@TheScotopian Actually, if you look closely the magazine says earphones with remote, it never mentions in-ear headphons. Also, noise isolating technology was never mentioned, only the fact that the beats block out background noises to a certain level.
I think Consumer Reports must've based it on price. The apple headphones are better because when you buy an ipod they are free and on the otherhand the Beats are an extra 200
@JohnnyRamoneRulez I agree, but the test was not on price, it was on quality. They had the Bose at the top (they are amazing btw), and those are $120 more than the beats.
Comment removed
TheScotopian 1 year ago
@TheScotopian Actually, if you look closely the magazine says earphones with remote, it never mentions in-ear headphons. Also, noise isolating technology was never mentioned, only the fact that the beats block out background noises to a certain level.
PacificReviews 1 year ago
beats my man!
jermaineakajkon 1 year ago
I think Consumer Reports must've based it on price. The apple headphones are better because when you buy an ipod they are free and on the otherhand the Beats are an extra 200
JohnnyRamoneRulez 1 year ago
@JohnnyRamoneRulez I agree, but the test was not on price, it was on quality. They had the Bose at the top (they are amazing btw), and those are $120 more than the beats.
PacificReviews 1 year ago
=)) the beats kick the apple earphones every day of the week!
kev2427 1 year ago