Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I would just lose something like that anyway.

Sticking with my Bose QC35's (not the II's, I got the old model after the new ones came out to save some bones).

I use these mostly when riding the lawn tractor or on flights. I can SO see one of these ear buds going into the mower deck and coming out the most expensive mulch by volume I ever purchased.

On top of it, my ears are full of waxy nastiness....
I'm not telling you how to live your life, but you do know ears can be cleaned, right?
 
Sometimes they work great. It's not a seamless experience like I thought it would be. If I pause an audio book on my phone while music is playing from my laptop over bluetooth speakers, it switches to my headphones. Super annoying.
You can disable that behaviour so that devices don't auto-connect to airpods. I keep that setting off on some of my devices specifically because of this behaviour.
 
  • Like
Reactions: One2Grift
How is fixing the distribution channel that counterfeit product sellers aren't using going to solve the counterfeit problem? :confused:
I answered that question. Example buy AirPods from Apple or just recently Costco using their Distribution Channels. The odds of getting a counterfeit from either, zero. If zero happens, they will fix it. Randomly picking a webpage for the above based on price, well good luck with that. The most important thing to not get a counterfeit, how did the product get to you. We the consumers need to fix it.
 
Last edited:
Sum up the fix in two words, Distribution Channel. If a product does not pass through a certified Distribution Channel, it is fake. The businesses know they are purchasing fake products. They are buying from and selling outside of the approved channels. We the consumers need to be aware of to good a price and how did it get here for every product.
The right-to-repair people would NOT like this one bit!
 
How is fixing the distribution channel that counterfeit product sellers aren't using going to solve the counterfeit problem? :confused:

I think the inference is that a “black market” channel exists, it is profitable to participants, and the threat of prosecution isn’t high enough to discourage participation (buyers AND sellers). It’s been a global problem for decades - China has cheap labor, manufacturing prowess, and flexible morals when it comes to copying & counterfeiting.

Customs may intercept one package, but 20 more slip by undetected. Where do you focus your efforts? Create social awareness to try to get labor rates increased in China? Put tariffs on Chinese imports? Prosecute the recipients and broadcast to the country that you will be put in jail for breaking the law? Educate consumers on the source of their products and make them feel morally responsible for buying genuine goods?

The risk is not to consumers who knowingly buy knock-offs (and get favorable pricing), but rather to consumers who believe they are buying a genuine article. Now you have a moral/legal issue where buyers are knowingly deceived and genuine manufacturers are deprived of economic profit.

The amount of criminal activity in the world can make your head spin (even more so when countries and people disagree on what is considered “criminal”). At least in the US, we generally follow the pattern: establish right/wrong, codify as a law, enforce law, punish behavior. It’s not always that simple, but strife happens because there is a failure at one of those points: disagreement on right/wrong, laws are non-existent or written poorly, failure to enforce law, punishment is insufficient or excessive. In the case of counterfeit goods, I think the U.S. doesn’t have enough resources to cover the problem. End-users are not punished for purchasing counterfeit goods so there is an endless demand for these products (contrast that with purchasing stolen goods, where the end-user will forfeit the goods with possible prosecution).

The battle will never end, but it is no doubt a battle that must be fought. Trade, patent and copyright law is not perfect, but it has enabled an exceptional amount of innovation in a very short period of time. Companies and individuals invest time, money, and creativity into goods and services with the hope of reaping a profit. When that incentive is not properly protected (or when your risks and rewards are paid to someone other than yourself), that is when innovation will slow to a crawl.
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Do they work better?
I tried a pair. The microphone is muddled to not being usable. Sound quality OK but inferior to genuine pair. Weird battery readings. Paired like genuine, wireless charging worked, noise canceling and transparency worked. Who know how long the batteries will last?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim and NMBob
Do these have a w1 chip? Otherwise they're just lookalike bluetooth earphones.
To be fair, almost ALL clones have a “W1” chip. I haven’t seen any in recent times that don’t prompt the same connect pop up on iOS as authentic AirPods.
 
I saw some the last time I was in New York. Yikes...

But, I wonder how many are better? I remember seeing a counterfeit Microsoft Mouse, and it was GENIUS! It was accurate, and didn't jam at all. It was a remarkable improvement from the original. I remember reading an article about it at the time. It should have been embarrassing to Microsoft, but...
 
They do this because consumers could be scammed into thinking they are buying an Apple product.

Because *TAH DAH* the courts will look at the value of the fraud by the value of the real items, irregardless of how little the fakes sold for. To value the crime on the value the crooks made from the scam seems to shortchange those that were wronged, right? I can't believe someone would think that Apple being given the pennies the fake merchants got would be enough for the crime committed.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.