AirPods Tidbits: Hidden Apple Watch Features, Durability Test, and High Resale Prices

[HobeSoundDarryl]

No it's nothing like that. Don't make mountains out of molehills. I didn't post a little counterpoint warning to try to save you from a class action lawsuit. It will be far less expensive for some fool to go buy another set if they bathe with these and then they fail than to hire an attorney for even 1 hour.

My counterpoint was simply tempering your implication (of water proof or water resistant). Too often, a good number of "us" seem to be working really hard- apparently for free- to help Apple sell their products... even by spinning benefits that Apple themselves don't hype. We're not really helping our fellow consumers when we do that- just misleading them. For what exactly? Because we think Apple needs our help to push a few more units on people?

Bottom line: this product is NOT water resistant or water proof per Apple themselves not promoting that. If you want to bathe with them and not worry about that, that's your business. But hopefully others that see "no big deal" posts like that won't assume that they can send them through the washer or bathe with them and have no problems. Odds are high that water damage will show... for you after a "no big deal" dip or two and for the video reviewer. Maybe not immediately (which is impressive) but a while later... as is pretty typical of non-waterproof electronics that interact with water.

 

[Bacillus]

I am so glad they are here now...

 

[Kameha]

So the sperms survive in the water lol

 

[Mac 128]

Actually it is true. The stem is a brilliant design that serves multiple requirements and was absolutely designed for that purpose, satisfying RF requirements, outstanding communications range, sufficient battery capacity, two-way communications requirements, charging, and mechanical support.

If the goal is to eliminate wires, that's pretty much what it needs to be, and it is pretty obvious (the antenna is a dead giveaway).

Apple engineering at its finest.

Oh, well then please do provide the verifiable links to the critical data analysis proving that. Thanks.

 

[citysnaps]

Oh, well then please do provide the verifiable links to the critical data analysis proving that. Thanks.

I can give you my analysis as an EE with quite a few years of RF, analog, antenna, beamforming, receiver, transmitter, signal processing (analog and digital), analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion (and sampled data systems in general), etc experience and detailed design relating to the development of communication systems.

But first, tell me about your background so I can tailor my analysis accordingly so we can have an intelligent and fruitful discussion.

 

[rockyromero]

Bottom line: this product is NOT water resistant or water proof per Apple themselves not promoting that. If you want to bathe with them and not worry about that, that's your business. But hopefully others that see "no big deal" posts like that won't assume that they can send them through the washer or bathe with them and have no problems. Odds are high that water damage will show... for you after a "no big deal" dip or two and for the video reviewer. Maybe not immediately (which is impressive) but a while later... as is pretty typical of non-waterproof electronics that interact with water.

I'm not testing the Airpods deliberately with water. I want them to function.

After seeing a video on Airpods with water submersion and recovery, I'm not as hesitant in using them when skiing or in the jacuzzi.

Good sense is the operative phrase.

➰

 

[slwiser]

How about in a steam shower? At 115F.

 

[Diane B]

volume buttons and play/pause would be more welcome

In settings you can choose the double tap for play/pause OR Siri. Its Siri by default. Volume gesture would be nice though I find I use my Watch.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

No it's nothing like that. Don't make mountains out of molehills. I didn't post a little counterpoint warning to try to save you from a class action lawsuit. It will be far less expensive for some fool to go buy another set if they bathe with these and then they fail than to hire an attorney for even 1 hour.

My counterpoint was simply tempering your implication (of water proof or water resistant). Too often, a good number of "us" seem to be working really hard- apparently for free- to help Apple sell their products... even by spinning benefits that Apple themselves don't hype. We're not really helping our fellow consumers when we do that- just misleading them. For what exactly? Because we think Apple needs our help to push a few more units on people?

Bottom line: this product is NOT water resistant or water proof per Apple themselves not promoting that. If you want to bathe with them and not worry about that, that's your business. But hopefully others that see "no big deal" posts like that won't assume that they can send them through the washer or bathe with them and have no problems. Odds are high that water damage will show... for you after a "no big deal" dip or two and for the video reviewer. Maybe not immediately (which is impressive) but a while later... as is pretty typical of non-waterproof electronics that interact with water.

Look, I feel okay about using them in the bath. that is me personally, I don't speak for Apple or anybody else. If one drops, it will most likely work. If it fails later I buy one new pod.

It is obvious Apple won't cover it under warranty. Maybe you should tell this stuff to Apple as they officially advertise the iPhone being water resistant but don't cover water damage under warranty.

I am just one guy saying I will use mine in the bath tub and if it drops so what? I am not telling anybody else what to do. So yes, I am happy that the likelihood of these surviving a small plunge seems pretty high.

Could they stop working later, of course. Call me a gambling man but if I am listening to music in the bath I won't be all that worried. For anybody that can not afford $69 to replace a pod if it does fail please do not be as reckless as me. This is absolutely wildly irresponsible behavior and you may lose an Airpod. Living on the edge is not for everybody.

As I said accidental drops are going to happen. I am not going to submerge my pods intentionally. I am saying that the worst case scenario doesn't seem all that bad.

Other people will just have to take personal responsibility for what they do with their property.

 

[Diane B]

"Again, Apple doesn't want stems sticking out of their AirPods, but they converted the previous form for a new function to take advantage of the space to place their batteries, which is why they can outperform other wireless buds."

The stem also contains the antenna element, which is crucial to get the excellent range they have. If a smaller antenna were housed inside the bud the operating range would be significantly less and with annoying cutouts.

Also I think they would be more difficult to remove--which I often do to stop playing to hear someone speaking. I tend to grab the stem and remove and also place in my ear. Hard to hold onto just the bud to remove.
[doublepost=1482590233][/doublepost]

no sure if its been answered, but, can you adjust the volume of something being played back from the phone, using the apple watch?

Yes, there is a 'now playing' native app. I often use Tune In app and 'now playing' controls it the same as Music app. On/off, volume, etc.
[doublepost=1482590334][/doublepost]

Yes I did it with music using the crown but had to go to the music playing app in the bottom menu first. I think apple will update at some point and just let you choose what taps are for hopefully

Use the Now Playing app in dock to control anything non Music--I use for TuneIn app for instance
[doublepost=1482590597][/doublepost]

How do EarPods with a long cord from each ear going into your pocket not look any sillier?

LOL and if you feel a need for a cord from ear to ear use the Spigen connector cable. I bought it to use when I am working outside and worry about losing--altho' I have found these fit my ears much better than the ear pods--didn't expect that. So far they haven't come out under any circumstances

 

[Mac 128]

I can give you my analysis as an EE with quite a few years of RF, analog, antenna, beamforming, receiver, transmitter, signal processing (analog and digital), analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion (and sampled data systems in general), etc experience and detailed design relating to the development of communication systems.

But first, tell me about your background so I can tailor my analysis accordingly so we can have an intelligent and fruitful discussion.

No need. What you're telling me is that you have no critical third party analysis of the actual device or its design process and development, but rather your opinion based on your own specific experience, based on unverifiable credentials posted on an anonymous Internet forum. And from that you have concluded that there's no possible way to design these differently and have them function as well. Why would want I debate that? There's a difference between appreciating what Apple's engineers did with the prexisting form, and accepting that form as the only way to design such a product to perform just as effectively.

Also I think they would be more difficult to remove--which I often do to stop playing to hear someone speaking. I tend to grab the stem and remove and also place in my ear. Hard to hold onto just the bud to remove.

Yes the stem makes a handy handle. But that doesn't mean it's the only solution to the problem. As a swimmer I have for years pulled ear plugs out of my ears to have a conversation and never had any problems with it. Your experience is just that, and actually seems based on assumption rather than having actual hands-on with another wireless, but stemless earbud. There are other solutions, which Apple didn't consider because they appropriated an existing design and adapted to their needs -- it happened to work just fine, but the mistake which I'm pointing out being made, is that form does not follow function in this case, as the form was prexisting serving a completely different function. It's great for Apple that they had to put so little effort into the design of these buds, which just so happen to suit the needs of their engineers, but in the absence of any information about the development process, particularly whether they attempted to build these buds from scratch in any other prototypes. It's sort of like the iPhone 7, based on Apple's remarks, they didn't even try to develop a more waterproof iPhone with a 3.5mm jack, instead choosing to remove it entirely rather than deal with it, unlike Samsung and others.

The AirPods may be a well designed engineering marvel, but make no mistake, form does not follow function here, however well it's suitable to the new function crammed into it.

 

[Abazigal]

The AirPods may be a well designed engineering marvel, but make no mistake, form does not follow function here, however well it's suitable to the new function crammed into it.

I have always viewed it as the form enabling the function.

Simply put, it's easy to do something differently, but way harder to come up with something that is both different and better. And there's no point in doing something differently just for the sake of change.

Take the example of the iPhone 7 instance. For all intents and purposes, the design of the iPhone 7 is perfect for that screen size and form factor (to Apple at least). That's why they released it in the first place. That they are using what is essentially the same design for the third year in a row doesn't imply that they are being lazy or complacent. It simply means they don't see the need to update the design, because to them, it's already perfect (or at least, they have not found anything better).

Likewise, if Apple didn't think there was anything wrong with the current design of the Airpods / EarPods, they wouldn't have a reason to change it. The form of the Airpods allows for all the benefits stated previously, from extended microphone to larger battery to doubling as a handhold for better grip. There aren't any real noticeable flaws to the design beyond some people calling it lazy and "weird".

 

[Rob_2811]

I have always viewed it as the form enabling the function.

Simply put, it's easy to do something differently, but way harder to come up with something that is both different and better. And there's no point in doing something differently just for the sake of change.

Take the example of the iPhone 7 instance. For all intents and purposes, the design of the iPhone 7 is perfect for that screen size and form factor (to Apple at least). That's why they released it in the first place. That they are using what is essentially the same design for the third year in a row doesn't imply that they are being lazy or complacent. It simply means they don't see the need to update the design, because to them, it's already perfect (or at least, they have not found anything better).

Likewise, if Apple didn't think there was anything wrong with the current design of the Airpods / EarPods, they wouldn't have a reason to change it. The form of the Airpods allows for all the benefits stated previously, from extended microphone to larger battery to doubling as a handhold for better grip. There aren't any real noticeable flaws to the design beyond some people calling it lazy and "weird".

Really?? You think the reason they have used that design for third year is because they think its perfect? Its more to do with them not being able to get the yield on parts for a redesign. It has been well documented.

The iPhone are good phones, no question but you would have too worry if they think the design of the iPhone is perfect given that they have some of the smallest screen to body ratio of any flagship phone.

 

[Mac 128]

I have always viewed it as the form enabling the function.

Simply put, it's easy to do something differently, but way harder to come up with something that is both different and better. And there's no point in doing something differently just for the sake of change.

Take the example of the iPhone 7 instance. For all intents and purposes, the design of the iPhone 7 is perfect for that screen size and form factor (to Apple at least). That's why they released it in the first place. That they are using what is essentially the same design for the third year in a row doesn't imply that they are being lazy or complacent. It simply means they don't see the need to update the design, because to them, it's already perfect (or at least, they have not found anything better).

Likewise, if Apple didn't think there was anything wrong with the current design of the Airpods / EarPods, they wouldn't have a reason to change it. The form of the Airpods allows for all the benefits stated previously, from extended microphone to larger battery to doubling as a handhold for better grip. There aren't any real noticeable flaws to the design beyond some people calling it lazy and "weird".

False equivelency. Disappointing from a teacher. Further, you're presenting a straw man argument -- where did I state Apple was being lazy, or suggest change for change sake?

The iPhone does not need a change necessarily because it essentially performs the same function as it always has and the form follows suit. The AirPods however are performing an entirely different function than the previous EarPods, the transducer functions notwithstanding. Therefore had they been designed in a vacuum, they might look wildly different. They might even look more appropriate to some. That's not to say Apple didn't develop a different solution that performed just as well, but fell back on the iconic design for marketing reasons. All valid on some level. However, there is no disputing that form does not follow function in this case, despite your considerable efforts to redefine it, and those of others to suggest there was no better solution than what Apple arrived upon.

Finally, you are offering your opinion as to whether there are no noticeable flaws to the design. Again, another straw man. If someone doesn't appreciate the design of something, that is a noticeable flaw to them, even if it is not to you, whether a technical flaw or not. The very nature of design is subjective, and Apple made a choice for better or worse, which was not necessarily informed by function, whether or not the result measures up technically. There's really no other way to present this.

 

[Abazigal]

False equivelency. Disappointing from a teacher. Further, you're presenting a straw man argument -- where did I state Apple was being lazy, or suggest change for change sake?

You implied as such when you criticised the Airpods for looking just like the EarPods.

The iPhone does not need a change necessarily because it essentially performs the same function as it always has and the form follows suit. The AirPods however are performing an entirely different function than the previous EarPods, the transducer functions notwithstanding. Therefore had they been designed in a vacuum, they might look wildly different. They might even look more appropriate to some. That's not to say Apple didn't develop a different solution that performed just as well, but fell back on the iconic design for marketing reasons. All valid on some level. However, there is no disputing that form does not follow function in this case, despite your considerable efforts to redefine it, and those of others to suggest there was no better solution than what Apple arrived upon.

I have never understood this whole "form follows function" diatribe, not least because Apple has never really subscribed to it. My belief is that with Apple at least, "form enables function".

So yeah, say I agree that function doesn't follow form here. What's the big deal? It doesn't change the fact that the Airpods work well for me, or that I don't find anything wrong with its design.

For all we know, Apple might have experimented with a whole bunch of form factors, but ultimately came back to the EarPods design because that's what works. This ties back my earlier statement about not changing something for the sake of change, but only when there is a legitimate benefit to doing so. And seeing how other wireless earbuds are being plagued with Bluetooth connectivity issues, maybe blindly aping their design isn't the wisest thing to do.

Finally, you are offering your opinion as to whether there are no noticeable flaws to the design. Again, another straw man. If someone doesn't appreciate the design of something, that is a noticeable flaw to them, even if it is not to you, whether a technical flaw or not. The very nature of design is subjective, and Apple made a choice for better or worse, which was not necessarily informed by function, whether or not the result measures up technically. There's really no other way to present this.

What else am I supposed to offer? I can only speak for myself based on my current experiences with my Airpods, just like you can only speak for yourself when it comes to criticising what you perceive to be flaws in the design of the Airpods.

To me, the answer is simple and obvious. The current EarPods design represented a solution which was both functional and looked good and iconic and so Apple went with that. Maybe Apple considered other alternative designs and maybe Apple didn't. It doesn't change the fact that the Airpods are working great do me.

Given Apple's penchant for wanting to stick with the same form factor for years on end, you really think they won't go all out to get the form factor right the first time round?

 

[Mac 128]

You implied as such when you criticised the Airpods for looking just like the EarPods.

No you inferred it. Cheers!

 

[Abazigal]

No you inferred it. Cheers!

You didn't exactly use the word "lazy", but enlighten me - what other way is there to interpret the phrase "they had to put so little effort into the design of these buds" and the insinuation that they didn't bother experimenting with other designs?

It's great for Apple that they had to put so little effort into the design of these buds, which just so happen to suit the needs of their engineers, but in the absence of any information about the development process, particularly whether they attempted to build these buds from scratch in any other prototypes.

 

[Mac 128]

You didn't exactly use the word "lazy", but enlighten me - what other way is there to interpret the phrase "they had to put so little effort into the design of these buds" and the insinuation that they didn't bother experimenting with other designs?

That's all on you mate, including taking my quite out of context. You're a "teacher". I'm sure you can figure it out. Cheers!

 

[Abazigal]

That's all on you mate. You're a "teacher" I'm sure you can figure it out. Cheers!

I already did. And I am sticking with my original assertion unless you care to clarify things here.

 

[Mac 128]

I already did. And I am sticking with my original assertion unless you care to clarify things here.

And this is where we part ways. Terrifying if you actually teach children for a living. Cheers!

 

[Abazigal]

And this is where we part ways. Terrifying that you teach children for a living. Cheers!

Funny that you would spend more effort evading a direct question than answer it and clarify matters once and for all.

To each their own, I suppose.

 

[The Game 161]

one of my favourites things with air pods last night fell asleep listening to my music and they stayed in my ears even though i toss and turn alot.

 

[mudflap]

Earpods don't stay in even a little bit. These look exactly the same so I can infer that it's probably not going to be better.

Ah, they "look" the same. Doesn't mean they are the same. I've read at least a dozen reviews that inferred the same thing but they literally all concluded that no matter how high they jumped or how hard they worked out while wearing AirPods, they stayed put.

I'm just saying, if we removed all the negative comments in this thread from folks who never laid hands on the product, there would be few left.