Apple Watch To Prompt Bluetooth Headphone Resurgence

Luke Villapaz, International Business Times:

“Having a wire makes things less convenient than having Bluetooth connectivity,” said Angela McIntyre, Gartner’s wearables research director. While much of the audio industry has left the cord behind, headphones — even high-end ones — are still stubbornly tethered. But the Apple Watch could spur the move to cordless. …

[Gartner’s wearables research director Angela] McIntyre noted that many smartphone users with tethered headsets will strap their device to their upper arm as a workaround. “It’s even less convenient to do with a device on a wrist,” she said.

I don’t disagree with this premise by any means. Indeed, with Apple Watch, I think even a borderline audiophile like me finally has a viable reason to shell out for a decent set of sound-degrading Bluetooth headphones.

But I’ll certainly be able to enjoy my wearable without them, mainly because McIntyre’s usage example is kind of wide of the mark.

Most gym folk who strap their handsets to their upper arms don’t do so as a “workaround” to the “headphones problem.” They do it mainly because that’s the easiest place to access their device controls mid-stride. (In this case, the wrist is already a nonststarter due to size, weight, and comfort considerations of the devices in question). But such users are still the exception, as most workout types will simply do what everyone else does and keep their phones in their pockets, run their headphone cables under their shirts and out the tops of their collars, and call it good. Remember, the convenience of this arrangement — both inside and outside the fitness world — is a big reason why Apple moved iPhone’s audio port to the bottom of the unit. Most people put their handsets into their pockets top-down, and this redesign meant that pulling out that handset to make quick interactions no longer required a clumsy twist. Nor did the act of putting the thing away again.

With Apple Watch, I’ll still be using my iPhone as my music player. My collection’s simply too big for the measly 2GB of storage earmarked for songs on the wearable, and I’m not interested in bothering with assembling and offloading custom playlists every couple of days. Plus, you know, streaming. In this context, my iPhone will be in my pocket as outlined above, and I can easily position my headphones — cable and all — exactly as I’ve been doing for the last decade without any real regret that I didn’t opt for a wireless solution.

Apple Watch as remote is all I really need it for where music is concerned, and my old wired earbuds offers one big benefit most Bluetooth headsets don’t: When I need to hear someone, I can just pull an earbud out and let it dangle down the front of my shirt. I won’t lose it, and I won’t need to worry about an expensive pair of cans falling off my head should I move my stabilizing hand away during said human interaction. Plus, traditional earbuds are much smaller and lighter than banded wireless headphones, so they seem to be a more comfortable and less unwieldy solution, particularly for the fitness-minded.

For those that want Apple Watch as a standalone music player (and I’m sure there are many of them), Bluetooth headphones are the only option. For the rest of us, they’ll be a slightly more widespread — but still niche — product. If I personally ever buy into the idea of Apple Watch without iPhone, I may consider picking up a pair. Of course, I don’t know which brands are best, so I’m going to go with whatever Abdel recommends.