up walking around with earbuds worth about $450, and they were great. I'd still be using them today, but an unexpected storm caught me off guard and water got into one of the buds and that was the end of them.
But I've never had a set of earbuds with a better fit—the shape of the whole thing was really nice. They sounded excellent for their size, and the cable was replaceable, and
Re: (Score:3)
I am suspicious that anyone "needs" to spend $549 on headphones. Ever. Even professionally.
MikeMo used the word "like" not "need", so I see no reason to ask him for a citation.
Nobody needs to buy a Ferrari. Nobody needs to buy a Rolex. Nobody needs an Armani suit. You don't need a beer (though I agree it might sometimes feel like it). Apple, in general, creates products where plenty of people want to buy them despite their premium price. It is perfectly understandable that you don't see the value, so you are free not to buy. Criticizing others for wanting it, though, is a form of snobbism - "I don't see the value, so those who buy it are just wasting their money".
Sounds more like you're trying to make those that do waste the money on such overpriced things feel good about their decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like you're trying to make those that do waste the money on such overpriced things feel good about their decisions
Maybe. But money is a funny thing. For some, $500 (or $50,000) is nothing, for others it is what they have to get by on for a month. These people will evaluate very differently the value of a $500 headphone. A person who gets by on $500 / month might see just about any purchase that isn't food or clothing as waste. The value of $500 is not a constant from person to person. The value one gets from a product like these headphones is also not a constant from person to person. Different aspects of the product a
Re: (Score:2)
You of course have good points - but I still wonder if the "value" is really there, in the sense that I can't see those $500+ headphones costing more than $250 in actual costs (even factoring R&D, etc.), so we're talking (in my estimate, which might be totally wrong, but likely not entirely not off-base) over 100% markup, and that's really the 'waste' part for me - a 40% markup is still 'premium', but you're getting shafted less; or put it another way: you get even more value.
Sure, you can pay more for
Re: (Score:2)
From a purely economic perspective, the value might well be there. In fact, the value of anything is purely subjective - I might well velieve that a certain product is worth $1,000 where most people believe it is only worth $200. Therefore, I I buy such a product for $600, I might well feel I have done quite well while someone who spends $250 on it might well feel that it was expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping times are already being pushed into mid January, so other people disagree with you, which is ultimately what 'value' is about. What are people willing to pay? Do they think it's worth it? Sounds like Apple hit the price point just right. (I wouldn't pay this much for them either; they're about $775 in Canada, which is the better part of a new Mac Mini which would be much more useful to me.)
Re: (Score:2)
Shipping times are already being pushed into mid January
Unless they come out with cold, hard order numbers, shipping times mean jack shit.
They could produce a dozen units, then make claims of "OMG we're oversold 12000%!!!! We're backlogged for weeks!!" as they purposely slow down production to artificially inflate demand.
Rolexes and Ferraris both do things (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With audio equipment, more money = better sound. That relationship is not linear: going from 'cheapest' to 'one class above the bottom of the market' is a massive improvement. Going up by the same amount again will get a smaller, but still easily noticeable improvement. At some point returns diminish below a level you can easily distinguish (depending on how good you are at this).
For electronics, this curve flattens pretty quickly: a $1000 amplifier is already close enough to perfect for most people.
For hea
Re: (Score:2)
> audio equipment, more money = better sound. That relationship is not linear:
Indeed. I've found it to be exponential with decreasing returns.
i.e. Spend 2x as much money for less than 50% improvement(s).
Re: (Score:2)
No one said anyone needed them. However at $549 they would be the cheapest headphones I own by a small fraction, and the cheapest wireless ones by far.
Probably a high-end consumer product at that price point and not really enthusiast territory.
Re: Holy fuck. (Score:3)
Rarely, I'd suggest.
Re: (Score:2)
A quick search and I found JBL Tune 500BT Wireless Bluetooth Headphones - Black [currys.co.uk]. For you in the USA £25 is about $33
Re: Holy fuck. (Score:3)
See them as Robin Hood. Takong it from the dumb-rich and giving it to the evil-ri... oh, wait!
Re: (Score:2)
Well if you look at the fashion industry you see many people spending hundreds of dollars for a $20 worth of clothing, just because it has its logo attached to it.
The thing is people think that a name brand is better quality, however it is more of a case that a Name brand has consistent quality. If you get a cheap no-name brand product you have a chance on getting something superior or inferior to the named brand.
Apple has built a reputation of getting something worth the price. However I have found what y
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever bought an expensive piece of clothing? While the logo may be important to many, there are also noticeable differences in quality (I won't say this is always true, but it mostly is). The quality of the fabric and the quality of the stitching both lead to improved comfort, durability as well as looks. So a $200 shirt is usually better in many measurable aspects than a $20 shirt. It may not be 10x better but it is better. Is it worth 10x? That, of course, depends upon your taste and budget. But t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't dismiss too quickly what you get with spending more. Wealth has very a noticeable impact on life expectancy in the US. This seems to continue at least up through $2M / year income (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866586/). Not all of it is likely to be better access to healthcare - things like reduced stress, better access to quality foods, living in cleaner neighborhoods likely all contribute. When given a choice of goods to buy, a rich person can consistently choose the higher qu
Re: (Score:2)
Unbelievable how much people will pay to look or feel "cool."
How do they sound? You clearly know since you are saying the only benefit to these are that they make you feel cool. God knows most headphones are judged on fit and sound quality, and these seem to be quite medium range price wise so I expect some mediocre sound from them.
What's your experience with them? Please give us your full review since you clearly have a basis from which you've passed judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't seen anyone else ship headphones with head tracking built in. This is one more hint about Apple's upcoming VR/AR direction.
-jcr
Audeze Mobius been doing head track for couple years. Bought them on crowd funding deal at launch https://www.audeze.com/product... [audeze.com] Very nice sound, feature set and build quality. Brand well regarded among audiophiles
Re: (Score:2)
Roland/Boss has been doing this for a little while for their Waza Air [boss.info] headphones that are geared towards guitarists. Actually pretty cool functionality to it, emulates the guitar amp being in the room and as you turn your head, the Doppler effect takes place appropriately and such. As a pair of cans, they sound fine too, but obviously geared towards guitarists.
No, not sensible for me for $400, as when I want to play guitar, I'll plug into my amp, but if I lived in a big city and had a studio apartment, I'
Re: (Score:2)
iBeats? (Score:1)
Disable Advertising (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been sitting at the top of my /. page for years. I don't think it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to work for me, but stopped as of a few acquisitions ago. I'm bombarded with ads now. Gotta recoup that investment, I guess.
Re: Disable Advertising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is you don't understand the difference between an advert and a media announcement that is generally relevant to a target audience and thus carried by news aggregators those target audiences frequent.
If you don't want to hear about developments in the tech world, may I suggest a completely different hobby, one that doesn't involve looking for external information about any current events?
magical (Score:2)
we are bringing that magical AirPods experience
It is kind of magical, isn't it? I can't explain how else they sell so much at these prices! Magical for Apple's bottom line too!
Re: magical (Score:2)
Because the price literally *is* the worth they are buying it for. It's what clueless people are highly confident is a tech status symbol. When really, it makes them look like luddites who want to fit in, like that "Hello, fellow kids!" meme, and everybody of us just laughs at them.
It's jewelry. A $10000 diamond isn't any more useful than a $1 one. (The $1 one can even be bigger and purer due to being synthetic.)
Geez.... (Score:2)
The Bose over the ear noise cancelling headphones were the gold standard for me back in the day when I was on airplanes a lot. As I recall they retailed for $299. I guess I'd have to listen to the Apple headphones before passing further judgement...but holy shit! Almost twice the price? Not likely :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corrected for inflation the price may not be twice what the early Bose parts were.
For someone making tech money that price is nothing but I wouldn't buy them on principle. (If I still worked the flightline and wasn't restricted to USAF issue I'd buy Bose in a heartbeat.)
Re: Geez.... (Score:2)
And Bose is already know for ... Well, basically they were Apple before it was "cool" ... Snob toys, basically.
But al least they had mostly decent audio quality. Not that it would be audible to anyone but a trained audio engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Sony XM4 (released in Oct 2020) and am now wearing a Bose Q700.
Get the XM4, everything about it (save for fit) is better. Bluetooth compatibility, sound quality, range, battery, active noise cancellation (the main reason for me), price, etc.
The price is reasonable, needs an audio jack (Score:4, Insightful)
About 15 years ago I bought a Sony MDR-V700DJ headphone set. I paid about $350 for them, and still use them today.
Granted, they are corded, and no microphone, but the sound from them is beyond incredible. I use them for live audio mixing. They are comfortable for hours at a time, the sound is absolutely stellar, and they do a very good job blocking out outside sound.
Running the inflation numbers, they'd be about $466 today.
I'm not in the market for Apple's headphones, but IMHO the only thing missing is a 1/8-inch audio input. Yes, wireless! Bluetooth! Meh. Maybe my market focus is small, but if you're at a sound board or recording booth all day, you want corded. No one wants to be 9 hours into a session and have their headphone batteries die. Not to mention Bluetooth isn't a feature you'll really find on audio mixing gear.
Re: (Score:2)
For that matter, a wired lightning cable that also supports reverse charging - though I doubt their phones can do that.
Re: The price is reasonable, needs an audio jack (Score:2)
They can, in fact, do that. The old pencils were charged that way. The new ones just use cordless charging.g
Re: The price is reasonable, needs an audio jack (Score:3)
Not reasonable. You can bet the electronics in it are worth about $20-$50 off the factory, and most of that only existing to add Appleness to it, not because it serves a use by itself (as in: over dumb drivers on a wire or on a $1.50 Bluetooth module, $5 DAC and $3 battery).
So, realistic retail price from any other manufacturer: $150.
The rest is buying you an extra-large shiny penis. Yes, it is /so/ large. The best! *pats doggie's head*
Re: (Score:2)
Holy gatekeeping batman.
Are you saying OP is an idiot for spending $350 on his headphones? It's over double what you've decided is a reasonable price after all. You decided that, despite the guy who has some relevant experience saying otherwise.
What would you say to the several Tesla owners around here? BMW? Audi? You can get a car for less than $10,000. Parts are no where near that. Do you hold them in equal contempt? Or do you only shake your fist at the sky for Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind you're not going to get 15 years of use out of these Apple headphones. You'll get a couple of years out of them, then then the battery will no longer hold a useful charge. If they are anything like the other Apple Airpods, the battery is completely sealed in and is non-replaceable even if you wanted to. At that point they'll just be expensive e-waste.
Beats by any other name. (Score:2)
I guess this is the Apple version of earrings.
Why would I buy these exactly? (Score:2)
Why would I buy these instead of buying something from the likes of Bose (who have been making top-of-the-line headphones for a very long time and pretty much invented modern active noise cancelling headphones)?
Re: (Score:2)
Why should I buy an iPhone instead of a Nokia? (Score:2)
No logo (Score:2)
An interesting design choice.
They didn't put an Apple logo on them that I could see in the photos.
No insignia at all, just the shape of the object.
I liked the letterforms woven into the R/L cups.
The digital crown made me smile. It was a surprise.
But then, they showed the case they come with.
Not such magical designers after all.
No form, no function. I don't know what that is.
Lazy much? (Score:3)
Too tired to type the other two colours, eh?
Higher than the Competition, but not THAT Obscene (Score:3)
The key question is what these offer over competitor products like the Sony WH-1000XM4 and the Bose equivalent. Both those products MSRP for ~$350 but can often be had for $300. Comparing them to cut rate wireless over-ear headphones is likely not appropriate, as those $30 products won't have nearly the battery life, ANC quality, or audio quality.
A sucker is born every minute (Score:2)
Apple has to charge that much... (Score:2)
... because they need the capital to pay for all those children making their phones. Oh wait, they don't pay those kids much as it turns out. Ok, they need that much capital to pay for the US labor unions. Oh wait, most of their stuff is made overseas where unions don't exist. Ok, they need that much money because the materials are so much better, shame they don't practice good environmental protection policies outside the US.
hmmm, guess I'll have to go with greed.