3 ms·

He's probably not impressed by the fact they're wireless because wireless headphones aren't new. I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well

He's probably not impressed by the fact they're wireless because wireless headphones aren't new. I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well and cost $20. Wireless headphones just aren't impressive technology in December 2016. They've been done. Again and again. This isn't a Tesla situation by any means. Apple might have executed particularly well, but I see his point.

MBCook 10y ago
Wireless headphones aren't new. Wireless headphones at that size/feature set/price point seem to be. The only comparable thing I know if is Samsung reportedly had some similar but they only had like 90m of battery life.
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  I'm curious how well the battery life claims hold up. It's impressive but sometimes the real world battery life doesn't measure up. The new MacBook Pros are a good example of this (even if the current battery life is temporary and may be fixed by OS updates).
  - MBCook 10y ago
    Apple tends to be highly accurate on battery life measurements. If they 5 hours playing music I believe them. The problem with the MBP is its 10 hours of a 'light workload'. And it meets that. But a HEAVY workload may be 4 hours and they don't advertise that. I don't remember reviewers saying anything bad about battery life on the AirPods back in October.
    - monkmartinez 10y ago
      Eh, you said it... YOU believe them. A lot of people here don't anymore. Let's wait to see what real world use looks like. I mean, if you take the emoji touch bar at face value it's the coolest thing since sliced bread. However, real world use indicates that it might not be as useful as Apple wants it to be.
      - MBCook 10y ago
        I think you misunderstood me. What I said is that Apple's numbers are highly accurate FOR WHAT THEY TESTED. The problem here is that Apple hasn't given numbers about what it's like under heavy load. Or really any load it all. If you stick to doing the kind of things Apple does in their battery life test you WILL get what they say. Unfortunately as we seem to be finding out if you go outside of that you're screwed. Obviously harder workloads always hit the computer more, but this year the delta seems much much higher. They are cherry picking tests that make their battery life look reasonable. I should also note that this is not the first time Apple did this. The quoted battery life on the iPhone 7 is basically the same as before, but they made a slight change to the wording. This year there tests are all with wireless headphones. This is likely because it's always been down that using the speaker on an iPhone to listen to music will lower your battery life pretty significantly, and now that the new iPhone 7 has a double speaker arrangement it's likely an even bigger effect than before. Apples not lying like so many PC makers used to do, they're playing lawyer games and choosing their words incredibly carefully. This is not a good turn. Apple giving real life accurate battery estimates used to be one of the things that put them above PC makers in my mind. If they're going to start redefining the workload to doing nothing on your computer... why bother?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
coldtea 10y ago
>I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well and cost $20. Wireless headphones that "work well" don't cost $20. And especially in this form factor (separate).
- Amezarak 10y ago
  I'm not saying they're the greatest ever, but sync was easy, they play music without any problems, they hold a charge for a few days, and they haven't broken. What more does it take for a pair of Bluetooth headphones to work well? My expectations are pretty low. They could absolutely be better, if for example, the charge lasted two weeks, or the sound was higher quality (I'm no audiophile but I'm sure if I was I'd find they could be better) but they're Good Enough.

MBCook 10y ago

Wireless headphones aren't new. Wireless headphones at that size/feature set/price point seem to be. The only comparable thing I know if is Samsung reportedly had some similar but they only had like 90m of battery life.

brazzledazzle 10y ago
I'm curious how well the battery life claims hold up. It's impressive but sometimes the real world battery life doesn't measure up. The new MacBook Pros are a good example of this (even if the current battery life is temporary and may be fixed by OS updates).
- MBCook 10y ago
  Apple tends to be highly accurate on battery life measurements. If they 5 hours playing music I believe them. The problem with the MBP is its 10 hours of a 'light workload'. And it meets that. But a HEAVY workload may be 4 hours and they don't advertise that. I don't remember reviewers saying anything bad about battery life on the AirPods back in October.
  - monkmartinez 10y ago
    Eh, you said it... YOU believe them. A lot of people here don't anymore. Let's wait to see what real world use looks like. I mean, if you take the emoji touch bar at face value it's the coolest thing since sliced bread. However, real world use indicates that it might not be as useful as Apple wants it to be.
    - MBCook 10y ago
      I think you misunderstood me. What I said is that Apple's numbers are highly accurate FOR WHAT THEY TESTED. The problem here is that Apple hasn't given numbers about what it's like under heavy load. Or really any load it all. If you stick to doing the kind of things Apple does in their battery life test you WILL get what they say. Unfortunately as we seem to be finding out if you go outside of that you're screwed. Obviously harder workloads always hit the computer more, but this year the delta seems much much higher. They are cherry picking tests that make their battery life look reasonable. I should also note that this is not the first time Apple did this. The quoted battery life on the iPhone 7 is basically the same as before, but they made a slight change to the wording. This year there tests are all with wireless headphones. This is likely because it's always been down that using the speaker on an iPhone to listen to music will lower your battery life pretty significantly, and now that the new iPhone 7 has a double speaker arrangement it's likely an even bigger effect than before. Apples not lying like so many PC makers used to do, they're playing lawyer games and choosing their words incredibly carefully. This is not a good turn. Apple giving real life accurate battery estimates used to be one of the things that put them above PC makers in my mind. If they're going to start redefining the workload to doing nothing on your computer... why bother?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

coldtea 10y ago

>I mean, even stodgy grumps like me have a pair that works well and cost $20. Wireless headphones that "work well" don't cost $20. And especially in this form factor (separate).

Amezarak 10y ago
I'm not saying they're the greatest ever, but sync was easy, they play music without any problems, they hold a charge for a few days, and they haven't broken. What more does it take for a pair of Bluetooth headphones to work well? My expectations are pretty low. They could absolutely be better, if for example, the charge lasted two weeks, or the sound was higher quality (I'm no audiophile but I'm sure if I was I'd find they could be better) but they're Good Enough.