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

OldSchoolMacGuy said:
Both require an iPhone for use. If you get someone hooked on the Apple Watch or AirPods, you don't have to worry about them leaving for Android as it's simply not an option. Small price to pay to keep people using their phones where they make far more money.
Click to expand...
but air pods can be used on any android device.
 
The Apple watch is okay - just about, as it does function quite well. Tried cheaper options and they just aren't as nice to use.

As for the Airpods, I wouldn't call them cheap, I'd call them utter crap!!!
 
I don't really understand the 'Underpriced' to Bring New Users Into Apple Ecosystem angle of the article.

In the full article he says...
It may be difficult to believe, but AirPods likely represent the first Apple product for more than a few people.
Click to expand...

But Apple's system requirements mean that "first Apple product" doesn't make any sense.
System Requirements
iPhone, iPad and iPod touch models with iOS 10 or later

Apple Watch models with watchOS 3 or later

Mac models with macOS Sierra or later
Click to expand...

The Apple Watch also needs an iPhone to function so the basic theory is totally flawed.
 
V.K. said:
When has Apple ever underpriced any new hardware product? I don't recall that happening once. Pretty sure they are still making north of 30% profit on AirPods.
Click to expand...
The first iPod sold for $400. It contained a tiny Toshiba 5GB hard drive, which Toshiba sold to $400. Since you could put that hard drive into high end cameras, and the 5GB hard drives where hard to find, many professional photographers bought iPods just to rip out the hard drive and put it into their cameras.

The original Apple Laserwriter was bloody expensive (> $10,000) and undercut any equivalent product on the market.
 
I have been using GPS/HR watches for more than 10 years for sports. Go to a local Marathon, allmost everyone uses them.

I don't care for notifications etc. So a Garmin is the better choice for me (12 hours battery with GPS and hr, usually charge once a week, allways on display that is well readable in daylight, watch and app functions more focused to sports).


Gudi said:
Which means nothing, because all smartwatches suck and have zero utility. Like the calculator watches of the 80's, they're just a craze of our decade. It's all "look what my watch can do" and not "everybody should have one of these". The Apple Watch will never sell in numbers, because of the small screen and with current technology it is even seriously underpowered. One can easily wait for the seventh generation before it won't be slow anymore and then you'll still have to find a use case for it, not better be done with a smartphone.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, they might be underpriced.
Yet I still not afford to own one for that lack of impact to my daily life especially the watch.
 
profets said:
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.
Click to expand...

People don't read anymore. They saw the headline and decided to be "outraged", which is fashionable and quite the hobby for most of the Internet these days.
 
Last edited:
People, AirPods are tiny plastic wireless speakers with a chip and a whole load of bogus marketing. It's not groundbreaking technology.

They are all overpriced headphones irrespective what the fluff article tries to suggest. Their shelf price should reflect it, my suggestion in the range of $19.95-$29.95 tops.
 
No. They're just realistically priced. They cost what they should cost. Apple should apply this mentality across the board.
 
err Is this a joke? what about Jaybird x3 @ $129.99 ok they have a cable linking the buds but they also have way better battery 8hours... & sound.
 
Apple should just charge another $50 - $70 for the iPhone 8 and include the Airpods as the new standard headset. Better still include it for free, but we know neither option will happen.
 
blinker said:
"It is very difficult to find a pair of wireless headphones priced lower than AirPods. In the run-up to Apple unveiling AirPods this past September, the wireless headphone market consisted of the following players"

Completely ridiculous and untrue. My $99 JBL Reflect bluetooth headphones are fantastic quality and I bought them long before AirPods were introduced.
Click to expand...
I see a wire on those. They're not wireless.
 
The replies are really incredible. I picked just a few on this page and it shows people here are quick to respond without even understanding the article.

iVirusYx said:
Jaybird X3 - 130$

Don't they count as wireless earbuds?
Click to expand...

Nope. There's still a wire. I've been using jaybirds for 6 years.

smacrumon said:
People, AirPods are tiny plastic wireless speakers with a chip and a whole load of bogus marketing. It's not groundbreaking technology.

They are all overpriced headphones irrespective what the fluff article tries to suggest. Their shelf price should reflect it, my suggestion in the range of $19.95-$29.95 tops.
Click to expand...

$20-30? Another useless comment from someone who truly doesn't understand.

elvislives said:
err Is this a joke? what about Jaybird x3 @ $129.99 ok they have a cable linking the buds but they also have way better battery 8hours... & sound.
Click to expand...

Is your comment a joke? Jay birds use a wire. Way to miss the point entirely.
 
SSDGUY said:
Knock yourself out making all that extra money with a watch. Nothing Apple makes in the consumer electronics market stays current after a couple years. Yeah it may still work but the OS updates pretty much kill 'em off before long.
Click to expand...
Except the Apple Watch, and iPad, and macs, and iPhone. I've seen plenty of people with 3-5 year old Apple devices - but that doesn't fit your narrative
 
The logic is flawed since you need an iPhone to use an Apple Watch, but both products are well worth the price i didn't think twice about paying £159 for the AirPods and i'm really glad i brought them, they are easily the best earphones i have owned. The Apple Watch is also brilliant, at the time i paid £599 for my first gen stainless steel Apple Watch and i haven't regretted it, i wear mine everyday use it for fitness aspect along with receiving notifications, emails, txts and so on which is very helpful when my iPhone is in my pocket.
 
profets said:
The replies are really incredible. I picked just a few on this page and it shows people here are quick to respond without even understanding the article.



Nope. There's still a wire. I've been using jaybirds for 6 years.



$20-30? Another useless comment from someone who truly doesn't understand.



Is your comment a joke? Jay birds use a wire. Way to miss the point entirely.
Click to expand...

Jaybirds use a wire between each earpiece, but not to connect to the phone .... hence the term wireless.
Up until the AirPods, the term wireless headphones referred to there not being a wire connecting the headphones to the device playing the music. Don't see how that terminology should differ now.
 
profets said:
The replies are really incredible. I picked just a few on this page and it shows people here are quick to respond without even understanding the article.



Nope. There's still a wire. I've been using jaybirds for 6 years.



$20-30? Another useless comment from someone who truly doesn't understand.



Is your comment a joke? Jay birds use a wire. Way to miss the point entirely.
Click to expand...
The trouble is I understand very well. Yes $20-30.
 
This clown doesn't have a clue about the economy of scale that Apple brings to this market. They build products in million lots. All of the "competitors" he mentioned are building in thousand lots if they're lucky.

-jcr
 
dannys1 said:
Yeah and you can buy a car for £500, it's not going to be a Mercedes though is it...
Click to expand...

And in terms of watches and headphones, the Apple watch/airpods are no Mercedes......more like £500 cars actually......if Im being honest.

Love my airpods for gym, but geez they are such poor performers SQ wise for £160
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top