AfterDawn: Tech news

Apple AirPods use Bluetooth after all

Written by Matti Vähäkainu (Google+) @ 08 Sep 2016 18:17 User comments (7)

Apple AirPods use Bluetooth after all Apple unveiled yesterday new wireless AirPods for the new iPhone 7 which, as rumored, does not have a separate headphone jack. Separate of course meaning that the Lightning port doubles now as a headphone connector.
Apple made a big deal about the new wireless headphones, which are – at least by superficially – essentially wireless version of the EarPods. Apple's Phil Schiller said that the headphones get rid of the pairing problems of Bluetooth and include a new W1 chip which among other things will make the connection between devices (and the other headpiece) easier.

It has been since revealed that Apple does use a low powered Bluetooth connection but just makes the pairing easier with its own software and/or hardware. Recode reports that not only are the AirPods using Bluetooth but they are compatible with non-iPhones.

So it is nice to know that in addition to investing $159 you don't have to buy another set of in-ears for potential other devices. It does, however, remain to be seen what kind of audio quality the AirPods provide and whether they are worth the price tag even with this rather positive revelation.

Previous Next  

7 user comments

18.9.2016 21:44

Quote:
It does, however, remain to be seen what kind of audio quality the AirPods provide and whether they are worth the price tag even with this rather positive revelation.
1.) Top-end BTLE-to-3.5mm phono adapters don't sound as good as a cheap male-male cable
2.) Stereos and sound systems with built-in BT audio still sound better with the Aux input
3.) Neither Apple nor Beats have ever had any interest in sound quality (excluding $250+ stuff from beats that sound as good as $50 Koss)

I wouldn't expect much out of these. But hey, at least now you need an adapter to plug your phone into your car stereo (because again, BT audio is crap). All that said, they really can't sound much worse than the old wired apple earbuds...and thankfully for Apple users, they include a set of wired earbuds with the phone...they plug into the wrong end, but at least they plug in.

I'm actually trying to think of a good iPhone...and I mean good in a very generous way. 7 fails because of the headphone jack (possibly other things, don't know yet obviously), 6 because of the touchscreen issues, 5 bends if you put it in your pocket (I guess the 6 does as well), 4 drops signal if you hold it "wrong", I guess the 1-3 were not too bad for someone who doesn't want any features or performance, but at this point the non-replaceable batteries would be junk, plus you can't put the current version of iOS on them. There actually is no such thing as an iPhone that "just works" anymore...if you want that, you need to buy a bottom-end motorola and an apple decal.

29.9.2016 2:30

Originally posted by KillerBug:


I wouldn't expect much out of these. But hey, at least now you need an adapter to plug your phone into your car stereo (because again, BT audio is crap). All that said, they really can't sound much worse than the old wired apple earbuds...and thankfully for Apple users, they include a set of wired earbuds with the phone...they plug into the wrong end, but at least they plug in..
Hey, they may not sound any better, but at least they cost way more.

For many years, Apple has been asking the question, "Are our users stupid enough to shell out top dollar for this second-rate product that totally lacks innovation if we point out how round the corners are?" For many years, Apple fans have been responding, "Yes!"

But now, the more difficult question arises: When Apple users have to spend $160 every time the dog chews on their ear buds, will they finally respond, "So tell me again how I get my iTunes music onto a Samsung phone?"
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Sep 2016 @ 2:31

39.9.2016 8:06

Originally posted by SoTired:
When Apple users have to spend $160 every time the dog chews on their ear buds
Not to worry...without wires the dog will probably just eat the things. Have fun checking the dog turds!

49.9.2016 14:38

I LOVE the idea behind these and the design, as I invented this design in my head back about 6 years ago (way to go Apple keeping up w/ME!)

However, at 159.00 for a whopping 5 hour charge and buds that look easily lost and more easily broken, I'd think twice about buying these.

Also, they say cell phones are bad for our brains and cancer can come about but what about these little ear-sized microwaves???

Cancer anyone? The receiver is smack dab in your ear and antenna immediately below it. Not good.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 09 Sep 2016 @ 14:39

59.9.2016 22:40

Originally posted by hearme0:
Also, they say cell phones are bad for our brains and cancer can come about but what about these little ear-sized microwaves???

Cancer anyone? The receiver is smack dab in your ear and antenna immediately below it. Not good.
LoL...thanks for that, I needed a laugh. If you are actually serious in your belief, check out your sources; they probably say the earth is flat and Bigfoot is Elvis in disguise as well.

...And apple isn't "keeping up" with you; they are making a crummy overpriced copy of what others did years ago (that is their specialty after all). You can gen cheap wireless earbuds for under $20 on Amazon.

613.9.2016 12:06

Originally posted by KillerBug:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Also, they say cell phones are bad for our brains and cancer can come about but what about these little ear-sized microwaves???

Cancer anyone? The receiver is smack dab in your ear and antenna immediately below it. Not good.
LoL...thanks for that, I needed a laugh. If you are actually serious in your belief, check out your sources; they probably say the earth is flat and Bigfoot is Elvis in disguise as well.

...And apple isn't "keeping up" with you; they are making a crummy overpriced copy of what others did years ago (that is their specialty after all). You can gen cheap wireless earbuds for under $20 on Amazon.

I meant this particular design for wireless earbuds....this I thought up years ago, this same exact design.

As for waves and our physiological makeup.......it is what it is but cell phones DO INDEED promote abnormalities and I rather thought bluetooth would be under the same category.

Study after study, HEAVY users (pretty much all you schlomos that yammer on, over, in, below, through your phones) are experiencing negative effects. I don't own a cell anymore and "tissue heating" from wireless is real. Again......I'm not so sure about Bluetooth but it's not as concerning as that of cellular signals.


I could stand to be corrected but mostly I'm well informed and highly educated.



Read this if you think sources are illegit

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...ones-fact-sheet

713.9.2016 23:13

Originally posted by hearme0:

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/caus...ones-fact-sheet

While it is true that a handful of studies have shown increased risks for extremely heavy users, there have been far more with negative results...it's just that those don't get published because that's how study publishing works...just like when someone shows that wine or chocolate improves health, there may be 100 other studies showing the opposite but they don't sell publications so they don't get published. When other scientists try to verify the results and get negative results, they don't get published either...unless they are from a huge research project (and you will notice all the studies showing harmful results are from small projects). Part of the reason small projects can get wacky results is that they tend to have small sample sizes and poor controls, part is that they can't afford to verify results or do more research than just asking random people on the street, and sometimes they just want to show something that they decided to be true before they even started. You don't make a name for yourself by telling people what they already know. The only effect anyone has actually been able to show is that holding a hot cell phone to your ear can make your ear warm...but the same is true for a warm towel and no one claims those cause cancer. If non-ionizing radiation (the kind cell phones make) causes cancer then we are all in a lot of trouble because the light we see is a lot closer to ionizing than anything from a cell phone (with the exception of the screen; that is exactly the light we see). You also might want to look at this chart from the website you listed: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html if cell phones cause cancer (presumably quickly enough to be detectable in a study), why is the rate of brain cancer going down while the rate of cell phone use has skyrocketed? If you had to make a correlation, it would look like cell phones prevent cancer.

But even if you insist that LTE radios cause brain cancer because they are powerful enough to reach out to towers, BTLE does not...it is not powerful enough to reach out to towers and by your own logic, it would help prevent cancer because you don't have the phone right by your head. Again, according to cancer.gov (the exact page you linked to in fact), if you are worried about the radio in your phone causing ear warming, you should use bt.

I'm not sure what you mean by "this exact design" because I doubt you invented the W1 chip...but you can get actual independent earbuds with no wires connecting them, with microphones, and actually of a better design in terms of shape. The only issues are bad audio quality due to bluetooth and short battery life...just like the AirPods. And again...you can get them for under $20 shipped: https://www.amazon.com/AXGIO-Mini-Pro-M.../dp/B00Y2BB2UU/ and https://www.amazon.com/Tronfy-Mini-Mini.../dp/B00YA2UK54/

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive