Beats Studio Buds will launch on July 21, says leaker

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in General Discussion edited June 2021
Apple's often-leaked Beats Studio Buds are set to launch on July 21, according to Jon Prosser.

Beats Studio Buds coming July 21
Beats Studio Buds coming July 21


The Beats Studio Buds have been seen in several athletes' ears despite not being announced by Apple. The new earbuds from Beats by Dre take on a tiny in-ear design that lack a stem.

Hit-or-miss leaker Jon Prosser in a report on FrontPageTech claims the Beats Studio Buds are coming on July 21. There have also been sightings of the earbuds in Taiwan's NCC database to confirm the looming launch.

Prosser also says the Beats Studio Buds "look very similar to that of AirPods Pro 2." There haven't been any image leaks of this probable "AirPods Pro 2" design to confirm Prosser's statement.

Apple hasn't been trying to keep the new earbuds secret since they've been seen in multiple social media posts and a music video. First basketball's LeBron James was seen with them in an Instagram post. Roddy Ricch appeared to be wearing them in a music video.

Follow all the details of WWDC 2021 with the comprehensive AppleInsider coverage of the whole week-long event from June 7 through June 11, including details of all the new launches and updates.

Stay on top of all Apple news right from your HomePod. Say, "Hey, Siri, play AppleInsider," and you'll get the latest AppleInsider Podcast. Or ask your HomePod mini for "AppleInsider Daily" instead and you'll hear a fast update direct from our news team. And, if you're interested in Apple-centric home automation, say "Hey, Siri, play HomeKit Insider," and you'll be listening to our newest specialized podcast in moments.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 
  • Reply 2 of 5
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,324member
    Rayz2016 said:
    I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 
    Though I haven’t yet tried the AirPods Pro, the AirPods never did for me (strangely formed ears I must have), but what I wonder is what is the difference between these and AirPods? Why continue to keep the two lines/brands separate? Do they simply lack the extras like Siri integration, and perhaps other things like the new audio enhancements? What’s the point of keeping the Beats brand around?
  • Reply 3 of 5
    entropysentropys Posts: 4,166member
    Because people buy beats for the name and might not buy Apple.

    to this day I am not sure Apple needed to buy Beats with $3b.  It could have done it all in house and Apple Music would not look like it still does. I guess someone did the modelling and felt this was a quicker path to glory.  Otherwise I would hate to think it was just so Apple execs could buy their way to hanging out with some cool people.
    williamlondonmobird
  • Reply 4 of 5
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 916member
    williamlondon said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 
    Though I haven’t yet tried the AirPods Pro, the AirPods never did for me (strangely formed ears I must have), but what I wonder is what is the difference between these and AirPods? Why continue to keep the two lines/brands separate? Do they simply lack the extras like Siri integration, and perhaps other things like the new audio enhancements? What’s the point of keeping the Beats brand around?
    They keep both brands because it's good business.  Before AirPods, Beats was the top brand in revenue, profit and volume.  Without sales numbers it can't be verified but Beats is still thought to be the second best selling brand in revenue, profit, and volume.  Companies tend to not dissolve successful products.  VW Group didn't make their of their Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, or Bugatti brands all Volkswagens because they understand their products appeal to different audiences.  Tons of companies with multiple brands realize it. Apple realizes that too.  

    Short answer: Beats makes Apple money.  
    dewmen2itivguywelshdog
  • Reply 5 of 5
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    entropys said:
    Because people buy beats for the name and might not buy Apple.

    to this day I am not sure Apple needed to buy Beats with $3b.  It could have done it all in house and Apple Music would not look like it still does. I guess someone did the modelling and felt this was a quicker path to glory.  Otherwise I would hate to think it was just so Apple execs could buy their way to hanging out with some cool people.

    it was a GREAT idea and one of their best acquisitions. I don’t understand why people are against it. The Beats acquisition paid for itself within 3 years.

    What I wish never happened was Jimmy and Dre leaving. I felt Apple Music drop from being the cool service and has stagnated since compared to the guy who’s running it now. Jimmy had huge plans for the service. I don’t know what happened there. Strangely Apple was involved with creating one of the biggest music videos one year(2015?) and strangely that video now links to Spotify. The irony.

    Changing Beats 1 to Apple Music 1 also baffles me. Apple Music had the 2 biggest names in music under ONE service, now they just have 1 of the 2. Who’s naming Apple products/services now? They’re doing a terrible job. If Siri was released today it would be named “Apple Voice Recognition”.
    patchythepirate
Sign In or Register to comment.