There's something very Her-esque (<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/</a>) over the AirPods, at least when they were first released. There's something futuristic but also realistic about it. Can't really put my finger on it.<p>One of the features that I feel is glossed over very quickly is Live Listen[0], especially for an article about it being "a platform". For those that have family members with hearing loss they are a godsend in noisy environments like a cafe. Just put an iPhone with tons of processing power and an array of microphones on the table and let it filter out most of the noise and send it to the AirPods with impressive low latency. It's truly amazing, if you have AirPods and an iPhone you should try it. They outperform more professional solutions by miles. I have only tried it with AirPods, but I can only imagine how well it works with proper hearing aids that are tuned to the frequency range.<p>I wish they'd make an audio loop "bridge" of some sort for Live Listen, as hearing aids are expensive and available technology from government usually lags behind 10+ years.<p>[0] <a href="https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209082" rel="nofollow">https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT209082</a>
This is peak tech journalism: uncritical wishful thinking.<p>A strong claim, I know, but hear me out.<p>1) these are very small bluetooth headphones.<p>2) They only work when attached to a smart phone<p>3) They are still headphones.<p>Another thing to note is that they are still a substandard user experience compared to 3.5mm jack and decent headphones ($50+ with non tangle wires)<p>Bluetooth headphones are great if you want to not have to fiddle with wires. But, they are capricious and run out of batteries.<p>The pros have both noise isolation _and_ reduction. But, they are still let in a boat load of noise, especially speaking.<p>For long term use, you have to sacrifice isolation for comfort. For the same price as airpod pros you can get custom moulded in ear monitors. 35db of noise reduction, and they don't hurt.<p>The real selling point of ear buds is the fashion part. People are wearing them because they are a signal of how rich/successful they are. (in the same way people wore those shitty ipod ear buds.)<p>As for a platform, what are they going to do to be useful? "intelligent noise"? but that requires situational awareness that doesn't exist on smartphones yet.<p>They will be swept aside as soon as decent AR wearable pop onto the scene. Be that in 3 or 15 years.
This seems a little far-fetched.<p>There's a great quote from someone whose name escapes me right now, about the definition of a platform being when revenue generated by software running on the device far outpaces revenue generated by sales of the device itself. I've always liked that definition, and it seems accurate to me based on historical evidence (PCs - definitely a platform. Smartwatches - definitely not).<p>In this test, the airpods fail abysmally - not only do they not allow for revenue generation today, they don't even allow for third party developers to use their hardware features in any capacity. In fact, the main use-case for airpods appears to be efficiency and convenience when combined with Siri. All three "sources" described by the article fail to define for me the benefit users will gain from airpods as a platform, and instead have done an excellent job of convincing me that users will benefit far more from treating airpods as a product.<p>Compounding this is the fact that most computing platforms are primarily visual in their interactions with their users - this is clearly no coincidence. Visual interfaces allow developers to surface many pieces of information at once, and they allow users to absorb information at a pace that is variable (based on context) and comfortable to them. Aural platforms don't have this capability, and the context that they assume is often wrong. For example, I've been driving a lot these past few days, and one of the worst Apple-built experiences I've ever had occurred when I needed to stop for gas. Not only was I directed to a gas station I had already passed (driving on the freeway), but when I wanted to navigate to another gas station there was no way (obvious or not) for me to tell Siri to find me a gas station ahead of me. In fact, there was no way to confirm where any of the gas stations Siri found me were in relation to me, without looking at my screen.<p>One more thing: Aural platforms are exclusively serial. They surface one piece of information at a time, and in fact they would be less usable if they surfaced any more than that (or surfaced each piece of information any quicker). This alone, I feel, makes them unsuitable platforms in today's world.<p>Edit: randall found the quote, by Bill Gates: 'Gates said something along the lines of, “That’s a crock of shit. This isn’t a platform. A platform is when the economic value of everybody that uses it, exceeds the value of the company that creates it. Then it’s a platform.”' [1]<p>[1] <a href="https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/" rel="nofollow">https://stratechery.com/2018/the-bill-gates-line/</a>
When I look at AirPods and AirPods Pro I don’t necessarily see a platform, but what I do see is the 2nd wearable hit from Apple (after the Apple Watch), and what is likely the basis for their AR platform.<p>Wearable, miniature, real-time allow-latency (audio) processing and with the precise indoor location tracking on the iPhone 11 series, I see Apple setting the technology stage (as the often do) for a true platform, AR, with these technologies coming together.<p>This is one of the pieces I’ve been meaning to write up for my audience of zero...
I don't know if I necessarily agree the line of thinking that Airpod users will buy more than one pair, but the potential to push Airpod Pro's syncing capabilities to other rooms is interesting.<p>A fun example would be to use Airpod Pros as walkie talkies with other Pro users in the same house or area.<p>Definitely would interested in tinkering with any Dev kit came out for building Airpod apps.
The Pro Airpods simply don’t fit my ears. The left one could be made to fit with some determined wiggling, but the right one would never make a seal, and the phone would complain that the seal was bad. I returned them.<p>I can’t imagine that I am <i>that</i> unique. It’s especially odd, as I own the first generation “regular” airpods, and they fit just fine.
I had a really weird experience with my AirPods Pro.<p>I was cooking with the noise cancelling turned on and I sliced off half my fingernail with a potato peeler, right down between the nail and the finger. It was pretty gross.<p>But I had the noise cancelling on and as I looked at my finger I had this weird out of body experience where I couldn’t feel anything and just felt completely separate from it - I had to take the AirPods out before I could come to grips with the situation and do anything about it.<p>That noise cancellation is powerful stuff. I can see how it could transport you maybe even as much as VR
Unfortunately, wireless headphones will never take off until they either permanently fix Bluetooth, or replace it with a better protocol that <i>doesn't drop signal from my pocket to my head</i>.<p>Seriously, get your shit together, guys. And no, AirPods aren't magically immune, in fact, their bifurcated nature makes it worse.<p>Edit: For those asking/stating "they already took off", not really. Most people do not own headphones, do not want headphones, and most people keep owning or keep buying wired headphones; even if the numbers say more wireless sold, it isn't backwards facing enough, and doesn't include all the wired pairs people already own, it also doesn't include ones included in the box.<p>The two largest complaints I always hear is either the device connectivity is garbage, the device audio quality is garbage, or the comfort is fucking horrible compared to similarly priced wired earbuds and IEMs.<p>Too many corners are cut to make these things work, and most consumers just aren't happy. So, they didn't take off if <i>most people hate them</i>, you have to have one hell of a RDF-boner for that industry to argue otherwise.<p>Also, /r/headphones says hi.
Forget platforms, the real prize is making the form factor comfortable enough for side sleepers and making the battery last 8+ hours (duration of a good nights sleep).<p>The number of people on the planet with bedroom noise problems is vastly larger than the number of audiophiles. <i>Plus</i> the value created per customer would be dramatically higher.<p>Solve these issues and I can see AirPods being a $50B / year business.
I don't see what is unique about airpods that an androids supplier couldn't replicate in terms of the platform stuff.<p>Also I expect the growing trend of disconnecting from technology will hit immersive technology forms like audio particularly hard.
> “Another example involves utilizing AirPods to deliver different sound experiences to different people despite being in the same location and looking at the same thing. As an example, a single presentation shown in a school or office setting can end up delivering a dozen different experiences to those in attendance.“<p>Devil’s Advocate: Personalized, targeted advertising? A presentation that is different per user requires a model for that person, I’m not quite sure how useful this example is except if we’re talking about foreign language translation.
I think the vast majority of people on the airpods to airpods pro path are on because like most people they hate the apple hard plastic headphones.<p>The reason that the people that have both pairs they polled is because the people in their family/friend group that they would give them to don't have airpods specifically because they hate the hard plastic.<p>It is very interesting that they still look quite stupid when you see people wear them but it is enough of a different type of stupid than google glass that people won't laugh at you out loud in public.
Lots of people in this thread seem to be fighting about whether AirPods (and wireless headphones in general) are a viable product or not. "Wires are not a hassle and provide a better experience most of the time" crowd, vs. "Wires are awful and I'll take all the drawbacks of wireless just to get rid of them" crowd.<p>Generally, won't people who care about headphones own multiple pairs of headphones? I have a cheap pair of liquid-resistant bluetooth buds for workouts, and they work great for that but sound pretty bad. For walking or home use, I use either a wired set of nicer earbuds, or some wired over-ear headphones that sound amazing.<p>All of them combined cost less than airpods, too. If you care enough to spend money on headphones and not just use the wired pack-in ones that come with most devices, would one not just do an hour of research before spending almost $200 on something with a very obviously limited lifespan?<p>And as far as airpods being a platform: the author seems to think "sensors = platform". They're a nicely integrated part of Apple's whole mobile platform, but not a platform themselves. You can't use airpods by themselves, so how does that make them a platform?
The point about people owning multiple AirPods is a weird tangent and not something I expect to play a major part of their strategy.<p>However I totally buy the rest of this and used to think something similar when they were first released. They haven’t done much in the meantime but with the Pros capabilities and the location detection of the iPhone 11 I think we’re only just at a place something interesting could be done.
It seems like we've hit a point where someone could have airpods and a mobile enabled iwatch and accomplish 80% of what needs to be done communication-wise, namely text, email, voice calls. Has anyone tried this? It might actually encourage more voice calls due to the interface constraints which might be a nice side effect (for some).
> <i>In essence, we are moving away from pulling data from various apps to receiving a curated feed of data that is dynamic - always changing and tailored to our needs.</i><p>Is there any indication that <i>users</i> (not designers, developers, businesses or "the industry") actually want this?
One of the best features of the airpods is seemingly not advertised: in transparency mode they automatically switch to active noise cancellation if there is some excessively loud/harmful noise.<p>I live in a city where I walk everywhere. The audio landscape of a city can be incredibly harmful. Notably the shrieking of brakes in need of replacement and the many awful sounds of construction. Walking around with transparency mode on, even when not listening to anything, has immeasurably improved my quality of life. I can still be aware of my surroundings without having to deal with anything but the first few fractions of these hostile noises.
I currently own a 1000xm3. My colleague recently just bought an Airpods pro and was going on for ages about how awesome it is. I offered him to try out my XM3s. He tried them out for 15 mins. I never heard another word from him again. See, my colleague's behaviour is what many bloggers and self-proclaimed journalists exhibit today. They try out one thing and simply go on to write about how superior it is.<p>The Sony XM3s have all the functionality in the AirPods pro with so much more. For example, you can swipe your fingers over the headphone housing and it will do different things depending on the direction of the swipe. They provide you an app to configure this and the buttons on the headphone itself. Not to mention, they also allow you to enable high resolution codecs, equalizer and surround sound from the app itself. The sound quality (which is one of the reasons people buy headphones for) is also vastly superior on the Sony's.<p>So, it's not an apples to apples comparison, yes (Headphones vs Earphones)?<p>Ok, In addition to my Sony's, I also have the Galaxy earbuds. It also supported swipe gestures and configurable actions via the app which is tightly integrated with Galaxy phones. The sound quality is superior and has officially been benchmarked by consumer reports to be the same as well[1]. Nothing what the author is excited about here is unique just to Apple even in terms of strategy or technology. IF anything, it's confusing nomenclature bundled with mediocre hardware.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/headphones/apple-airpods-vs-samsung-galaxy-buds-earphones-face-off/" rel="nofollow">https://www.consumerreports.org/headphones/apple-airpods-vs-...</a><p>The author simply needs go out and try other brands of headphones.
I would also add that there is a custom chip design in the airpods (m1?). In terms of "sucking the oxygen out of the market", it's a lot easier when your competition can't even come close to the level of tech savvy you put into your hardware
Apple could easily add eSIM to AirPods (probably makes more sense to put into care) to enable fully wireless life experience. Make them even smaller and it could challenge neuralink for a while (especially for Alexa generation).
Oh please, they sold us on a fake problem and then the cure by removing ports. That's not innovation. That's not a platform.<p>iPhones could all have usb ports and audio jacks and removable storage. Nothing is preventing any of that. Stop pretending Apple is moving the ball forward here.
just wait til the charger becomes one...<p>bluetooth audio IS lo-fi, on purpose, but whatever floats your 64kbps Real Audio boat, I suppose...(I'm an OGG Vorbis person myself, lol)