It was Beats. At first it was found in counterfeit Beats, but later the same was found in genuine Beats. And then guess who bought Beats for their exquisite metal weight technology? That's right, it was Apple.
> And then guess who bought Beats for their exquisite metal weight technology? That's right, it was Apple.
It's self-evidently extremely disingenuous to claim that Apple bought Beats for their "exquisite metal weight technology", so I thought I'd double check your claim that there are "metal weights" inside Beats headphones.
All of this appears to stem from two blog posts, written by the same VC.[^1] The first time they accidentally tore down counterfeit Beats, and when they managed to repeat the process, they "stuck by [their] claim" that:
> "…these metal parts are there to add a bit of weight and increase perceived quality with a nice look."
The BOM estimate they provide lists the following metal parts:
* Inner cast metal separator
* Springs
* Torx screw
* Self tapping screw
* Cast metal supports
* Stamped metal ear cup
None of these are extraneous weights not serving a purpose. The claim of the author might be better presented as:
"Beats headphones use heavier metal components instead of plastic ones, and I think it's because they add weight."
There are a lot of very good reasons to use materials that dampen unwanted interference like parasitic vibrations. Stiffer materials such as metal parts typically flex less, and have fewer (but usually more pronounced) resonances than plastic parts, which have intrinsic damping but might distort.
A good example of this is that the driver in your headphones is moving. Therefore the housing it is placed in must consider sprung/unsprung mass. Adding metal components increases the mechanical impedance.
So:
1. It is entirely possible that your claim about the weights is correct, and Beats chose to use metal components rather than plastic purely to add weight to the product.
2. There are a great many other possible explanations for using metal rather than plastic, and I don't think that you're likely to be party to them. For example: maybe they had the parts in-chain already and didn't want to have to tie up hardware engineering or supplier quality engineering for a new plastic part.
The Beats brand was a great entrée to an entire market segment that Apple was trying to better access. I'd say it was a masterful acquisition (and integration).
Yep! I own both a pair of AirPods and a pair of Beats. The Beats were designed for a lower price point, without noise cancellation, than the AirPods so I can’t offer a head-head comparison.
Exactly. Look at something like the Sony XM5s that have a defective design that breaks in a light wind. There a class action against them for the crap they pulled and refusal to warranty. Not that I’m bitter at them or anything.
Nothing new here then. Back when I used to DJ some 20+ years ago, people would complain back then that Sony headphones would constantly break on them.
Meanwhile I had Sennheisers and they could take an absolute beating and still work fine. While also being plastic and cheap looking in comparison to other brands in the same price packet.
All genuine Beats as far I know come with the H1 chips and pair just like AirPods - even my cheap $60 Beats Flex I use on planes since I don’t have to worry about them falling out - they just fall around my neck
Totally agree. And also, this limitation of Spotify probably affects 0.00000001% of their users. In other words, it just doesn't matter (except to those 3 people)
I got a pair of AirPods Pro, paid for by a past employer, and it's the only Apple product I like. I'd even give some of my own money to Apple if I had to buy another pair.
When I'm wearing wired earbuds, the feeling of getting the cord caught on something and having the earbuds violently yanked from my ears is one of the most annoying things, like a slap in the face.
Plus I like being able to put my phone wherever I want, when I'm listening to podcasts while doing yard work. The phone stays in the house, or on a patio table, not in my pocket where pruning shears or dirt will get to it.
There are various other situations where having wires going to my ears is annoying or impossible.
I don't have any nostalgia for old machines, I understand the 5- or 6-figure price tags were ridiculous, but I'm curious - in what way did Unix machines back then work poorly?
The Gatling quote is hilarious. Did the inventor of the machine gun really think that each company of 100 men was going to be reduced to one guy with a Gatling gun, and 99 of them send him to the battlefield by himself, saying "good luck buddy, let us know how it works out?"
The army was going to be reduced by a factor of 100, and two tiny armies were going to face off while the majority of men of fighting age were going to sit at home and paint landscape paintings? Really?
> that it would, to a large extent supersede the necessity of large armies, and consequently, exposure to battle and disease [would] be greatly diminished.
Our force structure shifted towards logistics and infrastructure from combatants as we moved up the weapon complexity hierarchy. First automatic guns, then tanks, then airplanes.
To a large extent, a tank or air crew is 50 guys waving off 1-5, while they sit back at base and do hobbies between bouts of mechanic labor. They’re not literally at home, but we do fight with small mechanized armies while most soldiers watch on from the base.
Yes, even for infantry, the tooth to tail ratio for deployed expeditionary armies is now 10-20:1. Even that's down from cold war ratios due to mechanisation and automation on the logistics side.
It wasn’t over night but it did exactly what it intended and sped up a battle significantly as though you had multiples of troops compared to a musket firing line
That has little to do with technological advances, just the fact that the US is at an imperial peace; ie. it is under zero threat of invasion and is currently only engaged in small-scale imperial adventurism across the globe which does not require a large standing army. ~16% of adult Americans served in WW2, or ~33% of adult men.
US/Israel and Iran each have millions of military and military-industrial personnel, and yet the actual combat is being performed by a few thousand at most. There might a thousand people in uniform for each one directly engaging the enemy (flying a sortie, launching a missile, firing a torpedo) on any given day.
So these nations are at war, but the ground troops aren't invading in foot? Instead, they're in barracks or never raised to begin with? What relevance could this have to the quote from Gattling?
Probably the same relevance as the type of war you're referring to (asymmetrical strike exchange). The war of conquest between countries of comparable population and military power Gatling referred to still needs a lot more people on the ground doing the actual takeover part.
So how might a global and region powers engage in a war without engaging in territorial invasion? What kind of advancement might allow such a conflict to take place with only a tiny number of combatants?
> and 99 of them send him to the battlefield by himself, saying "good luck buddy, let us know how it works out?"
>The army was going to be reduced by a factor of 100, and two tiny armies were going to face off while the majority of men of fighting age were going to sit at home and paint landscape paintings? Really?
Well, for a time greek city states did fight pretty much like this. Small armies of hoplites were raised outside harvest season, went out, fought almost show-battles with very few casualties, and tribute changed hands based on the results. Everyone went home for the harvest.
I believe there's even instances where a battle wasn't fought at all in favour of two appointed champions dueling (origin of the popular fiction trope)
It didn't last, but for a time the greek city states had a kind of equilibrium with relatively few resources (or people) spent on war.
> Well, for a time greek city states did fight pretty much like this. Small armies of hoplites were raised outside harvest season, went out, fought almost show-battles with very few casualties, and tribute changed hands based on the results. Everyone went home for the harvest.
This is a view held by a small group, but is in no way the accepted view of it for historians. See the link for a blogpost of a military historian talking about the orthodox and heterodox schools of thought on this.
I don't know if this is your point, but we're hearing the same stores with AI. Do these people really mean what they say or are they just lying to paint themselves as honorable
Interesting perspective. One could argue that nuclear weapons are among the less harmful things invented, since they killed fewer people than knives, clubs, spears, guns, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, coal power plants, and probably a lot of other things. Plus they probably prevent a 3rd world war with killing on the same scale as WW1 and WW2, tens of millions each.
They prevent the third world war, until they don’t. Then they will bring mayhem and misery. And with the current lunatics in charge I am not really at ease just because nobody pushed the big red button yet.
But the author of that page is not concerned with readability or accessibility. He just wants things to look cool and design-y. One piece of supporting evidence he cites is some random photo he took that doesn't contain #000000 black. That doesn't mean anything, it could be that it's over-exposed, or has poor contrast, or had some silly filter applied. This leads me to think that the author of that page doesn't know what he's talking about.
So you routinely encounter photographs that have noticable areas where sensor did not receive any light during exposure? To the point where you feel not having completely unlit parts of a photo is a sign of over-exposure or filters? Are you an astrophotographer?
I frequently walk 20 minutes from my house to a trailhead. Along the way, I often see annoying trash. Somehow, a freeway underpass (a road going underneath I-90) seems to be catnip to people who want to throw trash out of their cars.
Eventually I got fed up and picked up a few bags full of trash. Then I found another guy nearby who also likes picking up trash, so we had a few get-togethers where we collect 3 trash bags each. He has a connection with our city sanitation department, so they come and pick up the bags.
The same guy also runs a once-a-month litter pick up event where we meet at the post office and spend an hour picking up trash. He provides hi-viz vests, trash bags, and grabbers. Usually about 10 people show up.
Overall it puts me in a bad mood to see so much trash thrown out by shitty people.
reply