Indeed, nobody ever thought of doing the same. And I mean NOBODY would dare charge you more if you buy something later instead of the bundle. Would they? o_O
I mean it is definitely not done when you buy GPU or console bundles (with games). Or when you buy an OEM component for your laptop. Or when you buy a phone with different memory capacities (knowing you can't expand later even if you're willing to pay). Etc.
That seems to fly in the tech industry. In one of my other hobbies, I can buy a controller that is wired, or one that is wireless. The wireless one is about $50 more. If I buy the wired one today, I can send it back later and get it upgraded to the wireless version for - hold on to your hats - $50. Only penalty I pay for not going wireless from day 1 is I have to send the thing away for 2-3 weeks and I have to pay 1 way postage.
BUT - this is NOT the same thing AT ALL. If you buy the wired package, and then pay $78 for a wireless charge case, you now have TWO charge cases, a wired one and a wireless one. If you buy the wireless up front for the extra $40, you have ONE charging case, the wireless one. The price difference between the wired and wireless charging case is NOT $40, it's $40 + cost of the wired case. But hey, Apple, so, must be a gouge.
@rrinker: We're talking about completely different things. The idea was the wired case + headphones cost $160, the wireless case + headphones cost $200. But the case individually will be $80.
Sttm so "aptly" did the math and concluded the $80 wireless case will be twice as expensive if you buy it later/separately because for him it's exceedingly difficult to realize that the $40 difference is just between a wired and wireless case, so basically the wireless circuitry, NOT THE WHOLE CASE.
@Sttm, oh noes, companies don't sell you stuff at cost, bastards... Then again for you the difference between a wired and a wireless case is... another full wireless case, not just the wireless charging circuits. So let's just take your opinions with a boulder of salt ;).
My real complaint here is there doesn't seem to be any real improvement at $159. This would be more compelling of a purchase IF they just included the wireless charging case they've been talking about for almost 2 years.
$200 for a pair of crappy sounding headphones that aren't even waterproof is a hell of a stretch. I have the first gen Airpods received as a gift for Xmas 2017 and they're fine but I would have never spent my own money on them.
Hard math strikes Sttm again. You take the $160 wired case + headphones, you add a wireless thingamajiggle to the case and you get the $200 wireless case + headphones. Soooooo... The wireless thingamajiggle is $40. When you buy the case separately you also get... the literal case case and the battery inside, and whatever accessory it may come with. Get it? Logic make brain hurt?
Those seem like decent updates. Apple can charge whatever they want until someone comes up with a competitive product and sells it for less. From the reviews I've read, it seems like no one can compete with the ease of use that the W1 and H1 allow.
No one can compete because no one else has control over the software or the hardware to enable it. Bose cannot make a W1 chip device, or change the Apple software to work with a chip they create themselves.
Yet another area antitrust regulators should be looking at.
You know some funky words, antitrust, regulators... Let me blow your mind: Antitrust means antimonopoly, to keep it simple. Apple has a tiny fraction of a market with dozens of other players, and their tech doesn't block anyone from using publicly available tech (like BT) to connect to any phone. They are free to improve their however they see fit and make their products better using their proprietary technology.
I'll just feed you the conclusion because I don't have all week: There's no abuse, no antitrust, no regulation broken.
I should have been more clear, but I meant that no other phone manufacturer has gone to the same lengths as Apple to make wireless headphones work better. Samsung could easily put a chip in their Galaxy line and sell earbuds with a corresponding chip. They don't. Instead, they just use standard Bluetooth.
Correct, most other companies are content with just borrowing the aesthetic concept, not the functional one. So now you have a wave of truly wireless headphones (2 independent earbuds) where the looks are much more Apple like than the inner workings. The intention is just to ride in the slipstream and hope that the users assume that if looks are similar then function must be too.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
Sttm - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
Classic Apple price gouging. Don't buy it now, its TWICE as much later!close - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
Indeed, nobody ever thought of doing the same. And I mean NOBODY would dare charge you more if you buy something later instead of the bundle. Would they? o_OI mean it is definitely not done when you buy GPU or console bundles (with games). Or when you buy an OEM component for your laptop. Or when you buy a phone with different memory capacities (knowing you can't expand later even if you're willing to pay). Etc.
rrinker - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
That seems to fly in the tech industry. In one of my other hobbies, I can buy a controller that is wired, or one that is wireless. The wireless one is about $50 more. If I buy the wired one today, I can send it back later and get it upgraded to the wireless version for - hold on to your hats - $50. Only penalty I pay for not going wireless from day 1 is I have to send the thing away for 2-3 weeks and I have to pay 1 way postage.BUT - this is NOT the same thing AT ALL. If you buy the wired package, and then pay $78 for a wireless charge case, you now have TWO charge cases, a wired one and a wireless one. If you buy the wireless up front for the extra $40, you have ONE charging case, the wireless one. The price difference between the wired and wireless charging case is NOT $40, it's $40 + cost of the wired case. But hey, Apple, so, must be a gouge.
Sttm - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
If you think it costs them more than $20 to make that wireless charging case....LUL
close - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
@rrinker: We're talking about completely different things. The idea was the wired case + headphones cost $160, the wireless case + headphones cost $200. But the case individually will be $80.Sttm so "aptly" did the math and concluded the $80 wireless case will be twice as expensive if you buy it later/separately because for him it's exceedingly difficult to realize that the $40 difference is just between a wired and wireless case, so basically the wireless circuitry, NOT THE WHOLE CASE.
@Sttm, oh noes, companies don't sell you stuff at cost, bastards... Then again for you the difference between a wired and a wireless case is... another full wireless case, not just the wireless charging circuits. So let's just take your opinions with a boulder of salt ;).
Samus - Thursday, March 21, 2019 - link
My real complaint here is there doesn't seem to be any real improvement at $159. This would be more compelling of a purchase IF they just included the wireless charging case they've been talking about for almost 2 years.$200 for a pair of crappy sounding headphones that aren't even waterproof is a hell of a stretch. I have the first gen Airpods received as a gift for Xmas 2017 and they're fine but I would have never spent my own money on them.
bubblyboo - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
$40 more for wireless charging case. Wow.Sttm - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
That's with the combo savings, $80 without.close - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
Hard math strikes Sttm again. You take the $160 wired case + headphones, you add a wireless thingamajiggle to the case and you get the $200 wireless case + headphones. Soooooo... The wireless thingamajiggle is $40. When you buy the case separately you also get... the literal case case and the battery inside, and whatever accessory it may come with. Get it? Logic make brain hurt?close - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
That's about the difference between a $5-10 wired charger and a $45-50 wireless charger.cfenton - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
Those seem like decent updates. Apple can charge whatever they want until someone comes up with a competitive product and sells it for less. From the reviews I've read, it seems like no one can compete with the ease of use that the W1 and H1 allow.Sttm - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
No one can compete because no one else has control over the software or the hardware to enable it. Bose cannot make a W1 chip device, or change the Apple software to work with a chip they create themselves.Yet another area antitrust regulators should be looking at.
close - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
You know some funky words, antitrust, regulators... Let me blow your mind: Antitrust means antimonopoly, to keep it simple. Apple has a tiny fraction of a market with dozens of other players, and their tech doesn't block anyone from using publicly available tech (like BT) to connect to any phone. They are free to improve their however they see fit and make their products better using their proprietary technology.I'll just feed you the conclusion because I don't have all week: There's no abuse, no antitrust, no regulation broken.
cfenton - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
I should have been more clear, but I meant that no other phone manufacturer has gone to the same lengths as Apple to make wireless headphones work better. Samsung could easily put a chip in their Galaxy line and sell earbuds with a corresponding chip. They don't. Instead, they just use standard Bluetooth.close - Friday, March 22, 2019 - link
Correct, most other companies are content with just borrowing the aesthetic concept, not the functional one. So now you have a wave of truly wireless headphones (2 independent earbuds) where the looks are much more Apple like than the inner workings. The intention is just to ride in the slipstream and hope that the users assume that if looks are similar then function must be too.Sailor23M - Wednesday, March 20, 2019 - link
Does anyone know if these are BT 5.0?