Review: Apple's new AirPods are a first-class update to an already superb product

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,425administrator

    It feels wrong, just very wrong, to replace a $159 pair of headphones after at most two and a half years. 
    Clearly no runners in the office. Runnings shoes used frequently need replacement 3-6 months, and are $110-170. Strangely we don't here runners complaining about it, and shoes aren't even recyclable with the vendor.
    Shoes are designed to ablate on the road. AirPods and headphones are not. Different use paradigm.
    I'll disagree.  I think comparing running shoes and AirPods is a good analogy. 
    Running shoes and AirPods both wear out (fairly quickly) with use.   While AI is estimating a 2 year or so lifespan, they are really talking about usage rather than time -- just as running shoes wear in "3-4 months" with heavy use.   And, to compound it, running puts additional demands on both because who wants to run a 4 hour marathon in worn out shoes or with AirPods that only last 2-3 hours?

    Added:  By the way, running shoes usually do not wear out (ablate) the sole as much as the cushioning and support break down.  (A mattress might be a good analogy -- the top is fine but the cushioning and support break down.)   *Many runners continue to use their running shoes for casual wear after they are too worn for the demands of running.*



    TIL. Mine are generally destroyed on the sole, and I get rid of them at that point.
    I'm going to hazard that you are referring to casual jogging shoes, and that you aren't a runner (think daily, training for marathons, etc). If you used running shoes to the point of wearing thru the sole, the support would be toast and you'd be in a world of hurt. No, running shoes used by runners who run daily, get replaced 3-6 months. This is just fact.
    I am absolutely not training for a marathon, and am just going for "not dying at an early age."
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 62 of 73
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 2,703member
    Intercepted my UPS driver today and grabbed mine. I haven't tried the first gen AirPods, but these sound WAAAY better than I expected, and possibly better than my $180 V Moda Tn's that I've been using the last few years. Mostly surprised by the low end, listened to some dubby stuff (Bill Laswell) and was pleasantly surprised. These are definitely not EarPods; I plan to do some side by side testing against them and the V Modas to be sure, but so far I'm super pleased.
    StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 63 of 73
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 4,297member

    It feels wrong, just very wrong, to replace a $159 pair of headphones after at most two and a half years. 
    Clearly no runners in the office. Runnings shoes used frequently need replacement 3-6 months, and are $110-170. Strangely we don't here runners complaining about it, and shoes aren't even recyclable with the vendor.
    Shoes are designed to ablate on the road. AirPods and headphones are not. Different use paradigm.
    I'll disagree.  I think comparing running shoes and AirPods is a good analogy. 
    Running shoes and AirPods both wear out (fairly quickly) with use.   While AI is estimating a 2 year or so lifespan, they are really talking about usage rather than time -- just as running shoes wear in "3-4 months" with heavy use.   And, to compound it, running puts additional demands on both because who wants to run a 4 hour marathon in worn out shoes or with AirPods that only last 2-3 hours?

    Added:  By the way, running shoes usually do not wear out (ablate) the sole as much as the cushioning and support break down.  (A mattress might be a good analogy -- the top is fine but the cushioning and support break down.)   *Many runners continue to use their running shoes for casual wear after they are too worn for the demands of running.*



    TIL. Mine are generally destroyed on the sole, and I get rid of them at that point.
    I'm going to hazard that you are referring to casual jogging shoes, and that you aren't a runner (think daily, training for marathons, etc). If you used running shoes to the point of wearing thru the sole, the support would be toast and you'd be in a world of hurt. No, running shoes used by runners who run daily, get replaced 3-6 months. This is just fact.
    I am absolutely not training for a marathon, and am just going for "not dying at an early age."
    Glad to hear that you are taking care of yourself.  Seriously.   As a home health nurse I got to see what happens to those who don't.  It's not pretty.
    (But "serious" or casual, be careful with worn-out shoes.  Any form of running stresses the body.  And shoes without adequate cushioning and support add to that -- at least that's what the shoe salesman told me!   :o )
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 64 of 73
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,298member
    Got my second-gen pair yesterday -- whoa, they sound so much better than my old pair. Same playlists. I'm guessing that's just the old pair having less power? Would be interesting to A:B test a newer first-gen with the second-gen.
    GeorgeBMacwatto_cobra
  • Reply 65 of 73
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,288member
    Got my second-gen pair yesterday -- whoa, they sound so much better than my old pair. Same playlists. I'm guessing that's just the old pair having less power? Would be interesting to A:B test a newer first-gen with the second-gen.
    They shouldn’t neceaaarily have less power, regardless of battery age/condition. Maybe you need to get out a toothbrush and clean that wax out? :tongue: 

    because They look identical, I think there’s an assumption that the internals are identical except the H2 chip, but they may have better drivers, better firmware, or both. 

    In in regards to life, expectations do matter, but people absolutely expect headphones to last more than a couple years, and rightly so. Even understanding that batteries age, designing a product to be discarded simply because the batteries can’t be replaced is poor design, IMO. For a company that touts itself as being Green, this is a very brown design decision.  The batteries don’t need to be easily replaceable, but having any means of replacing them would be far preferable. 
  • Reply 66 of 73
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,298member
    MplsP said:
    Got my second-gen pair yesterday -- whoa, they sound so much better than my old pair. Same playlists. I'm guessing that's just the old pair having less power? Would be interesting to A:B test a newer first-gen with the second-gen.
    They shouldn’t neceaaarily have less power, regardless of battery age/condition. Maybe you need to get out a toothbrush and clean that wax out? :tongue: 

    because They look identical, I think there’s an assumption that the internals are identical except the H2 chip, but they may have better drivers, better firmware, or both. 

    In in regards to life, expectations do matter, but people absolutely expect headphones to last more than a couple years, and rightly so. Even understanding that batteries age, designing a product to be discarded simply because the batteries can’t be replaced is poor design, IMO. For a company that touts itself as being Green, this is a very brown design decision.  The batteries don’t need to be easily replaceable, but having any means of replacing them would be far preferable. 
    No visible wax. It's at least 25% louder based on the volume level graphic. It's really dramatic. 

    If Apple accepts old pairs for recycling less of a green issue. I'm of the opinion they are no different than consumable running shoes, which are also wearables, cost as much, and last 25% as long as AirPods. There is a price to everything, and this seems to be the price of ultra small truly wireless headphones that don't look like crap. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 67 of 73
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 478member
    mammal said:
    Did you test a new set of airpods 1 against the new AirPods 2? Cause some earwax x 2 years can have some effect when comparing some old ones against some new, fresh ones. 
    Yes. 

    However, even our old ones we keep clean. There are procedures for that.
    Here's a different question, but how are the speakers on the MacBooks (include Air and Pros) compared to both AirPods?  I know speakers and headphones are not the same, but they should share some similarities.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 68 of 73
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 478member

    It feels wrong, just very wrong, to replace a $159 pair of headphones after at most two and a half years. 
    Clearly no runners in the office. Runnings shoes used frequently need replacement 3-6 months, and are $110-170. Strangely we don't here runners complaining about it, and shoes aren't even recyclable with the vendor.
    Shoes are designed to ablate on the road. AirPods and headphones are not. Different use paradigm.
    I'll disagree.  I think comparing running shoes and AirPods is a good analogy. 
    Running shoes and AirPods both wear out (fairly quickly) with use.   While AI is estimating a 2 year or so lifespan, they are really talking about usage rather than time -- just as running shoes wear in "3-4 months" with heavy use.   And, to compound it, running puts additional demands on both because who wants to run a 4 hour marathon in worn out shoes or with AirPods that only last 2-3 hours?

    Added:  By the way, running shoes usually do not wear out (ablate) the sole as much as the cushioning and support break down.  (A mattress might be a good analogy -- the top is fine but the cushioning and support break down.)   *Many runners continue to use their running shoes for casual wear after they are too worn for the demands of running.*



    TIL. Mine are generally destroyed on the sole, and I get rid of them at that point.
    I'm going to hazard that you are referring to casual jogging shoes, and that you aren't a runner (think daily, training for marathons, etc). If you used running shoes to the point of wearing thru the sole, the support would be toast and you'd be in a world of hurt. No, running shoes used by runners who run daily, get replaced 3-6 months. This is just fact.
    I am absolutely not training for a marathon, and am just going for "not dying at an early age."
    Glad to hear that you are taking care of yourself.  Seriously.   As a home health nurse I got to see what happens to those who don't.  It's not pretty.
    (But "serious" or casual, be careful with worn-out shoes.  Any form of running stresses the body.  And shoes without adequate cushioning and support add to that -- at least that's what the shoe salesman told me!   :o )
    What exercises should I do every day?
  • Reply 69 of 73
    DuhSesameDuhSesame Posts: 478member

    It feels wrong, just very wrong, to replace a $159 pair of headphones after at most two and a half years. 
    Clearly no runners in the office. Runnings shoes used frequently need replacement 3-6 months, and are $110-170. Strangely we don't here runners complaining about it, and shoes aren't even recyclable with the vendor.
    Shoes are designed to ablate on the road. AirPods and headphones are not. Different use paradigm.
    I'll disagree.  I think comparing running shoes and AirPods is a good analogy. 
    Running shoes and AirPods both wear out (fairly quickly) with use.   While AI is estimating a 2 year or so lifespan, they are really talking about usage rather than time -- just as running shoes wear in "3-4 months" with heavy use.   And, to compound it, running puts additional demands on both because who wants to run a 4 hour marathon in worn out shoes or with AirPods that only last 2-3 hours?

    Added:  By the way, running shoes usually do not wear out (ablate) the sole as much as the cushioning and support break down.  (A mattress might be a good analogy -- the top is fine but the cushioning and support break down.)   *Many runners continue to use their running shoes for casual wear after they are too worn for the demands of running.*



    TIL. Mine are generally destroyed on the sole, and I get rid of them at that point.
    I'm sure most people push their audio equipment too hard, and that's why they wear out quick (as well destroy their hearing), so here's a tip: Your volume should be close to the middle majority of the time.  Though you still need to reach the maximum once a while, don't stay there for too long.
    My real father used to work in discos and that's how I got this tip.
    edited March 29 watto_cobra
  • Reply 70 of 73
    The reviewer didn't mention if one can purchase AirPods 2 on their own and use an existing AirPod container charger bought with the AirPod 1. I cannot find a URL on the Apple/Store which would allow purchase of 2 Pod's alone...
  • Reply 71 of 73
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 2,703member
    The reviewer didn't mention if one can purchase AirPods 2 on their own and use an existing AirPod container charger bought with the AirPod 1. I cannot find a URL on the Apple/Store which would allow purchase of 2 Pod's alone...
    You'd have to get them though Service at $69 each (in the US), not the Store —
    https://getsupport.apple.com/?caller=kbase&PGF=PGF32003&category_id=SC0298

  • Reply 72 of 73
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 7,298member
    No visible wax. It's at least 25% louder based on the volume level graphic. It's really dramatic.
    Ok, update -- on AI Mike's suggestion, I used a cleaning toothbrush and brushed the speaker openings on my AirPods 1. While I could not see any ear wax initially (looking for obvious yellow stuff), there was actually a thin, clear layer covering the openings. I brushed both the speaker fronts and the rear vent, and took away material. Result -- much louder sound. They now play about the same as the second-gens.
    edited April 2
  • Reply 73 of 73
    meixellentmeixellent Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    I stopped at Kate Bush and literally created an account to comment. What is wrong with you?
Sign In or Register to comment.