take earpods that's fine but everyone better get the better charger not only the pro devices. Don't go giving us no pods and then stick us with that 5 watt bs to charge up
take earpods that's fine but everyone better get the better charger not only the pro devices. Don't go giving us no pods and then stick us with that 5 watt bs to charge up
Or what? You’ll switch to Android?
Does it matter to you? No, so why even ask such an idiotic question anyway. Go troll someone else.
take earpods that's fine but everyone better get the better charger not only the pro devices. Don't go giving us no pods and then stick us with that 5 watt bs to charge up
I disagree. No need to include a more expensive charger for all to accommodate the few that need to charge faster.
I'd bet Apple has data showing how long people leave the phones charging, say overnight.
You perfectly fine to disagree it's a free world like that, but is it really that much difference in price in the grand scheme of things. Most people will charge with the one that's in the box just because a few tech enthusiast on web believe something doesn't mean the whole world functions on said rule to wirelessly charge or whatever you want to do and your still free to do so. Apple can give the better charger for next to nothing when taking away a product they retail for $29 I believe and I doubt they'll break the bank that much. Have a great day though…
Why do this? It would just generate extremely negative press. The EarPods cost next to nothing to manufacture, and the box is already designed.
unless of course there is no lightning port.
Because most people don’t use them, they do cost money to make, and no the box has not been designed yet.
I would say most people use them, and some people do not want wireless (because RF radiation, cost, battery life). Wired is still best, and most convenient. They just work, reliably. Apple should offer free EarPods with every new iPhone purchase, if people want them. That would be best.
I'd welcome this as long as they leave a lightening to aux adapter. I get a new iPhone every year and have countless pairs of untouched EarPods in my drawers. Most people have a pair of aux headphones lying around but this would help push people towards AirPods which will push up sales even more.
This gets us down a strange road with no lightning port, should they do that. Would they put a charging puck in the box, so we can charge it, or does it come "some assembly (of a pieces to get to use this thing) required".
Other bits of hope that they keep the lightning port are:
Some people like wired headphones
It's a bad "out of box" experience to tell people, "OK, now you have to buy this to make it work" when it didn't previously. In this example, an Apple TV is immediately understood that you need a TV to be useful, however having a >$25 phone without a way to charge it goes to strange places. I just spent $1699 on a phone, and they want another $99 for a way to use this after 5 hours, and I now have to buy a new car stereo, and I have to buy wireless headphones, so this phone purchase is now $2300 with AppleCare and tax.
99% of the CarPlay stereos will need to be replaced to use
Charging inconvenience, especially in cars. Plus, I can carry a charge cord and charge cube in my pants conveniently, but the charge pucks, not so much.
Charging efficiency and speed:.29W via wire >> 7W via wireless
This is not to say that I don't like the pucks. It's just that they're not the most convenient in all circumstances.
Don’t see that boosting AirPod sales. You don’t need earpieces to use the iPhone. And for $29 you can buy the wired ones.
once you go AirPods, you never go back. My last set of wireless earbuds were still connected to one another by a wire. It was a minor PITA. I lost them in my house for a year once because one earbud came out and the wire it was connected to now had a weight at the other end, so the other earbud came out. Of course these earbuds did not automatically start my music when I put them in my ears, they did not read messages to me, and even though they were JBL they didn't sound anywhere as good as AirPods. AirPods actually fit my ears, none of the Apple earbuds ever quite fit my ears.
There is no reason to continue providing earbuds that most people won't use for any of several reasons. You can use an iPhone just fine without earbuds, after all.
I have seen my collection of earbuds growing and growing.
Essentially, at this point, almost everybody already has multiple sets of them. Plus, AirPods have essentially obsoleted these things.
So, why force people to buy something they don't need and don't want?
Do you think for a millisecond that Apple would drop the price of an iPhone to reflect the price of the EarPods? Really? Tim Cook’s Apple? Ha ha!
We often hear that phrase -- but can you cite the differences between Cook's and Job's Apple, specifically when it comes to pricing strategies? Because Apple was certainly considered over-priced by some ("Apple tax!") under Jobs. And under Cook we have seen many price decreases, such as:
- non-pro iPad lowered from $499 to $329
- just this year the non-Pro iPhone dropped $50
- just in March the MBA dropped $100
...obviously, Apple has a history of lowering prices on gear. And also obviously, they don't do it in a 1:1 fashion for particular components being removed. But it would be foolish not to observe that lowering costs is how they're able to offer price drops, and every component contributes to this.
As someone that is on phone calls 6+ hours per day AirPods are not an option. At best they last half a day. As it is I use an adapter that allows power and EarPods to be plugged in at the same time. I have no idea what I’ll do when the iPhone is totally wireless.
Incorrect. I am also an office warrior and have used APs since day 1. They require only a short time to re-charge between calls, tucked into their battery case the moment I drop off a call. If you are a normal human you eat, use the bathroom, get water or coffee, have at least a short time between some of your calls, etc. That's when you charge. You don't just set the pods down on the table outside the case and not give them a chance to re-charge at some point during the day.
I have seen my collection of earbuds growing and growing.
Essentially, at this point, almost everybody already has multiple sets of them. Plus, AirPods have essentially obsoleted these things.
So, why force people to buy something they don't need and don't want?
I don't think you are buying them.
The iPhone selling price would be the same with or without them IMO. They end up as a freebie in the box. It makes perfect sense that if hardware revenues are decreasing a bit that those free things get removed and paid things take their place, but you won't be paying less for your next Phone because they took cheap earbuds out of the box. The market will bear the same price with or without them.
Of course you're paying for them! Nothing in the box is free, nothing. And as they decrease costs, of course the price changes. Thus we saw Apple drop the entry-level iPhone -$50 this year. Decreasing costs is how this is done. You won't get an immediate discount for the lack of headphones, but every component matters when it comes to saving costs and lowering prices. This is absolutely no exception.
Apple does lower prices of kit on occasion but to say they have a history of lower prices is a bit misleading.
More than lowering prices, they've had a long history of adding features while maintaining prices. Then somewhat recently, they've been raising prices in all categories of products. Only very recently have they been lowering prices.
And that doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the 'price' of EarPods. While the customer pays for everything in the box including the 12¢ or whatever for the EPs, the fact that Apple WON'T lower the price of iPhones because they don't include them does allow for the perspective that we don't pay for them. Now if Apple continues to include EarPods, then the 'free' perspective goes out the window.
Include AirPods instead of EarPods? FFS, who actually thinks that might happen. Not a chance in fucking Hell unless there's a CTO. I think Apple has a duty to include earphones of some nature or contribute to noise pollution.
And including a Lighting to what - 3.5mm adapter but no EPs? Seriously, some of you must get totally baked before posting.
Eliminate the Lightning port? Only if they replace it with USB-C. As pointed out earlier, wireless charging is just not a replacement for wired charging, and eliminating that possibility force a hidden charge on consumers. I don't see Apple dropping the charger at all, and think not including headphones about as unlikely. EarPods offer a measure of privacy, both of and from content.
Now if any of this nonsense is offered by Jon Prosser, I'll have a rethink. All you hypocritical pseudo Green Peace wannabes might want to wait a tick before dancing on the EP's grave.
Don’t see that boosting AirPod sales. You don’t need earpieces to use the iPhone. And for $29 you can buy the wired ones.
once you go AirPods, you never go back. My last set of wireless earbuds were still connected to one another by a wire. It was a minor PITA. I lost them in my house for a year once because one earbud came out and the wire it was connected to now had a weight at the other end, so the other earbud came out. Of course these earbuds did not automatically start my music when I put them in my ears, they did not read messages to me, and even though they were JBL they didn't sound anywhere as good as AirPods. AirPods actually fit my ears, none of the Apple earbuds ever quite fit my ears.
There is no reason to continue providing earbuds that most people won't use for any of several reasons. You can use an iPhone just fine without earbuds, after all.
It should ship with AirPods Pro for the top flagship models!
No. No it shouldn't. Having a $250 higher price tag to an already flagship device regardless whether you want another pair of AirPods Pro beecause you can't be bothered to pick up the headphones you want when you purchase your iPhone is a horrible idea.
I have seen my collection of earbuds growing and growing.
Essentially, at this point, almost everybody already has multiple sets of them. Plus, AirPods have essentially obsoleted these things.
So, why force people to buy something they don't need and don't want?
Do you think for a millisecond that Apple would drop the price of an iPhone to reflect the price of the EarPods? Really? Tim Cook’s Apple? Ha ha!
We often hear that phrase -- but can you cite the differences between Cook's and Job's Apple, specifically when it comes to pricing strategies? Because Apple was certainly considered over-priced by some ("Apple tax!") under Jobs. And under Cook we have seen many price decreases, such as:
- non-pro iPad lowered from $499 to $329
- just this year the non-Pro iPhone dropped $50
- just in March the MBA dropped $100
...obviously, Apple has a history of lowering prices on gear. And also obviously, they don't do it in a 1:1 fashion for particular components being removed. But it would be foolish not to observe that lowering costs is how they're able to offer price drops, and every component contributes to this.
I have seen my collection of earbuds growing and growing.
Essentially, at this point, almost everybody already has multiple sets of them. Plus, AirPods have essentially obsoleted these things.
So, why force people to buy something they don't need and don't want?
I don't think you are buying them.
The iPhone selling price would be the same with or without them IMO. They end up as a freebie in the box. It makes perfect sense that if hardware revenues are decreasing a bit that those free things get removed and paid things take their place, but you won't be paying less for your next Phone because they took cheap earbuds out of the box. The market will bear the same price with or without them.
Of course you're paying for them! Nothing in the box is free, nothing. And as they decrease costs, of course the price changes. Thus we saw Apple drop the entry-level iPhone -$50 this year. Decreasing costs is how this is done. You won't get an immediate discount for the lack of headphones, but every component matters when it comes to saving costs and lowering prices. This is absolutely no exception.
What seems to escape the Apple haters is how the bill of materials affect the price. If Apple removes the EarPods from an iPhone 11 that costs $699, they oddly think that the iPhone 12 without EarPods would have to come in below $699 or it's proof that that EarPods are somehow manufactured and given away for free. They don't understand that that Apple may maintain the marketable sale price and use the lower cost of goods to be able to add in other features and/or better, more costly hardware.
If they can save $3 EarPods and then be able to increase the SoC costs by $3 per unit then that benefits me since I don't use EarPods.
It should ship with AirPods Pro for the top flagship models!
No. No it shouldn't. Having a $250 higher price tag to an already flagship device regardless whether you want another pair of AirPods Pro beecause you can't be bothered to pick up the headphones you want when you purchase your iPhone is a horrible idea.
Comments
- non-pro iPad lowered from $499 to $329
- just this year the non-Pro iPhone dropped $50
- just in March the MBA dropped $100
...obviously, Apple has a history of lowering prices on gear. And also obviously, they don't do it in a 1:1 fashion for particular components being removed. But it would be foolish not to observe that lowering costs is how they're able to offer price drops, and every component contributes to this.
Incorrect. I am also an office warrior and have used APs since day 1. They require only a short time to re-charge between calls, tucked into their battery case the moment I drop off a call. If you are a normal human you eat, use the bathroom, get water or coffee, have at least a short time between some of your calls, etc. That's when you charge. You don't just set the pods down on the table outside the case and not give them a chance to re-charge at some point during the day.
More than lowering prices, they've had a long history of adding features while maintaining prices. Then somewhat recently, they've been raising prices in all categories of products. Only very recently have they been lowering prices.
And that doesn't have a fucking thing to do with the 'price' of EarPods. While the customer pays for everything in the box including the 12¢ or whatever for the EPs, the fact that Apple WON'T lower the price of iPhones because they don't include them does allow for the perspective that we don't pay for them. Now if Apple continues to include EarPods, then the 'free' perspective goes out the window.
Include AirPods instead of EarPods? FFS, who actually thinks that might happen. Not a chance in fucking Hell unless there's a CTO. I think Apple has a duty to include earphones of some nature or contribute to noise pollution.
And including a Lighting to what - 3.5mm adapter but no EPs? Seriously, some of you must get totally baked before posting.
Eliminate the Lightning port? Only if they replace it with USB-C. As pointed out earlier, wireless charging is just not a replacement for wired charging, and eliminating that possibility force a hidden charge on consumers. I don't see Apple dropping the charger at all, and think not including headphones about as unlikely. EarPods offer a measure of privacy, both of and from content.
Now if any of this nonsense is offered by Jon Prosser, I'll have a rethink. All you hypocritical pseudo Green Peace wannabes might want to wait a tick before dancing on the EP's grave.
What seems to escape the Apple haters is how the bill of materials affect the price. If Apple removes the EarPods from an iPhone 11 that costs $699, they oddly think that the iPhone 12 without EarPods would have to come in below $699 or it's proof that that EarPods are somehow manufactured and given away for free. They don't understand that that Apple may maintain the marketable sale price and use the lower cost of goods to be able to add in other features and/or better, more costly hardware.
If they can save $3 EarPods and then be able to increase the SoC costs by $3 per unit then that benefits me since I don't use EarPods.