I have a Beats branded audio system in my car and I’m not convinced Apple understands how any of this works. It’s literally the worst in-car audio system I’ve ever had. My previous car had Fender audio and it was fantastic. As things are now, I’d never consider another Apple audio system or even these AirPods headphones based on my negative experience with Beats.
And I hasten to add I have absolutely no reason to trash Apple without cause. Most of my personal wealth is tied to their stock.
I am a music producer and mixing engineer. A few years ago I went out and bought the top of the line Beats headphones for just north of $500. Tried them out for 60 seconds, and then returned them.
They were such absolute crap I was offended to have had my time wasted like that. I went right back to my trusty ATHM50s and have still not found a better set of phones.
MY wealth is also with AAPL. But now I am starting to doubt for Apple's future because the Beats acquisition was clearly done for marketing and money. There is no fathomable reason why a company as adept at innovating and not cutting corners as Apple should ever have gone anywhere near Beats (a company whose name was chosen by a toolbag record executive long before the actual product was ever decided upon).
So the rumours are true: the infection rate of STUPIDITY-21 has overtaken COVID-19.
As anyone with a clue knows, the Beats deal was done, as with most of Apple’s acquisitions, to acquire expertise and contacts in the music industry, along with a streaming service that was ready to go. The billion dollar revenues from the audio line was a nice to have. And still is.
So tell me, Mr Industry Audiophile, do you think Apple, as adept at innovating and not cutting corners as it is, shouldn’t be have been hiring experts in the film and tv industry? Do you think Cook and Cue should be scripting and directing the TV shows themselves?
Christ on a bicycle …
Sure they got the Beats streaming service to get a jump start, but, as pointed out above, the Beats hardware was the true value of the deal. Whether you like them or not, they are an iconic brand and have the majority of the premium (over $200) market in the world. Their market has never been audiophiles, and they haven't been priced that way, but the high end audiophile market in a tiny one compared to the billions that Beats headphones brings in.
Looking forward to them Big Time... have been waiting long for these!
I just cross my fingers that they wont have any debilitating latency issues... airpods, as good as they are, are useless for music composition on ipad... too much latency....even on the pro model.
"All-new" design sounds intriguing. I wonder if the cups will be independent, and attach to your ears/head in an unusual way.
I hope they give some attention to on-device controls. The Airpods are terrible, the Airpods Pro are just about adequate, and if they start dicking around with touch like the Siri Remote then I doubt I'd get much joy out of them.
Here is where they might go if there is no headband:
I really like the design. They should have superior noise cancellation and sound quality vs earbuds.
I find headphones uncomfortable when watching TV. The band always gets in the way, especially when falling asleep (airplanes).
Earbuds are obviously king when exercising, but this design is a worthwhile competitor elsewhere.
I think if Apple released the design, most of the critics would be say Apple’s brilliant. Then, they’d be bitching about people saying Apple doesn’t innovate.
Sure they got the Beats streaming service to get a jump start, but, as pointed out above, the Beats hardware was the true value of the deal. Whether you like them or not, they are an iconic brand and have the majority of the premium (over $200) market in the world. Their market has never been audiophiles, and they haven't been priced that way, but the high end audiophile market in a tiny one compared to the billions that Beats headphones brings in.
LOL. The Beats purchase is widely acknowledged in the music hardware/finance circle as a genius move by Tim Cook and Apple. What the general public and pundits didn't understand was that Apple didn't just want the Beats streaming service, but the Beats hardware and iconic brand. The headphone brand is one of the top brands in the world and it has helped Apple become the largest seller of wireless headphones in the entire world, bringing in billions in revenue each year. Older people don't understand the cultural hipness of Beats among younger people worldwide. Indeed, Beats headphones has the largest share of premium (defined as greater than $200) headphones in the entire world. Apple is its usual super smart self in letting Beats run and bring in billions while Apple built a fantastically successful AirPods line that it appears it is just continuing to expand.
Just a few facts that explain why industry people chuckle when they hear the old Internet meme that Apple "overpaid" in buying Beats.
Is it strange that Apple seems to be competing with itself in the premium headphone market?
First of all, surely Apple's audio engineering division is separate from Beats'; they didn't purchase Beats to build their AirPods line nor did they need to. There's been some influence of course, like design cues, incorporating the Lightning connector on some Beats models as well as AirPods-like connectivity, but that's probably about it. While Beats headphones probably weren't exactly an afterthought of the purchase, given Apple kept them around until now, its unlikely Apple actually was after Beats as a hardware brand, or the hardware itself. It might be seen as a stepping stone for not missing out on headphones revenue before having built a comprehensive lineup of Apple- (AirPods-) branded headphones themselves. Jon Prosser's info that long-term, Apple plans to phase out the Beats brand might be correct. Perhaps it will stick around to cover the lower-end market, or not at all.
Doesn't AirPlay require the devices to be on the same wireless network? For use outside the house that'd mean either the iPhone or the headphones would need to act as a hotspot? Sounds fiddly and/or battery intensive.
Those aren't headphones I'd ever consider using outdoors. And a strong WiFi signal means they could be used outside of the house. If you're talking away from the house, you're correct. That's not what I had in mind. I'd be ok with WiFi only and no AP. BT is just to fiddly for me. Maybe BT 5.0 will fix some of that.
Doesn't AirPlay require the devices to be on the same wireless network? For use outside the house that'd mean either the iPhone or the headphones would need to act as a hotspot? Sounds fiddly and/or battery intensive.
Those aren't headphones I'd ever consider using outdoors. And a strong WiFi signal means they could be used outside of the house. If you're talking away from the house, you're correct. That's not what I had in mind. I'd be ok with WiFi only and no AP. BT is just to fiddly for me. Maybe BT 5.0 will fix some of that.
The AirPods have made BT not fiddly at all because of the H chip, it's even easier to use than AirPlay. I don't think the product you're talking about has enough mainstream appeal for Apple to ever bother with it.
I wonder if the AirPods Studio will come with a case that charges them and puts them to sleep in the same way as the APs and APPs.
I have a Beats branded audio system in my car and I’m not convinced Apple understands how any of this works. It’s literally the worst in-car audio system I’ve ever had. My previous car had Fender audio and it was fantastic. As things are now, I’d never consider another Apple audio system or even these AirPods headphones based on my negative experience with Beats.
And I hasten to add I have absolutely no reason to trash Apple without cause. Most of my personal wealth is tied to their stock.
I am a music producer and mixing engineer. A few years ago I went out and bought the top of the line Beats headphones for just north of $500. Tried them out for 60 seconds, and then returned them.
They were such absolute crap I was offended to have had my time wasted like that. I went right back to my trusty ATHM50s and have still not found a better set of phones.
MY wealth is also with AAPL. But now I am starting to doubt for Apple's future because the Beats acquisition was clearly done for marketing and money. There is no fathomable reason why a company as adept at innovating and not cutting corners as Apple should ever have gone anywhere near Beats (a company whose name was chosen by a toolbag record executive long before the actual product was ever decided upon).
It’s more than likely that Apple’s made money hand over fist with its Beats acquisition. In fact, it’s even likely that few other $3B acquisitions made by any company has panned out as well. That should make you a happy shareholder.
I’ve owned Beats headphones, and they’re decent sound-wise, but the build quality is crap. The former is, of course a subjective assessment.
All that said, you’d be a rather lousy investor if you bought your stocks based on whether you like or dislike some small subset of that company’s products or services, especially when the attributes in question are rather subjective.
Can it be switched off in the WH-1000MX3s? A quick look shows them to be well regarded. A set of cans are no value to me if when noise cancellation is turned off the remaining audio is subpar.
Yes, they can, and they sound great.
I love using my WH-MX1000X3 with active noise cancellation, however. (The app that comes with it is horrible, though; and it’s a fairly twitchy pair of headphones with annoying levels of touch-sensitivity on the right side, the side where you control volume, next/previous, etc.)
I have a Beats branded audio system in my car and I’m not convinced Apple understands how any of this works. It’s literally the worst in-car audio system I’ve ever had. My previous car had Fender audio and it was fantastic. As things are now, I’d never consider another Apple audio system or even these AirPods headphones based on my negative experience with Beats.
And I hasten to add I have absolutely no reason to trash Apple without cause. Most of my personal wealth is tied to their stock.
I am a music producer and mixing engineer. A few years ago I went out and bought the top of the line Beats headphones for just north of $500. Tried them out for 60 seconds, and then returned them.
They were such absolute crap I was offended to have had my time wasted like that. I went right back to my trusty ATHM50s and have still not found a better set of phones.
MY wealth is also with AAPL. But now I am starting to doubt for Apple's future because the Beats acquisition was clearly done for marketing and money. There is no fathomable reason why a company as adept at innovating and not cutting corners as Apple should ever have gone anywhere near Beats (a company whose name was chosen by a toolbag record executive long before the actual product was ever decided upon).
So the rumours are true: the infection rate of STUPIDITY-21 has overtaken COVID-19.
As anyone with a clue knows, the Beats deal was done, as with most of Apple’s acquisitions, to acquire expertise and contacts in the music industry, along with a streaming service that was ready to go. The billion dollar revenues from the audio line was a nice to have. And still is.
So tell me, Mr Industry Audiophile, do you think Apple, as adept at innovating and not cutting corners as it is, shouldn’t be have been hiring experts in the film and tv industry? Do you think Cook and Cue should be scripting and directing the TV shows themselves?
Christ on a bicycle …
Sure they got the Beats streaming service to get a jump start, but, as pointed out above, the Beats hardware was the true value of the deal. Whether you like them or not, they are an iconic brand and have the majority of the premium (over $200) market in the world. Their market has never been audiophiles, and they haven't been priced that way, but the high end audiophile market in a tiny one compared to the billions that Beats headphones brings in.
Actually, he was right. The main point of the acquisition was the streaming service Beats had started. And the expertise and believability of these two in the industry. The headphone business was a bonus. That was $1.2 billion the year they bought Beats. Still, they were, and are, by far, the biggest headphone company in the world. Apple has built upon that.
but don’t be fooled by that. The subscription service Beats had begun, though small at the time, was unique in some ways, and Apple wanted it. That was the main aim of the acquisition. This isn’t worth arguing about as it’s well understood. Apple said something to that effect as well.
Sure they got the Beats streaming service to get a jump start, but, as pointed out above, the Beats hardware was the true value of the deal. Whether you like them or not, they are an iconic brand and have the majority of the premium (over $200) market in the world. Their market has never been audiophiles, and they haven't been priced that way, but the high end audiophile market in a tiny one compared to the billions that Beats headphones brings in.
LOL. The Beats purchase is widely acknowledged in the music hardware/finance circle as a genius move by Tim Cook and Apple. What the general public and pundits didn't understand was that Apple didn't just want the Beats streaming service, but the Beats hardware and iconic brand. The headphone brand is one of the top brands in the world and it has helped Apple become the largest seller of wireless headphones in the entire world, bringing in billions in revenue each year. Older people don't understand the cultural hipness of Beats among younger people worldwide. Indeed, Beats headphones has the largest share of premium (defined as greater than $200) headphones in the entire world. Apple is its usual super smart self in letting Beats run and bring in billions while Apple built a fantastically successful AirPods line that it appears it is just continuing to expand.
Just a few facts that explain why industry people chuckle when they hear the old Internet meme that Apple "overpaid" in buying Beats.
Is it strange that Apple seems to be competing with itself in the premium headphone market?
First of all, surely Apple's audio engineering division is separate from Beats'; they didn't purchase Beats to build their AirPods line nor did they need to. There's been some influence of course, like design cues, incorporating the Lightning connector on some Beats models as well as AirPods-like connectivity, but that's probably about it. While Beats headphones probably weren't exactly an afterthought of the purchase, given Apple kept them around until now, its unlikely Apple actually was after Beats as a hardware brand, or the hardware itself. It might be seen as a stepping stone for not missing out on headphones revenue before having built a comprehensive lineup of Apple- (AirPods-) branded headphones themselves. Jon Prosser's info that long-term, Apple plans to phase out the Beats brand might be correct. Perhaps it will stick around to cover the lower-end market, or not at all.
Phase out Beats-LOL. That's absurd. Of course Apple kept the Beats line; it's one of the most iconic brands in the industry and indeed owns the majority of the market for premium headphones. It would be insane to jettison that brand. Beats hardware brings in billions in revenue worldwide. It's usually older folks who don't understand how prominent the brand is among younger people, athletes, media figures, etc. People who don't understand how business and markets work also struggle to understand that a company can have more than one line. Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headsets in the world, and that is based on both AirPods and Beats. They both bring in BILLIONS, and appeal to different markets and niches in those markets. Even though the most recent Beats headsets have migrated away from the over dependence on heavy bass sound, the rumored AirPods Studio over the ear headphones will appeal to a different market and likely do phenomenally well.
Comments
I find headphones uncomfortable when watching TV. The band always gets in the way, especially when falling asleep (airplanes).
Earbuds are obviously king when exercising, but this design is a worthwhile competitor elsewhere.
I think if Apple released the design, most of the critics would be say Apple’s brilliant. Then, they’d be bitching about people saying Apple doesn’t innovate.
While Beats headphones probably weren't exactly an afterthought of the purchase, given Apple kept them around until now, its unlikely Apple actually was after Beats as a hardware brand, or the hardware itself. It might be seen as a stepping stone for not missing out on headphones revenue before having built a comprehensive lineup of Apple- (AirPods-) branded headphones themselves.
Jon Prosser's info that long-term, Apple plans to phase out the Beats brand might be correct. Perhaps it will stick around to cover the lower-end market, or not at all.
I wonder if the AirPods Studio will come with a case that charges them and puts them to sleep in the same way as the APs and APPs.
I’ve owned Beats headphones, and they’re decent sound-wise, but the build quality is crap. The former is, of course a subjective assessment.
All that said, you’d be a rather lousy investor if you bought your stocks based on whether you like or dislike some small subset of that company’s products or services, especially when the attributes in question are rather subjective.
Yes, they can, and they sound great.
I love using my WH-MX1000X3 with active noise cancellation, however. (The app that comes with it is horrible, though; and it’s a fairly twitchy pair of headphones with annoying levels of touch-sensitivity on the right side, the side where you control volume, next/previous, etc.)
but don’t be fooled by that. The subscription service Beats had begun, though small at the time, was unique in some ways, and Apple wanted it. That was the main aim of the acquisition. This isn’t worth arguing about as it’s well understood. Apple said something to that effect as well.