Apple Discounts Beats Pill+ Speaker and Beats EP Headphones

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,478
8,538



Amid a significant delay of its newest BeatsX headphones, Apple is offering a discount on two other Beats products, the Beats Pill+ Speaker and the Beats EP On-Ear Headphones.

The Beats Pill+ Portable Speaker, which comes in White, Red, and Black, is available for $199, a discount of $30 off the regular $230 price tag. Apple's Beats EP On-Ear Headphones are also discounted by $30, dropping the price from $130 to $100. The Beats EPs are available in Blue, White, Black, and Red.


Apple's discount is rather unimpressive, as several third-party retailers regularly offer the Beats Pill+ and the Beats EP at that price point or lower. Amazon, for example, has the Beats Pill+ for $200, and Walmart and Best Buy both sell the Beats EP for $100.

Rumors earlier this week suggested Apple's BeatsX wireless headphones, introduced in October, would not ship out for two to three months. Apple confirmed rumors this morning with a website update that lists a February release date for the new earphones.

Originally meant to ship in the fall of 2016, the $149 wireless BeatsX headphones feature the same Apple W1 chip used in the AirPods, which also saw delays. Apple planned to ship AirPods in October, but needed "a little more time" before releasing them.

AirPods finally became available for purchase this morning with delivery dates as soon as next week, but limited supplies caused them to quickly sell out. AirPods purchased now will not ship out to customers until mid-January.

Article Link: Apple Discounts Beats Pill+ Speaker and Beats EP Headphones
 

Zirel

Suspended
Jul 24, 2015
2,201
2,985
No blue pill?
Yes, because apparently some people are rejecting the red pill. Some say these people have been taking blue pills all their adulthood, hence the rejection.
[doublepost=1481667178][/doublepost]
or the price of a pill you could have the much better sonos. And now those are discounted to $149 - or they were a week ago when I ordered two more for the house.
Yep. Both are overpriced, but Apple should terminate these cash grabs and start making real speaker systems.
 

Derekuda

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2004
314
1,016
Please to explain why people still buy $150-$200 bluetooth portable speakers when you can buy great sounding bluetooth speakers for around $20 now at nearly any store.
Is it because of a stupid brand logo on it similar to a piece of fruit with a bite taken out of it plastered on a lot of white and aluminum overpriced products? LOL

ALSO, for the record, bluetooth sucks for music. The compression and small bandwidth is just not made for music. They need to start making more wifi devices similar to the chomecast audio but with peer to peer wifi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan110

Derekuda

macrumors 6502
Oct 2, 2004
314
1,016
Our definition of "great" is different then.
Lets not forget we are talking about Bluetooth here. Even the highest grade speakers are still going to sound like crap using bluetooth as a wireless protocol. You can fight it all you want but you can't deny the high compression/small bandwidth suck-stream that IS bluetooth.
 

StayPuft

Suspended
Mar 22, 2016
264
349
Lets not forget we are talking about Bluetooth here. Even the highest grade speakers are still going to sound like crap using bluetooth as a wireless protocol. You can fight it all you want but you can't deny the high compression/small bandwidth suck-stream that IS bluetooth.
Yes, Bluetooth is limited right now. Hopefully Bluetooth 5 will address many of these issues ... emphasis on hope.
 

Deep Dish

macrumors newbie
Sep 27, 2016
21
61
Please to explain why people still buy $150-$200 bluetooth portable speakers when you can buy great sounding bluetooth speakers for around $20 now at nearly any store.
Is it because of a stupid brand logo on it similar to a piece of fruit with a bite taken out of it plastered on a lot of white and aluminum overpriced products? LOL

ALSO, for the record, bluetooth sucks for music. The compression and small bandwidth is just not made for music. They need to start making more wifi devices similar to the chomecast audio but with peer to peer wifi.
I have both a $35 Anker speaker and a Bose Soundlink Mini II. The Bose is much better, but they both serve their purpose. I use the Bose at home, and I take the Anker when I'm camping, backpacking, or even just going to the park so I don't have to worry about messing up the good (and more fragile) one.

So to answer your question of why people still buy $150-200 bluetooth speakers: because they sound better than the cheap ones.
 

Daniel Reed

macrumors 6502
Sep 9, 2016
278
283
San Francisco
Our definition of "great" is different then.
JBL Charge 2+ in wacky colors can be had for half price just because it's not black:
http://a.co/i2KP7Qz



They're the size of a tall 16oz/500ml soda can; the volume/quality of output (especially bass) is dumbfounding.
I gladly picked up a "safety orange" model for $77 w/ S&H a week ago, brand new (not refurbished) instead of in "dull black" for $150.

If you get two of them, you can simultaneously us both, either as dedicated L + R speakers or both mirrored in "party mode"

FYI, the charge 3 model is significantly larger/heavier and no-where near as portable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: iDento and dan110