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

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#121

Post by freetanga »

acomjean wrote: post #42
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…

Wired earbuds are back (Acording to some… and I’ve seen a few more lately out and about). I’m still using full over the ear headphones I bought 15 years ago. I had to get new pads but other than that they still sound great. https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-airpods-out-why-cool-kids-a... https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/wired-earbuds-are-so...

People buying stuff based on their partial temperature (“Earbuds are so hot..”) disgust me sincerely from the bottom of my heart. Usually the same crowd preaching all day about saving the planet from things like e-waste…

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#122

Post by freetanga »

freetanga wrote: post #121
acomjean wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wired earbuds are back (Acording to some… and I’ve seen a few more lately out and about). I’m still using full over the ear headphones I bought 15 years ago. I had to get new pads but other than that they still sound great. https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-airpods-out-why-cool-kids-a... https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/wired-earbuds-are-so...

People buying stuff based on their partial temperature (“Earbuds are so hot..”) disgust me sincerely from the bottom of my heart. Usually the same crowd preaching all day about saving the planet from things like e-waste…

And acojean, was not directed at you but at the editor and readers of the site.

Sorry as I re-read it and realized it could be mistaken….

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#123

Post by shiroiuma »

autoexec wrote: post #80
threeseed wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those articles from 2 years ago. And in that time I can't think of a single manufacturer who has brought back 3.5mm headphone jacks. Meanwhile Qualcomm recently announced WiFi-Audio which brings lossless audio.

A quick search shows that the Samsung Galaxy A14 5G and the Sony Xperia 1 V both have headphone jacks. They've got expandable storage too! If I had to get a cell phone today, the Sony one is probably what I'd be looking at.

The Sharp Aquos phones also have headphone jacks and are a little cheaper than the Sonys. I haven't owned either, however, so I can't vouch for them.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#124

Post by rcxdude »

JCharante wrote: post #118
MereInterest wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that can be communicated by an authentic charger could also be communicated by a counterfeit charger. You may have raised the cost of the scam (e.g. by requiring another chip), or delayed the start of a scam (e.g. until the inevitable leak of hardward signing keys), but at the end of the day you're trying to validate a device through a communication channel controlled by that very same device. It's the same…

Couldn’t the chip have a HSM that signs requests to authenticate that it’s authentic? Data is already exchanged during the USB charging handshake, this could just be one extra step. The key might leak, which is why you could have a new key everyday that’s signed by an intermediate key and these are internet connected devices (iphones and macbooks and ipads) that could easily download a key block-list for a kilobyte e…

Solving the key-leaking issue is usually done by having a unique per-device key in the HSM, and having an online database that can be checked for authenticity. Then cloning a device requires pulling out an HSM, and if you do sucessfully pull the key off that it becomes suspicious that many different devices have the same key, and it can be blacklisted. This is what google uses (anticompetitively, in my mind) to force people to use geniune chromecasts.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#125

Post by Gud »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #67
latchkey wrote: post #2

My partner bought fake AirPods off ebay. We kind of had a feeling they'd be fake but felt it was worth the risk. We got a refund from the seller pretty quickly and they told us to keep them. The pods themselves looked exactly the same. The case was the real sign. It was clearly not the same as an original case. They actually worked, but they were essentially just generic bluetooth headphones. We ended up listing them…

>Got the same amount we paid for them. I don't understand this world sometimes. Someone wants ear buds, they want to signal wealth so choose expensive brand, but they want knockoffs because they're actually poor[er]. The main risk with knock-offs is they arrive broken, or just don't arrive, or... basically it's a scam of some sort. So, you took on the risk of buying, assessed the earphones as working, the earphones a…

The main risk is damage to your ears.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#126

Post by arghwhat »

jacquesm wrote: post #112
arghwhat wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy of such fire is directly correlated to the battery capacity - airpods would probably just get hot and smoke a bit. The case could do more, but still limited in comparison to, say, a phone. So I'd say the main risk of putting those things in your ears is suffering the horrible audio quality.

Anything that has the potential to release hot gas and flames under pressure into your ears is a safety risk.

Sure, then don't use any earbuds that contain batteries.

We're dealing with tiny batteries in the 100mWh range here, which is less than 1/100th of phones famous for their... combustibility. Ejection of hot gas requires there to be quite a bit of energy present during the failure so that a certain extreme temperature can be reached. Below that, you'll just get a warm earbud.

> hot gas and flames

flames are hot gas

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#127

Post by Projectiboga »

Projectiboga wrote: post #91
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Got the same amount we paid for them. I don't understand this world sometimes. Someone wants ear buds, they want to signal wealth so choose expensive brand, but they want knockoffs because they're actually poor[er]. The main risk with knock-offs is they arrive broken, or just don't arrive, or... basically it's a scam of some sort. So, you took on the risk of buying, assessed the earphones as working, the earphones a…

The main risk is fire with the batteries.

I was referring to the charging case with the missing heat sink and cut rate or missing charge regulation circuits.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#128

Post by [deleted] »

latchkey wrote: post #2

My partner bought fake AirPods off ebay. We kind of had a feeling they'd be fake but felt it was worth the risk. We got a refund from the seller pretty quickly and they told us to keep them. The pods themselves looked exactly the same. The case was the real sign. It was clearly not the same as an original case. They actually worked, but they were essentially just generic bluetooth headphones. We ended up listing them…

[deleted]

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#129

Post by Bluescreenbuddy »

Use a flashlight to test. Real airpods, the plastic does a really good job at blocking the light and it won't diffuse. Fake ones almost always use shitty plastic and the light diffuses. When I was an Apple Certified iOS Technician, this was one of the tests we did.

Re: Real vs. fake AirPods with industrial CT

#130

Post by jacquesm »

arghwhat wrote: post #126
jacquesm wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything that has the potential to release hot gas and flames under pressure into your ears is a safety risk.

Sure, then don't use any earbuds that contain batteries. We're dealing with tiny batteries in the 100mWh range here, which is less than 1/100th of phones famous for their... combustibility. Ejection of hot gas requires there to be quite a bit of energy present during the failure so that a certain extreme temperature can be reached. Below that, you'll just get a warm earbud. > hot gas and flames flames are hot gas

That's where the brand comes in: they're supposed to have something to lose.

And yes, flames are hot gas, but not all hot gas is flames.

Post reply on HN