3 ms·

Totally aside... I don't really understand why beats gets singled out so often, when it comes to cost of components. IDK, I feel like beats doesn't get enough c

Totally aside... I don't really understand why beats gets singled out so often, when it comes to cost of components. IDK, I feel like beats doesn't get enough credit as a company. First, if you look at a shelf of products (say an airport gadget shop), beats is not the worst value on the shelf. Most beats products are OK. Half the gear (in general) in those shops is crap. Second, Beats did a good job on "product". They understood what price ranges to target. The understood what each form factor was for, and how to explain this to consumers. Beats' actual competition was earbuds, not alternative "studio headphones." They knew which sound qualities (bass, basically) customers would want, for the music they actually listen to while walking around a mall. They aren't always the best price performance across categories, but they aren't crap either. Anyway, the reason I think they deserve credit is not that. They understood the implication of "wearables." They are the ones that managed to build that company, with a foot in fashion and another one in electronics. Part authority on what's cool, part predictor of what's cool. If you do the bill of materials test on versace it won't go well. Compare beats as the fashion-tech-wearables brand to all the smartwatch attempts at similar. Beats stands out.

xzel 8y ago
I'm sorry but their sound quality is pretty abysmal for the price; there is a reason they're lampooned. I agree that a lot of the headphone market is poor but 20 minutes of googling will get you some good headphones for a decent price. That aside, I certainly agree with you they were able to build a brand, make mostly junk products pretty fashionable and sold a lot of merchandise.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  You can say that about literally any major electronics brand. About 5 years ago I googled for the new "oneplus" which turned out to be a great phone at half the price of Samsung or LG. Unknown brand. Great deal. I was happy. Bought again. I also once bought soy sauce that wasn't kikkoman, half price and it tasted good. Go figure. This doesn't make Samsung or Kikkoman "junk." It makes them a brand name. Maybe I should put this differently.... If Beats announced today they are putting major effort into smart watches, I would expect to soon see lots of people wearing them. I'd beats to make smart watches that people want because they're relevant piece of culture and utility. If boss or plantronics announced the same... I wouldn't.
  - xzel 8y ago
    Yes I totally agree people really do buy things because of celebrity endorsements and don't do their own research before buying most things. Its mind boggling to me but hey to each his own. Tangent-y but I feel the worst for the people who have their iPhone/Apple headphones turned up to 11 b/c the earbuds don't fit their ears well, and you know, everyone in the bus/metro/subway with them that have to listen to their music bleeding out of their ears, too.
    - dalbasal 8y ago
      I think if we reduce this to "people buy things because of celebrity endorsements" than there isn't much to talk about. Xerox invented the modern PC, Apple spent the next 30 years applying celebrity endorsements and marketing nonsense to make money. That's the story. I think this is very wrong. If you are selecting a component to put in a device, this is a mostly objective question. Price. Objective quality, longevity. For a person to get value out of a thing, you must cross into more "subjective" territory. If you refuse to rely on anything that is subjective, nothing about humans makes sense. Why do people want to look cool anyway? Why are people listening to music?
      - xzel 8y ago
        In fact I think the psychology behind celebrity endorsements and advertising is particularly interesting and there is a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, this topic, audio quality, is extremely subjective, yes, like someone mentioned in another comment to my original post. But objectively the audio response of Beats are very bass heavy and, in my opinion, the high end response is lacking, but other people really enjoy their beats headphones so thats up to them. Although, the divers in Beats, for the price, are objectively a poor purchase. You can get stronger and clearer drivers in other headphones at a fraction of the cost. I'm not really sure where the last bit of your posts ties in with what I've been saying but I totally agree people will be people, especially when the topic is complex and they can just buy what Harden/KD/etc. wears and be happy.
  - seattle_spring 8y ago
- callmeal 8y ago
  Depends on what you mean by sound quality. If you're looking for reference sound, then yes, they're bad. But if you just want something that sounds good, they they fit the bill[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840614/beats-by-dre-headphones-bass https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840614/beats-by-dre-hea...
  - xzel 8y ago
    Yeah but the other half of my point was if you want something that "sounds good" you can spend 1/4 of the price of Beats for similar ability. Its a brand effect. I personally use a pair of 15 dollar JVC marshmallow earbuds that fit my ears perfect for about 50% of my listening (gym, walking in the city in the summer, etc), but if I'm spending 200 on closed or over the ear headphones you should expect a lot better response spectrum that what Beats provide. Maybe junky products was a bit harsh and I should have said expensive for the quality.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
seattle_spring 8y ago
They get singled out because the people that inevitably come to breathlessly defend them won't just admit why they own them: because they're a fashion accessory with brand recognition. It's like people who claim they buy $900 Balenciaga shoes because "they're comfortable." I would bet my own life that they're no more comfortable than a nice pair of $100 shoes from the "non-designer" rack at Nordstrom, but people will fall over themselves defending why they spend what they spend for designer brand accessories. > They aren't always the best price performance across categories, but they aren't crap either. If Beats owners admitted this then they wouldn't have become a meme. Unfortunately most I talk to will claim that they're the best headphones on the market, and will refuse to accept that they could have gotten better audio quality from "less cool" brands for $100 or less.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  My question is still the same. Why are beats singled out so much? This comment (beats is crap that suckers buy, basically) is nearly guaranteed to sit at the top on any thread about beats on the internet. "They are not the best performance per dollar you can get." OK. This is true. It's also true about every electronics brand that exists. It's almost the definition of a brand, with a few exceptions where "best value for money" is the brand. There is always some under appreciated brand with great value that no one knows about. Consumers (especially with portable & wearable gear) care about aesthetics, brands and other things that they might value even if you don't. This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all. Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss?
  - mmt 8y ago
    > Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss? To some degree, that question sounds like "whataboutism". However, all big brands receive their share of Internet criticism, especially if they release a high-priced form-over-function product. Recent Apple laptops come to mind. Is Apple being singled out? They own Beats, right? One of the other differences is that the other brands you mentioned are much more highly diversified. Even Bose sells more than just "wearables" (and within those, they sell an electronics-heavy version with noise cancellation). > This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all. That alone gives you an adequate explanation. If it were pure fashion, it would probably get the same criticism, except that it wouldn't get any attention in those (or this) forum in the first place. You may disagree with the validity of the criticism, but surely you at least recognize its existence if not prevalence among the technically-inclined.

xzel 8y ago

I'm sorry but their sound quality is pretty abysmal for the price; there is a reason they're lampooned. I agree that a lot of the headphone market is poor but 20 minutes of googling will get you some good headphones for a decent price. That aside, I certainly agree with you they were able to build a brand, make mostly junk products pretty fashionable and sold a lot of merchandise.

dalbasal 8y ago
You can say that about literally any major electronics brand. About 5 years ago I googled for the new "oneplus" which turned out to be a great phone at half the price of Samsung or LG. Unknown brand. Great deal. I was happy. Bought again. I also once bought soy sauce that wasn't kikkoman, half price and it tasted good. Go figure. This doesn't make Samsung or Kikkoman "junk." It makes them a brand name. Maybe I should put this differently.... If Beats announced today they are putting major effort into smart watches, I would expect to soon see lots of people wearing them. I'd beats to make smart watches that people want because they're relevant piece of culture and utility. If boss or plantronics announced the same... I wouldn't.
- xzel 8y ago
  Yes I totally agree people really do buy things because of celebrity endorsements and don't do their own research before buying most things. Its mind boggling to me but hey to each his own. Tangent-y but I feel the worst for the people who have their iPhone/Apple headphones turned up to 11 b/c the earbuds don't fit their ears well, and you know, everyone in the bus/metro/subway with them that have to listen to their music bleeding out of their ears, too.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    I think if we reduce this to "people buy things because of celebrity endorsements" than there isn't much to talk about. Xerox invented the modern PC, Apple spent the next 30 years applying celebrity endorsements and marketing nonsense to make money. That's the story. I think this is very wrong. If you are selecting a component to put in a device, this is a mostly objective question. Price. Objective quality, longevity. For a person to get value out of a thing, you must cross into more "subjective" territory. If you refuse to rely on anything that is subjective, nothing about humans makes sense. Why do people want to look cool anyway? Why are people listening to music?
    - xzel 8y ago
      In fact I think the psychology behind celebrity endorsements and advertising is particularly interesting and there is a lot to talk about. Unfortunately, this topic, audio quality, is extremely subjective, yes, like someone mentioned in another comment to my original post. But objectively the audio response of Beats are very bass heavy and, in my opinion, the high end response is lacking, but other people really enjoy their beats headphones so thats up to them. Although, the divers in Beats, for the price, are objectively a poor purchase. You can get stronger and clearer drivers in other headphones at a fraction of the cost. I'm not really sure where the last bit of your posts ties in with what I've been saying but I totally agree people will be people, especially when the topic is complex and they can just buy what Harden/KD/etc. wears and be happy.
- seattle_spring 8y ago
callmeal 8y ago
Depends on what you mean by sound quality. If you're looking for reference sound, then yes, they're bad. But if you just want something that sounds good, they they fit the bill[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840614/beats-by-dre-headphones-bass https://www.theverge.com/2016/1/27/10840614/beats-by-dre-hea...
- xzel 8y ago
  Yeah but the other half of my point was if you want something that "sounds good" you can spend 1/4 of the price of Beats for similar ability. Its a brand effect. I personally use a pair of 15 dollar JVC marshmallow earbuds that fit my ears perfect for about 50% of my listening (gym, walking in the city in the summer, etc), but if I'm spending 200 on closed or over the ear headphones you should expect a lot better response spectrum that what Beats provide. Maybe junky products was a bit harsh and I should have said expensive for the quality.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

seattle_spring 8y ago

They get singled out because the people that inevitably come to breathlessly defend them won't just admit why they own them: because they're a fashion accessory with brand recognition. It's like people who claim they buy $900 Balenciaga shoes because "they're comfortable." I would bet my own life that they're no more comfortable than a nice pair of $100 shoes from the "non-designer" rack at Nordstrom, but people will fall over themselves defending why they spend what they spend for designer brand accessories. > They aren't always the best price performance across categories, but they aren't crap either. If Beats owners admitted this then they wouldn't have become a meme. Unfortunately most I talk to will claim that they're the best headphones on the market, and will refuse to accept that they could have gotten better audio quality from "less cool" brands for $100 or less.

dalbasal 8y ago
My question is still the same. Why are beats singled out so much? This comment (beats is crap that suckers buy, basically) is nearly guaranteed to sit at the top on any thread about beats on the internet. "They are not the best performance per dollar you can get." OK. This is true. It's also true about every electronics brand that exists. It's almost the definition of a brand, with a few exceptions where "best value for money" is the brand. There is always some under appreciated brand with great value that no one knows about. Consumers (especially with portable & wearable gear) care about aesthetics, brands and other things that they might value even if you don't. This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all. Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss?
- mmt 8y ago
  > Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss? To some degree, that question sounds like "whataboutism". However, all big brands receive their share of Internet criticism, especially if they release a high-priced form-over-function product. Recent Apple laptops come to mind. Is Apple being singled out? They own Beats, right? One of the other differences is that the other brands you mentioned are much more highly diversified. Even Bose sells more than just "wearables" (and within those, they sell an electronics-heavy version with noise cancellation). > This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all. That alone gives you an adequate explanation. If it were pure fashion, it would probably get the same criticism, except that it wouldn't get any attention in those (or this) forum in the first place. You may disagree with the validity of the criticism, but surely you at least recognize its existence if not prevalence among the technically-inclined.