It occurs to me that with the plethora of onboard mics in these headphones, they could be capable of analyzing all exterior sounds and filtering out anything unwanted. Could be possible to filter out all traffic and city noises and only keep the human voices it detects, for example.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Um... we have evidence? The evidence is, that's what the company that made it and sells it thinks it's worth, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition?
Everything else - including your clever retort - is nonsense?
so your argument is that Apple is always right and because they set a price that determines value? No, that’s just what they’re hoping to get for the product and/or what they need to charge to make a profit. The fact that Apple decides to charge what they do for a product doesn’t make it worth that much any more than any other company. Take the Yugo - it was only $4000 in 1987 but was universally agreed to be one of the worst cars in history and not worth half that much.
So, you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my question nonsense any more or less than your assessment is nonsense.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Um... we have evidence? The evidence is, that's what the company that made it and sells it thinks it's worth, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition?
Everything else - including your clever retort - is nonsense?
so your argument is that Apple is always right and because they set a price that determines value? No, that’s just what they’re hoping to get for the product and/or what they need to charge to make a profit. The fact that Apple decides to charge what they do for a product doesn’t make it worth that much any more than any other company. Take the Yugo - it was only $4000 in 1987 but was universally agreed to be one of the worst cars in history and not worth half that much.
So, you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my question nonsense any more or less than your assessment is nonsense.
No, not at all. Let me try again. I am saying the ONLY ACTUAL data-point we have so far is the pricing, done by a company that made it and sells it, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition. And it happens to be a company that has a successful four-decade experience in repeatedly doing something similar, so my priors are in the company's favor.
Anything is possible when the dust settles (although the 12-16 week current lead times for shipment tells me that Apple may be right), but your data-free, evidence-free post (like that of many others here) is nonsense.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Um... we have evidence? The evidence is, that's what the company that made it and sells it thinks it's worth, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition?
Everything else - including your clever retort - is nonsense?
so your argument is that Apple is always right and because they set a price that determines value? No, that’s just what they’re hoping to get for the product and/or what they need to charge to make a profit. The fact that Apple decides to charge what they do for a product doesn’t make it worth that much any more than any other company. Take the Yugo - it was only $4000 in 1987 but was universally agreed to be one of the worst cars in history and not worth half that much.
So, you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my question nonsense any more or less than your assessment is nonsense.
I don't know anyone who has ever said Apple is "always right", but I know plenty of people who feel they've earned the benefit of the doubt via repeated successes. I know they have my consumer trust for sure. I'd argue you can't become the biggest, most successful public firm in human history where people line up to throw money at you, otherwise.
But some folks are just stuck on the same script, year after year after year...
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." - Rob Malda, on the iPod at its release in 2001
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
Apple may be trying to compete in the audiophile space, for lower money, with more features, including noise cancellation. Their competition may be some of these headphones: https://www.moon-audio.com/headphones/full-size.html
When Audi comes out with a $114,000 car (https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/rs7 ), Audi doesn't get trashed for making a high end car to compete with other high end Mercedes or Porsches, they get congratulated. Because car enthusiasts know that if you don't have the $114,000 to spend on a car, you'll buy a cheaper one. But the high tech that's in high end cars usually finds its way into lower end cars.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Um... we have evidence? The evidence is, that's what the company that made it and sells it thinks it's worth, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition?
Everything else - including your clever retort - is nonsense?
so your argument is that Apple is always right and because they set a price that determines value? No, that’s just what they’re hoping to get for the product and/or what they need to charge to make a profit. The fact that Apple decides to charge what they do for a product doesn’t make it worth that much any more than any other company. Take the Yugo - it was only $4000 in 1987 but was universally agreed to be one of the worst cars in history and not worth half that much.
So, you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my question nonsense any more or less than your assessment is nonsense.
No, not at all. Let me try again. I am saying the ONLY ACTUAL data-point we have so far is the pricing, done by a company that made it and sells it, presumably after judging the product in context with its competition. And it happens to be a company that has a successful four-decade experience in repeatedly doing something similar, so my priors are in the company's favor.
Anything is possible when the dust settles (although the 12-16 week current lead times for shipment tells me that Apple may be right), but your data-free, evidence-free post (like that of many others here) is nonsense.
Ah - got it. That's fair enough. You are completely correct that Apple has a good track record with its products, and in general (though not universally,) Apple's products are of good quality.
It may be that they truly are a fabulous set of headphones and worth every penny. It may be that they are as good as the Sennheiser headphones that cost twice as much. It also be that they are good but not worth twice as much as the Sony XM4s that are the current standard for noise cancelling headphones. Time will tell. This is a product that is breaking new ground/territory for Apple. They have the Beats line, but at almost twice the price of the previous high-end beats headphones they are targeting a different demographic, so I don't think you can say it's nonsense to be appropriately skeptical of the price tag before the product has been released, and as I said before, the current lead times really say very little, since no one has actually used these yet. Apple's history is reason to be optimistic, but flat out assuming it to be correct and not considering that Apple may be over reaching is being blind to other possibilities.
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
Apple may be trying to compete in the audiophile space, for lower money, with more features, including noise cancellation. Their competition may be some of these headphones: https://www.moon-audio.com/headphones/full-size.html
When Audi comes out with a $114,000 car (https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/rs7 ), Audi doesn't get trashed for making a high end car to compete with other high end Mercedes or Porsches, they get congratulated. Because car enthusiasts know that if you don't have the $114,000 to spend on a car, you'll buy a cheaper one. But the high tech that's in high end cars usually finds its way into lower end cars.
Apple is likely doing the same.
Audi has a long history of making high end performance cars. The RS7 is a continuation of that. And they don't get congratulated for charging that much for the car; they get congratulated for making a great car that can command that price. Edit: I skimmed the review you linked - from the 'cons' column: "Too expensive for most enthusiasts" That hardly sounds like congratulations.
Apple has no history of making high end headphones. The closest would be the Beats noise cancelling model that retails for $300. $550 puts the AirPods Max in a different category. As I said above, the natural comparison is the Bose, Sony (or beats) headphones that cost half as much. Why is it unreasonable to question a near doubling in price? The other issue that Apple has to deal with is the market for headphones gets progressively smaller as the price goes up, making return on investment more difficult. I'm quite sure Apple has factored this into their pricing as well.
Apple has no history of making high end headphones.
Maybe not, but be aware that Apple sells more speakers than any other company in the world. That's because there are speakers built-in to many of its products like iPhones, iPads, Macs, AirPods, etc.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Because it's NOT expensive!!
That's a normal priced pro headset. There's absolutely nothing out of the norm here plus you get TONS of computational technology. Pro headsets offer none (including Sennheiser).
"The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets."
Apple doesn't have a reputation? Apple's reputation is worlds beyond Sennheiser. And I admit this as a Sennheiser fan!!
"Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. "
Mass Market: Macbook High End: Mac Pro
Mass Market: iPhone High End: iPhone Pro
Mass Market: iPad High End: iPad Pro
Mass Market: AirPods High End: AirPods Max
Excuse me? What exactly is out of the norm here?
This reminds me of the Twitter journalist complaining about the Mac Pro being too expensive.
"Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal,"
What a fu**ing goalpost. No, it does NOT need to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal. It has to sound as good as a $300 headset because all the extras that NO ONE provides makes the difference.
This is a repeat of: iPhone iPad Apple Watch iPad Pro iPhone X AirPods iPhone Pro
All were "too expensive" before selling out (which these headphones already did for 2020, so there's no prediction here just facts.)
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
Seriously Apple , I am a genuine audiophile and understand that you can pay £1000 + Sennheiser HD 800 headphones that are out of this world. The £500 + price tag is too expensive for most consumers who know that Beats and Bose headphones are great premium headphones in the £300 range. They won’t appeal to professionals who shop in the £1000 + range either. It’s at a crazy price point, £350 would have put it above the AirPods Pro yet still within reach for people looking for Apple designed headphones.
I love Apple products and even defended the Mac Pro price, because it is aimed at a particular market.
The AirPods Pro sit between two markets and I may be wrong , but I don’t see strong sales, outside or early adopters with money, who just love Apple Stuff.
Why do people keep commenting on the price of something that they have never tried.
Trying it wouldn’t affect my purchase decision, I am not in the market for any headphones that cost more than $150–i don’t care how awesome.
I just don’t see why people take the price/market slot so personally. If it isn’t for you, have some popcorn and wait to see how it sells. There are plenty of options in all price ranges...
But it doesn't stop people from coming in here and claiming to know all about the market, the target demographic, the pricing strategy and what Apple's goals are with the product and then concluding how they're so utterly certain it will fail, does it?
If you're not the target market, why don't people just fuck right off, we don't give a shit whether it's not for you or whether you think it's too expensive, we can form our *own* opinions and don't need armchair product managers who actually know absolutely nothing about how to run a company giving us their "expert" opinions.
Not many people have done that. Most are just a bit frustrated that Apple seem to putting a lot of effort into this "nearly-pro" market, with featuresets beyond what mainstream consumers really need or want and prices significantly above what mainstream consumers will go for. Lots of people would go for Apple over-ear-headphones, or an Apple Display, or an Apple smart speaker (ok, they fixed the last one recently), but what Apple are showcasing is beyond their need, and has different and sometimes inexplicable technology priorities, and prices to match.
Sure Apple have always been expensive, but not by that much, and they've usually been expensive because of design and quality that regular folk can appreciate, whereas recently a number of products seem to have been deliberately aimed at a higher level of technology that the majority don't really care about all that much.
So sure, maybe I'm not the target market. But I want Apple to make a similar product that does consider me the target market.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Because it's NOT expensive!!
That's a normal priced pro headset. There's absolutely nothing out of the norm here plus you get TONS of computational technology. Pro headsets offer none (including Sennheiser).
"The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets."
Apple doesn't have a reputation? Apple's reputation is worlds beyond Sennheiser. And I admit this as a Sennheiser fan!!
"Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. "
Mass Market: Macbook High End: Mac Pro
Mass Market: iPhone High End: iPhone Pro
Mass Market: iPad High End: iPad Pro
Mass Market: AirPods High End: AirPods Max
Excuse me? What exactly is out of the norm here?
This reminds me of the Twitter journalist complaining about the Mac Pro being too expensive.
"Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal,"
What a fu**ing goalpost. No, it does NOT need to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal. It has to sound as good as a $300 headset because all the extras that NO ONE provides makes the difference.
This is a repeat of: iPhone iPad Apple Watch iPad Pro iPhone X AirPods iPhone Pro
All were "too expensive" before selling out (which these headphones already did for 2020, so there's no prediction here just facts.)
Expensive is relative. Most people would consider $550 for a headset expensive. If you're a pro you would not, but Apple has never produced or marketed headphones to pros before. Prior to this the highest end headset they had was the $300 beats model which is very much a mass-market headset (and has been frequently derided by pros.)
Apparently you think the word 'pro' means something is professional quality. There has been frequent commentary here on AI as to whether the 'pro' moniker is appropriate and what constitutes a 'pro' device. The MacPro is definitely a pro machine, but every other 'pro' device you listed is decidedly mass market. How about AirPods Pro? Are they professional? They're more expensive and have 'pro' in the name, right? (FWIW, Apple doesn't call these 'pro,' they call them 'max.')
Apple clearly has a reputation, but it is not for high end audio headsets. Maybe they're looking to change that, but if so, the reputation will need to be earned. Sennheiser has already earned theirs. As has Sony. I would also guess that most pros are not looking for noise cancellation, bluetooth, or accelerometers to estimate head position. They're looking for accurate sound. The extra technology you tout as making them worth the money indicates that Apple is targeting these to a high-end consumer, not a pro.
As far as the 'extras' go, whether they provide value or not is in the eyes of the consumer. If it sounds as good as a $300 headset and the extras don't matter to you then they're a ripoff. And for the record, I did not say they needed to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal, I said if they did they would be a good deal. But thanks for changing what I said.
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
Many people complain about the sound quality of the Bose and Sony noise cancellation headphones, compared to higher end Grado, Sennheiser and the like. Perhaps Apple has a few "golden eared audiophiles" that wanted audiophile sound, noise cancellation AND bluetooth wireless. That particular combination seems to be lacking in the market. Audiophile gear is almost always wired (with heavy gauge, high purity copper), analog and old school. Maybe Apple wants to bring the high end into the 21st century.
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
The running joke was, no highs, no lows, it must be Bose.
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
Many people complain about the sound quality of the Bose and Sony noise cancellation headphones, compared to higher end Grado, Sennheiser and the like. Perhaps Apple has a few "golden eared audiophiles" that wanted audiophile sound, noise cancellation AND bluetooth wireless. That particular combination seems to be lacking in the market. Audiophile gear is almost always wired (with heavy gauge, high purity copper), analog and old school. Maybe Apple wants to bring the high end into the 21st century.
I'm hoping this is the case. Which would make these a mega value.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Because it's NOT expensive!!
That's a normal priced pro headset. There's absolutely nothing out of the norm here plus you get TONS of computational technology. Pro headsets offer none (including Sennheiser).
"The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets."
Apple doesn't have a reputation? Apple's reputation is worlds beyond Sennheiser. And I admit this as a Sennheiser fan!!
"Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. "
Mass Market: Macbook High End: Mac Pro
Mass Market: iPhone High End: iPhone Pro
Mass Market: iPad High End: iPad Pro
Mass Market: AirPods High End: AirPods Max
Excuse me? What exactly is out of the norm here?
This reminds me of the Twitter journalist complaining about the Mac Pro being too expensive.
"Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal,"
What a fu**ing goalpost. No, it does NOT need to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal. It has to sound as good as a $300 headset because all the extras that NO ONE provides makes the difference.
This is a repeat of: iPhone iPad Apple Watch iPad Pro iPhone X AirPods iPhone Pro
All were "too expensive" before selling out (which these headphones already did for 2020, so there's no prediction here just facts.)
Expensive is relative. Most people would consider $550 for a headset expensive. If you're a pro you would not, but Apple has never produced or marketed headphones to pros before. Prior to this the highest end headset they had was the $300 beats model which is very much a mass-market headset (and has been frequently derided by pros.)
Apparently you think the word 'pro' means something is professional quality. There has been frequent commentary here on AI as to whether the 'pro' moniker is appropriate and what constitutes a 'pro' device. The MacPro is definitely a pro machine, but every other 'pro' device you listed is decidedly mass market. How about AirPods Pro? Are they professional? They're more expensive and have 'pro' in the name, right? (FWIW, Apple doesn't call these 'pro,' they call them 'max.')
Apple clearly has a reputation, but it is not for high end audio headsets. Maybe they're looking to change that, but if so, the reputation will need to be earned. Sennheiser has already earned theirs. As has Sony. I would also guess that most pros are not looking for noise cancellation, bluetooth, or accelerometers to estimate head position. They're looking for accurate sound. The extra technology you tout as making them worth the money indicates that Apple is targeting these to a high-end consumer, not a pro.
As far as the 'extras' go, whether they provide value or not is in the eyes of the consumer. If it sounds as good as a $300 headset and the extras don't matter to you then they're a ripoff. And for the record, I did not say they needed to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal, I said if they did they would be a good deal. But thanks for changing what I said.
"Pro" is short for professional. You shouldn't buy a Mac Pro to do your homework on and you shouldn't buy an iPhone Pro to play Candy Crush.
$549 for headphones this high quality(which Apple with a flawless track record claims) and the extra tech is a great deal.
Everyone is comparing the AirPods Max to Bose or Sony noise cancellation headphones, which were initially targeted at frequent business travelers ("$300 for headphones??? You people are crazy for spending so much!") I have had a succession of Bose noise cancellation headphones over the years, and I love them for airplane travel. However, they have never been considered "audiophile" quality. Their main point is the noise cancellation.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
Many people complain about the sound quality of the Bose and Sony noise cancellation headphones, compared to higher end Grado, Sennheiser and the like. Perhaps Apple has a few "golden eared audiophiles" that wanted audiophile sound, noise cancellation AND bluetooth wireless. That particular combination seems to be lacking in the market. Audiophile gear is almost always wired (with heavy gauge, high purity copper), analog and old school. Maybe Apple wants to bring the high end into the 21st century.
I'm hoping this is the case. Which would make these a mega value.
It’s a Bluetooth wireless headset. Comparing it to audiophile headsets is just wrong.Bluetooth will never match a $1000 sannheiser
Wait so Apple selling a $549 Headset is expensive but Sennheiser selling a $1000 headset is fine?
Are you one of those that complain that AirPods are too expensive? If not, forgive me but... Still, why are you comparing a $549 headset to a $1000 one?
Let me take the reverse view - why is it ok to defend a $550 price tag when you’ve never tried it?
The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets. Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. For that audience it cannot be argued that the price is not high.
Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal, at least for the people willing to pay that much. For many others, this is a car payment and when the obvious competition includes products like the Sony 1000XM4 that has earned universal praise and costs half as much, Apple has a high bar to clear.
Because it's NOT expensive!!
That's a normal priced pro headset. There's absolutely nothing out of the norm here plus you get TONS of computational technology. Pro headsets offer none (including Sennheiser).
"The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets."
Apple doesn't have a reputation? Apple's reputation is worlds beyond Sennheiser. And I admit this as a Sennheiser fan!!
"Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. "
Mass Market: Macbook High End: Mac Pro
Mass Market: iPhone High End: iPhone Pro
Mass Market: iPad High End: iPad Pro
Mass Market: AirPods High End: AirPods Max
Excuse me? What exactly is out of the norm here?
This reminds me of the Twitter journalist complaining about the Mac Pro being too expensive.
"Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal,"
What a fu**ing goalpost. No, it does NOT need to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal. It has to sound as good as a $300 headset because all the extras that NO ONE provides makes the difference.
This is a repeat of: iPhone iPad Apple Watch iPad Pro iPhone X AirPods iPhone Pro
All were "too expensive" before selling out (which these headphones already did for 2020, so there's no prediction here just facts.)
Expensive is relative. Most people would consider $550 for a headset expensive. If you're a pro you would not, but Apple has never produced or marketed headphones to pros before. Prior to this the highest end headset they had was the $300 beats model which is very much a mass-market headset (and has been frequently derided by pros.)
Apparently you think the word 'pro' means something is professional quality. There has been frequent commentary here on AI as to whether the 'pro' moniker is appropriate and what constitutes a 'pro' device. The MacPro is definitely a pro machine, but every other 'pro' device you listed is decidedly mass market. How about AirPods Pro? Are they professional? They're more expensive and have 'pro' in the name, right? (FWIW, Apple doesn't call these 'pro,' they call them 'max.')
Apple clearly has a reputation, but it is not for high end audio headsets. Maybe they're looking to change that, but if so, the reputation will need to be earned. Sennheiser has already earned theirs. As has Sony. I would also guess that most pros are not looking for noise cancellation, bluetooth, or accelerometers to estimate head position. They're looking for accurate sound. The extra technology you tout as making them worth the money indicates that Apple is targeting these to a high-end consumer, not a pro.
As far as the 'extras' go, whether they provide value or not is in the eyes of the consumer. If it sounds as good as a $300 headset and the extras don't matter to you then they're a ripoff. And for the record, I did not say they needed to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal, I said if they did they would be a good deal. But thanks for changing what I said.
"Pro" is short for professional. You shouldn't buy a Mac Pro to do your homework on and you shouldn't buy an iPhone Pro to play Candy Crush.
$549 for headphones this high quality(which Apple with a flawless track record claims) and the extra tech is a great deal.
Thanks for clarifying what ‘pro’ means. Very helpful.
Out of curiosity, what makes a ‘pro’ phone and what dose a ‘pro’ use their phone for? It must be the 2x zoom lens, right? How about every other ‘pro’ device Apple makes? Particular the AirPods Pro. Are they for music professionals? Or maybe just iTunes professionals. Either way, since the new headphones are not pro, just ‘max’ they must not be professional, right?
and I again challenge you to explain how you can say $550 is a great deal without making assumptions.
Comments
So, you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my question nonsense any more or less than your assessment is nonsense.
Anything is possible when the dust settles (although the 12-16 week current lead times for shipment tells me that Apple may be right), but your data-free, evidence-free post (like that of many others here) is nonsense.
But some folks are just stuck on the same script, year after year after year...
"No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame." - Rob Malda, on the iPod at its release in 2001
Apple may be trying to compete in the audiophile space, for lower money, with more features, including noise cancellation. Their competition may be some of these headphones: https://www.moon-audio.com/headphones/full-size.html
When Audi comes out with a $114,000 car (https://www.caranddriver.com/audi/rs7 ), Audi doesn't get trashed for making a high end car to compete with other high end Mercedes or Porsches, they get congratulated. Because car enthusiasts know that if you don't have the $114,000 to spend on a car, you'll buy a cheaper one. But the high tech that's in high end cars usually finds its way into lower end cars.
Apple is likely doing the same.
It may be that they truly are a fabulous set of headphones and worth every penny. It may be that they are as good as the Sennheiser headphones that cost twice as much. It also be that they are good but not worth twice as much as the Sony XM4s that are the current standard for noise cancelling headphones. Time will tell. This is a product that is breaking new ground/territory for Apple. They have the Beats line, but at almost twice the price of the previous high-end beats headphones they are targeting a different demographic, so I don't think you can say it's nonsense to be appropriately skeptical of the price tag before the product has been released, and as I said before, the current lead times really say very little, since no one has actually used these yet. Apple's history is reason to be optimistic, but flat out assuming it to be correct and not considering that Apple may be over reaching is being blind to other possibilities.
Audi has a long history of making high end performance cars. The RS7 is a continuation of that. And they don't get congratulated for charging that much for the car; they get congratulated for making a great car that can command that price. Edit: I skimmed the review you linked - from the 'cons' column: "Too expensive for most enthusiasts" That hardly sounds like congratulations.
Apple has no history of making high end headphones. The closest would be the Beats noise cancelling model that retails for $300. $550 puts the AirPods Max in a different category. As I said above, the natural comparison is the Bose, Sony (or beats) headphones that cost half as much. Why is it unreasonable to question a near doubling in price? The other issue that Apple has to deal with is the market for headphones gets progressively smaller as the price goes up, making return on investment more difficult. I'm quite sure Apple has factored this into their pricing as well.
Because it's NOT expensive!!
That's a normal priced pro headset. There's absolutely nothing out of the norm here plus you get TONS of computational technology. Pro headsets offer none (including Sennheiser).
"The sennheiser headset is expensive but has earned its reputation for the niche market that it targets."
Apple doesn't have a reputation? Apple's reputation is worlds beyond Sennheiser. And I admit this as a Sennheiser fan!!
"Historically, Apple has targeted a mass market audience. "
Mass Market:
Macbook
High End:
Mac Pro
Mass Market:
iPhone
High End:
iPhone Pro
Mass Market:
iPad
High End:
iPad Pro
Mass Market:
AirPods
High End:
AirPods Max
Excuse me? What exactly is out of the norm here?
This reminds me of the Twitter journalist complaining about the Mac Pro being too expensive.
"Maybe they do sound incredible and as good as a $1000 headset. In that case they would be a good deal,"
What a fu**ing goalpost. No, it does NOT need to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal. It has to sound as good as a $300 headset because all the extras that NO ONE provides makes the difference.
This is a repeat of:
iPhone
iPad
Apple Watch
iPad Pro
iPhone X
AirPods
iPhone Pro
All were "too expensive" before selling out (which these headphones already did for 2020, so there's no prediction here just facts.)
"but...but they're overpriced!"
-Non pros and non audiophiles.
CORRECT.
Bose was never EVER EVER EVER an "audiophile" company. They tricked casuals into thinking they were a high end quality company when they spent billions on advertising and NFL contracts.
When someone mentions Bose and quality that's all the red flags you need to know that the person does not know about audio. It's irritating when people mention Bose when comparing to Apple or other high end companies.
Sure Apple have always been expensive, but not by that much, and they've usually been expensive because of design and quality that regular folk can appreciate, whereas recently a number of products seem to have been deliberately aimed at a higher level of technology that the majority don't really care about all that much.
So sure, maybe I'm not the target market. But I want Apple to make a similar product that does consider me the target market.
Apparently you think the word 'pro' means something is professional quality. There has been frequent commentary here on AI as to whether the 'pro' moniker is appropriate and what constitutes a 'pro' device. The MacPro is definitely a pro machine, but every other 'pro' device you listed is decidedly mass market. How about AirPods Pro? Are they professional? They're more expensive and have 'pro' in the name, right? (FWIW, Apple doesn't call these 'pro,' they call them 'max.')
Apple clearly has a reputation, but it is not for high end audio headsets. Maybe they're looking to change that, but if so, the reputation will need to be earned. Sennheiser has already earned theirs. As has Sony. I would also guess that most pros are not looking for noise cancellation, bluetooth, or accelerometers to estimate head position. They're looking for accurate sound. The extra technology you tout as making them worth the money indicates that Apple is targeting these to a high-end consumer, not a pro.
As far as the 'extras' go, whether they provide value or not is in the eyes of the consumer. If it sounds as good as a $300 headset and the extras don't matter to you then they're a ripoff. And for the record, I did not say they needed to sound as good as a $1000 headset to be a good deal, I said if they did they would be a good deal. But thanks for changing what I said.
I'm hoping this is the case. Which would make these a mega value.
"Pro" is short for professional. You shouldn't buy a Mac Pro to do your homework on and you shouldn't buy an iPhone Pro to play Candy Crush.
$549 for headphones this high quality(which Apple with a flawless track record claims) and the extra tech is a great deal.
and I again challenge you to explain how you can say $550 is a great deal without making assumptions.