Pet Peeve – No Headphones

[JG1212]

I love Apple, and own a Mac, iPhone, iPad and already have ordered the iPad Mini. The one thing I don’t get is, like the iPad, the iPad Mini does not come with headphones. This has never made sense to me, as you are paying almost twice the cost of an iPhone, and use it for essentially all the same functions as an iPhone absent the phone feature. The headphones cost Apple less that $7 to manufacture, they are already included in all their other portable devices like the iPod, and a ton of people will use the iPad Mini for travel. It seems a little cheap on Apple’s end to not included a set of headphones with their iPad lines. Anybody know Apple’s reasoning behind this?

 

[Che Castro]

It would of been nice

 

[Stetrain]

This has never made sense to me, as you are paying almost twice the cost of an iPhone...

You're thinking of subsidized iPhone prices. An off-contract iPhone 5 starts at $649. More expensive than even the 16GB Retina iPad with LTE.

 

[profets]

It's probably a cost saving opportunity. And since the iPad was a new product line entirely, it was easy for them to not include headphones from the start. They may also view the iPad as a computing device, like their Macs which also don't include headphones.

I know what you mean though, just like when the original iPhone included the dock. A couple dollars to Apple but does make a difference to the user/experience I'd think.

 

[rockyroad55]

Has an iPad ever come with headphones?

 

[Caliber26]

You're thinking of subsidized iPhone prices. An off-contract iPhone 5 starts at $649. More expensive than even the 16GB Retina iPad with LTE.

Yeah, but even so, the much cheaper Nano includes the new EarPods and the Shuffle includes the old earphones. There's no reason to exclude them from the iPads - especially since they're marketed as mobile devices. They're just looking for ways to cut costs, as the other poster just pointed out.

Has an iPad ever come with headphones?

No.

 

[reputationZed]

Never noticed before, but thats because I just tossed the stock earpads that came with my iPods and iPhones (I do like the new ear pods though).

I did a quick Google search but couldn't find a plausible explanation other than cost cutting.

 

[Phone Junky]

Just bought an iPod Nano. It comes with standard Earpods. Why no Earpods with remote so I can pause, switch songs and adjust volume without reaching in my pocket. They just want to sell you another $30 pair of Earpods.

 

[stuaz]

The standard headphones with the iPhone aren't great anyway. Be better off with using your own.

 

[lianlua]

Yeah, but even so, the much cheaper Nano includes the new EarPods and the Shuffle includes the old earphones. There's no reason to exclude them from the iPads - especially since they're marketed as mobile devices. They're just looking for ways to cut costs, as the other poster just pointed out.

Plenty of reasons to exclude them:

• Just about everyone in their target market has at least one set of earbuds from previous iPod/iPhone purchases.
• Even if they don't, they probably have better ones
• The original purpose of the earbuds was for Apple branding, since the small devices wouldn't be seen from in a pocket, but the earbuds would. Larger products like Macs and iPads are more visible
• The cost of including them isn't high, but it does free up a few dollars to be spent in other places that will improve the product
• The high number of people who don't want them means that it is a waste in not only cost, but packaging volume, manufacturing, etc.
• The small number of people who are disappointed in not getting them and want to pay for substandard earbuds are also likely not to mind paying $30 for them in a separate transaction.

Personally, I wish more products came with the bare minimum in the box. I'd rather pick out the extras I need and pay for them separately than pay more for items I don't need or want, especially when you can't trade an adapter you don't need for one that is useful but retails for the same price.

 

[Mrbobb]

Maybe they notice everybody buy a second pair of more expensive phones anyways so...

 

[jclardy]

You're thinking of subsidized iPhone prices. An off-contract iPhone 5 starts at $649. More expensive than even the 16GB Retina iPad with LTE.

But $199 iPod Touch comes with them. Yes it is an iPod, but the iPad has the same functionality.

 

[reputationZed]

The original purpose of the earbuds was for Apple branding, since the small devices wouldn't be seen from in a pocket, but the earbuds would. Larger products like Macs and iPads are more visible

Good point. The white ear pads played a significant role in marketing the iPod, and it wasn't long before the white wires came to signify iPod in the publics mind. While this may not be the most obvious answer for why the iPad doesn't come with ear pads it is the one that's most Apple like

 

[rockyroad55]

The iPad has never come with headphones. Stop complaining.

 

[d123]

But $199 iPod Touch comes with them. Yes it is an iPod, but the iPad has the same functionality.

The iPods primary purpose is music, always has been. The iPad has any a number of uses before music, so it's more logical for the iPod to get earphones and the iPad not.

 

[Scott2345]

I love Apple, and own a Mac, iPhone, iPad and already have ordered the iPad Mini. The one thing I don’t get is, like the iPad, the iPad Mini does not come with headphones. This has never made sense to me, as you are paying almost twice the cost of an iPhone, and use it for essentially all the same functions as an iPhone absent the phone feature. The headphones cost Apple less that $7 to manufacture, they are already included in all their other portable devices like the iPod, and a ton of people will use the iPad Mini for travel. It seems a little cheap on Apple’s end to not included a set of headphones with their iPad lines. Anybody know Apple’s reasoning behind this?

Agree. It should come with headphones. Considering how much you paying for the any iPad.

 

[nStyle]

Forget headphones, why doesn't the damn thing come with a cloth?

It is the most counterintuitive oxymoronic idea for Apple to include a $0.50 cloth with a MacBook (which is a product in which you do not normally touch the screen) and then completely leave it out with a product that is a finger print magnet. Please, someone, anyone, explain that logic to me.

 

[maclook]

Yeah, but even so, the much cheaper Nano includes the new EarPods and the Shuffle includes the old earphones. There's no reason to exclude them from the iPads - especially since they're marketed as mobile devices. They're just looking for ways to cut costs, as the other poster just pointed out.

There's just as much reason to not include earpods with iPads as there is to not include them with laptops. iPhones come with them so you can talk on the phone hands free. iPods come with them because they're music devices and can't even function without the earpods.

I think the Apple TV not coming with an HDMI cord is way more insulting than an iPad not coming with earpods. Also the iPods coming without headphone controls is a cheap move. As much as I'd like them to come packaged, it's not something that I need to come with my iPad.

(I said earpods way too many times in this comment....)

 

[urkel]

Personally, I wish more products came with the bare minimum in the box. I'd rather pick out the extras I need and pay for them separately than pay more for items I don't need or want, especially when you can't trade an adapter you don't need for one that is useful but retails for the same price.

I dont mean to sound rude but I call BS on this excuse and I highly doubt you really prefer "bare minimum" when you buy non-Apple products. You really would prefer Burger joints should charge separately for each condiment since you don't eat ketchup, or Cars shouldn't come with tire jacks since most people use AAA?

The idea of paying less by removing things you dont use (like it should be with Cable TV) is nice, but Nickel and Dime-ing for every additional feature rarely works out for the consumer. And in this case then they definitely aren't costing Apple $30 or affecting the product prices so, if they really do improve the user experience, including them free would probably sell more headphones since Apple headphones tend to break easily.

 

[Beeplance]

Forget headphones, why doesn't the damn thing come with a cloth?

It is the most counterintuitive oxymoronic idea for Apple to include a $0.50 cloth with a MacBook (which is a product in which you do not normally touch the screen) and then completely leave it out with a product that is a finger print magnet. Please, someone, anyone, explain that logic to me.

I have yet to be able to fathom Apple's decisions in most things, including this. They should really start doing so, someone should alert them.

 

[Yr Blues]

first thing i noticed, too

the new earpods are awesome for $29, no matter what the haters say (and they're comparing them to $59+ headphones)

should come with all apple products

 

[lianlua]

I dont mean to sound rude but I call BS on this excuse and I highly doubt you really prefer "bare minimum" when you buy non-Apple products. You really would prefer Burger joints should charge separately for each condiment since you don't eat ketchup, or Cars shouldn't come with tire jacks since most people use AAA?

Actually, I do. I hated when my old smartphones came with clips, headsets, cheap sleeves, and a thousand other worthless accessories. I don't want my TV to come loaded up with special "apps" that lose support as soon as new models come out. Hell, I'd rather they didn't even come with built-in tuners, especially since they're now just about worthless since the FCC decided to allow cable companies to encrypt everything.

Better to have those few dollars go into improving the product than toward "extras" that aren't as good as what's available elsewhere.

What you're talking about, though, is a straw man beyond the point of diminishing returns. It would cost more to account for condiments than would be saved by charging for them at a burger joint. What you do see is that burgers with more expensive toppings cost more, as it should be. A basic burger might be $8, with a bacon cheeseburger at $9.50 and a gorgonzola burger with avocado and mushrooms for $11 and so on. That's more efficient than charging everyone $10 for any burger. The people who want the more expensive add-ons are the ones directly paying for them.

The jacks in cars are another good example. More and more cars don't include them because they don't come with spare wheels, so there's no need. It saves weight and it saves money. As an optional extra, that choice can fall on the customer. I might decide that the extra $100 is worth it, but I also might just as well pass, depending on where I lived and what my individual skill and usage levels were.

The idea of paying less by removing things you dont use (like it should be with Cable TV) is nice, but Nickel and Dime-ing for every additional feature rarely works out for the consumer. And in this case then they definitely aren't costing Apple $30 or affecting the product prices so

No, they don't cost Apple $30, but yes, they do cost money to include. The extra 7 bucks they save by not including them goes instead to other components.

"Nickle and diming" is a different matter altogether.

 

[ultra//dave]

Gripe

I just purchased a 128GB iPad Air and I have to say that I'm pretty peeved that it excludes earpods. From reading these posts that are well over a year old, lol, Apple still has excluded them for the iPad line. Why?

Apple pushes the Digital hub and they want all their devices to work in sync w/their hardware and software - which is fine for me since I have been an Apple user since 94.

I for one want my iMac, MacBook Pro, iPods, iPads, iPhones, and AppleTV's to work in sync.

Music is a huge part of Apple - why do you think they keep trying to re-think iTunes! Music! iPads play music just as well as iPhones and iPod Touches... so it would only make sense to market the device aside from it's other amazing features to keep people going to iTunes to buy and listen to music.

Throw in a some earpods already, Apple!!

 

[Zcott]

Apple has decided that earphones are most used on the go, whether it's on a train or at the gym or walking with the device in your pocket. Tablets aren't as portable or pocketable as an iPhone so you're less likely to plug in headphones to an iPad.

 

[Night Spring]

I, for one, never use Apple's ear pods, because they never stay in my ear, and the sound quality isn't so good anyway. For a while, when I was still buying iPods, they kept piling up with each new iPod I bought. So I'm relieved that Apple doesn't include ear pods with iPads, because they just go to waste.