I doubt it. That name is the name in mass market consumer headphones. The negatives to dropping the name would far outweigh the positives imo. In fact, I can't think of a single positive to dropping the name.I wonder if Apple will eventually drop the beats name. They did to the app when they renamed it Apple Music. and given the earpods and airpods, there is a bit of overlap. I would hope they rename all to Apple.
Honestly, I would buy the current set. I did a review earlier. They are like $120 off at Best Buy.Guess I'll have to wait till the studio wireless comes out with W1 Chip, don't like in/on ear headsets/headphones!
They absolutely would not do this. Apple does not have any name recognition when it comes to premium audio.I wonder if Apple will eventually drop the beats name. They did to the app when they renamed it Apple Music. and given the earpods and airpods, there is a bit of overlap. I would hope they rename all to Apple.
Are the powerbeats "on-ear" or "in-ear"?
Powerbeats are looking to big to be in-ears.
Well, they have less wire.they should call them bluetooth headphones, not wireless, as i see a wire in the picture connecting them![]()
Have the powerbeats 2.. satisfied customer
I would upgrade if this has a significant battery improvement. Not that I have a problem with 4-6 hours of use, I just don't want to charge as much haha. 10ish hours would be nice
thats what I'm waiting forBut what about the BeatsX?!
Give me my BeatsX! Now!![]()
There's an ad on Facebook that shows the other colorsStill holding out for the BeatsX myself. I'm also curious to see what "additional colors" other than black and white they'll be offering on those.
I'm really looking forward to start wearing Airpods.
They absolutely would not do this. Apple does not have any name recognition when it comes to premium audio.
$260.00 ???? Are you kidding? I'll stick with my Motorola S10's for running @ $25.
Now I just need Best Buy to show availability so I can use my gift cards!
[doublepost=1477407603][/doublepost]
Where are you seeing $260? They are $199 in the US from the Apple Store.
You want to be seen with them in public? Amazing.
[doublepost=1477406853][/doublepost]
Neither does Beats.
Murica is not the only country in the world ya know...
I expect that Apple will continue to encroach however. Now with the AirPods and then through the chips they are placing in the beats headphones to work with Apple products. Maybe they move to naming the in the ear to Apple pods and the on/over the ear as beats. But somehow the word beats does not seem to fit so comfortably in the Apple vernacular. What I mean is that they tend to be litteralist -- i.e. iPhone, iPad, macBook, Apple Watch, Apple TV, EarPods, iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, Apple Music, iBooks. Even when it's not so literal, the have something tangible - i.e. Apple, Macintosh, iTunes, Pages, Numbers. Beats is neither literal nor tangible.I doubt it. That name is the name in mass market consumer headphones. The negatives to dropping the name would far outweigh the positives imo. In fact, I can't think of a single positive to dropping the name.