xmhillx

I don't know where @Soli is getting his info from. Maybe he can share. Because all the reviews I've seen say Earpods = AirPods when it comes to fit. They do generalize, yet @Soli keeps insisting there is no generalization.
Here are a variety of YouTube reviews from ppl who can fit Airpods to those who cannot. 

MKBHD

Minute 3:44

"They're the exact same shape as the EarPods so if those worked well for your ears then these will stay in your ears as well."

Engadget

Minute 2:11

"I'm pretty frustrated Apple didn't try to cook up a new design for these things. I know a ton of ppl for whom EarPods just never fit, and even more ppl who can get them in but only have them fall out because of their ear shapes"

CNET

Minute 0:47

"One of the good things is the fit. If you wear the EarPods that come from your iPhone from before, these are going to fit pretty much just the same"

Tailosive Tech

The entire video talks about EarPods/AirPods falling or not falling out

The Verge

Minute 0:10

"And it's basically as if Apple just took the old EarPods and chopped the wires off... I had a lot of trouble keeping Airpods in my ears, and it's not just that they fall out immediately, they never stay in my ears (demonstrates on camera how easily his ears dislodge Airpods by slightly leaning sideways)"

iJustine

Minute 20:15

"Every time I smile, this one falls out"

Minute 3:00

"So these are the EarPods that come with the iPhone 7.... they don't fit my ears very well"

Airpods have the exact ear shape as EarPods. I have no idea how you'd "be disappointed and surprised that Airpods don't stay in your ears." Geezus Christ, the EarPods shape has been out for years. If you've ever bought an iPhone in the last 4 years, you've had the free EarPods with the same design as Airpods. Yet you didn't know that the design doesn't fit your ears? Ok, sorry, that's ridiculous. If EarPods fit you, then Airpods fit you. If EarPods don't fit you, Airpods don't fit you. It's not rocket science guys. 

I've had ppl on here arguing with me that Apple removing the headphone jack was going to kill Apple, that Apple was doomed from the horrible decision.

Fast forward and reports come out that initial iPhone orders were 60-70 million, then later 70-85 million, now 90-100 million orders from manufacturers & suppliers. Most interesting doom I've ever seen, for sure. 

Now Samsung is rumored to remove the headphone jack too in favor of one port.
Their argument was Apple removing the jack, not that the single port wasn't USB-C. So now I'll expect the argument to morph into "well the single port is USB-C so it's a welcome change!" No, no. That wasn't your argument. You still need a dongle for your old headphones and studio equipment. Still need to buy new headphones if you hate adapters. Still can't charge and listen simultaneously; well sort of bc of induction pad charging; but what, are you going to sandwich the charging pad and phone in your hands so you can use it while it's charging? And it charges much slower with induction charging, might I add. I think more ppl want to use the phone & listen with headphones while charging, as opposed to have it lying there charging and listening only.

jfc1138 said:

"Plugless" perhaps but as the above image clearly shows. There still IS a "wire". Closing the hole might improve waterproofness but if it slows down charging? Deal breaker. 

The above image shown is the Apple Watch charger. It's not wireless. It's inductive charging. So yes it has a wire, it just doesn't plug into a socket. So port-less charging maybe?

Yes. That's exactly why Apple used this on Apple Watch and not on iPhone. 1) a Watch is small so the lightning charging components were relatively big; better space saver with inductive charging. 2) Inductive charging is slower, less efficient, and not actually wireless. It's no better than wired charging, just different 3) You have to leave the phone on an inductive charging pad for it to charge. With wired charging, you can pick the phone up and use it. It's extremely awkward and impractical to hold the charging pad and phone while it's charging. So one step forward, two steps back kind of deal.

I'm convinced that's why Apple doesn't put "wireless" charging on iPhones like Samsung and others do on theirs. It's more of a gimmick. How many people do you know or have even seen with a wireless charging pad? I'd venture zero to a couple. Like me. It's not that widely used, doesn't offer more benefits than drawbacks. Works for tiny devices like watches with tiny batteries that you don't wear to bed so the slow charge over night isn't a big problem for tiny mAh batteries. I think that's why Apple is waiting on tech like long range, cordless, actual wireless charging that charges your phone anywhere within 15ft away. This is what this article is about. 

netrox said:

tmay said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkanellos/2016/05/12/the-real-problem-with-ubeams-wireless-charging-tech-you-dont-need-it/#18b4899c486b

The issue seems to be the commercialization of a technology that offers about a 5 meter range. Evidently, Apple thinks it is worth pursuing.

Read the article and I am not getting it - "Thus, it’s not really wireless. It’s cordless. Big difference. UBeam isn’t replacing the grid with an ethereal network. It is simply replacing ubiquitous, cheap and widely compatible USB cables." Huh? If there's no cord to connect between two devices, it's wireless, right? What else could it be?

That article isn't getting it. It thinks the point was the company trying to replace the world's electrical grid (electrical cables running on wooden sticks and underground delivering energy from a hub to your house) with something that emits enough electricity through the air to power everyone's home. But that's not the goal of the tech. The goal is more for small battery devices like smartphones. Hence the quote about "cordless vs wireless". On the energy grid scale, electricity gets to your house via copper cables and then the hub emits it wirelessly, so it's "not wireless". Smirk smirk. It's wireless in the smartphone scale. So don't listen too much to that article. It's retarded.

Here's a more accurate, detailed one that's honest about shortcomings and reality:

http://www.inc.com/kevin-j-ryan/apple-hired-engineers-from-mark-cuban-backed-startup-ubeam.html