Apple's 'AirPods' to Use Custom Bluetooth Chip, Target Higher End Than Beats Brand

[Mac 128]

People are misunderstanding the custom bluetooth chip. It's not for phone-to-airpod. It's for airpod-to-airpod. I believe this is how other similar products work. They rely on bluetooth for the phone connection, but then another wireless technology to connect each earbud.

Good observation. But that doesn't preclude the same chip being updated overall to connect to the phone. Apple sits on the BT SIG, so they developed BT 5. I've been saying ever since that article came out that Apple is in a position to implement BT 5 products ahead of everyone else, since they know the specs, and that they would likely create their own chips rather than waiting for anyone else to implement the new specs that got released too late to make it into the iPhone. So what we'll see is a BT 5 chip with a custom "draft" protocol which Apple will likely try to steer into the BT 6 specs with their position on the board, just like Apple has been an instrumental partner in USB & USB-C. There's absolutely no need to go proprietary here if they want to push the wireless standard, just like they pushed USB originally.

 

[Keirasplace]

LOL...if you are planning to buy Apple Car then you are right ;-)

If Apple makes custom Bluetooth chips they should at least be compatible with existing Bluetooth devices. Otherwise it can't fly! No one changes Car for damn phone!!

BT is BT, custom chip doesn't mean it doesn't work with anything else. Its possible though that it has Apple specific functions though (like maybe talking your pulse from your ear,who knows).

BT 5.0 devices are usually downward compatible with other devices.

 

[Karma*Police]

Great, another splintering.. can't use the regular bluetooth chip that everyone else uses to make it universal.. No no.. we have to have our own nonsense again. This is getting old quickly.

Why so negative? It sounds like Apple's wireless tech will be superior to BT in every way. Apple will either make it backwards compatible with BT or supply both wireless options.

If Apple's wireless tech turns out to be as good as it sounds, it'll be a win win for end users cos frankly, the BT standard has been glitchy and unreliable for Far too long.
[doublepost=1473185348][/doublepost]

Great, another splintering.. can't use the regular bluetooth chip that everyone else uses to make it universal.. No no.. we have to have our own nonsense again. This is getting old quickly.

Why so negative? It sounds like Apple's wireless tech will be superior to BT in every way. Apple will either make it backwards compatible with BT or supply both wireless options.

If Apple's wireless tech turns out to be as good as it sounds, it'll be a win win for end users cos frankly, the BT standard has been glitchy and unreliable for Far too long.

 

[neuropsychguy]

"Higher end?" Um isn't Beats supposed to be "higher end?" Yes I know functionally it's not, but they sure sell and price them that way don't they?

Beats is mid-end (and priced that way - Solo 2 are MSRP $200 wired and $300 wireless). You can purchase high-end sounding headphones for the price of Beats (or less) but true high end (fidelity) headphones typically run upwards of $400 (and many are double that or more).

 

[jonnysods]

I actually want Bluetooth earphones so I'm holding out to see what Apple come up with...

 

[emm386]

Yes!! Head on! No company on earth can spell "vendor lock-in" better than Apple!

First step: Eliminate industrial standard peripheral interfaces

Second step: Replace it with new, proprietary technology

Third step: Profit... Lots and LOTS of profit...

 

[diddl14]

Great, another splintering.. can't use the regular bluetooth chip that everyone else uses to make it universal.. No no.. we have to have our own nonsense again. This is getting old quickly.

You do realise that with 'chip' they only mean optimised silicon and packaging? Clearly to be called 'bluetooth chip' it would still need to comply to the BT-standards including interoperability with other devices.

(Apple likely just designed a BT-chip completely tuned to only support hifi-quality audio streaming with lowest possible power consumption, removing any overhead included in 'generic' bluetooth chips used in wireless ear phones)

 

[cmichaelb]

Fair enough. I'm talking about the airports themselves and whether they are limited to use with newer devices. I'm leaning towards likely not but we won't know until tomorrow, perhaps slightly later.

Ahhh got ya. That's a good question if this rumor is true.

 

[MacFan1957]

Are you kidding me? So you want separate headphones for your laptop? Or when you're on an airplane? Or maybe you like carrying adapters around with you everywhere? It's funny how people make excuses to cover for Apple. There is absolutely nothing gained by removing the headphone jack.

I only use headphones with my Apple devices and never a laptop. Given that, why would I care about any new Apple headphones working with anything else?

BTW, I was talking about Apple creating a new, improved, Bluetooth connectivity, never mentioned removing the headphone jack. I don't have an opinion one way or the other but as its Apples product, they can add and remove as they wish. Amazes me how people like you can get so worked up about something you have ZERO control over! Just don't buy the damn phone and leave it at that.
[doublepost=1473185987][/doublepost]

...
Is about the only appropriate response to that comment.

I only use headphones with my Apple devices. Given that, why would I care about any new Apple headphones working with anything else? This is a special case where Apple creates a set of ear pods that have a Bluetooth LIKE connection but its better than Bluetooth. It might not work with other Bluetooth devices but I'm fine with that, side effect of progress and an improved Bluetooth connection.

 

[ike1707]

I thought the Beats headphones were pretty expensive - but I am not much of an audiophile. Can someone who knows please comment - what does a really nice pair of wired headphones cost - what is high end?

In my experience "really nice" starts at around 300 bucks for a decent set of cans, but it goes way, waaay higher if you're serious about your gear. Beats is a weird combination of so-so grade quality at luxury pricing, sold through clever, fashion marketing. I compare them to Crocs. 60 bucks doesn't seem like a lot for a pair of shoes, until you think about what you're actually paying for, which in that case is plastic pellets injected into a cast-iron mold.

look up Sennheiser 800S if you want to see high-end, and bare in mind that still not the most expensive set out there.

 

[unobtainium]

Nice in-ear buds cost $800 to $1000. More like $1500-2000 to dip your toes into the over / on ear pool.

Except you can get some in-ear bargains with excellent sound quality for around $100 - for example, the Sonys mentioned elsewhere in this thread, and even Apple's own in-ear headphones (NOT the ones included in the box). Afaik it will no longer be possible to get excellent sound quality at reasonable prices once the headphone jack is removed.

 

[BreadofWonder]

I thought the Beats headphones were pretty expensive - but I am not much of an audiophile. Can someone who knows please comment - what does a really nice pair of wired headphones cost - what is high end?

That's actually kind of a complicated question.

First, I want to point out that an audiophile would not be using their cell phone for the primary source of their music (for a whole host of reasons involving sound quality that I won't go into). Second, even if you wanted to use audiophile grade headphones, your phone probably wouldn't be powerful enough to drive them properly without a separate amplifier. Third, supposing you did get an amp, and the real answer to your question, the headphones could cost anywhere between $700 to $50,000+ (And an audiophile grade portable amp would cost between $300 to $1000+).

In other words, Beats are actually pretty cheap for an audiophile.

I'd also add that Bluetooth makes for terrible audio quality (definitely not audiophile). So this post about airpods being marketed as high end is kind of confusing unless the new chip inside doesn't compress the audio like normal Bluetooth does.

 

[marty1980]

Im not happy about removal of headphone jack. That said; if they remove it they need to:

1) include "AirPods" with every phone/tablet
Or
2) include standard headphones with adapter for charging and listening simultaneously

Failing to do either would be a huge failure on Apple's behalf. Lightning headphones will tick me off a bit because I use my headphones for other devices. A universal adapter is a workaround but an annoying one.

 

[smacrumon]

The best sound experience comes from sitting in a dark silent room with your back to a high quality stereo, eyes closed. With friends or by one's self, makes for a great listening party.

Good sound doesn't come from a pair off expensive pieces of plastic shoved in or covering the ear. This is just a fad, and expensive one that works well for Apple/Beats.

 

[MathersMahmood]

Never really used BT ear phones.

 

[Mac 128]

Im not happy about removal of headphone jack. That said; if they remove it they need to:

1) include "AirPods" with every phone/tablet
Or
2) include standard headphones with adapter for charging and listening simultaneously

Failing to do either would be a huge failure on Apple's behalf. Lightning headphones will tick me off a bit because I use my headphones for other devices. A universal adapter is a workaround but an annoying one.

Let me get this straight, you currently used wired headphones, but you want Apple to give you a state of the art, high quality wireless headphone that will probably sell for $150-300, if they remove the headphone jack?

Alternatively, you're willing to accept what Apple typically sells for $30, as long as they give you a $20 adapter, that's going to encourage you to continue to use 3.5mm technology rather than explore more compatible options?

Well, Apple will do neither. The best I expect them to do is include an adapter for the included Lightning headphones to plug into a 3.5mm jack in order to maintain compatibility with older Apple products. Such an adapter is likely to cost less than $5, because it won't have to convert the signal, just pass it along to the headphones bypassing the DAC; and it would be a good investment in encouraging Apple customers to move to Lightning, if not BT, rather than encouraging the opposite.

 

[Analog Kid]

FWIW, this seems to be where the custom Bluetooth rumors come from:
https://jessicalessin.com/2013/08/01/exclusive-apple-recently-acquired-low-energy-chipmaker-passif/

 

[marty1980]

Let me get this straight, you currently used wired headphones, but you want Apple to give you a state of the art, high quality wireless headphone that will probably sell for $150-300, if they remove the headphone jack?

Alternatively, you're willing to accept what Apple typically sells for $30, as long as they give you a $20 adapter, that's going to encourage you to continue to use 3.5mm technology rather than explore more compatible options?

Well, Apple will do neither. The best I expect them to do is include an adapter for the included Lightning headphones to plug into a 3.5mm jack in order to maintain compatibility with older Apple products. Such an adapter is likely to cost less than $5, because it won't have to convert the signal, just pass it along to the headphones bypassing the DAC; and it would be a good investment in encouraging Apple customers to move to Lightning, if not BT, rather than encouraging the opposite.

Ok. So when I say adapter, it's $20, but when you say adapter, it's $5!? Wtf man?

If the headphones are going for $150-300, then why the hell get rid of the 3.5mm jack!? Is everyone now able to spend 400% more on headphones!? Wow! The economy is doing much better than I thought.

 

[Analog Kid]

Afaik it will no longer be possible to get excellent sound quality at reasonable prices once the headphone jack is removed.

Why, will the adapter not work with good headphones?

 

[b.inazawa-fan]

Great, another splintering.. can't use the regular bluetooth chip that everyone else uses to make it universal.. No no.. we have to have our own nonsense again. This is getting old quickly.

Bluetooth sucks dude.

 

[Michael Goff]

Ok. So when I say adapter, it's $20, but when you say adapter, it's $5!? Wtf man?

If the headphones are going for $150-300, then why the hell get rid of the 3.5mm jack!? Is everyone now able to spend 400% more on headphones!? Wow! The economy is doing much better than I thought.

These are going to be high end headphones that most people won't buy.

 

[unobtainium]

Why, will the adapter not work with good headphones?

Adapters are a pain in the butt.

 

[shk718]

Great, another splintering.. can't use the regular bluetooth chip that everyone else uses to make it universal.. No no.. we have to have our own nonsense again. This is getting old quickly.

that's actually a good thing because bluetooth audio is bad - the compression is too much and the connectivity is horrible - if Apple can fix this (by implementing bluetooth 5 or whatever they have planned) then that's a really good thing!!!!!! No other company who ditched the headphone jack has been able to make bluetooth audio a standard. I hope Apple, like they've done in the past, will show the world how to do wireless audio correctly.

 

[stanman64]

Different argument all together, not even close to the same thing.

Content, yes, but concept and my point are exactly the same.

 

[tkukoc]

Content, yes, but concept and my point are exactly the same.

Only to you, but then again that's your opinion.