PLEASE explain why, I really don't understand why Apple HAD to announce any such thing. Immediately or even ever.
There are already many, many Bluetooth options available. I have 1 right here.
Genuinely asking for explanation.
I'm not talking about Tim, I'm talking about commentators HERE who say dropping the jack and promoting Bluetooth meant Apple HAD to announce Bluetooth headsets. Apple dropped the jack in favour of Bluetooth, an EXISTING standard with plenty of industry standard support. Why do people think Apple had to offer such a headset at all?
Ahah, that's what I thought. 🙄 Actually, that's not true, I really thought there might have been substance. Particularly, funnily enough, in YOUR post. My mistake.
You're not explaining, just restating. They pulled the jack, bundled headphones as always, and other options are available. All normal, nothing new here. No compulsion whatsoever. I'm asking for a logical or rational explanation as to why dropping the jack would require THEM to produce alternatives when they already exist. If they were bundling the AirPods with the phone, then yes. But they clearly do not feel a need to do that.
I usually make it a point not to respond to original posts like yours, with open ended general pleas for explanations, and I'm reposting the entire thread of responses from you as a reason why -- it escalated quickly to reveal you apparently were just looking for a reason to climb on your soapbox and make your point in a dismissive and demeaning way to others. And it's all here in black and white.
That said, let me point out why you're wrong -- BT is not popular with many people for several major reasons:
1) it's difficult to use, mostly revolving around pairing issues
2) it suffers from reliability issues like dropouts and lag
3) they tend to be bulky, with cables linking earbuds, etc.
4) battery life tends to be limited, and unpredictable, especially on more portable models
5) they tend to be expensive
6) there tends to be a lot of low quality offerings in the low-end of the price spectrum that have turned people off
7) they offer lower quality audio than wired alternatives
In removing the headphone jack, Apple needed to offer an alternative to ameliorate the removal of the headphone jack, about which Apple was on the defensive from the moment they took the stage, and offered little legitimate support for doing. Yes Apple offered an adapter to continue using the old 3.5mm headphones -- while that mitigates the decision somewhat, it was more akin to pouring salt into the wound. Then they bundle Lightning EarPods with it, which could have been a huge positive, but the fact they can't be used with anything else -- in particular a Mac -- makes them less than an optimal replacement for the headphone jack.
So Apple made their agenda clear -- wireless is the future. Not only that, but they tell us they understand that BT is a "bag of hurt" to use a phrase Steve Jobs once applied to another popular problematic technology for Apple. In response they give us AirPods which solves 6 out of the 7 issues most people have with BT:
1) Ridiculously simplified pairing between Apple devices
2) No more dropouts or lag
3) ultra slim and compact design
4) Apple offers the longest battery life available for such a tiny device, with quick charge boosts offering 3 hours for every 15 minutes, up to 24 more hours. It also offers single pod use thus extending mono listening up to 53 more hours, without interruption.
5) For the technology offered they are somewhat reasonably priced.
6) Apple is a trusted name in quality, and has produced a product specifically designed to work with the iPhone 7
So regardless of your obvious bias here, Apple had to release this product with the removal of the headphone jack to demonstrate that wireless was indeed the future, since the existing BT market is generally not good enough to satisfy the many potential customers who have tried BT and had a bad experience and rejected it, or are confused by the offerings and limitations, or frustrated by the limitations of power, reliability, and complications of pairing. Not to mention their paucity of support for Lightning options. The AirPods are a huge step forward. The Beats offerings are likewise important -- though the only two currently available come with the added inconvenience of using micro-USB connections rather than Lightning, not to mention added bulk and expense over standard earbuds. And since Apple couldn't really address the audio quality issues and cost at this juncture, they offered an alternative via the inexpensive adapter, or Lightning (albeit limited).
Since I completely disagree with your position and the manner in which you presented it, I won't respond further to you, as this is clear and definitive refutation of your simplistic viewpoint.
I was hoping it would make it so the battery would last more than 5 hrs! I actually like Earbuds, it's the only headphones that doesn't hurt my ears after an hr of use. So I was looking forward to getting this until they said the stupid things only get 5 hrs. Why even bother?
You realize that 15 min. of charging gets you an additional 3 hours of use? If you are listening to your EarPods for more than 5 hours straight without interruption, and can't even take a 15 min. break, then suffice it to say, Apple is not considering you a primary target for the AirPods. Even the most diehard music lover can take 15 min to go to the bathroom without listening to music every 3 hours. The Airpods also allow mono use, which means that you could charge one Airpod at a time for 15 min. each and keep listening to your audio program in mono. heck, Apple might even sell replacement buds individually, and a savvy AirPod user could have 3 buds they rotate every 3 hours so a pair is fully charged at all times.
First, for their size, no other earbuds I've seen introduced so far comes close to offering that kind of battery life. If the AirPod's really don't fit your lifestyle, there are several other options like the PowerBeats 3, and Beats Studio 3, the latter of which gives you 40 hours on one charge.
When everyone drops their headphone jack and most phones and devices on earth use USB-C, Apple will have to cave and support USB-C on iOS devices. Which seems like common sense.
Doubtful. All rumors point to Apple moving towards wireless charging, removing all ports from the iPhone. USB-C doesn't offer anything for the iPhone that Lightning can't already do better or as efficiently. Lightning will persist until Apple goes port-less, thus sparing their customers another massive transition form one technology to another, which based on rumor is likely only going to persist for another year or two. They also spare them the pain of trying to find a USB-C out in the wild. Maybe in two years USB-C will be a more widespread, but by that time Apple will likely have no need for it on a the iPhone.
