Anker One-Ups AirPods With Its Soundcore Liberty 4 Earbuds Featuring Heart Rate Tracking

[Arsenikdote]

Because Apple is pushing such tracking. When Apple speaketh, disciples heed the word. It doesn't matter if the word is right or wrong... or even good for the disciples... Apple sayeth the word... and the word is true and good. Let he who dareth challenge the word be stricken down by name calling, ranting, and sheer volume of loyal disciples defending the Apple.

If you are just poking fun at the die hard apple-ites, then apologize in getting in the way of the joke...

I do think that some people just follow along after Apple in that manor. I also believe that in terms of health and technology, that Apple was late to the party. Before Apple even entered the space, more and more people were focusing on their health and using technology to do so. Most simplistic example is that FitBit thrived before Apple entered the space. Nike made a pod to put in your shoe and would sync to your iPod WAY back in the day. So while there is going to for sure be a halo effect from Apple pushing it, the trend in the population was already well underway before Apple came along. Also, there are large amounts of people all over the world that don't use Apple and still are very into health and technology.

 

[SnappleRumors]

I dunno why people obsess over tracking all this stuff now.

For those interested in fitness heart rate is a key indicator in tracking a workout.

 

[eyeseeyou]

I love my AirPods pros but after getting the liberty 3 pros and now looking at the liberty 4’s, even the airpod pro 2’s are just not worth the retail IMO.

The airpod pros ANC/transparency mode is still top tier but not $100+ better.

I wonder how the spacial audio on the liberty 4’s compares to apples spacial audio.

 

[eyeseeyou]

I dunno why people obsess over tracking all this stuff now.

I’d argue that with all of the problems society is trying to “fix” these days that tracking your health isn’t tracked enough.

I wonder if this data could be fed into the health app on iOS.

 

[eyeseeyou]

The question is, how good do they sound?
When I think of manufacturers of great-sounding headphones and earphones I couldn't even tell you how far down Anker would be on my list of brands to try. In fact it's so far down I didn't even know they made headphones/earphones, though they make every other accessory, so it figures.

I have the airpod pros and honestly for the price they’re overpriced in terms of sound quality imo.

The default sound signature on the liberty 3 pros absolutely destroys my airpod pros hands down. The major bonus is that there is a highly customizable app that soundcore provides to make it sound exactly how you want.

One more thing to mention is one of the main reasons I stuck with apple AirPods is because it’s super easy to switch to another apple device. These soundcore earbuds have multipoint connection which switches to another device as fast if not faster than AirPods.

One last thing I know Anker owns soundcore but the Anker side makes more batteries and cables while soundcore is specifically their headphone side.

 

[eyeseeyou]

90% of the people posting here defend Apple products no matter what! Air Pod Pros are great for a lot of things, but when it comes music/sound quality there are much better earbuds out there. The Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pros for example are great and much better sounding than the orig. AirPods Pro. Don’t dismiss Anker. I’m not even talking about the Sennheiser Momentum 3 True Wireless. The best sounding EarPod atm

Agreed. I love my airpod pros but there are many better-sounding, longer battery life, feature-filled, Bluetooth earbuds at a much lower price, coming specifically from soundcore(Anker).

The last thing I can really see that apple still has(had) over other earbuds was special audio which it appears these have some form of so looking forward to that comparison.

 

[_Spinn_]

With heart rate on the Apple Watch I would rather see temperature monitoring in ear buds

 

[expectdelay]

I personally don't want this feature. It already exists in my AppleWatch. Why would I want something taking up more space and using battery life just to duplicate an existing feature. I'd rather they focus on sound quality (hi-res lossless please?) and battery life in the AirPods and leave the biometrics in the AppleWatch.

 

[happyslayer]

Is anyone surprised by this news? This is how Apple operates with Tim Cook, the CEO who thinks he's still COO. Slow drip features. Maximize margins. No risks. Nothing overly ambitious. And definitely nothing that would be too far of a step forward, i.e. why put something in this update when you can spread it out over the next two or three product releases. Wait for other companies to test out bigger enhancements in the market first. If they seem to be doing well, then Apple *might* release their own version. Rinse and repeat.

Honestly, this is how Apple has always done things. They let other companies be the sort of beta-tester for new big tech changes and then eventually release their version of it that is usually better constructed than those others with a more user-friendly interface and/or feature set. There were smart phones and PDA's before iPhones, MP3 players before iPods, tablet computers before the iPad, and Bluetooth headphones existed well before AirPods. Eventually, when they get the tech perfected and battery drain to a minimum they'll add the heartrate sensor. If they had released it now and the battery time was worse than the AirPods Pro 1's people would have lost their minds on the forums. As it is, we get some added features like better ANC and volume sliders but also a couple hours more battery time. For most users those are probably more important features than the heartrate sensor. (though I'm just guessing on that)

 

[svish]

Good to see it in both black and white. Would be nice if AirPods also came in multiple colours.

 

[rileyes]

There were smart phones and PDA's before iPhones

People love to use the ‘there were PDA’s before the iPhone’ argument to try to counter modern day criticism of Apple, but it’s a faulty argument.

PDA’s did not have mass consumer adoption prior to the iPhone. It was a huge risk for Apple to release the consumer-focused, not business-focused, iPhone. And this risk was greatly discussed and debated by the financial media at the time.

That’s a far cry from something like Apple releasing a smart watch 2+ years after major consumer brands like Samsung already had one on the market with literally millions of users already having adopted the product.

And that’s the key difference between the apple of before and the apple of today. It’s not a question of whether any of the technology already exists in various forms in the market, it’s a question of the scope and scale in which it already exists. Apple may have been a little late to the game in the past, but what they released was still always cutting edge and usually first to be truly mainstream adopted. Now, they are often years behind the curve, releasing products and features that already have mainstream adoption on other platforms in the millions, and in many cases not even close to cutting edge (example, brand new MacMini can’t even drive a single external monitor with 4k@120 because it uses old hdmi standard).

There’s definitely a grey area between an innovative company that can still follow market trends and advancements and take advantage, which is the pre-cook Apple, versus a company that mostly just copies the established market, which is the Cook era Apple. It doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t ever do anything innovative still, and it doesn’t mean the old Apple didn’t ever copy a competitor. It’s just a general scale or range of behaviors, and in my opinion Apple has slid much too far to the side of market follower instead of market leader.

 

[CapitalIdea]

See the reviews. A good site I've come across is https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews

The AirPods 3 and Pro aren't really that much better sound-wise than some of Soundcore's offerings. I got the Soundcore Life P2 as a gift last Christmas. I was hesitant and doubtful about their quality, but I decided to give them a try and was surprised by how they sounded (thought they'd be worse). I'd say the reviews for them (Life P2) are spot on.

AirPods 3 : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/apple/airpods-3rd-generation-truly-wireless
AirPods Pro : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/apple/airpods-pro-truly-wireless

Soundcore Life P3 : https://www.rtings.com/headphones/reviews/anker/soundcore-life-p3-truly-wireless

Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro :

Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro Truly Wireless Review

The Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro Truly Wireless are the next generation of the Anker Soundcore Liberty 2 Pro Truly Wireless. They're more comfortable than their...

www.rtings.com

Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro Review

The Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro earphones deliver powerful audio and quality noise cancellation for their sub-$200 price, but the company's more affordable models might fit your needs just as well.

www.pcmag.com

Anker Soundcore Liberty 3 Pro review: feature-packed buds

LDAC and multipoint for under $170? Not bad.

www.theverge.com

Curious choice to use the old AirPods Pro model in your post when the new generation is out. Why not just use a review of the original AirPods too then?

 

[lazyrighteye]

Obviously you’re not interested anymore then the people you complain about

Again, you are correct: I have absolutely zero interest in Anker's earbud offering. I'm willing to bet I have even less interest than those that commented about an Anker earbud feature.

You are incorrect when you try and spin my comments as a complaint. As I opened with, "I love this community." I even added myself to the mix by stating "we amaze me." I've been contributing to it (Apple community) for over three decades and here with MR for two decades. What I do find interesting, and why I posted, is how our community can dump on a competitor's feature and then praise that same feature when it makes its way to an Apple product. That, to me, is pretty entertaining and part of what makes this community so special.

The only thing here I find obvious, is that some are much more tightly would than others. If our passionate inconsistencies can't garner a grin, then we're in more trouble than we know.

 

[Arsenikdote]

People love to use the ‘there were PDA’s before the iPhone’ argument to try to counter modern day criticism of Apple, but it’s a faulty argument.

PDA’s did not have mass consumer adoption prior to the iPhone. It was a huge risk for Apple to release the consumer-focused, not business-focused, iPhone. And this risk was greatly discussed and debated by the financial media at the time.

That’s a far cry from something like Apple releasing a smart watch 2+ years after major consumer brands like Samsung already had one on the market with literally millions of users already having adopted the product.

And that’s the key difference between the apple of before and the apple of today. It’s not a question of whether any of the technology already exists in various forms in the market, it’s a question of the scope and scale in which it already exists. Apple may have been a little late to the game in the past, but what they released was still always cutting edge and usually first to be truly mainstream adopted. Now, they are often years behind the curve, releasing products and features that already have mainstream adoption on other platforms in the millions, and in many cases not even close to cutting edge (example, brand new MacMini can’t even drive a single external monitor with 4k@120 because it uses old hdmi standard).

There’s definitely a grey area between an innovative company that can still follow market trends and advancements and take advantage, which is the pre-cook Apple, versus a company that mostly just copies the established market, which is the Cook era Apple. It doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t ever do anything innovative still, and it doesn’t mean the old Apple didn’t ever copy a competitor. It’s just a general scale or range of behaviors, and in my opinion Apple has slid much too far to the side of market follower instead of market leader.

I think you are conflating revolutionizing existing market segments with enhancing existing market segment. Apple has had a history of doing both. The former doesn't happen very often while the latter is really what they produce more of. The former is flashy and gets a lot of attention, but the latter is what is the bread and butter of the company. This hasn't changed since the Apple II really. Every decade or so, they tend to completely surprise us and then the intervening years they make existing products work better than their average counterparts by doing "Apple" to them. AirPods are a great example of a enhancement while the A series and M series chips are a great revolutionizing example.

Also, while I don't want to pin you down on how Apple is behind the curve instead of ahead of it with your example, a computer not being able to output 120hz has a near zero impact to anyone who doesn't do 120hz gaming. Gaming is not really a Mac thing. However, everything else about the Mac Mini going to the new M platform is quite a bit ahead of the curve. When Apple was pushing "ahead" it was typically because they were seeing how mass adoption of a technology could further other business efforts. A good example of this would be FireWire. Apple pushed this because they wanted to get rid of bandwidth issues so users could have a better experience. Unfortunately, they couldn't get out of their own way and the standard never took off. But pushing or removing (goodbye DVD drives) technology has always been about the masses and never about a small few. Not saying they are right or wrong about when they choose to add or omit tech, but 120hz is just not something that really fits the Apple profile.

 

[Guitarpik]

Which is it, is the white version available starting today (Sep. 30) on Soundcore's website or are they going on sale on Oct. 7 on Soundcore's website?

I’m guessing they meant to say former, not latter.

 

[rileyes]

...A series and M series chips are a great revolutionizing example...

...but 120hz is just not something that really fits the Apple profile...

The chips are not revolutionary, sorry. I would say their decision to bring chips back in house is a classic COO Tim Cook move. It was about supply chain, licensing costs, etc. More so those things by far than any intangibly defined ability of apple to better optimize their software if they are using their own chips. I would argue they never would have pursued bringing their chips back in house if Intel had been more friendly with their pricing.

And 120hz is not just for gaming. But I do agree with you that it doesn't fit the Apple profile, i.e. being cutting edge, which Apple is not. Being cutting edge is indeed no in their profile, so you're right there. As far as 120hz though, it makes a pretty noticeable difference in the overall smoothness of the UI. And it's just a good example of how apple cuts corners because so many monitors support 120hz+ now, and ironically 4k @ 120 is not even cutting edge at this point unless you live solely in the apple world. I got a Windows generic brand $200 micro pc puk on amazon about 2 years ago that drives 4k @ 120 on one of our conference room TVs at my office.

And in any case, that was just an example that came top of mind at the time. Another example of cutting corners for the sake of margins is how the low end m2 macbook performs worse than the equivalent m1 macbook, because they cut costs by using a single ram chip instead of dual channel. Only Tim Cook's apple would release a new version of their entry level laptop and have it perform worse than the previous version of their entry level laptop.

 

[Arsenikdote]

The chips are not revolutionary, sorry. I would say their decision to bring chips back in house is a classic COO Tim Cook move. It was about supply chain, licensing costs, etc. More so those things by far than any intangibly defined ability of apple to better optimize their software if they are using their own chips. I would argue they never would have pursued bringing their chips back in house if Intel had been more friendly with their pricing.

And 120hz is not just for gaming. But I do agree with you that it doesn't fit the Apple profile, i.e. being cutting edge, which Apple is not. Being cutting edge is indeed no in their profile, so you're right there. As far as 120hz though, it makes a pretty noticeable difference in the overall smoothness of the UI. And it's just a good example of how apple cuts corners because so many monitors support 120hz+ now, and ironically 4k @ 120 is not even cutting edge at this point unless you live solely in the apple world. I got a Windows generic brand $200 micro pc puk on amazon about 2 years ago that drives 4k @ 120 on one of our conference room TVs at my office.

And in any case, that was just an example that came top of mind at the time. Another example of cutting corners for the sake of margins is how the low end m2 macbook performs worse than the equivalent m1 macbook, because they cut costs by using a single ram chip instead of dual channel. Only Tim Cook's apple would release a new version of their entry level laptop and have it perform worse than the previous version of their entry level laptop.

If you discount the advancements they have made by designed and producing their own SoC, then I think we will always fundamentally disagree. Having worked with companies who have to do SoC design, I likely have a much higher than average appreciation for the work and ingenuity that goes into producing what Apple has produced. The Snapdragon architecture is barely keeping within 25% of Apple and at almost 30% more power to do it. Those are not small engineering feats. And when you consider what Apple's architecture will allow for as electronics get smaller and smaller.... As many physicists have pointed out, unless we get some major (as of yet completely unknown) science breakthrough, we are going to be stuck in our energy density model for some time to come. So that means things have to get more efficient because we aren't getting more energy storage in a smaller space anytime soon. But again, if we disagree about the achievement then I don't think there is much common ground.

Also, while I agree there was VERY likely a financial decision that went into picking the single NAND SSD for the MB Air M2, from all of the reviews I have read, it doesn't PRACTICALLY matter. When people did real world tests for the average person, the laptop performed without any hiccups. You can watch 4K videos with no issue. You can have 50 browser tabs open while doing 20 other tasks. The only time it mattered was when you started pushing pro apps at it. I would argue that running pro apps on an entry level MB Air is not the Air's fault, nor Apple's for picking a cheaper NAND SSD, but the person choosing to run pro apps on the cheapest laptop Apple makes. So while there is a technical truth that Apple put in a slower drive, for the mom's and dad's and students out there using the entry level system.....they just don't care because it doesn't matter and Apple knows it. But choosing a cheaper drive in the most entry level laptop is still not stating that the M2 MacBook Air is still not a category leading product. It typically tops the best laptops to buy list over and over again. But again I am going to slide into talking about how the M series chips have made Apple even more category leading than that used to be and we fundamentally disagree, so I might as well stop here