I think Bose need some good competition in the noise cancelling market so this is good.
It might sound trivial but I actually have more of a problem with the Beats brand. I was surprised apple invested in it. I'm in my 30's and feel too old to wear these - I always see teenagers or very young kids with the colourful ones with them in airports - I'd feel embarrassed to have some.
You made the mistake of not realizing that Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the world, and set records for most revenue ever, by happenstance. When pundits criticized Apple for "overpaying" for Beats, they focused solely on the streaming business, when the secret was the headphone and wireless business. The markups are huge for Beats and Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headphones in the world, and owns over 60% of the entire worldwide market for premium headphones >$200. Because Apple had vision that wireless would soon dominate the world's markets and the value of the Beats brand, Apple's move was a financial stroke of genius. The cash just keeps pouring in when you make good business decisions.
I think apple could have made better products and been even more successful without the baggage that beats came with. It would have cost more, taken longer - but am sure it would have been worth it. Apple was in a position to create a market disrupting product from scratch but instead just chose the lazy option and bought beats.
And I agree their streaming service was certaintly not worth anything.
The streaming service was worth lots. Apple Music went from nothing to number two in the world in record time, and now has probably close to 35 million paying subscribers. You may not like them, and Beats aren't my choice in headphones, but you are disregarding the cultural relevancy of the Beats brand to the hundreds of millions of people who now buy their products. It isn't about "disrupting" the market, Beats doesn't do that, it's about branding Apple's headphones and music business with the the people who listen to music and buy the most headphones. If you doubt this, ask yourself why Apple has kept the Beats brand out front and has only expanded it's use.
Again, I know the temptation is to focus on an "audiophile" approach to the headphone business; hence all the pundits criticizing Apple for not buy a company like Bang and Olufsen, but Apple didn't need nor want that and it would have been a horrible business decision.
Lol
This is all getting a bit deep
I basically just wish Apple made a good pair of noise cancelling headphones that a professional adult wouldn't be embarrassed to wear. I'm not some audiophile nerd or anything.
This boils down to a matter of taste of course and I'm just one person, and I'm probably a lot more demanding and particular than most people.
This comment seems more sensible than your last. Sounds more like it’s actually the specific style of Beats you don’t like. Not exactly that its brand was cheapened by a certain youth demo wearing them. Though those distinctions blur awful quick. I guess Apple made a call and chose a style. I suspect they bought Beats as their second audio income, so they could keep the Apple brand as clearly distinct from the Beats brand. Other brands would have a closer semblance. The good news is it’s a pretty competitive market, so over time you’ll only have more choice.
Too bad I just bought Beoplay H7 which are great, fit and finish is excellent, and they have removable batteries which removes the hassle of replacing it in the future.
Do you mean it's too bad because you would have rather bought the Beats? Take those Beoplay H7 back and buy the Beats. Problem solved. Oh, maybe you just want spew about how much superior your choice was.
I think Bose need some good competition in the noise cancelling market so this is good.
It might sound trivial but I actually have more of a problem with the Beats brand. I was surprised apple invested in it. I'm in my 30's and feel too old to wear these - I always see teenagers or very young kids with the colourful ones with them in airports - I'd feel embarrassed to have some.
You made the mistake of not realizing that Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the world, and set records for most revenue ever, by happenstance. When pundits criticized Apple for "overpaying" for Beats, they focused solely on the streaming business, when the secret was the headphone and wireless business. The markups are huge for Beats and Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headphones in the world, and owns over 60% of the entire worldwide market for premium headphones >$200. Because Apple had vision that wireless would soon dominate the world's markets and the value of the Beats brand, Apple's move was a financial stroke of genius. The cash just keeps pouring in when you make good business decisions.
I think apple could have made better products and been even more successful without the baggage that beats came with. It would have cost more, taken longer - but am sure it would have been worth it. Apple was in a position to create a market disrupting product from scratch but instead just chose the lazy option and bought beats.
And I agree their streaming service was certaintly not worth anything.
The streaming service was worth lots. Apple Music went from nothing to number two in the world in record time, and now has probably close to 35 million paying subscribers. You may not like them, and Beats aren't my choice in headphones, but you are disregarding the cultural relevancy of the Beats brand to the hundreds of millions of people who now buy their products. It isn't about "disrupting" the market, Beats doesn't do that, it's about branding Apple's headphones and music business with the the people who listen to music and buy the most headphones. If you doubt this, ask yourself why Apple has kept the Beats brand out front and has only expanded it's use.
Again, I know the temptation is to focus on an "audiophile" approach to the headphone business; hence all the pundits criticizing Apple for not buy a company like Bang and Olufsen, but Apple didn't need nor want that and it would have been a horrible business decision.
Lol
This is all getting a bit deep
I basically just wish Apple made a good pair of noise cancelling headphones that a professional adult wouldn't be embarrassed to wear. I'm not some audiophile nerd or anything.
This boils down to a matter of taste of course and I'm just one person, and I'm probably a lot more demanding and particular than most people.
This comment seems more sensible than your last. Sounds more like it’s actually the specific style of Beats you don’t like. Not exactly that its brand was cheapened by a certain youth demo wearing them. Though those distinctions blur awful quick. I guess Apple made a call and chose a style. I suspect they bought Beats as their second audio income, so they could keep the Apple brand as clearly distinct from the Beats brand. Other brands would have a closer semblance. The good news is it’s a pretty competitive market, so over time you’ll only have more choice.
Beats caters to a market were people buy a lot more android phones (urban market) and thus that explains the fact that they're still using the small usb connector. In that market, people tend to spread their money differently, less on the phone and more headphones, shoes, whatever. Apple doesn't want to cater to phone part of that market cause that'd be the low to mid range. But, in headphones, they tend to buy at the higher end of the market were Apple does want to sell things.
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
I agree. While I understand needing to support micro USB first, I wish a lightning connection at Apple stores would have been available. Sounds like a really good product that I'll pass on.
I'm surprised that these updated Studio 3's still come with a micro-USB-B port on the device instead of Lightning or USB-C for charging.
I am at annoyed at this too. Micro USB is the devil and I've basically refused to buy any devices any more that require this. I was absolutely ready to pull the plug on a set of these headphones until I saw that. For me at this point it's Lightning or USB-C or nothing.
lightning is a must. I simply just don’t want to spend more money on other cables and have to remember to take them with me. At least Apple/Beats should provide a version that is with lightning port. I blame this on stupid EU ruling.
Although I'm more than happy with my Sennheiser Momentum Over-Ear 2.0 Wireless and will probably stick with these for the next few years, competition is always great so this is good.
I am sure there'll be lots of the usual "oh, they're all style not substance" or "too much base/treble/midrange/whatever" type posts soon enough.
So let me say something I've said a couple of times before, here on AI: the Beats Wireless Studio is the best pair of headphones I've ever owned. And I've owned a fair number in the past 45 years.
I have to say, with all due respect, that just because you say bull**** with pride, it doesn't make it any legit. Beats headphones with extra base may fit your taste, but they're objectively far from the best headphones. To call a pair of headphones "the best," you'd have to consider sound quality, price, design and more. Beats headphones look pretty nice so you could say Beats wins in terms of design, but when it comes to sound quality and price, there are many other better options including AKG, Audio Technica, Bose, Sennheiser, Shure and more.
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
Uh, the QC35’s charge via micro-USB, and are also $350. Your argument is invalid.
Spot on.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
I am sure there'll be lots of the usual "oh, they're all style not substance" or "too much base/treble/midrange/whatever" type posts soon enough.
So let me say something I've said a couple of times before, here on AI: the Beats Wireless Studio is the best pair of headphones I've ever owned. And I've owned a fair number in the past 45 years.
I have to say, with all due respect, that just because you say bull**** with pride, it doesn't make it any legit. Beats headphones with extra base may fit your taste, but they're objectively far from the best headphones. To call a pair of headphones "the best," you'd have to consider sound quality, price, design and more. Beats headphones look pretty nice so you could say Beats wins in terms of design, but when it comes to sound quality and price, there are many other better options including AKG, Audio Technica, Bose, Sennheiser, Shure and more.
His comment clearly stated "best pair of headphones I've ever owned," which makes it a perfectly reasonable statement.
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
Uh, the QC35’s charge via micro-USB, and are also $350. Your argument is invalid.
Spot on.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
1) There's nothing "concern trolling" about not wanting the arguably worst port interface ever created by the USB-IF on a brand new product being sold in 2017.
2a) Your argument that it's all about "aims to be compatible with a wide range of products" is bullshit because we already have BeatsX from last year that includes the W1 chip and a Lightning connector over micro-USB-B.
2b) If using USB-C or Lightning was going to hurt sales then you would not have Macs or iDevices using USB-C and Lightning…and yet there are hundreds of millions that do. Regardless of how much you want to me and others "concern trolls" for not liking micro-USB-B and being turned off by products that still use this connector, it's on its way out.
While I giggle at observing these new $350 cans have the same micro USB port as my throw away Bluetooth $10 cans I use with my 7 plus, it makes sense to address the entire market including non Apple users who are used to the interface. Apple knows in the end many Apple product users will suck it up and get them. I wouldn't pass on these because they use mUSB. I would pass because I abuse my headphones badly and treat them like dirt while working and working out. My $10 Bluetooth specials last about a year before they get gunked up and break and I just pull out another pair.
Too bad I just bought Beoplay H7 which are great, fit and finish is excellent, and they have removable batteries which removes the hassle of replacing it in the future.
Do you mean it's too bad because you would have rather bought the Beats? Take those Beoplay H7 back and buy the Beats. Problem solved. Oh, maybe you just want spew about how much superior your choice was.
Not everything can be returned as not everyone buys from retailers, something called eBay. But since you've added that last childish remark, I've thought about it and I believe my choice is superior to yours at the very least.
I think Bose need some good competition in the noise cancelling market so this is good.
It might sound trivial but I actually have more of a problem with the Beats brand. I was surprised apple invested in it. I'm in my 30's and feel too old to wear these - I always see teenagers or very young kids with the colourful ones with them in airports - I'd feel embarrassed to have some.
You made the mistake of not realizing that Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the world, and set records for most revenue ever, by happenstance. When pundits criticized Apple for "overpaying" for Beats, they focused solely on the streaming business, when the secret was the headphone and wireless business. The markups are huge for Beats and Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headphones in the world, and owns over 60% of the entire worldwide market for premium headphones >$200. Because Apple had vision that wireless would soon dominate the world's markets and the value of the Beats brand, Apple's move was a financial stroke of genius. The cash just keeps pouring in when you make good business decisions.
I think apple could have made better products and been even more successful without the baggage that beats came with. It would have cost more, taken longer - but am sure it would have been worth it. Apple was in a position to create a market disrupting product from scratch but instead just chose the lazy option and bought beats.
And I agree their streaming service was certaintly not worth anything.
The streaming service was worth lots. Apple Music went from nothing to number two in the world in record time, and now has probably close to 35 million paying subscribers. You may not like them, and Beats aren't my choice in headphones, but you are disregarding the cultural relevancy of the Beats brand to the hundreds of millions of people who now buy their products. It isn't about "disrupting" the market, Beats doesn't do that, it's about branding Apple's headphones and music business with the the people who listen to music and buy the most headphones. If you doubt this, ask yourself why Apple has kept the Beats brand out front and has only expanded it's use.
Again, I know the temptation is to focus on an "audiophile" approach to the headphone business; hence all the pundits criticizing Apple for not buy a company like Bang and Olufsen, but Apple didn't need nor want that and it would have been a horrible business decision.
Lol
This is all getting a bit deep
I basically just wish Apple made a good pair of noise cancelling headphones that a professional adult wouldn't be embarrassed to wear. I'm not some audiophile nerd or anything.
This boils down to a matter of taste of course and I'm just one person, and I'm probably a lot more demanding and particular than most people.
This comment seems more sensible than your last. Sounds more like it’s actually the specific style of Beats you don’t like. Not exactly that its brand was cheapened by a certain youth demo wearing them. Though those distinctions blur awful quick. I guess Apple made a call and chose a style. I suspect they bought Beats as their second audio income, so they could keep the Apple brand as clearly distinct from the Beats brand. Other brands would have a closer semblance. The good news is it’s a pretty competitive market, so over time you’ll only have more choice.
Beats caters to a market were people buy a lot more android phones (urban market) and thus that explains the fact that they're still using the small usb connector. In that market, people tend to spread their money differently, less on the phone and more headphones, shoes, whatever. Apple doesn't want to cater to phone part of that market cause that'd be the low to mid range. But, in headphones, they tend to buy at the higher end of the market were Apple does want to sell things.
This argument is weak. It’s micro-USB to USB-A. The A end is plugged into either a USB port or a USB plug. The same would apply to a Lightning to USB-A cable. This does not stop Beats moving to Lightning. All it does is stop Apple users from being able to use their iPhone charger to also charge their Beats. And Apple users are far more fickle when it comes to these design details anyway. Micro-USB is the worst port imaginable. It’s a bad decision all around. There’s no way in hell Micro-USB is coming near my life.
I think Bose need some good competition in the noise cancelling market so this is good.
It might sound trivial but I actually have more of a problem with the Beats brand. I was surprised apple invested in it. I'm in my 30's and feel too old to wear these - I always see teenagers or very young kids with the colourful ones with them in airports - I'd feel embarrassed to have some.
You made the mistake of not realizing that Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the world, and set records for most revenue ever, by happenstance. When pundits criticized Apple for "overpaying" for Beats, they focused solely on the streaming business, when the secret was the headphone and wireless business. The markups are huge for Beats and Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headphones in the world, and owns over 60% of the entire worldwide market for premium headphones >$200. Because Apple had vision that wireless would soon dominate the world's markets and the value of the Beats brand, Apple's move was a financial stroke of genius. The cash just keeps pouring in when you make good business decisions.
I think apple could have made better products and been even more successful without the baggage that beats came with. It would have cost more, taken longer - but am sure it would have been worth it. Apple was in a position to create a market disrupting product from scratch but instead just chose the lazy option and bought beats.
And I agree their streaming service was certaintly not worth anything.
So what you are saying is Apple execs and Board chose the MBA path to fame and fortune, not the Steve Jobs path.😜
And yes, Beats' streaming service was certainly not worth anything.
From what I’ve read Beats acquisition was all Eddy Cue. Obviously he got Cook and the board to sign off on it but it was 100% his idea.
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
Uh, the QC35’s charge via micro-USB, and are also $350. Your argument is invalid.
Spot on.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
I think Bose need some good competition in the noise cancelling market so this is good.
It might sound trivial but I actually have more of a problem with the Beats brand. I was surprised apple invested in it. I'm in my 30's and feel too old to wear these - I always see teenagers or very young kids with the colourful ones with them in airports - I'd feel embarrassed to have some.
You made the mistake of not realizing that Apple didn't become the most valuable company in the world, and set records for most revenue ever, by happenstance. When pundits criticized Apple for "overpaying" for Beats, they focused solely on the streaming business, when the secret was the headphone and wireless business. The markups are huge for Beats and Apple is now the largest producer of wireless headphones in the world, and owns over 60% of the entire worldwide market for premium headphones >$200. Because Apple had vision that wireless would soon dominate the world's markets and the value of the Beats brand, Apple's move was a financial stroke of genius. The cash just keeps pouring in when you make good business decisions.
I think apple could have made better products and been even more successful without the baggage that beats came with. It would have cost more, taken longer - but am sure it would have been worth it. Apple was in a position to create a market disrupting product from scratch but instead just chose the lazy option and bought beats.
And I agree their streaming service was certaintly not worth anything.
So what you are saying is Apple execs and Board chose the MBA path to fame and fortune, not the Steve Jobs path.😜
And yes, Beats' streaming service was certainly not worth anything.
From what I’ve read Beats acquisition was all Eddy Cue. Obviously he got Cook and the board to sign off on it but it was 100% his idea.
The Board of the most valuable company on the planet signs off on an acquisition because it was recommended by a senior exec like Eddie Cue? Seriously?
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
Uh, the QC35’s charge via micro-USB, and are also $350. Your argument is invalid.
Spot on.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
The lack of Lightning support on the Beats products is puzzling at first glance. Why wouldn't Apple want to leverage its own company-wide standard in a product they produce? But when you consider these are NOT branded as "Apple Headphones" (perhaps "HeadPods?") despite the fact that Apple owns Beats, the lack of Lightning becomes justifiable. Apple also wants to sell Beats globally and not have them positioned as a captive brand, something the Lightning connector may be construed as if that connector was used and if Apple was not including a charger in the package. As nice as Lightning is technically it is somewhat misaligned with the desire to reduce variability in charging systems that is a goal of some countries and regions. I greatly prefer Lightning - but my opinion by no means speaks for many others, much less everyone.
Apple, you had me until micro USB. What a head scratcher on a $350 product. I'll keep my Bose QC headphones until you figure this out.
Uh, the QC35’s charge via micro-USB, and are also $350. Your argument is invalid.
Spot on.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
1) There's nothing "concern trolling" about not wanting the arguably worst port interface ever created by the USB-IF on a brand new product being sold in 2017.
2a) Your argument that it's all about "aims to be compatible with a wide range of products" is bullshit because we already have BeatsX from last year that includes the W1 chip and a Lightning connector over micro-USB-B.
2b) If using USB-C or Lightning was going to hurt sales then you would not have Macs or iDevices using USB-C and Lightning…and yet there are hundreds of millions that do. Regardless of how much you want to me and others "concern trolls" for not liking micro-USB-B and being turned off by products that still use this connector, it's on its way out.
1) Why is it "arguably the worst port interface"? I don't get it.
2a) The fact that it exists in one doesn't mean it should exist in all. It would be like saying that we should have USB-C for iOS devices because they exist for Macs. I have no idea what the revenue share of BeatsX is relative to Beats Wireless. Do you? Perhaps it's a experiment, and if it works, Apple will roll it out with all Beats products.
2b) If it's on its way out, great. I'd be up for that. I am just saying that it's not such a huge deal given the multiple types of connectors we all carry around.
Comments
In that market, people tend to spread their money differently, less on the phone and more headphones, shoes, whatever.
Apple doesn't want to cater to phone part of that market cause that'd be the low to mid range. But, in headphones, they tend to buy at the higher end of the market were Apple does want to sell things.
So much concern trolling here on the topic of micro-USB connector. Leaving aside the fact that Apple is selling a product that aims to be compatible with a wide range of products -- basically anything with a Bluetooth capability -- we all deal with multiple connector types all around us, including for our Macs, our cameras, our Watch, etc. In other words it's a lot of hoo-hah about something fairly trivial.
2a) Your argument that it's all about "aims to be compatible with a wide range of products" is bullshit because we already have BeatsX from last year that includes the W1 chip and a Lightning connector over micro-USB-B.
2b) If using USB-C or Lightning was going to hurt sales then you would not have Macs or iDevices using USB-C and Lightning…and yet there are hundreds of millions that do. Regardless of how much you want to me and others "concern trolls" for not liking micro-USB-B and being turned off by products that still use this connector, it's on its way out.
C'mon...
Why!?
2a) The fact that it exists in one doesn't mean it should exist in all. It would be like saying that we should have USB-C for iOS devices because they exist for Macs. I have no idea what the revenue share of BeatsX is relative to Beats Wireless. Do you? Perhaps it's a experiment, and if it works, Apple will roll it out with all Beats products.
2b) If it's on its way out, great. I'd be up for that. I am just saying that it's not such a huge deal given the multiple types of connectors we all carry around.