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.
Yeah, I had a pair of MDR-V700 back in the day, and they broke in about 2-3 years max, without any abuse, just randomly.
I gave them to a friend who "quick-fixed" them with a screw at the pivot point, but they lost all their flexibility after that. He didn't mind because he was using them solely for drumming, but I couldn't use them anymore.
That being said, I have had some nasty experiences with Sennheiser's IEMs as well. Had to send 2 of them in warranty within a year, products that were in the 300-600 euro range back around 2010!
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
