In your rant, you’ve missed the entire point of the product and you continue to. Criticism of Apple is fine, but this is a complete misunderstanding of intent and the intentional tradeoffs made in the product design.
It’s never been about audio quality or ports or lasting 60 years. That’s not at all why this product exists. I urge you to truly consider the “why”.
And Apple’s clear understanding of the “why” is why AirPods have been an incredible success, sell out regularly, and get rave reviews. If Apple listened to audiophiles or just made headphones like everyone else, they wouldn’t have achieved a fraction of thr success or created meaningful progress in the headphone market.
I have AKGs, I have Sennheisers, and I have Sonys. I use my AirPods the most out of any of my headphones - even to my own surprise. They’re the single best product I’ve purchased in the last decade. That’s how much I simply love them and how much they’ve changed my relationship with audio.
Not to mention AirPods will soon become a computing platform. The most recent ones have the compute power of an iPhone 4, in each single pod. It’s only a matter of time. Apple is playing the long game of ambient computing - a game of chess if you will, while you and other audiophiles want them to skip rope in the park.
This, "just use it and you will understand" idea is bullshit. It is entirely possible to use a product and not see the intended value as actual use value.
That is precisely what I mean about this and other products making strong tradeoffs.
I never made a works 60 years requirement. Let's just set that one aside as the botch it is. :D
If you read my original post, I completely understand the trade-offs, said the things were a marvel, which they are, and then proceeded to say the net value is not there!
That is a result of those trade-offs!
Ambient computing is spiffy. (I get that too) Thought I wanted that. Realize I really do not.
The always connected use case is dubious. Let Apple play. They get to do that, and again, I like some of what Apple does, and am a fan of the company from way back. Still own and use an Apple //e (fun projects and writing)
Like all pioneering efforts, there will be issues. And there will be people like me, who are not about the effort, and or feel the trade-offs needed fall short of delivering use value needed for it to all make sense.
At any given time, Apple sells to a segment of the population who receives its efforts well. Great. That happened for me when they produced exemplary UNIX laptops with great performance, sexy hardware and the ports I need to actually do things with low hassle.
(The we will not need ports is a long, closed game I want no real part of)
They are not the only game in town for good reasons too.
Skip rope is a nice one. :D Well played.
IPad as toddler device is my equally well played retort. (And the majority of what my iPad does, the other use being to serve up movies. )
Nice hardware, too damn bad about how locked down it is. There are very different kinds of people out there.
Rather than imply people are stupid, or some other inane thing, you and the others bashing hard on negative Apple commentary, really should be having "why" conversations to better understand others, and why they value things the way they do.
You also get to invest and evangelize. I will never downvote, or get at you personally for it.
Compute power of an iPhone 4, sans replaceable battery, for example, is not a selling point for me. With one? Maybe, and that is no joke. Depends on the ecosystem associated with it.
These short life, fundementally disposable products are ultra expensive in terms of materials, resources, and for many, due to soul crushing economic policy sucking them near dry, expensive in simple financial terms. One could literally say these spiffy, "future here now" products are subsidized by things like lack of great health care in the US.
(And to take the development risks needed for this kind of thing, a lot of cash is needed.)
Open, so I can put code on it? Even better. I should look at the Samsung product one day.
I have yet to do that because I have yet to see use value equal to costs, inclusive (financial, personal, etc..) for wearables to make any sense.
And to be ultra clear, try and get there. It is all good.
Also know when I say, "maybe we do not need Airpods", that too is no shallow slam. And this comment explains a bit of why that is.
Getting there may just not be a place many people will want to be. That needs to be OK too.
Some have said to me,"people like you are why we might not get there." My answer is always the same, "then maybe we just do not need to get there."
Should anything I say be a threat of some kind, why not just say that, rather than the inane crap.
You do get full credit for urging me to consider the why. Many don't. Well played too.
It’s never been about audio quality or ports or lasting 60 years. That’s not at all why this product exists. I urge you to truly consider the “why”.
And Apple’s clear understanding of the “why” is why AirPods have been an incredible success, sell out regularly, and get rave reviews. If Apple listened to audiophiles or just made headphones like everyone else, they wouldn’t have achieved a fraction of thr success or created meaningful progress in the headphone market.
I have AKGs, I have Sennheisers, and I have Sonys. I use my AirPods the most out of any of my headphones - even to my own surprise. They’re the single best product I’ve purchased in the last decade. That’s how much I simply love them and how much they’ve changed my relationship with audio.
Not to mention AirPods will soon become a computing platform. The most recent ones have the compute power of an iPhone 4, in each single pod. It’s only a matter of time. Apple is playing the long game of ambient computing - a game of chess if you will, while you and other audiophiles want them to skip rope in the park.