This article was a fun read, though it almost sounds like it was written by Apple’s PR department (I don’t believe it was). Also: I disagree with a couple of points.

I do agree that Apple is a great fashion brand and is now a maker of fine jewelry. I’ve always supported the argument that Apple is really a design firm that happens to know how to create, manufacture and market technology. And it’s an extraordinary design firm; I’ve worked with a number of actual design firms and none have had the talent, the courage or the resources to develop products like the iPod or the iPhone — or AirPods.

Sure, wired earbuds are an evolutionary form of 100-year-old technology, but the boring truth is that they work. One issue I have with AirPods is that they don’t seem to solve the fundamental problem I’ve had with wireless headsets from the beginning — and it’s not that they make you look like a “dickwad.” (More on that below.)

I gave up on wireless earpieces when I lost five $50 Bluetooth headsets in five months. That’s a $50 per month fee I didn’t need. Don’t get me wrong: I miss the convenience of being able to answer and talk on my phone without having to plug something in. I don’t miss the inferior sound quality or the $50 per month price tag. AirPods may have solved the sound quality issue (I don’t know; I haven’t tried them), but at $170 I don’t think they’ve solved the “misplacement” problem.

Sometimes technology advancement just runs into the simple limits of physics or economics — or both. For example, way back in the 70’s it looked like the traditional, sub-sonic passenger jet was about to become a relic; supersonic jetliners were on the way. As we all know, it just didn’t work out; the physics of supersonic flight led to regulatory problems (the jetliners were banned over land due to sonic booms) and sky-high costs (the Concord couldn’t make a profit).

With AirPods I see a physics problem (they’re too small and will get lost) and an economics problem (it’ll cost you $170 each time). Nevertheless I’m sure Apple will find a number of users who are willing to overlook these issues. Still, I can’t hail the AirPod as the next revolution in personal technology the way the article does.

I do think this article points to the notion that Apple has such fiercely loyal followers that they’re willing to overlook some obvious faults in a new product. I’d say that AirPods — and the iPhones that require them — are another example of Apple’s courageous (though not always practical) design choices.

As for looking like a dickwad when walking around with wireless earpieces: I think “dickwad” is too strong a term, but I don’t think wireless earpieces have ever been fashionable on anyone who is up and walking around. And AirPods don’t solve that problem either.