Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AirPods and Apple Watch Called 'Underpriced' to Bring New Users Into Apple Ecosystem
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Bingo!
The iPad, with its alleged desktop computing potential, is handicapped by iOS's limitations. MacOS could potentially run on the iPad—which would be a game changer—but, without touch capabilities in MacOS, it would be an illogical alternative to a laptop.
Cook says Apple won't marry the advantages of both operating systems. Either 1) he's bluffing to avoid competitor interest; 2) trying to avoid cannabilism and preserve the individual product revenues; or 3) Apple doesn't have the talent to solve the challenge.
I don't see any benefit in adding touch abilities to an iMac. But there is obvious benefits in making the iPad as capable as an iMac. Perhaps, the iPad deserves its own OS, a hybrid of the two.
So many Apple troll and haters in this thread.
I have an iPhone 7Plus, iPad Pro, Apple Watch, and Airpods. They all work seamlessly. I don't regret any of the purchases. Not to mention the multiple Macs and Apple TV's in my home.
There are forums for Windows, Android, and Google products. Maybe some should check them out.
I have an iPhone 7Plus, iPad Pro, Apple Watch, and Airpods. They all work seamlessly. I don't regret any of the purchases. Not to mention the multiple Macs and Apple TV's in my home.
There are forums for Windows, Android, and Google products. Maybe some should check them out.
Wow. They definitely know how to pitch headlines to get the most heated discussion going! Apple and underpriced should never appear in the same sentence for an audience like this. In general it just makes that an insane sentence. Here it makes it incendiary.
I got Beats Solo² Wireless headphones 18 months ago. The cushions started coming loose within 6 months, and now the right speaker doesn't pick up sound anymore. The reseller I went to, no actual Apple in NZ, is confident of a replacement, especially with our Consumer Guarantees Act provisions, but I was most surprised that the Bluetooth was not received by each ear separately but still uses the wire.
This would seem to me a worthy up in the Airpods, along with the plastic casing meaning no cushions to come loose in the first place. They are also $NZ60 cheaper than the Solo²s are even now that they are relegated. If it wasn't for the fact that they would never stay in my ears for even a second, the Airpods actually do seem like a reasonable deal. Plus unlike most tech, they're not going to be obsoleted quickly.
18 months was a rubbish lifespan for $NZ500 headphones, would expect more from a $2 pair, but that's fault rather than obsolescence, and for once it seems like Apple is going a good way here, except of course that you can't plug in the Airpods for wired listening, and you can't listen and charge, so they are utterly beholden to the battery staying in shape, and aren't much use on a plane. The form factor is appealing, but they seem ridiculously easy to lose. In a way I hope they -are- obsoleted with fixes to those issues I see with them. For now I don't think they are underpriced in the market.
The watch being underpriced is surely a joke, as it requires the only phone less overpriced than the Google Pixel, which hits $NZ1,600. Having said that, I expect the iPhone 8 to go well over $NZ2,000 with OLED, wireless charging, etc. But either way, a locked in companion device being described as underpriced just makes no sense. Would anyone ever say that of the Apple Pencil? Its prerequisite hardware is even cheaper! No, the watch is still very much a gimmick and options extra. Pricing isn't really even a discussion, and certainly not in comparison to a standalone audio solution. Obsolescence is also guaranteed with the watch.
I got Beats Solo² Wireless headphones 18 months ago. The cushions started coming loose within 6 months, and now the right speaker doesn't pick up sound anymore. The reseller I went to, no actual Apple in NZ, is confident of a replacement, especially with our Consumer Guarantees Act provisions, but I was most surprised that the Bluetooth was not received by each ear separately but still uses the wire.
This would seem to me a worthy up in the Airpods, along with the plastic casing meaning no cushions to come loose in the first place. They are also $NZ60 cheaper than the Solo²s are even now that they are relegated. If it wasn't for the fact that they would never stay in my ears for even a second, the Airpods actually do seem like a reasonable deal. Plus unlike most tech, they're not going to be obsoleted quickly.
18 months was a rubbish lifespan for $NZ500 headphones, would expect more from a $2 pair, but that's fault rather than obsolescence, and for once it seems like Apple is going a good way here, except of course that you can't plug in the Airpods for wired listening, and you can't listen and charge, so they are utterly beholden to the battery staying in shape, and aren't much use on a plane. The form factor is appealing, but they seem ridiculously easy to lose. In a way I hope they -are- obsoleted with fixes to those issues I see with them. For now I don't think they are underpriced in the market.
The watch being underpriced is surely a joke, as it requires the only phone less overpriced than the Google Pixel, which hits $NZ1,600. Having said that, I expect the iPhone 8 to go well over $NZ2,000 with OLED, wireless charging, etc. But either way, a locked in companion device being described as underpriced just makes no sense. Would anyone ever say that of the Apple Pencil? Its prerequisite hardware is even cheaper! No, the watch is still very much a gimmick and options extra. Pricing isn't really even a discussion, and certainly not in comparison to a standalone audio solution. Obsolescence is also guaranteed with the watch.
Why can't you use the iPhone to adjust the volume of AirPods? That's what most people choose to do.
[doublepost=1489774277][/doublepost]
AirPods work with any phone using bluetooth.
I am not saying you can't use the volume buttons, but there are many cases where it may not be convenient to do so...
I will just quote a post I made a couple of hours ago in response to someone's experience that had the same exact concerns that I do about the AirPods:
Five years ago, I would have disagreed with the statement: “the expensive and less capable Apple eco-system”. Until Tim Cook took the reins, Macs were pretty good, even having Nvidia GPUs, upgradable parts and adequate I/O.
[doublepost=1489778600][/doublepost]
Five years ago, I would have disagreed with the statement: “the expensive and less capable Apple eco-system”. Until Tim Cook took the reins, Macs were pretty good, even having Nvidia GPUs, upgradable parts and adequate I/O.
Don’t be discouraged. Most of the “troll” comments are actually from long-time Apple fanboys like myself. Some of us have been using Apple products and preaching their gospel longer than some customers have been out of diapers. If anything, we’ve demonstrated our loyalty unquestionably. When someone embraces an institution’s mantra, they are justified in criticizing it when it strays from its core values. Unfortunately, that has been the case since Cook took the helm. Jobs wanted to succeed by leading the market in innovation and sophistication. Cook, the VP’s, and Apple’s shareholders are content to pander to the lowest consumer expectations and novelties if it will make them richer—and it has.
it was reported that Jobs, as he was dying, gave Cook his blessing to “run the company as Cook saw fit, and not as they imagine Jobs would.” I’m skeptical that Jobs uttered those words.
This trend of fanboys bashing the products and decisions of the company they loved, is not unique to this forum. Most of the other fanboy sites are experiencing similar discourse. We’re too invested in Apple’s ecosystem and history to abandon it. You’ll have to wait for us to die. If it’s puppies and roses that you want to hear, perhaps you should switch to a competing brand.
not accurate comparison - Airpods are completely wireless - the JBL is similar to the beats with the cord around your neck. Having said that, at $159 to me it is still too expensive - I will bite at 89-99 when they go to the refurb store.
you could read the article. airpods are one of the lowest priced in their category. Same with the apple watch.
Especially since, in my experience, $160 AirPods don’t sound much better than $30 EarPods.
You're right, How Speciesist of me, I apologize.
I had the same problem with a Millipede and some Nikes.
I don't think we disagree really. Noted above that each has their own strengths and uses. For casual listening wired is clearly the better choice. My observation above was with running. It's great not to have to manage the cable on runs or get your arms caught up in it. Of course the downside is batteries. And I saw where some BT headphones with Li-ion batteries exploded while in use on a plane and burned the user, so def. will not be using them on planes, but didn't anyway.
Underpriced? Yeah right. I own an Apple Watch and it's just as overpriced as everything else Apple produces. I like it and will buy another one at some point in the future and will probably buy AirPods at some point in the future as well but they are both overpriced. I stick with Apple products because products from the same vendor in the same echo system tend to integrate better with one another. I don't buy Apple products because they are some sweet underpriced deal.
Yes, I'm one of them. My iPhone 5S doesn't run anywhere near as well when it was new. iOS upgrades are built for newer devices. Building in the need to upgrade is tech marketing 101. It's more than just "my narrative."
Unlike Apple earbuds. LOL.
I already used the lack of logic argument. Copying shows desperation.
I get what you're saying, though. You want UTILITY. That's OK if that's what you're looking for, but I just don't think utility should cost over $200, especially when the base model ear pod was something Apple gave away for free with iPods. If these were say $50, they'd make sense since you're basically just paying for the wireless utility. I don't think apple is anywhere NEAR taking a loss on these things at that price.
The problem is the Forbes guy is saying they're under-priced and at that sound quality level, that's simply a joke to me. Earphones are priced higher traditionally by quality, not utility. I've got a $15 pair of in-the-ear canal headphones I picked up at Heathrow airport awhile back because I forgot and packed my noise-canceling JVC headphones in my suitcase. They had more or less the same utility (although voices get blocked out more by in-the-ear, which isn't a bad thing on an airplane flight), but cost a LOT less and the JVCs cost a lot less than the Bose equivalent but sound just as good. Now those cheap ear-canal phones were great for utility. It costs less; it does the same without the fancy tech and I wasn't worried about sound quality (I figured anything would be better than those crappy ones they give out in economy plus), but I was pleasantly surprised. It turns out it doesn't take much of a driver to make good sound in the ear canal.
I don't blame Apple for charging that much. I blame people for being willing to pay it. These would cost $50 at most if people weren't jumping all over themselves to get a pair (thanks in part to Apple dumping the headphone jack making wired an extra pain in the butt). Just look at those custom paint versions a reseller is offering. They're insanely expensive to put a paint job on something that is mostly invisible in your ear. But I bet they get a lot of takers none-the-less.
Most people seem to me to have more cash than they have brains and that's really saying something given how poor most people are. I know people where I work making 1/3 of what I make and they have top of the line iPhones and eat out all the time. They're crazy. They live paycheck to paycheck for the most part. I have zero debt except my mortgage and I can pay that off at any time. But why would I want to when I get most of my interest back in tax deductions each year? I'm better off investing somewhere else. The point is you don't just throw your money away because you have it or you'll find even the richest people can go bankrupt in short order once something happens (e.g. look at MC Hammer's story and a quick way to blow $6-7 million irresponsibly). You should still expect value for your money and this isn't it. I had good reasons for buying my last two Macs (finding less to buy another one every day, sadly), but even if I needed wireless headphones, I'd look elsewhere.
Sadly, there are social circles where names like "Apple" mean something and I find it sad that it does. It's just tech. But then I never did understand how a pair of women's shoes can cost $3000. They're fracking shoes for god's sake. I'm afraid Apple is ever more fashion than function and I blame Tim Cook. But I can see why the shareholders don't care if the tech means jack these days. As long as you have people willing to buy it anyway, WTF do they care?
Sure.
Sound Quality: 2
Wireless Capability: 8
Chance of losing them: 8
Value Including Price: 4
Looking cool around Apple Fanatics: PRICELESS
Unlike Apple earbuds. LOL.
I already used the lack of logic argument. Copying shows desperation.
I get what you're saying, though. You want UTILITY. That's OK if that's what you're looking for, but I just don't think utility should cost over $200, especially when the base model ear pod was something Apple gave away for free with iPods. If these were say $50, they'd make sense since you're basically just paying for the wireless utility. I don't think apple is anywhere NEAR taking a loss on these things at that price.
The problem is the Forbes guy is saying they're under-priced and at that sound quality level, that's simply a joke to me. Earphones are priced higher traditionally by quality, not utility. I've got a $15 pair of in-the-ear canal headphones I picked up at Heathrow airport awhile back because I forgot and packed my noise-canceling JVC headphones in my suitcase. They had more or less the same utility (although voices get blocked out more by in-the-ear, which isn't a bad thing on an airplane flight), but cost a LOT less and the JVCs cost a lot less than the Bose equivalent but sound just as good. Now those cheap ear-canal phones were great for utility. It costs less; it does the same without the fancy tech and I wasn't worried about sound quality (I figured anything would be better than those crappy ones they give out in economy plus), but I was pleasantly surprised. It turns out it doesn't take much of a driver to make good sound in the ear canal.
I don't blame Apple for charging that much. I blame people for being willing to pay it. These would cost $50 at most if people weren't jumping all over themselves to get a pair (thanks in part to Apple dumping the headphone jack making wired an extra pain in the butt). Just look at those custom paint versions a reseller is offering. They're insanely expensive to put a paint job on something that is mostly invisible in your ear. But I bet they get a lot of takers none-the-less.
Most people seem to me to have more cash than they have brains and that's really saying something given how poor most people are. I know people where I work making 1/3 of what I make and they have top of the line iPhones and eat out all the time. They're crazy. They live paycheck to paycheck for the most part. I have zero debt except my mortgage and I can pay that off at any time. But why would I want to when I get most of my interest back in tax deductions each year? I'm better off investing somewhere else. The point is you don't just throw your money away because you have it or you'll find even the richest people can go bankrupt in short order once something happens (e.g. look at MC Hammer's story and a quick way to blow $6-7 million irresponsibly). You should still expect value for your money and this isn't it. I had good reasons for buying my last two Macs (finding less to buy another one every day, sadly), but even if I needed wireless headphones, I'd look elsewhere.
Sadly, there are social circles where names like "Apple" mean something and I find it sad that it does. It's just tech. But then I never did understand how a pair of women's shoes can cost $3000. They're fracking shoes for god's sake. I'm afraid Apple is ever more fashion than function and I blame Tim Cook. But I can see why the shareholders don't care if the tech means jack these days. As long as you have people willing to buy it anyway, WTF do they care?
These would cost $50, really? Like most of the commenters here on MR, you don't understand simple economics or feature sets.
[doublepost=1489792831][/doublepost]
Wow. It must really hurt you not being able to afford AirPods to end up in this kind of rant.