They get singled out because the people that inevitably come to breathlessly defend them won't just admit why they own them: because they're a fashion accessory with brand recognition. It's like people who claim they buy $900 Balenciaga shoes because "they're comfortable." I would bet my own life that they're no more comfortable than a nice pair of $100 shoes from the "non-designer" rack at Nordstrom, but people will fall over themselves defending why they spend what they spend for designer brand accessories.
> They aren't always the best price performance across categories, but they aren't crap either.
If Beats owners admitted this then they wouldn't have become a meme. Unfortunately most I talk to will claim that they're the best headphones on the market, and will refuse to accept that they could have gotten better audio quality from "less cool" brands for $100 or less.
To be fair I have started buying higher quality sneakers a couple of years ago and I am not going back.
There is a huge difference between the low cost ones and let's say 200-300$ sneakers.
My ETQ low 3 are insanely comfortable, are made of good material that age nicely, and are basically built like a tank (vibram soles, stitched + glued elements for maximum durability, etc).
For Balenciaga you pay the same level of craftmanship + trendy design and brand recognition.
I don't think you can really compare this to Beats though.
They are pretty awful at their price point, but audio quality is something most people don't really pay attention to. It has big basses is enough for most people. The same way that Samsung's oversaturated screens look amazing to many consumers.
And for Beats, I would say of why you pay is for the brand..
My question is still the same. Why are beats singled out so much? This comment (beats is crap that suckers buy, basically) is nearly guaranteed to sit at the top on any thread about beats on the internet.
"They are not the best performance per dollar you can get."
OK. This is true. It's also true about every electronics brand that exists. It's almost the definition of a brand, with a few exceptions where "best value for money" is the brand. There is always some under appreciated brand with great value that no one knows about.
Consumers (especially with portable & wearable gear) care about aesthetics, brands and other things that they might value even if you don't. This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all.
Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss?
> Same question, why beats specifically? Why not Apple, Samsung, Boss?
To some degree, that question sounds like "whataboutism".
However, all big brands receive their share of Internet criticism, especially if they release a high-priced form-over-function product. Recent Apple laptops come to mind. Is Apple being singled out? They own Beats, right?
One of the other differences is that the other brands you mentioned are much more highly diversified. Even Bose sells more than just "wearables" (and within those, they sell an electronics-heavy version with noise cancellation).
> This is a fashion item as well as electronics, after all.
That alone gives you an adequate explanation. If it were pure fashion, it would probably get the same criticism, except that it wouldn't get any attention in those (or this) forum in the first place.
You may disagree with the validity of the criticism, but surely you at least recognize its existence if not prevalence among the technically-inclined.
> They aren't always the best price performance across categories, but they aren't crap either.
If Beats owners admitted this then they wouldn't have become a meme. Unfortunately most I talk to will claim that they're the best headphones on the market, and will refuse to accept that they could have gotten better audio quality from "less cool" brands for $100 or less.