AirPods and Apple Watch Called 'Underpriced' to Bring New Users Into Apple Ecosystem

[profets]

i would say the majority so > 50%.

if your a casual jogger or cyclist by all means get your apple watch or better yet just stick to your iphone app

I'm a pretty serious runner, as well as a triathlete for 5+ years now. Absolutely love using the Apple Watch for running, cycling and swimming, and I definitely know several others who do as well.
[doublepost=1489763524][/doublepost]

Oh yeah, this is nothing but a PR gimmick by Apple. Go on Amazon and look for wireless headphones and they don't cost nearly as much as that list suggests. The BlueAnt Pump's that I use are $30 right now. They last for hours, sound decent, and if I ever lose them I don't feel like I've just made a terrible mistake.

So the author of the article basically just took a PR ask from Apple and made a nice article out of it. Wow look at how expensive these other headphones are! Sure, if you look at the highest end fashionable earbuds you can find things that are more expensive. If you look at wireless headphones overall though, most of them are way cheaper than that and work well. Hell, the reason I have the Pump's is that they actually stay in my ears unlike every earbud Apple's ever made.

Whoa whoa whoa.. I looked for the BlueAnt Pumps. Are these them?

If so, you, like many others, either did not read the article, have poor reading comprehension, or missed the point entirely.

 

[imola.zhp]

I don't think I ever would have bought an apple watch for over $200. My $180 shipped B&H Series 0 from last black Friday is great considering the price. I mostly use it as a... wait for it... watch.

 

[citi]

I can easily find bluetooth earphones for $20.

And they are likely going to sound like crap.

 

[Crzyrio]

I can easily find bluetooth earphones for $20.
$300 and north for an extremely heavy weight electric watch, which expires in 2-3 years, and you call it underpriced? What year is it now? Maybe we overslept and the gold price is already $30000 an ounce nowadays?

There is a difference between bluetooth headphones and wireless headphones. Simple bluetooth headphones have 2 earbuds connected together and yes those are super cheap. But there arent many fully wireless bluetooth headphones with 2 independently ear buds.

These arent for everyone.

 

[dannys1]

I do that on my 6S, just plug in my Chord Mojo and use that as the DAC/AMP. The Airpods are awesome for gym, but sound like £29 headphones....rubbish when you are used to using a setup like yours.

Was tempted by a Mojo but opted for the more portable option in the end. I've got a studio setup with a UAD interface, a Violectric v200 and a pair of Sennheiser HD800's which is more than enough for my home listening requirements!

I fully expect the Airpods to sound like £29 headphones (probably even worse as there's some Japanese companies now making in ears that sound really good, circa what used to be £90 a few years ago)

 

[Born Again]

I'm a pretty serious runner, as well as a triathlete for 5+ years now. Absolutely love using the Apple Watch for running, cycling and swimming, and I definitely know several others who do as well.
[doublepost=1489763524]

Hey that's great. Triathlete as well and cyclist.

Is there a triathlon mode on the apple watch? have you done a 1/2 ironman with this watch?

 

[kagharaht]

Just wish you can adjust the volume without pulling out the iPhone or navigation with your Apple Watch. Huge oversight.

 

[kingtj]

Technically, any item is worth exactly what you're able to sell one for. (Just last week, I had this discussion on a car enthusiast's forum. We were talking about the Chrysler Crossfire SRT-6, a fairly rare supercharged version of the Crossfire, made by Mercedes for Chrysler back in the 2004-2007 time-frame when the two auto-makers had a partnership. Despite how rare the cars are, especially in a convertible version, the Kelly Blue Book pricing listed for them is very low. Someone was trying to sell a like-new specimen with low mileage for upwards of $20,000, and people were indignantly stating how it was a total ripoff at that price, when KBB pricing says only $9,000 or so. But you know what? If it sells for $20,000, it's worth exactly $20,000! And more to the point? It will *easily* sell for far more than the $9,000 the price guide lists it for, because practically all of them I see for sale go for $14,000+.)

In Apple's case, the relevant point is finding a price they're satisfied with getting for an item that still sells the quantities they're happy selling. I'd say with the first-gen Apple Watch, it's selling so inexpensively because Apple needs to get rid of their inventory of those and they sold too slowly.

 

[Jim Lahey]

It sounds to me like Cybart is an idiot. Who CARES if the Airpod is "cheap" ? It's a POS (as in piece of crap) headphone PERIOD. It doesn't MATTER if they fracking GAVE THEM AWAY, I STILL wouldn't want a pair!!!!!!!! I can't emphasize that enough!!!! They're the same god damn AWFUL GARBAGE they shipped with iPods for free for ages, just without a flipping wire!!! They don't even fit well in the ear! GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!! I'm into high-end audio and I've had 3 iPod Touch units over the years and I threw them in the garbage WHERE THEY BELONG!

Cybart should be fired for knowing NOTHING about quality audio. Cheap? SO WHAT? Even Bose Blows is 10x better quality. The wireless nature is beside the point!

Airpods are "cheap" because they're $1.99 headphones with a $157 wireless interface!

Can we have a rating out of ten, please?

 

[Born Again]

Can we have a rating out of ten, please?

more like a Netflix thumbs up or down

 

[Mtmspa]

I was thinking of getting a pair as the EarPods fit me well. But, you cannot adjust the volume during a phone call. If there was any listening situation that require adjustments to the volume, a phone conversation would be it.

Wireless head phones for a fraction of the price of the AirPods can adjust the volume during a phone call.

Does the Apple Watch volume work for this?

 

[KdParker]

Underpriced? How does that make sense.

The Watch Series 1 argument could be made, but thats because it's last years tech.

But AirPods? They look decent and their functionality is awesome, but they have 0 isolation and sub-par sound quality - the exact same sound quality you'd get if you used the FREE wired headphones included with every iPhone.

Agreed. Not sure I would even call last years apple watch under priced even now.

 

[teknikal90]

it's because noone wants one.

 

[gorskiegangsta]

I think it's more about placating existing users, rather than bringing in new ones. Removal of headphone jack was one of the more contentious decisions they've made, and they needed to show users that the tech to replace it is already here and relatively accessible.

Underpricing for the sake of underpricing is NOT Apple's playbook, but they can do that in this case in part due to existence of a "premium" Beats line.

 

[NT1440]

I think it's more about placating existing users, rather than bringing in new ones. Removal of headphone jack was one of the more contentious decisions they've made, and they needed to show users that the tech to replace it is already here and relatively accessible.

Underpricing for the sake of underpricing is NOT Apple's playbook, but they can do that in this case in part due to existence of a "premium" Beats line.

They did not spend 3+ years, develop their own audio chip, and set up new manufacturing lines to "placate users". That's just entirely irrational to dump hundreds of millions throughout the product pipeline to smooth over a temporary anger from customers. Especially considering that they've been working on a health tracking version of these headphones for several years now too.

 

[Juicy Box]

Does the Apple Watch volume work for this?

Yes, but for some reason, the volume control on the watch is disabled during phone calls.

I am not sure if it is a glitch or working as intended.

 

[tongxinshe]

Wow, the comments in this thread, really goes to show how short sighted and out of touch MR commenters are.

Just the AirPods, when looking at true comparables - pure wireless, no wires. Not some junk Bluetooth headphones, but true wireless earbuds. The whole selection are more expensive than AirPods, and they all lack one of the best features - the W1 for automatic pairing, syncing and ease of switching between devices. Heck, the most common ones people spoke about were nearly double the price - $300 Bragi Dash.

Fine, you might not care about these features, or you are fine with your cheap $20 Bluetooth headphones, or your 'better quality' wired headphones. But that doesn't mean that AirPods are any less valuable or possibly underpriced for what you get.

Me myself, I was surprised from the day one announcement with the feature set that Apple wasn't pricing these at $199 or higher. If you really look long term, it wouldn't be surprising to see these growing into their own product line and working independently via wifi or even cellular data one day.

Simple economics comes into play as well. If these were priced appropriately, or even overpriced, there wouldn't be a 6 week ship time for online orders 3+ months into this product's launch.
[doublepost=1489714376][/doublepost]

Amazing eh. So simple, so logical, yet people seem to lose their minds over it.

If you have to cut every special segments of each product category into one separate product line, sure, go ahead, but that won't generate much value in comparing the products' prices.

Among the headphones, the sound quality and wireless connectivity are definitely the two most important features, beyond them, I would argue waterproof-ness being the next. So, if cutting the connection between the two earbuds forces you to octa-ple the product price or even more, it only proves that the path you are going is not worth chasing, yet.

In other words, these two so-called "markets" are both niche markets at present, thus there are no serious competitors in these fields. As a result, no matter how hard you try and how well you play in these markets, your achievement is ignorable comparing with the real markets like the smartphone or personal computer markets.

 

[gbc204]

Got the AirPods recently, and I have to say, given the money I've spent on the past on wireless headphones, none of which really every worked in a seamless, satisfying way, the Airpods are... Ok, maybe i not totally worth the money, but still by far the best wireless headphone experience I've ever had. Being able to easily connect and switch between devices is great, and being able to use one earpiece at times and leave the other in the case is super convenient. And they haven't fallen out of my ears, even when running.

 

[andreiru]

Apple have no reasonably priced products. Let alone underpriced.

 

[tongxinshe]

How do you fire someone who is self-employed? He makes a living writing analysis for Apple-related news for people who subscribe to his content.

The wireless nature of the AirPods is precisely the point. It is the people who keep arguing about how the sound quality of the airpods pale in comparison to the competition who don't get it.

It all boils down to this very simple, yet apparently elusive principle - sound quality isn't the be-all and end-all of what makes a pair of headphones great. There are many other factors which can influence a buyer's decision as well, such as convenience and ease of use. And for many people who favour AirPods (like myself), I have made my decision. The AirPods are portable, pair readily and work great in conjunction with my iPhone and apple watch.

Here's my current collection of headphones. Haven't touched them ever since I got my Airpods in December. That's how much I enjoy using them.

Too much disposable fund, obviously not a main stream consumer.

 

[LordVic]

I still don't really get it. I use the wired ones for the same purpose and more, the wire sits behind my neck and is never in the way nor tangles. Feels like the wire is not even there. But to each there own. I just feel like non-wired is being used as a marketing ploy vs having any true overall advantage besides preference.

I'm really not a fan of wireless myself. the trade-offs for most of the time really don't make sense.

But there are a couple times and places that wireless just is that much nicer. Mowing the lawn for example, No matter what I do, I inevitibly snage the wire. Either on the handles of the the mower, on some tool I'm putting in my pocket for later. Wireless is very helpful.

however, for all other listening purposes, the drawbacks of wired just aren't worth it.
[doublepost=1489770984][/doublepost]

8 Hours is not better battery life than Airpods...

the Airpods are rated at 5hours per charge. YES, you have the charging battery bank pill container it comes in. But the individual charge on each earpiece is still ~5 hours.

its a cute way of giving the appearance and some added convenience. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you're going to go in for a marathon listening session, you're going to be interrupted in 5 hours or less before you need to "plug in"
[doublepost=1489771084][/doublepost]

I felt like you until curiosity bit and I bought a pair of BT. I have an exceptionally great pair of wired buds (Shure 535s). I'll keep using them on planes but I'll never run wired again. It's not marketing.

See, I found the opposite for my experience. had to see what the big deal with Wireless are, bought some. I use them when I feel it's necessary, but after using 2 or 3 different kinds now (because I"m a geek and like playing with things), I will still stick to wired headsets for most of my usage. Wireless does make sense in a few places, but for my day to day listening, wired is still king. Wireless has not sold me

 

[love-apple]

Apple is underpricing AirPods and the Apple Watch in an effort to bring new users into its ecosystem, according to Neil Cybart of Above Avalon. The analyst said this pricing strategy was "unimaginable" ten years ago, when Apple was often accused of pricing products artificially high, aka "Apple Tax."

AirPods cost $159 in the United States, which Cybart said is "surprisingly low" compared to competing truly wireless headphones:Cybart believes a strong case could have been made for Apple to price its AirPods at $249, or even $299, but by selling them for $159, he thinks Apple has "removed all available oxygen from the wireless headphone space" and forced competitors to cut pricing in an attempt to better compete.

Earin's wireless headphones now start at $199, for example, while Motorola's VerveOnes+ are on sale for $189.99. Even at those discounted prices, however, AirPods are still cheaper at $159.

AirPods are estimated to ship in six weeks on Apple's online store, and it has been that way since the day after they launched in December.

Cybart said a similar pricing dynamic is found with the Apple Watch, which now starts at $269 for Series 1 models:Cybart believes the pricing of the Apple Watch demonstrates how Apple is looking to capture not only the premium segment of the wearables market, but rather the entire market. While an entry-level Apple Watch costs $269, for example, a ceramic Apple Watch Edition costs upwards of $1,249.

His research note theorizes that Apple could be more effective now at mass producing products at a lower cost, while offering price points that appeal to a wider variety of users. Higher-priced Apple Watch SKUs likely offset the lower margins of Apple Watch Series 1 models as well, he said.

He even thinks that an Apple Watch for $199 is "inevitable," although there might be less wiggle room for products such as iPads.

Overall, Cybart thinks Apple is in essence "redefining luxury" by offering lower prices while, at the same time, becoming more of a luxury brand. He expects it to be difficult for other consumer tech companies to compete with that strategy.

Of course, many Apple products are still unquestionably expensive. The latest 15-inch MacBook Pro with Touch Bar starts at $2,399, while an iPhone can cost upwards of $969. The 12.9-inch iPad Pro is priced from $799, and a handful of Apple Watch models run over $1,000. All prices are based on U.S. dollars.

Full Article: The Curious State of Apple Product Pricing on Above Avalon

Article Link: AirPods and Apple Watch Called 'Underpriced' to Bring New Users Into Apple Ecosystem

 

[TechGeek76]

Please link me bluetooth earphones that are feature for feature comparable to the AirPods and cost $20. No neckband, no cables, just two wireless earbuds in a charging case. For $20. I'll wait...

While they aren't 20, these are around 80. Mixed reviews though.

https://www.amazon.com/BÖHM-S10-Wireless-Earbuds-Earphones/dp/B01G4A30PG

 

[love-apple]

AirPods underpriced !

 

[Analog Kid]

So much money being spent on devices (wireless headphones) that most people use to listen to horribly compressed, terrible sounding 256/320 kbps music. Seems to me that money would be better spent buying great home systems and physical music which isn't compressed and void of all it's resolution.

You're being way too easy on these people, mate!

Music is best heard live and as the masters intended! Nobody should be exercising to music unless they install treadmills at the London Philharmonic. Personally, I've stopped listening to music entirely until a time machine lets me hear Mozart conduct his own performances again. I'd rather listen to nothing than have the experience degraded by time and technology.