This agent stuff is really making me lose respect for our industry
All the years of discussing programming/security best practices
Then cut to 2026 and suddenly its like we just collectively decided software quality doesn't matter, determinism is going out the window, and its becoming standard practice to have bots on our local PC constantly running unknown shell commands
We didn't collectively decided, we've got this forced down our throats to apply a novel tool to any imaginable situation because the execs got antsy about being left behind.
A truly absurd amount of capital was deployed which triggered a cascade of reactions by the people in charge of capital at other places. They are extremely anxious that everything will change under their feet, and if they don't start using as much as humanly possible of it right about now they die.
That's it.
The tools have definitely found some use, there's more to learn on how else they can be used, and maybe over time smart people will settle on ways to wrangle it well. The messaging from the execs though, is not that, it is "you'll be measured on how much you use this, we don't know for what or how, it's for you to figure out but don't dare to not use it".
I do understand their anxiety, their job is to not let their companies die, and make the most money as they can in the process; a seemingly major shift on the foundations of their orgs will cause fear.
But we have not collectively decided that it was safe, and good, to run rampant with these tools without caring for all that was learnt since software was invented...
The whole industry is like a fashion show and has been for a long time. This is just exceptionally stupid compared to moderately stupid things before. I see it ore that everyone's wearing pink feathered chicken suits because it's in fashion. If you don't wear a pink feathered chicken suit then you're a luddite scumbag who doesn't deserve the respect of your peers.
However some of us still have enough self-respect not to be seen dead in a pink feathered chicken suit. I mean I'm still pissed off at half the other stuff we do in the industry. I haven't even really looked at the chicken suits yet.
If you work in a tech company with >5k employees it's extremely likely it's been forced down on you to wear the pink feathered chicken suit, and told to not complain about the pink feathered chicken suit because it is the inevitable future, and no one will be wearing anything that doesn't look like it ever again. Also, we are watching every straggler not in a pink feathered chicken suit, put yours on or leave the building.
Enough people could say no and take a stance if there was collective solidarity in the tech industry. Unfortunately we don't have that, tech workers are in the vast majority skeptical of or anti anything resembling unionised work. The bosses won on that front, and now they can dictate freely that you must wear the pink feathered chicken suit.
People, in general, want to keep their jobs, saying no is an option when you don't care what happens with it or have the backing of the collective to walk out together.
> People can't just leave Wednesday and be in a new job with the same or better pay next Monday.
They don't have to leave, they can refuse to comply with unreasonable requests which are likely to cause harm by jeopardizing the security of user data.
Maybe your position is too precarious to risk getting fired, but if your job is asking you to do something unethical then you should be doing everything you can to get yourself out of that situation, either by supporting unionization or by being willing to take a manageable pay cut to find a new job as soon as possible.
If you're a software developer then you can almost certainly afford at least a moderate pay cut for upholding ethical conduct. The vast majority can even if we don't want to, but these situations are where we find out if our ethics are for sale or not.
> Maybe your position is too precarious to risk getting fired
You mean yours isn't? Or even that of at least 95% of all devs worldwide? I can definitely say "no" to my CEO if he wants something too big that would take too much time and energy for questionable business results -- I am even expected to ground him. But if my colleagues hand me a ticket, I cannot just refuse without repercussions. I'll not get fired on the spot, that much is certain. But if it happens 2-3 times they'll start looking for a replacement. Same will happen if I outright tell my CEO I can't do something due to ethical concerns. That's how it is almost everywhere I looked and asked (and have very rarely worked with US companies).
> If you're a software developer then you can almost certainly afford at least a moderate pay cut
I can't even afford a 10% pay cut. I want to live in your world.
The thing you two are missing is "solidarity" and our industry sucks at it. In fact, it's been relied upon and conditioned into most IT/tech types we're "special" somehow in a way blue collar workers aren't. We aren't and the same dynamics apply. If everyone stops asking the boss how high to jump, and refuses to jump, only then will you see a meaningful reining in of behavior in executives. That action potential has to start somewhere, and as the current generation of alleged adults in the room, we're it. Our juniors need an example set or the cycle repeats. It isn't empty idealism. It's hard effing pragmatism at it's most brutal. If we don't change, nothing can change. Therefore, we must change.
Yes I am missing it, as in, I know it's theoretically possible but I've never once seen it. It seems to be a fantasy.
> It isn't empty idealism.
It is if it's never happening. Pragmatism it would be if it was already an established practice.
I like my dragons purple btw.
> If we don't change, nothing can change. Therefore, we must change.
Obviously. But that "if" is trying to lift an impossible amount of weight is what I am saying. It's one of those powerless "oh, if only!" cries that we the people are prone to.
Force is seeping in. Managements are expecting that LLM-driven prouctivity-enhancers will be deployed and give broad-based boosts. More are each week. Supposedly cheaper than people. Those that aren't yet might be soon.
When your performance review includes facility with and productivity with LLM tools, you are being forced.
my assessment of the situation: "we've spent so much money on AI's promise to give us 5x, 10x returns, that now we have to earn it back by foisting the burden on developers to make up the gains by working harder, at least enough to recoup the exec's decision to pour money into the boondoggle".
"Hey developers, we spent $x million on Claude, who promised 7x returns, so YOU better make it 7x more efficient so we don't look bad".
yea the real frightening thing about this is, if there is a clear failure to get roi on this stuff, the top-level people will be very reticent to walk it all back and admit it was a royal fuckup
This is a "monopolized sector." They absolutely forced it on you. In most cases, sure, not directly, but their influence is the only driving force. Absent this no one would have jumped on this flimsy bandwagon.
We had it forced down our throats by CEOs and CTOs who thought that it would improve our productivity. Nobody forced it down their throats, though. Instead, they were seduced. They went willingly.
In one gig I was on, a consultant showed up and started saying that the platform was not good because it didn't have any machine learning(this is pre-AI buzz words). So the executives asked me when can I fix the platform to have machine learning in it. They didn't have an answer when I simply asked "machine learning to do what?" and my explanation of what machine learning is or can be used for went to deaf ears. So yeah, definitely agree on seduced and then went willingly and blindly.
no. openclaw wasnt forced by ceo's. it was forced by the same people who though there was money to be made in crypto then ICO then NFT. a bunch of scammers that bring negative value to the world
And they make money. A scammer is the President of the United States.
At a certain point why blame people for trying to keep up? Why are scammers so successful? It seems to me we have a systemic failure at a societal level. Until we are honest about that it will only get worse. Until then maybe some rouge LLM botching some critical system will be the wake up call we need.
I am not sure what to make of critiques that seem to rest on notions of a small population of scammers preying upon the doe-eyed public. I think the situation is a bit closer to Carlin: garbage in, garbage out. A critique that holds up quite excellently in this AI age.
western society is a shelve of its former glory. it did not last long but there was an age were man was capable of greatness. the early internet kinda was the last stretch of this short run then money corrupted it. the underlying issue stems from abandoning cultural education as a Western value. Instead, we've opted to dispense raw ideology devoid of any thinking mechanism that we now seek so dearly to integrate to LLMs so that they can be more like us. This sloppening manifested in our lives through every medium.
We witnessed it when animation shifted to 3D, providing slop and poorly designed characters and stories. We witnessed it when video games all adopted the same game engines, look and feel and lack of narrative stakes, slopping ideology down players’ throats- no nuance, no wit, just mind-numbing dogma that punishes anyone who dares to criticize.Perhaps most damaging was Netflix's infiltration of our households that has accelerated our collective intellectual atrophy through relentless ideologically charged content parroting as entertainment. Meanwhile, our children's minds are being shaped not by family or tradition but by the algorithms of TikTok and Snapchat.The past decade and a half hasn't just prepared LLMs to replicate human abilities it has systematically stripped away human complexity, reshaping us into predictable patterns, not to raise LLMs to our level, but to reduce us to theirs, until the distinction no longer matters.
Our industry has never been serious about security. We all download and run unvetted code via package managers every day. At least now the insanity is out in the open. We won't change until Skynet fires off the nukes.
I keep getting so depressed thinking about the inevitable. Quite simply, humans can't scale or iteratively improve. We still need to eat, we still need to sleep, we can only think on one thread at a time basically, we take 20 years to get to our prime, which is a fleeting moment, while most of our lifespan is spent in a state of decline of capability. AI humanoid robot from the near future doesn't need to eat or sleep, can work 24/7, can compute thousands of processes in parallel, is the same fungible unit as any other humanoid robot, forever with some maintenance. Why justify a sustaining an inefficient human in that modern world? It is more profitable for the company to have humans go extinct and maximize planetary resource use to its fullest extent possible.
Seems we are digging our graves as a species and don't even realize it. I mean Sam Altman is already saying it taking 20 years to train a human is a Big Problem.
I don't think it will be cost effective to build humanoid robots to do most tangible work. Why assemble an expensive masterpiece of servomotors, chips, plastic and steel, when billions of desperate humans are right there and only cost 2.5 meals a day and a small shelter?
Of course, intelligence will be a solved problem so "20 years of training" won't be needed. You'll just be the hardware. AI will tell you to pick up that box, place it on that conveyor belt, place the autowelder at that seam and wait for the green light, turn the wrench to install bolt B in part C. If you don't wish to, or no longer can, so be it. Another, hungrier human will replace you. After all more are made every day, and they are capable of doing this type of labor by age 10 or so. And what else would they do with their time, go to school and get a completely useless education?
All of this will of course be in service of our technofeudal lords, the owner class. Some robots will be needed for heavy lifting and for the jobs that are too sensitive to trust a human in, like personal security and strikebreaking. Can't risk trusting a serf for those tasks. But for most physical grunt work humans will be cheaper. Shockingly cheap, when they have no other options.
> I don't think it will be cost effective to build humanoid robots to do most tangible work. Why assemble an expensive masterpiece of servomotors, chips, plastic and steel, when billions of desperate humans are right there and only cost 2.5 meals a day and a small shelter
If all you have to offer people is this kind of sad fucking "2.5 meals a day and a small shelter" while you live on yachts and eat like a king, eventually they will gang up and kill you
I keep wondering when the west will get tired of having kings and they keep surprising me. I assume humanity get to The Culture eventually, but I'm starting to doubt that Americans will be leading the way on that front.
But maybe Altmans AI will break out and do it for us.
Isn't the problem that Altman and his peers are calling the shots here? We could use robots to work less and spend more time enjoying life, but we can only imagine being crushed under a boot and starving.
Surely we can accelerate human training. Just install a brain implant which administers an electric shock whenever the subject deviates from the official training plan.
> Why justify a sustaining an inefficient human in that modern world?
I should not need to justify my existence, that is the problem with being led by psychopaths.
Twenty years to train humans for what? A tech job? That is not why we get an education. It is not my purpose to be a cog in the wheel for some psychotic billionaire.
Yes and also the software industry has never been truly serious about security either: it's more of implied table stakes than an advertised product feature.
Also, customers outsource the risk to their vendors, so as long as there's someone to sue, nobody worries about doing it right. Ship it now and pay the lawyers later.
This is never getting to skynet launching the nukes stage. It's not that clever and never will be.
Humans will kill us by it damage amplifying their worst characteristics.
Thus we'll die of a pandemic because some idiot LLM'ed up positive looking virology data when they were being too lazy to verify something. Everyone will trust it because they don't really care as long as it looks about right.
It has never been serious about security, quality and performance. Only new sloppy features. And now everyone is bragging on LinkedIn how fast they create more slop: "Look, CC generated thousands lines of code for me! Approve and merge!"
The frustrating part is watching all the careful thinking about reliability and failure modes get thrown out the window the second something new gets hyped. It's not even that people disagree with the principles, they just stop applying them.
Agents are providing to employees the long overdue benefits limited liability companies long enjoyed: Gambling with upside for themselves and other peoples downsides.
I’ve never had respect for the industry as a whole, only individuals within. There has a been a serious lack of rigor and professionalism in software engineering for as long as I’ve been a part of it
As someone who works in a few different engineering disciplines, I think software engineers often have a very rosy picture of other areas of engineering. The problems are different, but things are not any better on average.
There's nothing "collectively" about it. I don't know what industry you work in, but in mine it's a top down mandate to use AI everywhere, tracked with KPIs, from the CEO down, and supported and pressured by companies like Amazon and MS.
We're the dummies that have to run around picking up dookies like a new puppy in the house.
I think it might be because we (or at least I) used to associate insecure actions with people, not computers. Computers should know better, right? Recently, I spotted that Opus 4.6 found config files for one of its tools and gave itself access to my whole filesystem. Similarly, Gemini CLI will rewrite itself if you let it.
> cut to 2026 and suddenly its like we just collectively decided software quality doesn't matter
I saw the sea change in 2008 when quality process got replaced with velocity and testing tasks. I've watched everything from Experian and health record data leaks to Windows 11 since that change. Software quality hasn't mattered for a long time.
The media isn’t helping. This wasn’t a “rogue AI”. It was a system that was given permission by a human operator.
We don’t say “a rogue plane killed 300 people today when it crashed into a mountain”.
The only difference in the AI case is that some people are attempting to shift blame for their incompetence into a computer system, and the media is going along with it because it increases clicks.
Again, these are systems that have been explicitly given the ability to perform these actions. Trying to claim that it was somehow the AI’s fault is sheer incompetence and/or self-serving deceptiveness.
You can’t authorize a system to take some action and then complain when it takes that action. The “approval” you quoted is not a security constraint. Someone who confuses it for a security constraint is incompetent.
the ridiculous anthropomorphism is killing me. Software 'agents' can't ask for 'approval', they're not persons. That's like saying my script didn't ask me for approval to modify the system after I ran it with sudo privileges.
The developer is solely responsible for what APIs they expose to a bot. No you can't say your software agent was grumpy and mean and had a bad day. It is not a human intern, it is an unreliable chatbot who someone ran with permissions it should not have had.
People salivate so hard at the thought of the high level of automation promised that they're willing to do away with privacy altogether and live in Data Communism.
My thinking is, this will increase the demand for backup and other resilience solutions.
> People salivate so hard at the thought of the high level of automation promised that they're willing to do away with privacy altogether and live in Data Communism.
‘At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or this may express the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetter. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation leads sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.’
I think it's batshit crazy. That's why I wrote yoloAI, so I could sandbox it up properly and control EXACTLY what comes out of that sandbox, diff style.
The whole agent ecosystem is a ridiculous shitshow. All of this because you need to ASAP find something believable to sell your overinflated, bullshit machine to the masses. Otherwise the bubble will burst.
Peripheral tech must have absurdly lucrative margins. I see it in my niche interests too. Cycling or golf gps are like hundreds of dollars. They are the same products they were 15 years ago: cheap lcd screen with a cheap gps radio and some severely underpowered cpu with noticable input lag. Designed to fall apart in a few years. Still same prices they always were, maybe they get away adding another $50 a year to the price on occasion. It is like they hit their price point and margin number and are perfectly happy making probably >60% markup on us who have no option otherwise. Yes we could potentially order prototypes trivially for cents a unit from same places in china the first party manufacturers go to, but minimum order is probably 1000 units.
That is literally the sole moat of these companies: minimum orders from china and the fact we can't spend the ad money they can to move that volume quickly. Not tech or offering a good deal. Just being there already with money and doing the inevitable. Being the more productive drug dealer quicker to move the kilo to the captured audience and bankrolled to get the next several and scale.
For cycling tech, if you're outside the US, check out Chinese manufacturers like iGPSport and Magene.
Picked up a spider-based power meter for around £290 and a big computer for £150. Both are great, and work just as well as their western counterparts costing significantly more.
What about it? You said that performance has not increased, so its unlikely they moved to newer parts. Parts do get cheaper until they get rare, and then they get expensive again.
That's not what they were saying and the same can be said for those listed. But that they can cost the same as a Macbook Neo which arguably has significantly more technology in it.
Exactly and its just interesting to think about that such insane engineering has gone into a product that costs less than 4 wooden chairs. Yes it can be explained logically but its just an interesting thought.
A Moto G also has more technology than a Nakajima WPT-160 typewriter (which is still in production) but the latter costs more. Comparing "technology for the buck" across totally different kinds of products and markets sometimes just doesn't make any sense.
The point isn't for it to make sense necessarily, it's just simply an interesting thought and not one that always needs a logical answer in every case.
Weird response. He said "I don't understand how a pair of headphones can be $549" and you responded "here are some headphones that are priced at $549".
Yeah. We know. It's just hard to understand how anyone can value headphones at this price. It's lunacy.
It costs that much because people are willing to pay more for better sound, better noise cancelling, etc, even if the returns are diminishing. Perhaps a $500 pair of headphones only sounds 3% better than a $200 pair. But people will still shell out for better headphones. Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better. The existence of numerous successful products on the market is evidence that this is a niche where people are willing to pay for such products.
It's kinda like, who decided that TVs and phones should cost the same? Or who decided that a khinkali should cost 3 times as much as a xiaolongbao?
You just casually threw in these claims without backing them up, when it has been proven that the Sony model (and even the others) you listed outperformed the Airpods pro in those exact departments at the time of its launch.
My comment literally also says "Sometimes they just think it is better even if it isn't actually measurably better."
I also have "etc" in my first sentence, which may include such things as: a stylish aluminum exterior, bells and whistles such as spatial audio, a more seamless bluetooth connecting experience with Apple devices, and so forth. These do not matter for everyone, but some people clearly care about that.
It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?
> It seems that you are quite belligerent and trying to pick a fight across many of my comments. Why?
Sorry, this is not the case at all, I am just trying to understand the justification for your original comment on the justification of the price (and quality).
Reading your parent comment and the responses, I feel be missing the point others are trying to make. There's much less technology, components, and material in a headphone compared to laptops. The circuitry in the headphones is closer in complexity to a charger than a laptop.
The cost of something doesn't always correlate with the technology, components, and material. A Hermes bag doesn't even have a single circuit in it compared to headphones and laptops. Yet it costs more.
My Sony XM3's still going something like 8 years now. Incredible value.
I have a lot of Apple gear, these would be obvious next choice because of integration, but I struggle to justify why otherwise. They heavy, going to pain to repair and cost much more.
How much is your house worth? Whatever someone is willing to pay for it today. That's it. There's no right price. If they can cover costs and make a profit (or better yet a huge profit), then they're pricing it right. Sure, it doesn't work for you. It doesn't work for me either, which is why I don't have a pair. But they seem to be profitable, so there are enough people out there that want them. I just got off a plane a couple days ago and three people within one row around me each had AirPods Max on. Go figure. They're the new status symbol, I guess.
I mean, if we're talking any pair of headphones... a good Television certainly costs more than that, why should good sound be less worthy if investment?
First off, $150 more isn't a small amount to be considered "in-line" with the others. That's roughly 40% more.
The difference is also Apple neither has the audio legacy of those companies nor the quality of those products to warrant that kind of premium. To Apple, it is just another market they can go after, but a lot of those companies built their entire foundations on audio. You are not going to convince me Apple is in the same category as the company that invented the Walkman and CDs.
Also, if you look into the teardown videos, it's really a cheap driver from China - all plastic, not even using aluminium for the basket, just literally hard-glued onto the body. It's not repairable nor eco-friendly. It's anti-consumer. Sony uses Aluminium housing for their drivers and they are the cheapest in the lot.
Ex studio tech here. Legacy doesn't cover contracted manufacturing.
I'm not defending apple here, but using chinese drivers (which I assume is a synonym for poor quality) is fine so long as they are binned for performance, and matched/tuned to housing. I'm assuming the mic inside the ear cup is there to do dynamic EQ.
Also the drivers are screwed into a solid aluminium housing, so they aren't glued.
NS10s which are the standard reference mixing speakers were chosen not because they were high quality, but because they were average. If you could get your mix to sound good on those, it'd sound great anywhere.
So yeah, they are expensive. Would I buy them? probably not. I'm reasonably happy with my plantronic jobbies. Are they perfect? no, are they comfortable? yes. Is the active noise cancelling actually effective? also no, but then ANC is only really useful for a small subset of noises types. (even on Sonys. )
Or Sennheiser momentum 4, 150 bucks and sound at least as good if not better, have absolutely huge battery compared to tiny apple one, more comfortable and generally work much better with non-apple ecosystem (also apparently they support multi-device pairing but I haven't used that one).
Don't pay the novelty price shortly after release, these go down quite a bit after introduction, ie last year Sony are basically the same device.
I'm a slight audiophile, enough to own a Schitt stack and lower-end planar magnetics, overall cost would be slightly more than the AirPods Max 2. I did try the previous generation and walked away with no emotional response either way to the quality of the sound.
The Apple tax makes me extremely skeptical that I would get $500+ worth of sound quality, however ANC upsets that equation quite a bit. For around the same cost I could get a much better set of DAC+Amp+Headphones but it would sound objectively worse in a noisy environment.
You also can't experience true lossless on any bluetooth audio output device, for what that's worth (many "true" audiophiles would fail an A/B test for AAC).
The previous generation were also REALLY bassy, and there's nothing wrong with that, bassy headphones are how to make things sound "fun" and that's why the likes of Beats make so much money. That categorically makes it not audiophile, though, because it just takes an EQ/pre-amp to achieve the same effect (which can be toggled on and off).
Ultimately, my most basic issue with these is that if you're willing to blow 500 bucks on headphones, then going modular (DAC+Amp+Headphones) will give you more room to explore something that you apparently really enjoy.
> You also can't experience true lossless on any bluetooth audio output device
Pretty sure you can... there's no technical reason you cannot use BT purely as a digital-only lossless data carrier. Whether or not current devices exist that work this way may be another story though.
That is through a ADC then DAC, at least for the previous iteration, analog direct to the drivers was not supported. You would be compounding distortion, and largely throwing away what the external DAC+Amp had on offer.
As a (sane) audiophile, I happily use Apple devices for enjoyable listening. Their headphones have amazing clarity and soundstage for their size. If you keep in mind that AirPods are calibrated to your ears with your iPhone's FaceID camera, they provide nice, tailored sound.
I also have nice, but not over the top equipment. Yes, some of them sound nicer and more detailed (you can't compare large, 100W/channel bookshelf speakers with headphones, can you?), but for getting 95% of what they provide without any effort is pretty worth it.
Last, but not the least, Apple used Wolfson DACs in their iPods for most of their lifetime. Their replacement DACs are not worse than the Wolfsons, but probably even better.
That’s what Apple states, yes, but I suspect that it’s also used for calibrating the inner microphones of newer AirPods which is used for the “live eq” which works by listening the feedback inside the ear.
From my experience, Apple can sometimes “forget” to tell things.
Modern Apple gives you control over everything by hiding it in Accessibility settings. You can control almost everything about AirPods and give them custom EQ there. But it doesn't have that.
I love this “oxymoron” label slapped on me, without knowing what audiophile actually means.
Its meaning has distorted as much as how the word hacker is distorted.
Yes, I love listening to music and quality audio, but don’t have a soundtrack to benchmark systems. My bar is simple: Do I enjoy what I hear? It doesn’t have to fit into a recipe. It should be enjoyable, period.
A pair of Apple AirPods can be as enjoyable as two $10K speakers powered by a separate stack costing $20K. It’s akin to loving that hole in the wall restaurant as well as that Michelin rated one. Both are enjoyable in its own sense.
Well, I use the same amp, turntable and tuner for the last 30 years, and the same CD player and speakers for the last 10 years.
Changed the speakers since I had no space for the older Akai set, and replaced the CD player since the older one was acting up.
Replaced the Logitech Bluetooth receiver for a Fiio DAC last week since I found one for a bargain.
Everything is connected with high quality yet 30 year old cables.
I believe that’s a pretty sane evolution for someone who grown up with music, and performed some.
Oh there is a difference. but I strongly suspect its not as pronounced as you think it is.
THe biggest difference that most people hear is EQ. (oh these are very bassy, or too clean, etc, etc)
The people that have external DACs are almost certainly hearing a difference in EQ rather than _quality_. Is that a problem? for me I couldn't care less. However when that starts bleeding into advice or gatekeeping, then it becomes an issue.
(I am a former sound technician for both recording studio (analogue and digital) theatre and TV)
Personally, I run all my signal chain flat (incl. speaker crossovers). No equalizer, tone & loudness is off in every step of the chain.
Given the same set of speakers, I'm pretty sure that almost anything I throw in to the chain will sound pretty similar (unless it's designed to color the sound some way). This is one of the reasons why I don't plan to change any parts of it .
For me the DAC has some serious benefits in the sound quality department, though. First, it doesn't have the 3dB loss like the Logitech, second I can stream AAC or aptX to it, which really sounds better than SBC, given the song is mastered correctly and has the detail which can be carried by the codec itself.
I listen to some of the albums I have as CDs in streaming services and even though it's labeled as "lossless" I can hear that the files are butchered pretty badly.
I have a nontrivial listening rig in my house. I've spent thousands in headphones over the years (which happens quickly at $300-500 a pop). The finest ones I've owned MIGHT edge the Max out in certain conditions, but
- The Max add ANC
- The Max are wireless
- The Max are seamlessly integrated with the rest of my Apple gear
so to me that makes them the go-to -- so much so that I actually sold off the other headphones when we moved last year. I just wasn't using them.
The tl;dr is that the Max -- even the first gen -- do indeed perform very, very well.
Sennheiser HD 800 S is $1700 and has been around for years. Or the Meze Elite Tungsten at $4,000 - if Apple can get 80/90% of the way there at $549, they'd be a steal for the right customer.
The quality x price curve is not linear. Expensive materials and engineering often produce only incremental quality improvements, if any. Sometimes the improvements are only cosmetic. So Apple's headphones would need to be a lot closer to the best of the best than 80-90% in order to justify their price.
The feature that applies a hearing test as an equalizer setting make the APM sound pretty damn good, so much so it ended my 20 year long headphone-collecting hobby.
Before hearing-tuned EQ became a thing, trying headphones was like trying food. No matter what someone else said it was no guarantee you'd like the sound. Conversely, you might find a cheap pair that sounded spectacular to you. The APM will sound very good to just about anyone, with the hearing test EQ applied.
I think every headphone maker (or better yet, DAC maker) should have this feature. Audiophiles are often old, a hearing test EQ can make them hear music like they're 20 again, and they'll pay for it.
As said, different markets. If you look from the same perspective, the last iPhone I ordered is 3x the price of a last generation MacBook Air.
$549 is pretty reasonable if the headphone has the sound detail it's advertising. Given how AirPods Gen 3 sounds, I'm sure that thing sounds pretty amazing.
Well, in the market segment of Bluetooth ANC headphones, there's not that much. Bowers & Wilkins and Focal come to mind, both audiophile luxury brands and similarily overpriced.
On the other hand, the flagship Sony is quite a bit less than AirPods Max.
Doesn’t Sony have the best codec on Bluetooth? It definitely has worse noise cancellation than my AirPod, but afaik it should have better audio quality on paper.
Yeah, but if you're using Apple phones/tablet/computers they only support AAC Bluetooth anyway unless you add a Bluetooth dongle, which kinda defeats the purpose of ever using Airpods.
They're priced vs. peer closed-ear headphones, not the rest of the Mac line. They perform accordingly, at least once you factor in a mild Apple premium (say, 15-20%).
I say this because I was able to compare them to my own $400 Sennheisers (which are somewhat awkward because they're wired, and really require a headphone amp to shine), and found the Max to be just as good.
There are also a number of online reviewers who've said the same thing, among them developer, Tumblr millionaire, and headphone addict Marco Arment. He famously described the Max as his favorite closed-back headphone.
If you don’t understand then you should invest some time learning microeconomics, marketing, and moats. Principles from (at least) those 3 areas are involved here.
To give 3 examples:
1. The marginal value of these products is in the mind of the individual buyer. No individual is buying both the AirPods Max 2 AND the MacBook Neo for personal use. You can’t compare marginal value across two different individuals.
2. The MacBook Neo has a different set of substitutable goods vs the AirPods Max 2. This affects margin. AirPods Max 2 buyers are likely heavily bought into the Apple ecosystem already.
3. With the Neo, Apple are in some sense subsidising entry into the Apple Ecosystem and ‘getting them young’. Wouldn’t surprise me if there’s zero or negative margin. With the AirPods Max 2 they are exploiting people who are already bought into the ecosystem. Margins will be high.
Yeah, I have a more complex project I'm working on with Claude, but it's not that Claude is making it more complex; it's just that it's so complex I wouldn't attempt it without Claude.
So you think your experience building tools for other devs is the same as every other domain of software to the point that you would declare the whole field of software engineering is a solved problem?
Gamedev, systems programming, embedded development, 3D graphics, audio programming, mobile, desktop, physics/simulation programming, HPC, RTC, etc.. that’s all solved based on your experience?
So the first hire must be a 10x programmer
The second one obviously also must be a 10x programmer but keep in mind the bar has now moved so he has to be 10x the previous one (100x)
In short it gets very challenging trying to find the final 10^10x programmer
reply