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

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.

Comments

Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re: Obligatory

[LynnwoodRooster]

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.

$200 for headphones

[Anonymous Coward]

you got what you paid for.

the logo.

Re:$200 for headphones

[ark1]

This. Beats were always about status and not quality.

Re:Fakes abound.

[qortra]

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.

Misleading summary

[MightyYar]

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.

Re:Fakes abound.

[Mr D from 63]

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

Lawsuits

[willoughby]

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.

Re:Lawsuits

[skam240]

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.

Re:Fakes abound.

[YuppieScum]

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.

Re:Once & for all, Apple is fashion not functi

[lucm]

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.

Re:Fakes abound.

[mjwx]

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.