Cultivating and leveraging fear is truly a cornerstone of Security™.
I don't think the claims about capability are ridiculous. The idea that the general capability is proprietary and that it will be exclusive to the trusted partners of one company is ridiculous.
How many products does Apple have to release before people stop trying to say It WiLl FaIl YoU CaN GeT SoMeThInG ChEaPer ThAtS BeTtEr. It is exhausting.
For this round in particular, Apple is not competing against the Grados and Beyerdynamics of the world, they are competing against the Bose QCs and Surface Headphones of the world, particularly those with integrated mics. The vast majority of people buying these ~$300 headphones for daily general use/work/travel can afford ~$500 headphones as well, if they want them. So true to Apple, they do not reduce their addressable market with increased cost, but rather turn themselves into a status symbol among the consumers in their targeted market, due to the increased cost, not in-spite of it.
The headphones will sound at least as good as the direct competition because it's not that hard to do among this class of headphones. Give them some common-sense credit. The build quality is already better from pictures, compared to all-plastic which dominates the market. The user experience will be better with Apple products than pure Bluetooth, as everyone knows.
I'm not even going to touch the audiophile discussion. I'm an "audio person" as well, but again, exhausting discussion. Nobody knowledgeable about audio would use anything with noise cancelling DSP to achieve peerless audio quality. Nobody would use a tiny integrated amplifier and expect it to perform like a full-size discrete amp and wired headphones.
Just like I wouldn't expect my Bose QC headset to compete on sound quality with my Sennheiser IE8s, I do not expect my IE8s to work as a headset or reduce ambient noise while selectively allowing voices though. It is pointless to bring up these comparisons, especially in the context of "sound quality units per dollar".
They're not going to fail, unless you have an insanely high bar for success, and they're not going to sound like shit either. Apple wouldn't just accidentally release a terrible sounding headphone product without having people familiar with headphones listen to it.
The arguments floating around here are pointless. Will you be able to get better sounding (particularly wired) headphones for less money? yes. Just like you can get a higher performance laptop for less money than a macbook, and just like you can buy a discrete graphics card that performs better than integrated graphics (analogy to wireless w/integrated DSP and amplifier, vs. discrete)
Is the point here to have the best sounding headphones? no. There are for daily/practical use cases and pleasantly usable performance for dedicated listening and entertainment. They are primarily headphones for "routine use"/work, e.g. when your listening to music + doing some task, then taking a phone-call or joining a meeting. The same use cases people currently have noise cancelling headphones with built-in or inline mics.
For example, Bose QCs are very popular for that use case, and cost $300+. I use them for daily work and travel, and I'm an "audio person", with completely different setups (plural) for audio quality use cases, well aware that the Bose QCs are not "$300 class" headphones quality wise.
The Apples are more expensive than the QCs, but even from pictures and build materials immediately crush the QCs in build quality. My guess is that they will also beat them in sound quality. Yes they're more expensive, but tbh for the target use case, it is not difficult to justify cost for something you use 8h a day. Of course anything expensive is not in everyone's budget, but considering the target market, people talking about $200-less headphones are not priced out of the headphones, they're just trying to save money.
So, true to Apple, the increased cost doesn't really hurt their addressable market, and instead positions them a status symbol where it is actually important that they cost more than the competition. Yep.
ehhh I'd say mostly solved. The problem of turning a recording into a perfect sound-wave replication is actually not easy, because the physical world is annoying with heat and friction and and physics.
I'd say 24/96 is comfortably the "end game solved problem" quality for source recordings though, not CD. Even if it is just for the baseline safety margin that it is easier to implement perfect filters with no transition bands anywhere near the audible frequencies, and that additional bit precision has no downside unless you get into accuracy problems with noise on the recording side.
From the speaker point of view, I think IEMs are the closest to being "solved", since the tiny drivers minimize the physics issues with larger drivers, they are probably closest to pure reproduction. For full-size speakers etc., pure reproduction can be accomplished for certain frequency ranges by individual drivers, but over the full range it is not so "solved", e.g. with bass there is often a physics issue with the kinetics of moving a large driver cone in perfect phase-sync with the relatively tiny and light tweeter.
I've actually been wondering if speaker cones are a possible application for graphene.
the commonality between the phenomenons of audio and wine etc. is that they start on a foundation of objectivity and end in subjectivity and cognitive bias. Hearing and taste are two things that are literally unique (almost impossibly equivalent, probability wise) for every single person.
As you go towards the top end of these things, the delusion creeps in, which is that the objectivity extends from the foundation to the roof, so to speak. The fact of the matter is that it was gone somewhere in the middle, e.g. why "trained listeners" cannot distinguish between a coat hanger and $1,000 cable, and while "wine experts" will often pick a $15 grocery store bottle over a $300 bottle in a blind taste test. And they will reverse their answers if told the price ahead of time.
These same concepts exist in other product categories, but I don't know of any better examples than audio and wine.
I don't think the claims about capability are ridiculous. The idea that the general capability is proprietary and that it will be exclusive to the trusted partners of one company is ridiculous.