4 ms·

I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much pres

by bhauer 10y ago

I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much press as it has. It seems so overblown that I have to wonder if people with iPhone 7s have actually been refusing to use existing wireless headphones because they are actually waiting for these. I've had a set of $25 Motorola wireless (Bluetooth) headphones that I use on my daily walking commute to and from work for many years. They work and sound great. They double as a wireless microphone and playback controls. I charge them every day via a USB cable. Woohoo. I can't see anything specs-wise with the Apple headphones that is interesting. Auto-pause? Okay, cool, but I can press the pause button on my Bluetooth headphones from 2010. Switching between devices? I can enable or disable Bluetooth on my devices, I guess, if I had wanted to use the headphones with more than my phone (though I do not want that). These new features seem incremental at best. The clamor for these—and the fact that their availability is a high-ranking news item on HN—seems to suggest I am missing something very fundamental. And yet, it feels that I am not. These are wireless headphones with a couple incremental features and an Apple logo.

j2bax 10y ago
Can you provide a link to your headphones so I can see if they are something I'd be at all interested in?
- bhauer 10y ago
  Motorola S305: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BH3I9U https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BH3I9U They're from ~2009 or thereabouts. Traditional headphone form factor. Works great for my use case (pedestrian commutes to and from the office).
  - j2bax 10y ago
    I had a pair of wired Sony's wayyyyy back in the day in this wrap around ear/neck band form factor that I really loved when I was a kid. Lately though, I find anything that covers my ear too warm and uncomfortable. This is why I'm excited about the AirPods. I wouldn't really classify these Motorola's as truly wireless because of the connecting band.
    - bhauer 10y ago
      That's cool with me. A sense I have picked up from your reply and another message in this thread is that Apple is attempting to evolve the definition of "wireless headphone" to require no bridge between the two ears. I think that is a vocabulary change that is causing a lot of us to scratch our heads in confusion. Conventionally, "wireless headphone" has meant no wire to the device—no headphone cable and no 3.5mm connector. And by that definition, wireless headphones are old and boring. That said, I'm not a fan of earbuds, wired or otherwise. So whether removing the bridge wire is a revolution is lost on me since I'm not interested either way.
      - j2bax 10y ago
        Yeah... My bad, agree on the terminology. I think a more appropriate way to refer to them would be 'wireless earbuds'. In that case, I would say anything connecting them would be cheating and taking away from the truly amazing feeling of having audio delivered to your ears with no connecting wires to get caught on things, pull, vibrate when turning your head etc etc.
Kalium 10y ago
It's Apple. Pretty much anything and everything Apple does right now gets lots of press, much of it of the fawning variety. Apple has a strong brand affinity, so people will shower love on anything Apple-related.
cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
Looking at the list of specs you mentioned, yes, you missed something. There's another guy right above talking about the non-music related features, take a look.
- bhauer 10y ago
  The other two from that message that I didn't mention were auto-mono and a carrying case. Are those the other features you're referring to? Auto-mono: I guess I see some people listening in only one ear sometimes, but that's not my way of listening to music or podcasts. The cheap Motorola headphones I use are traditional "headphones" and not earbuds. I prefer headphones over earbuds. But even if I used earbuds, I'm not interested in single-ear listening. Carrying case: This is a big deal? On my walks, I "carry" my headphones on my ears. When I get home, I charge via a USB cable. Whatever; I suppose I don't begrudge anyone for being excited by Apple headphones. I just find the hype level amusing and silly.
Spooky23 10y ago
You can't just go out and get a $25 Bluetooth headphone and expect a consistent result. The whole point of the brand is that you're getting a quality, consistent product.
- bhauer 10y ago
  I could buy a dozen of the Motorola wireless headphones I use and I expect the results would be consistently satisfying. In fact, a couple years back I did buy two spare pairs that are new in box in case I ever lose my current pair. At $25 a pop, I figured why not have some insurance. But I understand you. If you've not previously used wireless headphones and you're satisfied with Apple quality, this new offering is a known quantity. I'm still not really feeling the innovation. Except of course, as someone pointed out, this is a subtle redefinition of "wireless" to mean not just removing the wire to the device, but also any bridge between the two ears. For me, that bridge isn't something I care to remove. But okay, that's cool.
MBCook 10y ago
> I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much press as it has. They're tiny, they pair to multiple devices trivially, and are well designed. They're one of the big reasons Apple is supposed to have removed the headphone jack off the iPhone 7. "You don't need it, let us show you why" kind of thing. The other reason is that this is releasing MONTHS LATE. It was supposed to be released at the end of October, now it's coming out end of December. That's HUGE. When was the last time Apple screwed up the launch of something big like this? The biggest one people can recall is the white iPhone 4 which basically released 9 months late. At that point most people just waited the extra 4-5 months for the iPhone 4s. Ignoring that they're neat little headphones, this is big news today because APPLE SHIPPED LATE. That just doesn't happen. Maybe quantities are low (Apple watch), but not a flat out delay on a major product after announcing a release date.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Eh, they'll pair trivially to other Apple devices (which ... NFC assisted pairing is not new). It's months late, it's still not here yet, AND there's a "big" warning on the page that even when it is here it will only be in limited quantities and that prospective buyers are "advised" to check online for stocking levels... very un-Apple.
j_jochem 10y ago
From my experience, Bluetooth audio's sound quality is abysmal. I figure that's why an alternative system is getting so much hype.
- bhauer 10y ago
  I would agree that old Bluetooth devices (especially those from around 2005 or earlier) often sounded poor. But modern Bluetooth devices (say 2009 onward) have generally sounded fine/great. I would go so far as to say that if you're listening to MP3s and not FLAC, then Bluetooth isn't your biggest signal loss.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    Properly encoded MP3s are sonically indistinguishable in blind tests from FLAC, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.
    - bhauer 10y ago
      That's actually my point. I believe modern Bluetooth headphones are indistinguishable from equivalent non-Bluetooth headphones. If you can tell whether headphones are Bluetooth or not—the other components being equal—then you have particularly acute hearing. And if that's you, then you are probably a FLAC aficionado. For what it's worth, I listen to MP3s on Bluetooth headphones and they sound great. (Though to be clear, I've not actually researched the bit rate of Bluetooth, though I suspect it's high enough for 44 KHz stereo. To my ears, Bluetooth is indistinguishable from an analog 3.5mm connection.)
      - archagon 10y ago
        It's not all about the codecs. On my Sony MDR-1RBTs — which are admittedly a few years old at this point — you can hear the radio buzzing when there's nothing playing. I don't know if it's possible to design a pristine, noiseless set of Bluetooth headphones when there's just so little room in the earcups.
      - 10y ago

by bhauer 10y ago

j2bax 10y ago

Can you provide a link to your headphones so I can see if they are something I'd be at all interested in?

bhauer 10y ago
Motorola S305: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BH3I9U https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002BH3I9U They're from ~2009 or thereabouts. Traditional headphone form factor. Works great for my use case (pedestrian commutes to and from the office).
- j2bax 10y ago
  I had a pair of wired Sony's wayyyyy back in the day in this wrap around ear/neck band form factor that I really loved when I was a kid. Lately though, I find anything that covers my ear too warm and uncomfortable. This is why I'm excited about the AirPods. I wouldn't really classify these Motorola's as truly wireless because of the connecting band.
  - bhauer 10y ago
    That's cool with me. A sense I have picked up from your reply and another message in this thread is that Apple is attempting to evolve the definition of "wireless headphone" to require no bridge between the two ears. I think that is a vocabulary change that is causing a lot of us to scratch our heads in confusion. Conventionally, "wireless headphone" has meant no wire to the device—no headphone cable and no 3.5mm connector. And by that definition, wireless headphones are old and boring. That said, I'm not a fan of earbuds, wired or otherwise. So whether removing the bridge wire is a revolution is lost on me since I'm not interested either way.
    - j2bax 10y ago
      Yeah... My bad, agree on the terminology. I think a more appropriate way to refer to them would be 'wireless earbuds'. In that case, I would say anything connecting them would be cheating and taking away from the truly amazing feeling of having audio delivered to your ears with no connecting wires to get caught on things, pull, vibrate when turning your head etc etc.

Kalium 10y ago

It's Apple. Pretty much anything and everything Apple does right now gets lots of press, much of it of the fawning variety. Apple has a strong brand affinity, so people will shower love on anything Apple-related.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago

Looking at the list of specs you mentioned, yes, you missed something. There's another guy right above talking about the non-music related features, take a look.

bhauer 10y ago
The other two from that message that I didn't mention were auto-mono and a carrying case. Are those the other features you're referring to? Auto-mono: I guess I see some people listening in only one ear sometimes, but that's not my way of listening to music or podcasts. The cheap Motorola headphones I use are traditional "headphones" and not earbuds. I prefer headphones over earbuds. But even if I used earbuds, I'm not interested in single-ear listening. Carrying case: This is a big deal? On my walks, I "carry" my headphones on my ears. When I get home, I charge via a USB cable. Whatever; I suppose I don't begrudge anyone for being excited by Apple headphones. I just find the hype level amusing and silly.

Spooky23 10y ago

You can't just go out and get a $25 Bluetooth headphone and expect a consistent result. The whole point of the brand is that you're getting a quality, consistent product.

bhauer 10y ago
I could buy a dozen of the Motorola wireless headphones I use and I expect the results would be consistently satisfying. In fact, a couple years back I did buy two spare pairs that are new in box in case I ever lose my current pair. At $25 a pop, I figured why not have some insurance. But I understand you. If you've not previously used wireless headphones and you're satisfied with Apple quality, this new offering is a known quantity. I'm still not really feeling the innovation. Except of course, as someone pointed out, this is a subtle redefinition of "wireless" to mean not just removing the wire to the device, but also any bridge between the two ears. For me, that bridge isn't something I care to remove. But okay, that's cool.

MBCook 10y ago

> I can't speak for the other guys above, but I must have missed something. I am baffled why this particular set of wireless headphones has received as much press as it has. They're tiny, they pair to multiple devices trivially, and are well designed. They're one of the big reasons Apple is supposed to have removed the headphone jack off the iPhone 7. "You don't need it, let us show you why" kind of thing. The other reason is that this is releasing MONTHS LATE. It was supposed to be released at the end of October, now it's coming out end of December. That's HUGE. When was the last time Apple screwed up the launch of something big like this? The biggest one people can recall is the white iPhone 4 which basically released 9 months late. At that point most people just waited the extra 4-5 months for the iPhone 4s. Ignoring that they're neat little headphones, this is big news today because APPLE SHIPPED LATE. That just doesn't happen. Maybe quantities are low (Apple watch), but not a flat out delay on a major product after announcing a release date.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Eh, they'll pair trivially to other Apple devices (which ... NFC assisted pairing is not new). It's months late, it's still not here yet, AND there's a "big" warning on the page that even when it is here it will only be in limited quantities and that prospective buyers are "advised" to check online for stocking levels... very un-Apple.

j_jochem 10y ago

From my experience, Bluetooth audio's sound quality is abysmal. I figure that's why an alternative system is getting so much hype.

bhauer 10y ago
I would agree that old Bluetooth devices (especially those from around 2005 or earlier) often sounded poor. But modern Bluetooth devices (say 2009 onward) have generally sounded fine/great. I would go so far as to say that if you're listening to MP3s and not FLAC, then Bluetooth isn't your biggest signal loss.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  Properly encoded MP3s are sonically indistinguishable in blind tests from FLAC, so I'm not sure what you're referencing.
  - bhauer 10y ago
    That's actually my point. I believe modern Bluetooth headphones are indistinguishable from equivalent non-Bluetooth headphones. If you can tell whether headphones are Bluetooth or not—the other components being equal—then you have particularly acute hearing. And if that's you, then you are probably a FLAC aficionado. For what it's worth, I listen to MP3s on Bluetooth headphones and they sound great. (Though to be clear, I've not actually researched the bit rate of Bluetooth, though I suspect it's high enough for 44 KHz stereo. To my ears, Bluetooth is indistinguishable from an analog 3.5mm connection.)
    - archagon 10y ago
      It's not all about the codecs. On my Sony MDR-1RBTs — which are admittedly a few years old at this point — you can hear the radio buzzing when there's nothing playing. I don't know if it's possible to design a pristine, noiseless set of Bluetooth headphones when there's just so little room in the earcups.
    - 10y ago