On a product page, Apple promises that its AirPods, a product the company introduced in 2016, are: “Wireless. Effortless. Magical.” After deciding to buy AirPods a couple of weeks ago, I can attest that there’s truth in Apple’s advertising.
I ordered the AirPods through Apple for $159. When they arrived (a day early), I opened the box with two AirPods, which were ready to use, inside their glossy, white magnetized charging case. Pulling one at a time out of the case, I put the two AirPods in my ears. As I prepared for my morning walk, they instantly sounded a chime indicating they were ready to pair. I went to my iPhone’s Bluetooth setting and selected ‘AirPods’. That was all the pairing took. They also automatically connect with my other Apple devices, such as the tablet and laptop.
Buy AirPods
Using AirPods is easy. They fit into my ears and stay anchored without any problems during my low-key fitness routine, though I wouldn’t advise using them during high-intensity, heavy perspiration workouts. AirPods sense when they’re in my ears. The devices pause audio whenever I remove one, take a call or perform another task.
AirPods are amazing in multiple ways. I summon Siri, Apple’s digital voice assistant, when I want to skip a song in my playlist or execute a command. I just double-tap either of the AirPods to activate voice commands, without needing to take my iPhone out of my pocket. I am also impressed by AirPods’ range, which is wider than I anticipated, thanks to Apple’s W1 microchip, which the Cupertino, California-based company claims produces “extremely efficient wireless for better connection and improved sound”.
By my account, this is true. I’ve had no problem with AirPods’ battery, either, though I haven’t used it beyond Apple’s asserted five hours on a single battery charge. AirPods need just 15 minutes in the recharging case for three hours of listening time. And, because AirPods simultaneously connect to Apple devices, and I am admittedly a 100 percent Apple customer, I can shuttle between listening to an audiobook, album or podcast episode on my iPhone and an Apple Watch or iPad Pro; sound switches between devices. The same goes for listening on my laptop or iMac. I simply choose AirPods on each machine.
AirPods contain what Apple calls accelerometers and other sensors to gauge when the devices, which fit snugly but not too tightly, are inserted or removed from my ears. Apple says this saves time and energy. For instance, when I was listening to a song during my walk and had to remove an AirPod to talk with someone or pause for some reason, the music automatically paused upon device removal. When I re-inserted the AirPod, music or podcast automatically resumed, picking up where the sound left off. Sound stops when both AirPods are removed, saving battery life.
By employing simple, easy to use technology, AirPods significantly enhance my life. I look forward to using them. The sound is clear, the fit is superior compared to EarBuds and the convenience is marvelous. I still use headphones for certain contexts. But AirPods are a valued new addition and another reason why Apple is a favorite brand.
When an individual moneymaker takes a moral stand on principle, realizes it with action and wins, the activism ought to be studied as an example in success.
This week, recording artist Taylor Swift provides such an example. Swift, a pop country music star, recently took to Tumblr (a blogging platform) to write a letter of activism (read Swift’s letter here). Swift explains that Apple’s new Apple Music streaming service precludes payment to artists in the first three months. Swift argues that this is wrong. In a persuasive, simple letter implicitly based on egoism, not altruism, because she predicates the letter on achieving her own values in an explicit expression of magnanimity, Swift makes the case for what amounts to intellectual property rights. Swift advocates what Ayn Rand called the trader principle, the essence of capitalism. As Swift concludes her letter to Apple: “Please don’t ask [artists] to provide you with our music for no compensation.”
Besides Swift’s fundamentally acknowledged fact that Apple’s terms are Apple’s to set, what distinguishes Swift’s activist letter from other forms of celebrity activism is her recognition of the good for being good. Swift does not malign Apple. In fact, she titles the post “To Apple, Love Taylor” and proceeds to express her “reverence” for Apple’s innovation and achievements. This demonstrates an understanding that acting in accordance with the company’s professed philosophy of human progress through new ideas is consistent with trading value for value. Harnessing the power of an artist that leftists and racists should regard as a beneficiary of “white privilege” or being among some inexplicably causeless “one percent” of wealthy millionaires, Swift, who has previously expressed support for Barack Obama, offers a perfectly rational example of selfish activism.
The letter is selfish, as against self-centered (as she points out when she writes that the issue of paying artists “is not about me”, which in this context is true), because in writing it she seeks to gain, keep and advance her values; in this case, the ability of artists to earn money to create. In a wider sense, the successful artist posting such a letter deepens the bond with fans and adds credibility to his brand. Swift’s letter succeeds on a number of levels in dispelling the myth that capitalism and benevolence are incompatible. Swift gains value as described, the struggling, unknown writer gains, her competitors also gain, and so do her patrons, employees and partners. The customer gains with greater funding for all artists which leads to more creation, variety and competition. Apple, too, gains from the compliments, publicity and Swift’s endorsement for the new platform and a better grasp of what top artists want and how they may communicate.
Capitalism is, in fact, win-win.
Taylor Swift’s letter displays an understanding of this principle. She does not seek the unearned. She also does not merely “kill them with kindness”, as a cynic might claim. The letter, praising Apple for allegiance to progress and innovation, is not structured for unearned guilt, vanity or opportunism. Swift’s letter ends with a thought which begins with the word ‘please’ extended as a courtesy, not with an arbitrary demand that Apple has a moral duty to serve others and sacrifice its profit. Swift backs her words with action, withholding her property on principle. This is the essence of good, selfish, rational activism (read my thoughts on activism here) in a dispute among good, selfish, rational men.
Those inclined to flame, troll or otherwise rant against anyone who deviates in the slightest degree from one’s values ought to look at Taylor Swift’s letter and learn from her example. This is activism that succeeds. As Apple executive Eddy Cueposted today on Twitter (and, as I teach in my social media course, social media is a crucial, legitimate tool for selfish communication), after granting Swift’s request: “We hear you, [Taylor Swift]…Love, Apple.” The exchange, namely that they are free to have it, is why I love capitalism.
Author’s Note
Thank you for your interest in my writing.
I write fiction and non-fiction. Read my blog at left for informal posts on news, ideas and the culture. I am available for contracting, so if you're interested, please start here.
I welcome feedback. To let me know your thoughts, please feel free to contact me.
When an individual moneymaker takes a moral stand on principle, realizes it with action and wins, the activism ought to be studied as an example in success.