All products featured are independently chosen by us. However, SoundGuys may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links. See our ethics statement.
Dear Apple: The shape of AirPods wasn't the issue
In an event on September 9, 2024, Apple announced its new AirPods, which boasted the best design for its unsealed options ever. However, the effort to optimize the shape of the earbuds was never the root of the design problem: it’s that the design itself has fit shortcomings that can’t be overcome by changing the shape alone.
What Apple did
Apple completely redesigned the earbud housing to launch the latest iterations of AirPods. The Cupertino colossus claims to have created an enormous dataset of photogrammetry and laser topography models to optimize the shape of both the AirPods 4 and AirPods 4 with ANC. The idea is that by calculating the possible shapes of the human ear, Apple could create a plastic housing to the earbuds that would fit people better.
The result of that design process yielded an earbud design with a different angle to its sound output port, a slightly different shape to the outer housing, and that’s about it. Allegedly, this should nestle close to your ear canal easier, and I hope that’s true. But I won’t be able to tell if that’s the case until I get some into the lab and test for myself.
Apple made lofty claims that this one shape would fit more ears better. However, this begs the question: Does one shape work for all ears? As you should know by now, the answer is a resounding “NO.”
The AirPods’ design problem
The problem with this new design — shared by every unsealed AirPods design — was never the shape of the earbud itself. Over several iterations, Apple improved the design enough to keep people coming back, even though the ubiquitous earbuds’ tendency to fly out at the drop of a hat reached meme status within hours of the product’s initial release.
The issue isn’t that the earbud is shaped in a way that lends itself to falling out. The issue is that there are too many ways for the earbud to fall out, and not enough ways for your ears to prevent this from happening. It would be one thing if these earbuds sealed to your ear, but because they don’t: the earbuds have a tendency to pull away from your ear canal when there’s nothing holding them forward. When the earbuds fall back, the extra weight at the top of the bud then relies on the lollipop stick’s fit in your ear — but that only holds the earbuds in on one axis. If there’s any force perpendicular to that axis (say, if you turn your head, run, or jump), the earbuds can fall out much easier than others would.
Over the years, a strange cottage industry of AirPods accessories has cropped up to deal with this design shortcoming. Some vendors offer ear hooks, while others sell concha fins. Though there aren’t many notable companies doing this, the fact that so many of these accessories are being made should give you pause. If this is a design problem that doesn’t exist, then why are products that fix it something that keeps showing up on Amazon?
These products exist because people buy them, looking for a solution to a clear problem.
On vegetable peelers and good design
It’s not enough to merely state that something is bad design; it’s necessary to identify why that is the case. Before I discuss what should happen with AirPods, we should consider one of the more notable examples of good design to get a better picture of what that might look like for earbuds.
In 1989, OXO pioneered the Good Grips vegetable peeler in an attempt to create a product that everybody — arthritic hands or not — could use comfortably. Betsey and Sam Farber, designers of the new form of peeler, were able to create a design that wound up dominating the space for the next 35 years and counting. The reason why is simple: the chunky, grippy, peeler can be used by people who couldn’t normally use it, and it works better for those who could. Not only does the design lend itself to reducing fatigue and pain through its use, but it also makes the task much more manageable for those who can’t use more traditional peelers comfortably.
The reason that the OXO vegetable peeler worked so famously isn’t because of an iterative improvement upon a poor design. It’s because it was able to radically account for the failings of its product category, and improve the experience for the vast majority of users. Specifically, those who have needs that aren’t obvious to designers and who only design for people like themselves. The AirPods may be one of the best-rated products for personal audio, but why do you think the AirPods Pro has supplanted them? I can tell you why: it fits more users better, and more consistently. No getting knocked out by a stiff breeze or change in position, no changes in performance or perceived levels depending on how sweaty or cold you are. The AirPods Pro 2 works in a way that the unsealed earbuds don’t work for many people.
This is hardly the only product that I can point to, but one most people might be familiar with. We know that unsealed earbuds can work well because we’ve seen it before. For example, the Samsung Galaxy Live may not have been perfect, but they were more or less secure in fit because they had a much larger contact area with your ear (especially the concha). Additionally, a growing segment of open earbuds that lean into their open nature and go overboard on attaching themselves to your ears has sprung up, to mixed results. Though this category has its challenges, things could be a whole lot better if the fit issue was addressed in earnest.
What could fix it
We know that Apple has learned some of the lessons OXO learned way back when because of its continuing support and development of the AirPods Pro 2 as first a Personal Sound Amplifying Product (PSAP), and then hearing aids. I want to make sure that Apple is commended for that. We all should strive to make genuinely useful improvements for people who need more out of the tools they use every day. But the design of the unsealed AirPods is a perfect case study in missing the entire point of the exercise: earbuds that rely on nothing but gravity and the prayer that its user has a conducive ear shape is a design that can’t account for very common problems.
I’ve absolutely roasted other products for this approach, and the comments have been predictably terrible. You can read for yourself on our YouTube review of the Samsung Galaxy Buds3, but suffice to say my take on this issue is not one that’s shared by the loudest commenters out there. But I have a bigger megaphone, and I’m gonna use it.
When the Beats Fit Pro launched, it was my go-to recommendation for anyone who wanted AirPods, but didn’t want to buy them because of fit issues. Though this was a set of earbuds that has a nozzle and ear tip, it was the soft, pliable concha fin that made all the difference. In fact, some of the bootleg AirPods-fixing products on Amazon use an extremely similar concha fin to hold AirPods to your ear canal without applying too much pressure. If Apple made something like this standard with its earbuds, it could dramatically boost the effectiveness of its new active noise canceling (ANC) feature, as well as make good sound quality more reliable through a more consistent fit.
Creating new methods of securing a fit for earbuds doesn’t have to mean using bulky additions to the design, but it does require some honest introspection and a willingness to rip the bandage off. Apple, I’m begging you: AirPods need a more radical redesign. I’m tired of writing the same thing year after year after year. Everybody benefits if a new design allows more users to enjoy your product without fear of a busted fit, so please stop trying to force every peg through the same hole.