Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's 'Shoddy' Beats Headphones Get Slammed In Lawsuit (theregister.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the unhappy-camper dept.

A lawsuit (PDF) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, recounts the frustrations of five plaintiffs who found that Apple's Powerbeats 2 and Powerbeats 3 headphones did not perform as advertised. They are also claiming the company is refusing to honor warranty commitments to repair or replace the failed units. The Register reports: The complaint seeks $5,000,000 in damages and class action certification, in order to represent thousands of similarly afflicted Beats customers who are alleged to exist. "In widespread advertising and marketing campaigns, Apple touts that its costly Powerbeats (which retail for $199.95) are 'BUILT TO ENDURE' and are the 'BEST HEADPHONES FOR WORKING OUT,'" the complaint says. "But these costly headphones are neither 'built to endure' nor 'sweat & water resistant,' and certainly do not have a battery that lasts for six or twelve hours. Instead, these shoddy headphones contain a design defect that causes the battery life to diminish and eventually stop retaining a charge."

The complaint attributes the shoddiness of Apple's Powerbeats headphones to cheap components. Citing an estimate in a recent Motley Fool article, the complaint contends that Apple's Beats Solo headphones cost $16.89 to make and retail for $199.95: a markup of more than 1,000 per cent. That figure actually comes from a Medium post by Avery Louie, from hardware prototyping biz Bolt.

18 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The complaint contends that Apple's Beats Solo headphones cost $16.89 to make and retail for $199.95: a markup of more than 1000 percent.

    That takes courage!

    1. Re: Obligatory by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

      MSRP is $200. Dealer/retailer pays $120. Distributor pays $80. Apple makes a typical 4-5X markup, not 12X as intended. There are more steps in the chain than most expect... For most CE products, you can assume a 10-12X markup between COGM (not COGS which would be higher than COGM) and MSRP.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. Fakes abound. by commandlinegamer · · Score: 3, Informative

    A recent TV investigation (I think it was BBC's Rogue Traders) featured people getting ripped off with poor quality fakes of premium brand headphones, including Beats, IIRC. Wonder if some of the complainants here have been similarly caught out.

    1. Re:Fakes abound. by qortra · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're playing fast and loose with the word "premium". If you must use an adjective that is not pejorative, I would choose "fashion headphones". When I think "premium", I think Sennheiser, AKG, Shure, Beyerdynamic.

    2. Re:Fakes abound. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The headphones are fine, you just need to buy the Monster headphone cables to connect them. Then they'll sound purer, fuller, and richer.

    3. Re:Fakes abound. by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wonder if some of the complainants here have been similarly caught out.

      The two-year-old Medium post in the summary links to a author who was fooled. A later post reveals this and corrects the cost estimate. Based on the language and misleading info, I think the summary author has an agenda.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:Fakes abound. by YuppieScum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the term was "premium brand," which Apple - arguably - is.

      However, such a brand can be applied to all kinds of shonky products - Ferrari and Porsche, for example, sell all kinds of branded, over-priced tat.

      --
      This sig left unintentionally blank.
    5. Re:Fakes abound. by mjwx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be fair, the term was "premium brand," which Apple - arguably - is.

      Apple is by far, not a premium brand. Its an expensive one, but not premium. Even then, they're not so expensive as to price themselves out of availability for everyone. Here in the UK even someone on benefits (welfare) can get an Iphone. They're like a Toyota Camry and we can hardly call Toyota a premium brand

      However, such a brand can be applied to all kinds of shonky products - Ferrari and Porsche, for example, sell all kinds of branded, over-priced tat.

      Right about the first part, wrong about the second.

      Ferrari's and Porsches have attributes that set them apart from cheaper competition (although the Porsche is the cheap Ferrari). You cant replicate a 488 for much less than a 488 costs. You cant say the same about Apple. Apple is like what Volkswagen does in Australia. VW pretends its a premium brand in Australia when they're common as muck in here in Europe and no more expensive than a Toyota. They aren't better quality or have better features than their competition, but they charge a premium because of the badge.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  3. $200 for headphones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you got what you paid for.

    the logo.

    1. Re:$200 for headphones by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. All things Apple are overpriced and everyone knows it. The people that buy Apple products do so for reasons more important to them than the dollar value proposition.

      Often these people are bad with money in general. You can be sure that a lot of people making minimum wage purchased this crap to go with their iPhone.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:$200 for headphones by ark1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This. Beats were always about status and not quality.

  4. Misleading summary by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have no idea whether the case has merit or not - I would never spend $200 on headphones and am completely unequipped to judge. However, the article says "recent" Motley Fool article, when the linked article was published in 2015 - about a year after the Apple acquisition of Beats. I don't know if Apple has used those years to improve the product or not, but calling the article "recent" is disingenuous.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  5. Lawsuits by willoughby · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is the second lawsuit I've read about in the last couple of days which just amounts to, "It's not as good as I thought it was". Are consumers today really so ignorant they just purchase without research and then expect someone to bail them out if they're not satisfied?

    And... my Grado headphones are great, btw. Not wireless, though.

    1. Re:Lawsuits by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Battery warranties need sorting out. Companies claim that they are consumables, but you also can't change them yourself and if you get a dud or bad design you are SOL.

      The law needs to be changed so that batteries have a minimum 2 year warranty and must be user replaceable. It isn't difficult to design for those requirements, and not expensive.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Lawsuits by skam240 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The lawsuit is claiming false advertising and If they can prove it then they deserve the win. We shouldn't have to research the hell out of every little purchase, we should be able to buy based on what is advertised. If an item is advertised as sweat and water resistant no one should have to doubt that claim, especially when paying a premium price.

      Along with all this, holding Apple accountable for lying to consumers (if they really were) is healthy for our economy in general. If consumers have trust in the products and brands they are buying they are likely to spend more than if they do not have trust. I'm not at all the type of person to buy something when it first comes out but without these people our economy would be less healthy.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  6. They are the best headphones for working out by edtice1559 · · Score: 3, Funny

    They have "beats" in really large letters so that everybody else in the gym can notice that you are wearing them which is the only reason you would buy such a ridiculous product as these to begin with. Unfortunately, having the beats headphones isn't going to provide the attention from the cute girls in the gym who are in better shape and not interested. You can't file a class action suit saying that the headphones didn't increase your sex appeal, though.

  7. Re:Once & for all, Apple is fashion not functi by lucm · · Score: 5, Funny

    You buy Apple to LOOK cool, not to actually BE cool -- you understand that right?

    That was true in 2014. Now you buy Apple because the storage on your previous Apple product is full and you have no other way to get more space.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  8. Is it worth it if they work? by dmr001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My use case is running for 40 minutes 4 times a week while getting my headphones soaked in a combination of sweat, rain, and lately ash blown in from nearby wildfires. I have blown through 3 prior pairs of Bluetooth wireless headphones, all of which suffered from poor reception while running, and all of which died a salt-encrusted death within several months.

    My Powerbeats 3 aren't perfect (the cord sticks a bit on the back of my neck) but they are by far the only wireless headphones that ever really worked for me for running. I spent more than $200 with the other 3, which I suppose made the admittedly stiff price worth my while.