Apple's Beats officially reveals Bluetooth Solo2 Wireless headphones

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2014
The most popular headphones sold by Apple's Beats, the Solo2, were given an upgrade on Wednesday, with a newly revealed model offering wireless Bluetooth connectivity priced at $299.95.




The new Solo2 Wireless headphones are the first new product released by Beats since the company became a part of Apple. The new headphones are set to be available this month in red, black white, and blue.

Featuring Bluetooth technology, Solo2 Wireless is advertised to allow free movement within 30 feet from an audio device. Users can take calls, skip songs, and change the volume using the "b" button and volume buttons on the ear cup.




The internal rechargeable battery allows users up to 12 hours of wireless playback. And if the battery is dead, users can plug in the "RemoteTalk" cable to listen to music.

"We're taking the most popular headphone in the world and adding wireless Bluetooth functionality to it," said Beats President Luke Wood. "The Solo2 is already a world-class headphone much lauded for its acoustics, and now it joins our growing family of successful wireless products."




Beats is also introducing a new "Royal Edition" line of Solo2 colors, including Stone Grey, Hunter Green, Imperial Violet, Blush Rose, and Sapphire Blue. These wired headphones will retail for $199.95, and will be available this month at Apple's website and select retailers.

The new Beats Solo2 Wireless headphones were first revealed last week, thanks to a regulatory filing with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. But the new product was eventually made official on Wednesday via an announcement from Beats.

The Solo2 is part of Beats' mid-tier lineup of headphones, falling under the company's more premium Studio Wireless headphones priced at $379. The regular wired Beats Solo2 is priced at $199.95.

Beats Solo2 Wireless



Beats Solo2 wired "Royal Edition" colors
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 56
    I hope the quality of sound is better than the quality of colors.
  • Reply 2 of 56
    I've wanted Bluetooth headphones for a while. Might have to give these a spin.
  • Reply 3 of 56
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Are these Apple designed or were they already in the works pre-acquisition. Beats aren't known for great build quality. I was hoping that would be something Apple improves.
  • Reply 4 of 56
    rogifan wrote: »
    Are these Apple designed or were they already in the works pre-acquisition. Beats aren't known for great build quality. I was hoping that would be something Apple improves.

    I'd see them in person to determine the quality.
  • Reply 5 of 56

    The Solo2's are their first headphones that most people say are decent, sound quality wise. Nice to see wireless ones.

     

    I just look at Beats headphones and figure...yeah, but the Sony MDR-V6's are $75. And I don't have any street cred anyway.

  • Reply 6 of 56

    300 bucks for headphones.  Insane.  

  • Reply 7 of 56
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

     

    300 bucks for headphones.  Insane.  




    Makes the iPod Hi-Fi seem like it was cheap, doesn't it? <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 

  • Reply 8 of 56
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I'd see them in person to determine the quality.

    I hope future Apple versions aren't plastic. No way I'd spend $300 for that. I've got some in ear Sennheiser's that sound fantastic and were less than $100. But it seems clear why accounting (and the Board) signed off on this acquisition. The margins on these things must be massive.
  • Reply 9 of 56
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    300 bucks for headphones.  Insane.  

    well my shure 535's make me double-plus insane... i paid 500 for IEM "headphones"...

    no, the shure 535 don't make me insane, actually they save me from insanity on the bus... (they block the outside noise, and sound heavenly...)
  • Reply 10 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

     

    300 bucks for headphones.  Insane.  




    That's what I used to think about iPods

     

    Of course, they do a lot more now for 300 bucks than the old 600 dollar white ones, but still

  • Reply 11 of 56

    "Regular" consumer headphones shouldn't cost $300. I could see pros in the music business needing good headphones for creating music. But consumers?

     

    We use our standard Apple headphones and they are really good for us.

     

    Most people shouldn't need headphones that cost more than $100 or even $200.

     

    Will there be a matching $999 Apple Watch to go with those? Wouldn't be surprised.

     

    Thanks Apple for high margins!

  • Reply 12 of 56

    I don't feel Apple is providing value here. Just a guess and probably right.

     

    I feel Apple is cashing in on its name, when it could have sold good headphones for a lot less than $300.

  • Reply 13 of 56
    it's a fashion statement, an accessory. so it can be priced at what ever people will pay. you're not just buying generic ear buds when you buy beats headphones.
  • Reply 14 of 56
    The Sapphire Blue and the Stone Grey look great.

    I don't think I'll go for this though—I prefer IEMs. My current A-Jays Four is near EOL since the sound breaks on occasion when the cable is jostled.

    Currently I have it down to 2 picks—the Bowers & Wilkins C5 Series 2 and The BeoPlay H3. With both of them being so similar I have a tough choice ahead. (One thing the B&W has over the B&O is that it's a newer iteration)
  • Reply 15 of 56
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,164member
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

     

    300 bucks for headphones.  Insane.  


     

    $750 for an iPhone. Insane.

  • Reply 16 of 56
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,358member
    I'd see them in person to determine the quality.


    Probably better idea to listen to music with them ... ;)
  • Reply 17 of 56
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,608member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post

     



    Makes the iPod Hi-Fi seem like it was cheap, doesn't it? <img class=" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" /> 




    Certainly makes the basic aWatch seem like a steal.

  • Reply 18 of 56
    Are they chargeable with a lightning cable?
  • Reply 19 of 56
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,687member

    As I've stated numerous times in the past, I'm not a big fan of Beats headphones.

     

    But that's ok, because it doesn't really matter what I think about them. I don't have to buy them or use them.

     

    I'm glad that they're priced high at least, because Apple should be milking that brand for all that they're worth, while making maximum margins and profits.

     

    I think that they should come out with Beats headphones that cost over $1000. I'm sure that there are a few people who would buy them. And as long as Apple makes money, then who am I to complain about Beats?

  • Reply 20 of 56
    iaeeniaeen Posts: 588member
    pfisher wrote: »
    I don't feel Apple is providing value here. Just a guess and probably right.

    I feel Apple is cashing in on its name, when it could have sold good headphones for a lot less than $300.

    Except these don't say Apple anywhere on them...
Sign In or Register to comment.