Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AirPods

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: AirPods

#51

Post by scoot »

zyxley wrote: post #22
dchuk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They take 15 minutes to recharge for another 3 hours of listening. Minor inconvenience.

What I'm wondering is if you can charge just one earbud at a time while using the other. For a lot of uses (for example: podcasts, casual movie watching on a long flight, getting driving directions on a road trip), it'd be entirely practical to use one earbud at a time and so have effectively 24+ hours battery life.

Right at the top: "Optical sensors and motion accelerometers work with the W1 chip to automatically control the audio and engage the microphone, giving you the ability to use one or both AirPods. "

Re: AirPods

#53

Post by prawn »

nickgrosvenor wrote: post #11
dchuk wrote: post #8

Three things I really hope they do: 1) Come out with a phone case that can hold the AirPods, and ideally charge them (Maybe enhance the battery case they already have?). I don't want yet another thing in my pocket, especially one I also have to remember to charge. Let me charge my phone, which can then charge my airpods. Let me always have my airpods on me by attaching them to my phone. 2) Make a "Find my Airpods" fe…

You should work for apple because this is exactly right! How can a random guy on HN get it but engineers and executives at the biggest and most resource rich company in the world not get it. Also, the airpods have some serious bluetooth headset douchbag factor going on. Shoulda made them skin color tones to offset it a bit.

Their site specifically markets the bright white device against black skin. They want them to stand out - it's a status symbol.

Re: AirPods

#54

Post by jdbernard »

zyxley wrote: post #18
bsg75 wrote: post #7

I wonder what the loss rate of these will be? As in, how many will fall out of ears to be lost, as they are not physically tethered to the wearer?

The closest thing out there right now would probably be the Bragi Dash, so owners of that would be the people to straw poll to get an idea.

Except the Dash is very specifically engineered to remain in the ear. It's one of their selling points. Apple made no mention of this and at first glance it doesn't look like they had the same concern. For example, the Dash doesn't have parts that extend out and down beyond the ear itself like the AirPods do. Seems like a simple way to accidentally knock them out.

Re: AirPods

#55

Post by zyxley »

pearjuice wrote: post #50

So they just deprecated hundreds of perfectly viable audio accessories which have better sound quality than their proprietary premium product just so you are dependent on yet another Apple product? Maximum vendor lock-in. And please don't say "everyone can make a Bluetooth speaker". They will probably come up with some artificial license which makes it "iPhone certified" so that even there they can squeeze some cold…

> just so you are dependent on yet another Apple product

The hardware requirements of a headphone jack put some very real limitations on phone design (waterproofing, interior space taken up by the digital -> analog hardware, etc).

Whether that was the driving cause or not is in the air, but "getting people to buy Lightning stuff" isn't the only reason to do it.

Re: AirPods

#56

Post by garenp »

jwr wrote: post #27

I hate wires with a passion and love the concept of wireless headphones. But these look like they are shaped just like the wired apple earpods, which fall out of my ears with the slightest movement or breeze. So now I'll also immediately lose them as they fall out on the street.

This is the problem I have as well. It doesn't matter how fancy they are if they don't fit in your ears. For this reason, I can only wear ear clip headphones, not ear buds.

Re: AirPods

#57

Post by Unklejoe »

VLM wrote: post #41
Unklejoe wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. They should have a detachable cable which basically turns them into regular earphones (while simultaneously charging them). I suspect many people would simply leave them attached to the cable at all times, just as they do with their current earphones. Then, you could unhook them if you wanted to go wireless for a jog or something.

"wanted to go wireless for a jog" I'd probably do the reverse WRT them falling out and getting lost.

True. Maybe working out would be a better example.

Re: AirPods

#58

Post by untog »

bsg75 wrote: post #7

I wonder what the loss rate of these will be? As in, how many will fall out of ears to be lost, as they are not physically tethered to the wearer?

Yeah - living in New York and taking the subway means I'm never buying these things, because if one falls out of my ear at any point during my commute I'll probably never find it again.

Re: AirPods

#59

Post by untog »

zyxley wrote: post #55
pearjuice wrote: post #50

So they just deprecated hundreds of perfectly viable audio accessories which have better sound quality than their proprietary premium product just so you are dependent on yet another Apple product? Maximum vendor lock-in. And please don't say "everyone can make a Bluetooth speaker". They will probably come up with some artificial license which makes it "iPhone certified" so that even there they can squeeze some cold…

> just so you are dependent on yet another Apple product The hardware requirements of a headphone jack put some very real limitations on phone design (waterproofing, interior space taken up by the digital -> analog hardware, etc). Whether that was the driving cause or not is in the air, but "getting people to buy Lightning stuff" isn't the only reason to do it.

Certainly not waterproofing, given that waterproof Android phones have had headphone jacks for a few years now.
Post reply on HN