Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Working on Wireless In-Ear 'Surface Buds' to Rival AirPods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Microsoft's branding is odd. They'll come up with a name and stick it to products where it just doesn't fit. Several years ago, it was "Live". Now it's "Surface".
From the 2008 Surface, which was a big screen in a coffee table, to the Surface tablets, to the Surface laptops, to the Surface Studio desktop…the brand name was not particularly imaginative, but you could argue—especially for the table and tablets—that they were, after all, a flat surface. The name was a bit of a stretch for the laptops, but they still had a flat surface as a screen (yes, like every other laptop ever), so I'll cut them some slack.
But then the brand just gets non-sensical: Surface keyboards, mice, and headphones. It seems, if it's hardware, and it's Microsoft, it's Surface. Just like if it's a service, and it's Microsoft, it's Live.
Who were the marketing geniuses who came up with this?
From the 2008 Surface, which was a big screen in a coffee table, to the Surface tablets, to the Surface laptops, to the Surface Studio desktop…the brand name was not particularly imaginative, but you could argue—especially for the table and tablets—that they were, after all, a flat surface. The name was a bit of a stretch for the laptops, but they still had a flat surface as a screen (yes, like every other laptop ever), so I'll cut them some slack.
But then the brand just gets non-sensical: Surface keyboards, mice, and headphones. It seems, if it's hardware, and it's Microsoft, it's Surface. Just like if it's a service, and it's Microsoft, it's Live.
Who were the marketing geniuses who came up with this?
So I lost mine in the case and all. I searched everywhere to no avail (all I had was the grayed out last known location on 'Find My iPhone' and it showed them in my house). I gave up.
A month later I found them at the end of a customer's driveway with 100% case charge and 98% bud charge, which was bizarre to me. They worked instantly. They had been through the end of February and most of March in New England and were STILL WORKING PERFECTLY FINE! I couldn't believe it. I had already ordered a pair of gen 2's that arrived that same day.
I wouldn't ever experiment with them when it comes to water damage, but my mind was blown. Maybe because they were in the case? I had one bud get wet (fell out under a running spigot) some time ago and had to replace it. It made me happy since since I've become frustrated regarding some of their other products (MBP!).
If this is their intent, then I can see why this would make sense.
I can understand Microsoft's desire to have better control over their AI interface.
Under Satya Nadella leadership, Microsoft has moved from trying to compete in the hardware market to creating hardward that showcases the vision they have for their software.
It's funny, you go to a different thread on this site and people are saying that Apple is the one that's behind and copying others nowadays. I guess it's just a loyalty thing. There's no doubt that Apple was first to the game with AirPods, among the major players.
Where has Apple ever affirmatively said they weren't sweat or water resistant? People have assumed that, based on the absence of comment from Apple, but that may be similar to the iPhone 6 /6s where they were in effect water resistant, but Apple did not make the claim (see below article). Water resistance is a tricky thing to claim as once a manufacturer claims to meet a standard such as IP67 (the first number, the 6, refers to dust resistance), it creates the impression that they are "warranted" against water damage.
Even where Apple states a certain standard is met, it specifically EXCLUDES water damage from coverage. The reason is that Apple has no way of knowing if you damaged your watch, phone, etc., by going beyond the certification level. For example, a phone rated at IP67 means it meets the standard of being submerged up to 1 meter for up to 30 minutes, but Apple has no way of knowing if you went swimming, diving, etc., below that depth or for longer than 30 minutes, or that you didn't wear it doing an extreme sport, or accidentally put it in the washer.
From personal knowledge, and from the many anecdotal videos, reports, etc., on the web, I believe the AirPods already meet the IP67 or IP68 standard. If Apple follows the path of the iPhone, now that Amazon and MSFT are going to be pushing out competitors to the AirPods, that will undoubtedly claim to meet the IP 68 standard, that Apple will announce when it releases the next version of AirPods that they meet IP68 standard.
https://www.engadget.com/2015/10/02/iphone-6s-waterproof/
Definitely, and AirPods are a great example of the Apple ecosystem that the Apple-hate crowd tries to downplay. They easily connect to your iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV.
Samsung, Microsoft, Amazon, and everyone else can’t (or at least don’t) yet compete with that. iPhone, iPad, Watch and AirPod absolutely own the smartphone, tablet, smart watch and wireless earphone categories, and that success drives the haters mad. Drives some nice ad revenue here at MR forums too so that’s a win/win/win.
Last edited:
I dropped one of my first gen AirPods into a puddle shortly after I got them and it still works 2 years on.
Don't hold your breath. No company is ever going to claim that their electronic tech product is "waterproof." The certification standards don't even offer such a standard. The highest is IP8, which means they resist water intrusion at some depth beyond 1 meter. The depth claimed is up to the manufacturer, so when you read the fine print, some manufacturers claim IP8 because they've tested it at 1.5 meters instead of the 1meter standard of IP7
Samsung released their first generation Gear IconX buds on July 15, 2016.
Apple announced the AirPods on September 7, 2016.
Might want to lay off the Kool-Aid.
AirPods do not carry an ip certification. That means that officially, AirPods are not water resistant. Now it may be one can use them in the gym and sweat profusely or drop them in water and they will survive just fine.
But even then, Apple doesn’t warrant water damage even on products rated ip68.
You're repeating what I wrote, and that's fine I guess, but you could read it next time if you are in a hurry and just want to like it.
No, I’m restating it for the record that there is no ip certification and its use at your own risk around sweat and water. They are probably built very well...
Because there were no wireless bluetooth ear bugs before Apple made them?
A lot is heaped upon the $160 price point - whether it’s Apple Tax, overpriced, under delivers, “For $160 - it should do this and that etc”. So, ok. I went ahead and I bought an $80 pair of truly wireless Anker Soundcore sealed in-ear earphones.
Long story short they’re terrible unless you really truly and only care about sealed in-ear audio. You *can* spend more like $130 to fix a number of the problems (but not all) except then you’ve severely cut into the “Yea, but at $160 AirPods should do X, Y, Z” criticisms.
Are there better $80 totally truly wireless earphones?
Last edited:
Apple and other companies routinely underestimate the specs on things like water resistance. If Apple spec'd the AirPods as waterproof people would were them swimming. But a splash or quick immersion should be OK. Like you said, my biggest worry is losing one.
Recent Microsoft hardware has been high quality. Innovative form factors like the Surface Studio and their laptops have keyboards that work. I hope Apple is feeling pushed... I would love to have the option of an updated MacBook Pro with a reliable keyboard again.