Investor survey suggests massive demand for AirPods, growth potential for Apple Watch
In a survey performed by Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, 12 percent of consumers have intentions to purchase Apple's wireless AirPods, possibly leading to billions in sales for Apple.
Over 1,000 customers were polled about Apple's new Apple Watch offerings, and the AirPods. While the 12% looking to buy the AirPods sight unseen, only 8% were planning on a purchase of the Apple Watch Series 2.
Most of the people (56%) said that they had no interest in the Airpods claimed that their current headphones were sufficient for their needs. Just over 40% of the respondents said that the AirPods were too expensive to consider purchasing.
The news about Apple Watch purchase intent gleaned from the polling isn't bad. Of the 8% of the total respondent pool who declared that they were planning on buying the Apple Watch Series 2, 70 percent would be new buyers.
Back of America Merrill Lynch notes that the survey is not necessarily representative of immediate purchase intentions.
Both the Apple Watch Series 2 and AirPods were announced at the September "See you on the 7th" release event.
The AirPods come packed with advanced technology like Apple's new W1 wireless chip, beam-forming microphones, accelerometers, infrared sensors, and more. AirPods will ship in October for $159.
The second-generation Apple Watch Series 2 shipped alongside the iPhone 7, and boasts GPS capabilities, a faster dual-core processor than the original, and a swim-proof housing. Prices start at $369.
Comments
1) There are plenty of others on the market which fare better than the examples you gave.
2) AirPods battery life shouldn't only be measured in their single-run usage. The case is a very important factor, especially for those that are always on a call.
3) Battery life also shouldn't be the only qualifier when making a determination about which BT headphones are best for your needs. The connectivity with the W1 chip and accelerometers and IR sensors to know when you're using a particular ear piece, holds a great deal of importance when making the buying decision. IOW, Even if the battery life was 3 hours and the competition had 5 hours for a single-use between charging, those aforementioned factors plus the weight and feel should weigh into your decision making, not just your rudimentary look at some specs.
I think this design is better for my needs for reasons already stated.
Apple is off to a pretty good start on the (likely) next big wave of consumer electronics - wearables. They have the leading smartwatch product, and now are coming out with a sure to be leading wearable with wireless ear phones. Some may not like the design (IMO they really need a black option), but the concept of individual ear phones, that can go in either ear and seamless work with any of your Apple devices, has a lot of potential beyond just listening to music or making phone calls. For example, do AirPods (or derivative), paired with an iPhone or Apple Watch, take over those dedicated radios used by security in many roles?
The wearables market is like smartphones in a few ways:
- One product can address the global market. It is not balkanized like TV hardware, smart home devices, earlier mobile phones.
- The market is one (or more) per person. Not per household.
- The entry point, even for the Apple premium market, is well within the reach of hundreds of millions.
Even taking an average of the Apple Watch entry prices around $300, plus $159 AirPods (or similar from Beats), you are now well over the $400 mark for many. Factor in accessories to these accessories, or owning a couple of different W1 based headphones. In a few years, there will be 10's of millions buying these combinations every year. It isn't iPhone level, but it is moving that needle.
2) Your use of "true" both fallacious and obnoxious.
I look forward to the early adopters' reviews. I like every detail of the concept of the AirPods and am not surprised at the amount of FUD regarding a product that has had very limited exposure.
The negative complaints about the appearance can be applied to so many products on their introduction that no don't raise an eyebrow. Ridiculous drama.
The EarBuds have never fallen out of my ears. They've been pulled out or tugged on many, many times by the cord catching on something or even just dragging on clothing. The same thing has happened with other earbuds including a pair of high-end 'buds. But no falling. (Apple's original iPodi/Phone buds were a different story.)
I expect the lack of any wires will tremendously reduce the chances of the AirPods falling out of most users' ears. With no wires to catch or drag, they should be pretty stable for a lot of active people. Maybe not for a lot more, but that's why we have choices.
The big thing will be the audio quality. For $160 I want them to sound good. Sounding as good as $29 EarPods won't cut it. I like Apple's $80 'buds enough for casual use but the ball shape of the tips don't stay in my ears for more than several minutes. (The Comply tips aren't any better.) But Airs should sound at least as good as those. They do provide some isolation were the Airs won't, so that's a consideration.
All the other trick stuff is really nice and useful to me, but not enough to off set the cost if they're not audibly better than the included Pods.
Lastly, as far as fit is concerned, not everybody's ears are the same, so each individual has to decide for themselves what will work for them.
For me, the clincher is the case. The fact that it's about the size of a pack of dental floss, chargers, uses magnets to suck in the earbuds when not playing, that Zippo-lighter-like snapping lid… a lot of nay-sayers are talking about people losing Airpods, but the case looks so satisfying that I honestly doubt many Airpods will ever be anywhere but in an ear or in that lovely case.
The reality is, people will either decide they look good like this, or they won't:
And while I don't think this is going to be such a huge problem, I still find this video hysterical!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wImaGRkNY
I also find this pretty hysterical too ...
But if you want single-use battery life that exceeds AirPods, I'll be glad to point out a few that pass your myopic view of only looking at battery life since you're being an obnoxious dick.
Onkyo :: "up to 12 hours for music, 15 hours for talktime"
Altec Lansing ::"have a six-hour battery life"
AXGIO :: "8 hours talk or music playing time"
Kanoa :: "lasting up to six hours"
- https://www.cnet.com/news/11-alternative-wireless-earbud-headphones-that-arent-the-apple-airpods/
Perhaps in the future you will try to use a little critical thinking to understand that 1) single use battery life isn't the only factor worth considering (which I previously mentioned in favor of AirPods with the W1 chip), and 2) that battery life can be affected by adding more size and weight, which on wireless headphones can make them less effective accessories, hence a need to balance all technical aspects for the best experience, not just focus on a single tech spec. If that's your philosophy, you need to go get yourself an Android phone and an Alienware PC.Apple's supreme advantage, if you would understand if you made the conscious choice to be objective, is that they can use a smaller capacity battery for a longer runtime because of the efficiency of their W1 chip. Additionally, others can't compete with Apple on this front because they don't have the volume that Apple has with headphones. Even if the AirPods are a fraction of what this survey suggests, they own Beats which uses this technology thereby reducing its total cost and helping to push the advancement of the W-series chip and other components so that Apple can offer a better experience at a competitive price.
Thanks for the list though. It makes the airpods look like quite a good option.
This may less surface area as It results in a more bulbous device but it does. Pull the weight further from the face. AirPods seem unique because it keeps the weight closer to the face and lower then the ear which should help keep it in place due to gravity (assuming your ear cartilage is conductive to the design of the ear piece.
I don't know how long a BT antenna needs to be to effective and if they can directional, but I wonder if Apple's design allows the antenna to be longer and pointing in the direction of where your devices will be (I.e.: just below the front of your face). Would tha lead to better connectivity with less power needed from the headphones? If so, I can see this design being copied piste haste.