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

Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 137 posts

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#11

Post by user_7832 »

plugin-baby wrote: post #6

> significant differences that have implications for performance and safety This seems to refer to charging safety, but the thing that makes me fork out for genuine headphones is ear safety - I _assume_ Apple tries to protect from damaging sound levels and frequencies, and could be held to account in a way that counterfeiters could not.

> Apple tries to protect from damaging sound levels and frequencies, and could be held to account in a way that counterfeiters could not.

I doubt Apple tries this too much, or that they could be held accountable. There is the volume alert thing, but that (partially) works with 3rd party headphones too (though it's likely much more inaccurate). Android phones too give a warning if you set the volume very high for headphones. I don't think using 3rd party ear/headphones really change much.

That said, it is important to keep volumes "reasonable". Ear damage from high volumes is unfortunately very real.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#12

Post by somehnguy »

baz00 wrote: post #4

I'd be interested in some fake airpods if they lasted twice as long and sounded 80% as good. Literally I get perhaps a year out of a set of genuine bought at Apple Store airpods before the case gives up or one airpod goes muffled or craps out. After a year Apple don't want to know or care unless you have AppleCare. Decided I wasn't going to fish out for a fourth set, so I bought some Sony ones for £20 with a wire bet…

AirPods or AirPods pro? My current set of AirPods Pro have long outlasted my original set of AirPods in terms of battery longevity. Both very heavily used.

It seems the switch from pouch cell (in regular AirPods) to button (in Pro) made a huge difference.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#13

Post by keithxm23 »

This is the second time inside a month I've seen Lumafield portray Apple products engineering prowess. First time being when they compared the USB-C cable (unfairly because they compared against the wrong type of third party USB-C). Is this just happenstance or is there a connection between the two companies?

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#14

Post by kube-system »

baz00 wrote: post #4

I'd be interested in some fake airpods if they lasted twice as long and sounded 80% as good. Literally I get perhaps a year out of a set of genuine bought at Apple Store airpods before the case gives up or one airpod goes muffled or craps out. After a year Apple don't want to know or care unless you have AppleCare. Decided I wasn't going to fish out for a fourth set, so I bought some Sony ones for £20 with a wire bet…

Maybe I don't use mine as hard, but I've had 3 pair and never a single failure.

What you can always do is upgrade when the new versions come out and sell your old ones before they die. They have a good resale value.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#15

Post by dewey »

keithxm23 wrote: post #13

This is the second time inside a month I've seen Lumafield portray Apple products engineering prowess. First time being when they compared the USB-C cable (unfairly because they compared against the wrong type of third party USB-C). Is this just happenstance or is there a connection between the two companies?

The more likely explanation is that they saw that their content marketing piece worked really well, so they did another one.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#16

Post by filleokus »

I really enjoy these scans that have been popping up lately, so cool to see inside of things! Are there any intellectually property issues related to publishing these?

I've had a piece of (probably false) information stuck in my mind about how industrial design can be IP protected in some way, making it problematic to publish x-rays without licensing. Which I've thought of as another silly example of IP gone mad.

But apparently there is nothing to this, or has something changed in that space?

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#17

Post by kube-system »

stinos wrote: post #9

This is really cool and kinda makes me want to put various things I have under such scanner. However several statements like provide optimal power efficiently along with other assumptions made this a bit awkward to read. What does it mean to provide 'optimal' power except making it sound like a commercial? Maybe it's just me, after all I was expecting a very technical article (as have been on HN previously, also from…

These critiques come up in every thread about a Lumafield post. But these articles are really sales pitches for the CT scanner and not a rigorous analysis of the item they put in it.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#18

Post by wetmore »

stinos wrote: post #9

This is really cool and kinda makes me want to put various things I have under such scanner. However several statements like provide optimal power efficiently along with other assumptions made this a bit awkward to read. What does it mean to provide 'optimal' power except making it sound like a commercial? Maybe it's just me, after all I was expecting a very technical article (as have been on HN previously, also from…

I think they mean the space efficiency is optimal, since the battery is using all of the space available (as opposed to the counterfeit AirPod batteries which are a rectangular battery that leaves unused space in the round housing).

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#19

Post by keithxm23 »

dewey wrote: post #15
keithxm23 wrote: post #13

This is the second time inside a month I've seen Lumafield portray Apple products engineering prowess. First time being when they compared the USB-C cable (unfairly because they compared against the wrong type of third party USB-C). Is this just happenstance or is there a connection between the two companies?

The more likely explanation is that they saw that their content marketing piece worked really well, so they did another one.

That's fair. And it's probably more interesting to showcase Apple products because they do produce relatively better engineered products in general that would look great with this kind of imaging technology.
Post reply on HN