Leland Stanford Junior University
Stanford, California
EE15N: The Art and Science of Engineering Product Design
Kaitlin Halady, Carolina Jaramillo Román, and Shilpa Sarkar
Project Report
Wireless Headphones Design
Dr. Andrea Goldsmith
Dr. My T. Le
March 19, 2008
2
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………....3
Executive Summary……………………………………………………...……………………....3
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………....4
1. The Headphone/ mp3 Industry………………………………………………………..4
2. Problem Statement………………………………………………………………….....4
3. Why wireless?..................................................................................................................4
Market Analysis………………………………………………………………………….............5
1. General Survey Info……………………………………………………………...........5
2. Brands………………………………………………………………………………......5
3. Types of Headphones…………………………………………………………………..5
4. Headphone Usage……………………………………………………………………....6
5. Hours of Usage…………………………………………………………………………6
6. Important Factors……………………………………………………………………...6
7. Comfort Level…………………………………………………………………….........7
Objective Tree…………………………………………………………………………………....8
Competitors…………………………………………………………………………………........8
Detailed Design………………………………………………………………………………......9
1. Inner earbuds …………………………………………………………………............10
2. Adjustable behind the ear piece……………………………………………………..10
3. User Interface…………………………………………………………………………10
4. Charger/Adapter……………………………………………………………………...11
5. Materials……………………………………………………………………………...11
6. Colors………………………………………………………………………………….11
7. Technical components: Headphones………………………………………………..12
8. Technical components: Adapter…………………………………………………….12
9. Technical components: Charger……………………………………………………12
Budget ……………………………..………………..…………………………………………..13
Retail……………………………..………………..…………………………………………….13
Schedule……………………………..………………..………………………………………...14
Alternative Design…………..………………..………………………………………………...15
1. Morph Chart…………..………………..…………………………………………….15
2. Compatibility………..………………..……………………………………….……...15
3. Aural Headphones vs. Canalphones………..………………..……………………...16
4. Style of ear piece………..………………..……………………………………….….16
5. User interface………..………………..…………………………………………...….16
6. Wired vs. Wireless………..………………..………………………………….……...17
7. Charger………..………………..……………………………………….…………….17
8. Adapter………..………………..……………………………………….……………..17
Future Predictions………..………………..…………………………………………………...17
Conclusion………..………………..……………………………………………………………17
References………..………………..……………………………………………………………19
Abstract
Today’s wireless headphones are not made for the college student’s budget. Therefore, our
goal is to design affordable wireless headphones while not compromising the industry standard for
3
headphone music quality and comfort. By studying current headphones and surveying our market
we came up with some different design possibilities. We then talked to industry experts to pick the
cheapest of our design alternatives. The result is a pair of wireless canalphones with an over-theear piece. These headphones are at the forefront of the industry because they are wireless. Our
design fulfills a niche in the affordable headphone market that was originally empty.
Executive Summary
Mp3 players are immensely popular especially with college students. Therefore the
headphone industry is constantly growing and developing to keep up with their consumers. The
problem is that the newest headphone technology, primarily wireless, is not available to college
student because of the exorbitant cost. Consequently, our proposal is to design a pair of wireless
headphones that cost between $60 to $80. By surveying 89 college students, we found out that
most of them owned the Apple headphones that come with the iPod; as a result, we decided that
our design for wireless headphones would only be compatible with Apple so as to follow the
principle of specialization and end up with a better product. From our survey, we also discovered
that our target market felt limited by the wire between their mp3 player and their headphones; this
fact confirmed that a wireless headphone was the way to go. Since college students use
headphones for an average of 1.5 hours a day, it came as no surprise that they consider price and
comfort as their first priorities when purchasing a pair of headphones. For best understanding our
market’s preferences, we started analyzing the wireless headphones that are already in the market.
Particularly, by scrutinizing JayBird’s and Sennheiser’s headphone designs, we decided which of
their features and functions best fit with our own headphone design. We concluded that our
wireless headphones needed to have inner earbuds since these provide a natural seal from the
environment, resulting in excellent sound quality. After reading customer reviews for the
Sennheiser and Jaybird, we decided that a user interface was necessary for our headphones;
specifically, we added a volume control and track changer. The materials we chose for the design
range from soft silicone to plastic, and with the intention of making this last one stylish, we will
paint it with iPod’s current metallic colors. To have our headphones work for our customer’s
current lifestyles, we added a charging case and an adapter. The charging case is essentially a
portable charger that has a battery to hold additional charge for the headphones. The adapter plugs
into the Apple iPod so that the customer can use our Bluetooth headphones with current iPod
models. All of these features, as well as the technical components and the retail price, were taken
into consideration when drafting our budget, which is currently around $60 to $70.When we
drafted our morph chart, we were able to see the many alternative designs for our headphones. We
had to make decisions between mp3 vs. iPod-only compatibility, aural headphones vs.
canalphones, over-the-ear piece vs. no ear-piece, and wire between earbud vs. completely wireless.
Other features that we took into consideration were the user’s interface type and place, the model
of the charger and the need for an adapter. Our main factor when making these decisions was the
cost of each option versus the necessity/payoff. By taking into account different design
possibilities, we have designed a product that fits a college student’s daily life. Our wireless
headphones allow them to engage in different activities without even noticing the fact that they are
wearing our headphones.
Introduction
The Headphone/mp3 Industry
4
Technology plays a huge role in the daily life of the average consumer. The mp3 player is an
especially recent staple that major companies such as Apple, Microsoft, and Sony have all adopted
as a key product. Specifically, Apple has sold 110,000,000 units as of September 2007 and is said
to be the fastest selling music player in history1
Consequently, the mp3 accessory industry has also exploded to provide consumers with the
ultimate portable music experience. Millions of people use headphones connected to their mp3
players for multiple hours a day. Consumers want to be able to take their mp3 players and
headphones anywhere and everywhere. People are commuting, jogging, cooking, cleaning, and
studying with them. However, many headphones are not ideal for all of these life situations.
College students complain about the comfort, size, and practicality of many popular headphone
styles including Apple’s current earbud headphones. We have decided to design a pair of wireless
headphones with the understanding that the headphone industry is constantly developing to fit
consumers’ desires.
Problem Statement
Our goal is to design a comfortable versatile pair of headphones that are reasonably priced
for a college student. We want the consumer to have an unrestricted range of motion while
participating in every day activities such as exercising, biking, and studying.
The consumer should be pleased with both the fit of our product and the fact that they did
not have to spend a fortune. While they probably won’t be the cheapest headphones on the market,
we want its price to fall into the average price range of most headphones. Although there are
wireless earbud headphones already on the market, their target consumer is the upper class who are
willing to spend $200 or more. Our earbud headphones will cost between $60 and $80 and still
have the features of higher priced headphones such as being wireless, water-resistant, comfortable,
and having volume control/track changing.
There is a lot of competition in the headphone market, but by looking at the current products
out there we believe we can introduce new and improved headphones. This endeavor is meant to
create a better product that will improve the consumers’ comfort level while listening to music,
and thus improve their quality of life.
Why wireless?
In our research to design headphones we found that the wire connecting the headphones to
the mp3 player often detracted from the user’s listening experience. It became tangled, limited the
range of motion for the user, and required frequent re-adjustment. The most revolutionary
headphones to come out in the past year have all been wireless earbuds. From our research we feel
that these kinds of headphones will dominate the market in the future and increase the consumer’s
desire for wireless headphones. Thus, we believe that it is imperative for our headphone to be
wireless so that they are not obsolete by the time we release them.
Market Analysis
In 2006, 73% of 1200 college students polled were iPod users2. Consequently, we might as
well market our product towards iPod-using college students, making our wireless headphones be
compatible with the Apple iPod since it is the most popular mp3 player on the market today. To
1
2
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod
Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,198632,00.html
5
better understand our target market, which is the college student, we got feedback from
approximately ninety Stanford students regarding their headphone preferences. The results and the
impact on our design are discussed below.
General Survey Info;
* Survey emailed to approximate 500 students (freshman to seniors)
* 89 responses
* All students attend Stanford University
* 100% of all those who responded use headphones.
Brands:
Fifty percent of our student responses use the standard wired Apple earbuds sold with the
iPod. This data reinforced our idea of creating our headphones to appeal to Apple consumers.
Shown below is a graph that portrays the different headphone brands used by students. The prices
for these headphones are generally in the $20 to $80 dollar range; accordingly, we tried to stay
within these cost boundaries so our product can be competitive.
20%
Apple
Sony
Bose
Philips
Sure
*Other brands
3%
50%
4%
6%
17%

Other brands: Panasonic, Sennheiser, Audio Technica, Samsung, Creative, Grado, Beyerdynamic, Etymotic,
Koss, Uknown, Skull candy, V-moda, JVC-Gummy)
Type of Headphone: Wireless vs. Non-wireless
We don’t want to produce a product that most of our consumers already have. Thus, in our
survey we found out what percentage of these students have wired or wireless headphones.
Specifically, 86% use wired headphones, while only 7% use wireless. Since a majority do not use
wireless, we feel comfortable making our headphones wireless in order to offer the consumer a
new and improved music experience.
7%
7%
86%
86%
Wireless
Did not respond
Wired
Headphone Usage
When designing a product, an engineer is always looking to give the consumer what they
want, even before they know exactly what that is. We asked students to list the top three activities
they do while using headphones in order to anticipate their listening needs. As you can see from
the graph below, the most popular activities for which college students wear headphones are
working out, studying, listening to music while stationary and biking. Thus we see that a college
student specially needs versatile headphones that can work in multiple aspects of their lives.
Work out
Listen to music
Study/read
6
Hours of Use
From our survey we found that approximate 50% of students use their headphones one to
two hours a day, while the rest use them within two hours below or above that range. These
numbers helped us calibrate how long our headphones should hold charge and also the necessary
levels of comfort.
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
More
tha n 5
hours
Between
3 to 5
hours
Between
1 to 2
Hours
Le ss
tha n 1
hour
Line 1
Important Factors
Finally, we asked students what aspects they look for when buying headphones.
Approximately 40% ranked comfort as the most important factor, which was followed by sound
quality and then by price. Note, however, that the percentages for price from most important to less
important stay more or less around 29% of students, showing that price is definitely in the top
three considerations for all college students. Therefore, this data explains why we place such
emphasis in providing an affordable, comfortable wireless headphone.
Most Important Important Less Important Least Important
7
Price
33.7 %
25.8 %
27 %
13.5 %
Comfort
40.4 %
28.1 %
25.8 %
5.6 %
Style
5.6 %
7.9%
24.7 %
61.8%
38.2%
22.5 %
19.1 %
Sound quality 20.2 %
Comfort Level
We asked students if their headphones had ever felt uncomfortable and, if so, the cause for
their discomfort. We found that a whopping 76% said that their headphones have felt
uncomfortable, which we feel could account for the low hours of use mentioned earlier. Of those
that felt uncomfortable, shape was primarily responsible followed by headphones falling out,
headaches, and wire interference. Once again, shape and consequentially comfort clearly are vital
factors in our headphones.
How comfortable/uncomforta ble are
he adphones ?
80
70
60
Co mfo rtable
Un comfo rtabl e
50
Shape
Fall out/ Headache
Wire
40
30
20
10
0
%
To Sum it All Up…
If a pair of marginally priced wireless earbuds was on the market, would you purchase them?
61.8% said Yes
38.2% said No.
In the following objective tree, we have incorporated our market’s feedback and our innovative
ideas:
8
Objec tive T ree
Wireles s Headp hone s
Comfor t
Sh ape
Ve rsa tility
Wireles s
Comp atib ility
with Mac
Dur able
Mar ketab ility
Water Re sistant
Po rtable
Style
Pr ice
Con ta in er
Color s
$5 0 - $70
( mid -r ange )
Competitors
Once our product is released, we will have to face competitors. Nevertheless, since our idea
of design incorporates relatively new technology, we will not face more than seven direct
competitors. Consequently, we are examining two of the newest wireless headphones with the
purpose of learning from our competition; specifically, we want to build upon their good ideas and
then incorporate our own, which will result in launching a great product to the market.
Nonetheless, an advantage we have over our competitors is that we are the only ones that are
targeting the college market.
JayBird JB-100
In 2007, Jaybird introduced to the JB-100 to the online market for a retail price of $129.99.
The JB-100 is an in-ear Bluetooth stereo headset designed for making calls and streaming music.
Jaybird claims it has noise-canceling capabilities and water resistance. It comes with a nylon mesh
pouch to carry and protect it3.
The JB-100 includes a charging dock and a USB cable that can use power from the
computer to charge. According to its webpage, the JB-100 needs to be charged for 2 hours and its
usage time depends on the associated device one is using it with. In order for the JB-100 to
function, it requires a Bluetooth adapter for mp3 and other associated devices, which elevates the
product’s price to around $180 since each adapter is sold separately.4
The Jaybird’s website customer reviews lament the lack of a user interface and the wire
between the earpieces. Also, in contrast to JayBird’s advertisement, reviews about the product
show that it does not fit every ear comfortably and securely, and that you cannot have it on when
wearing a beanie. Some users consider that its volume level is too low and it lacks in bass
response5. Consequently, we see a lot of ground for improvement after analyzing other wireless
headphones’ companies.
Sennheiser
Sennheiser is planning to release a completely wireless set of headphones called the MX
W1’s to consumers in May of 2008. These headphones are completely unattached to each other by
3
JayBird, http://www.jaybirdgear.com/
JayBird, http://www.jaybirdgear.com/
5
Engadget, http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/18/jaybird-reveals-jb-100-bluetooth-stereoheadset-ipod-adapter/
4
9
using a “twist and fit system”. Also, by using this system and a choice of “ear adapters” (rubber
covers over the earbuds in different sizes), the MX W1 caters to individual users. The MX W1
Wireless Headphones use a transmission technology known as Kleer, which, according to a
Sennheiser representative, is “superior to Bluetooth”.6 Kleer allows the headphones to have a
transmission range of ten meters and have a battery life of five hours.
The headphones also come with a charger that does not need a power source. They can be
charged on the portable dock up to three times before the dock itself must be recharged. The
headphones also come with a USB cable and wall adapter so you can charge them anywhere. They
are currently priced at $599.00. Although customers have not reviewed the product, it received the
Editor’s Choice Award of 2008 when it was featured in the Consumer Electronics Tradeshow in
Las Vegas7.
Detailed Design
Inner-ear bud (Canalphone)
Known also as in-ear headphones, canalphones
are earbuds that transmit sound to the ear canal by
being directly placed in the canal itself. As a result,
their direct contact with the ear canal causes sound
isolation, which leads to greater sound quality8. By
ruling out the environment’s sounds due to their natural
seal, canalphones do not need the volume levels to be
as high as in other types of headphones, preventing ear
damage in the long run9. Consequently, in-ear headphones provide a seal
from outside noises, improving the user’s musical experience as he/she can
hear certain musical nuances that may go unnoticed when using a regular headphone.
We will use a standard canalphone in our design as opposed to custom molding. While it
would be more comfortable to custom fit our canalphones, this would also
significantly increase the price of our headphones and thus disconfigurate our
budget. Nevertheless, in order to make the canalphones as comfortable as possible,
the user has the option of acquiring several different sizes of sleeves, which are
made out of foam. As seen in the picture on the right, these sleeves are placed in the
tip of the canalphone10. Accordingly, these sleeves permit us to tackle the fact that
6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iunUa2ARCyA
Youtube Video “Wireless Headphones of the Future” <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iunUa2ARCyA>
8
Encyclopedia II, http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Headphones__Types_of_headphones/id/5118337
7
Photo #1: http://akamaipix.crutchfield.com/ca/reviews/2007/0212/In-ear-headphones.jpg
Photo #2: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/4/48/200px-InEarMonitors.jpg
Photo #3: http://skattertech.com/media/2007/10/shure-se110-sleeves.jpg
Photo #4: http://www.markertek.com/productImage/75X75/PA752M.JPG
9
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headphones
Encyclopedia II, http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Headphones__Types_of_headphones/id/5118337
10
10
people’s ears are very different since the clients are allowed to choose which sleeves mold better to
their ear canal, providing comfort at all times. As to why we recommend foam for the sleeves, we
consider that even though foam is not stylish, it provides adaptability, comfort and sound quality11.
Additionally, foam is a very inexpensive material; current foam sleeves sell for $3 by the dozen, so
the marginal production cost is practically negligible.
Adjustable Behind-ear or over-ear piece
By using an over-the-ear piece to secure the headphones, we
take advantage of the ear’s anatomy, causing the headphones to be
more properly secured. Nonetheless, to address the fact that all ears’
shape and sizes are different, our headphones’ behind-ear piece will be
adjustable so that it is more customizable and comfortable for all users.
As a result, our headphones will provide natural fit that the user can
adjust to their comfort level.
In order to explain further how the adjustable mechanism of our
over-ear piece works, the website Patent Storm explains that an
“adjustable earpiece includes a rigid backbone and a ductile wire coupled
to the rigid backbone, wherein a first elastomer is formed over the rigid
backbone and the ductile wire to provide an asymmetrical U shape to the
adjustable earpiece for comfortably fitting the communication headset
over the ear”12. Our adjustable ear piece will adjust vertically as well as
rotate at an angle up to 90 degrees.
User Interface
The user interface has three functions: it can turn the headphones on and off, adjust the
volume of the music, and change tracks. To accomplish these tasks we have two wheels in the
right ear; the wheel on the side is for changing tracks (a toggle wheel) while the wheel on the edge
is for adjusting the volume and also turning the headphones on and off. To turn the headphones
off, the user just has to rotate the volume wheel past the minimum sound level until it “clicks” into
place and shuts off. To help the user know whether the headphones are on or off, there is a little
LED light on the left headphone that flickers green light the moment the headphones are turned on.
A blue light also flickers to indicate that there is a proper Bluetooth connection. The highest level
the volume wheel can go does not exceed 100 decibels, which would help ease any concern that
the in-ear headphone can potentially harm the eardrum13. The wheels work by optic sensing; there
are two lights and as the wheel rotates, it interrupts the light stream which alerts the device of the
wheel’s movement and whether it is going clockwise or counterclockwise14.
Charger/Adapter
The charger is a two-part system that consists of a carrying case, which charges the
headphones on the go as well as the standard external charger that plugs into a power source. The
11
http://www.earphonesolutions.com/earecrandset.html
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6320960-claims.html
Photo #5: http://images.google.com/
13
Dorogusker, e-mail
14
Collins, e-mail
12
11
standard charger is an AC-DC converter that plugs into the wall and supplies DC to the charger to
pump it into the 100mAh battery in the headphones. The case will be resemble the shape of an
oblong rectangle and will be able to fit in your hand. There will be a depression for each of the
headphones in the case. In order to charge, the user just places the headphones into the outlined
shape and they will immediately click into place, starting to gain charge from the left ear piece.
The type of battery in the case is a 1000 mAh, which will hold a charge of about 15 hours15. The
standard charger will be a USB cord that plugs into the wall and then connects to a USB port in the
case.
We have designed the wireless headphones to be used with the Apple iPod. The current
iPod models are not equipped with a wireless transmitter, although we are expecting them to be in
the near future16. However, we have created an adapter so our product can be used as soon as it is
released, and for those who choose not to buy the new wireless iPods and continue to use their old
one. Our adapter is compatible with all current iPod models.
The adapter has no battery because it runs off the iPod. We designed it to run off the iPod
not only to save money, but because our survey shows that our market typically uses their
headphones for 1-3 hours day. The iPod usually lasts at least 24 hours so our adapter can afford to
use some of the iPod battery without cutting into the typical using time of our consumers.
Materials
We have discovered that the actual cost of the materials for our headphone is practically
negligible. Our headphone pieces would be made primarily of plastic and painted with a shiny
finish similar to most Apple products since painting is cheaper than producing different colored
plastics17. As mentioned earlier, we would cover the inner-ear speaker with foam, which is an
easily available material with almost no cost. We will also coat the entire plastic earpiece
(including the adjustable over-the-ear part and the inner ear-bud, sans foam) with Plasti-Dip, a
very cheap and durable water-resistant material that is also clear so that it will not interfere with
color. This will ensure that our headphones are not damaged by sweat or minimal exposure to
water (i.e if the user gets caught in the rain).
Another material that we will integrate into our design is soft elastomer, which is a
synthetic gel that is comfortable to wear, impermeable to air (if used for the in-ear’s protuberance)
and is water-resistant. Some types of soft elastomer are silicone rubber or soft plastic, which as
their name indicate, are soft materials that have the capability to adjust to the ear as well as to
protect the headphones from the external world18.
Colors
Since we are making our headphones for Apple products, we want the color options to be
aesthetically compatible with iPod products. Jesse, our advisor from Apple, told us that the pink,
blue, and black color options are the most popular choices for the iPod Nano. In addition to
offering these colors, we will also offer an all-white option which will resemble the classic Apple
look featured in so many of their products.
Technical Components for Headphones
15
Collins, e-mail
Dorogusker, e-mail
17
Dorogusker, e-mail
18
Klaassen, http://www.devicelink.com/mdt/archive/07/01/003.html
16
12
Each earpiece has a speaker transducer, which is a device that converts the electric signal
into music audio. A wire connects the two earpieces to each other since this reduces cost and
size19. The left earpiece contains the 100 mAh battery, while the right earpiece contains the circuit
board.
The circuit board contains everything that makes the headphone work. There’s the
Bluetooth chip, which receives signal from the adapter. There is a low-power digital-to-analog
converter, which changes the digital audio signal output from Bluetooth into an analog audio
signal for driving the speaker transducer so the sound is audible to the human ear. There are the
tactile sensors for the two control wheels (track and volume changing/power). There is the antenna
for the Bluetooth signal, which is mounted directly on the circuit board; the antenna must be kept
as far away from metal as possible to avoid antenna blocking. The rest of the circuit board is
comprised of switches, LEDs, capacitors, resistors, and other technical components that make
headphones possible20.
In the left headphone we have the battery and the charge plug for the headphones. A 100
mAh battery provides about four hours of audio playing time. The case has a plug that connects to
the bottom of the left headphone. The left headphone also has two LED lights; one that is green to
signal whether the headphones are on or off, and one that is blue to represent the Bluetooth signal.
Technical Component of the Adapter
The adapter takes the analog signal from the iPod and converts it to digital so it can be sent
wirelessly to the user’s headphones. The adapter plugs in to the iPod’s 30-pin connector, which is
where the iPod charger normally plugs into21. The adapter has its own Bluetooth chip and circuit
board like the headphone, but power is sourced via the connector, directly from iPod battery. The
adapter, therefore, can be about a quarter of the size of the iPod nano. The adapter works with all
current versions of the iPod, because they all utilize the 30-pin connector that is standardized by
Apple.
Technical Components of the Charger
Our charger-case is portable, and has its own 1000 mAh battery to hold additional charge
for the headphones. This provides about fifteen hours of playback time, in addition to the four
hours held by the headphones themselves. In the charger-case there is a USB plug that fits into the
headphones to charge. The case itself also has another USB port on the outside with a wire that
plugs in to an electrical outlet. When plugged into a wall, it is a standard charger but when
unplugged it is a compact carrying case that can supply power to the headphones.
Budget
Piece
19
Collins, e-mail
Collins, e-mail
21
Collins, e-mail
20
Estimated Cost (Dollars)
13
Headphone
Battery (100 mAh)
~ .50
Bluetooth (includes digital to analog converter)
4.00
Material (Foam, Plastic, TPE)
1.00
Packaging
.75
Chip to charge battery
1.00
Other components (switches, LEDs, resisters, capacitors,1.75
etc.)
Plasti-Dip
~ . 50
Charger-case
Plastics
1.00
AC power adapter
1.50
Adapter
Bluetooth
4.00
Circuit Board/Random Electronics
1.00
Plastic Casing
.50
TOTAL
$17.50
TOTAL (max possible) ~ $17.50 x 4 = $70.00 or $17.50 x 3.5=$61.25  potential retail price,
Both of these potential retail prices ($61.25 or $70.00) are right within our price range.
Hopefully over time we can continue to lower the cost of these headphones as technology
improves. Not only will it make our electronic components cheaper, but the adapter may become
obsolete all together if Apple starts making iPods with wireless transmitters like Bluetooth inside
them.
Retail
A factor that immensely influences our project’s budget is the cost of retail. Businesses like
Best Buy or Radioshack charge us for selling and shipping our products. We need to multiply the
sum of our raw costs by 3.5 or 4 to find our retail price. These middlemen ask for 50% to 60%
commission, and while this increases our price significantly, there are not many options to avoid
them22. Selling our products in online shops, like Amazon, would definitively lower our retail
price. However, our product is new to our market and therefore we think it would be more
lucrative to sell it in stores. If in time our product becomes highly appreciated by consumers, all
retail companies will charge us less when buying our wireless headphones, contributing to lower
our retail price.
22
Dorogusker, e-mail
14
Scheduling (for hypothetical release of product) 23
0 wks - Design start
+ 4 wks - Industrial Design
+ 4 wks - Mechanical Design
+ 6 wks - Tooling design and fabrication
less than 12 wks for electrical design, so this is not critical path to this point.
= 14 weeks, 1st milestone - First prototype
+ 8 weeks to get from first to final prototypes
+ 4 weeks to get FCC certification
= 26 weeks, then mass production would start
Scheduling (our work throughout the quarter)
-February 6, 2008: First meeting to discuss preliminary ideas for design project, market, etc
-February 7, 2008: Created and distributed survey for market analysis
-February 8, 2008: Analysis of market survey results, discussion of preliminary design, research
of competitors.
-February 8-9, 2008: Creation of Objective Tree
-February 13, 2008: Creation of tentative Morph Chart, continued analysis of market survey
results
-February 22, 2008: Meeting with wireless audio expert Micah Collins.
-February 24, 2008: Completion of final Morph Chart, first design decisions formally made,
creation of first drawing to serve as prototype.
-March 2, 2008: Preparation for meeting with design expert Jesse Dorogusker from Apple.
Further discussion of design.
-March 4, 2008: Further research on specific competitors (Sennheiser and Jaybird), Beginning to
draft report
-March 7, 2008: Work on detailed design, Research on different aspects of design including user
interface, charger/adapter, In-ear phones, and the over the ear piece.
-March 9, 2008: Meeting with Jesse to discuss detailed design.
-March 10, 2008: Complete final detailed design
-March 11, 2008: Divide up work/research to do before next meeting including research of
competitors, alternative design, and sketches of the product.
-March 13, 2008: Meeting with Jesse to take apart headphones, and examine the technical
components of the inside of headphones.
-March 15, 2008: Finalization of design/ Full draft of report and presentation
-March 16-18, 2008: Editing of final report/Practicing presentation
-March 19, 2008: Final presentation and report completed.
Alternative Design
Nowadays, headphones’ designs can vary immensely since these products have existed in
the market for some decades and thus new features and functions have appeared, increasing the
different means to approach them. In order to organize all these possibilities schematically, we
23
Collins, e-mail
15
have created a morph chart to display all of our design’s pathways and choices. By taking into
account our target market, our innovative ideas and technology’s future tendencies, we have
chosen the means we are going to employ to create our headphone’s features and functions.
Consequently, the alternative designs listed below are a product of our morph chart’s careful
analysis.
Morph Chart
Means
Feature/function
Transmit music
wirelessly
Compatibility
Shape
Material of
headphone
Water resistance
material
Power for
headphones
User interface
Battery
Storage
1
2
3
Bluetooth
RF transmitter
(FM)
Infrared
transmitter
(WiFi)
One brand of
mp3 player
Earbuds
Multiple brands
Earbuds with
over-ear piece
Elastomate
Canalphones
(in-ear)
Foam
Polypropylene
Mylar
Charger
(plugs into
outlet)
Buttons on
headphones
Container with
charger
Docking Station
Be controlled by
mp3 player
Mix: some
buttons on
headphones,
others mp3
Goes in both
headphones
Carrying case
Goes in one
headphone
Charging carrying Magnetized
case
Silicone
rubber
Plastidip
4
Supra-aural
headphones
Alternative Design 1: Compatibility with all mp3 Players versus solely the iPod.
Originally our plan was to design a pair of wireless ear bud headphones that would be
compatible with all mp3 players because we felt it was the best way to attract the most consumers.
However, after our initial survey and analysis of the results we found that most college students are
using the Apple iPod. By making it solely compatible with the iPod we can target a very specific
market, which is currently very large. We discussed the fact that if we made it compatible with
multiple mp3 players, we would need to have adapters for each one and the design could not be as
focused. By designing solely for the Apple iPod, we will save money because we will only have to
create one adapter, and the design itself can be catered to fit with other Apple products.
Alternative Design 2: Aural headphones versus ear bud style
In the beginning of the design process we discussed whether an ear-bud type headphone or
an aural style headphone would be most comfortable and stylish for our targeted consumers.
16
Ultimately, we decided that the ear bud style would be best because the aural headphones are
bulkier and less aesthetically pleasing. One concern from consumers about the ear bud style was
that the sound quality was lacking. Although, some consumers believe that aural headphones offer
better sound quality, through research we found that in ear canal phones offer the greatest sound
quality overall. By choosing to make an in-ear ear bud style headphone we did not have to
compromise on style nor sound quality.
Alternative Design 3: Over-the-ear Piece or not/ Style of Ear Piece
In the beginning, one of our possible designs was a pair of wireless ear buds without the
over–the-ear piece. We ultimately decided to put the over-the-ear piece on each headphone
because it will it make it more comfortable for the consumer, and will keep the headphones from
falling off. Another factor about the behind-ear piece that we took into consideration was its
capability to be adjustable. After researching other products we found that the major complaint
about headphones with an over-ear piece was the fact that they did not fit their ears. Therefore, for
our final design we decided to make the ear piece adjustable both vertically and angularly in order
to provide the best possible fit for all our consumers.
Alternative Design 4: User Interface-Placement and Type
We started at with a design to have three items on our user interface, which included a
play/pause button, a volume control, and a track changer. Our original design was an inner-ear bud
with a larger piece in the outer ear, which was where the user interface was going to be placed. On
one ear piece, the play/pause button and volume control button would had been located, while on
the other ear piece would have had the track changer. We also considered having the user interface
on a bracelet that the person could wear, making it completely separate from the headphones
themselves. However, we decided that this design would ultimately lead to greater cost, and more
complaints from consumers.
Our design for the user interface slowly changed over time. In our final design we decided to
eliminate the idea of having buttons because the motion of having to push something could
readjust the headphones, which would make them uncomfortable. Our solution to this problem was
to create a wheel for both the volume control and track changer. We decided that one of the
options on the user interface could be eliminated taking into consideration the aesthetics of the
headphones themselves, as well as ease for the consumer. We felt as though the play/pause button
was unnecessary to the consumer compared to volume control and track changer.
Alternative Design 5: Wire connecting two earbuds or not
One of our alternative designs was to have two wireless ear bud headphones that were not
connected by a wire in the back. We felt as though the wire that merely connects the two
headphones together was not necessarily the best stylistic design choice; however, we had to take
our budget into account. Without the wire connecting the two ear buds, we would have had to buy
two batteries and transmitters because each headphone would have to have one. By choosing to put
the connecting wire in between the headphones, we eliminated doubling the cost for the inner
pieces of the headphones and were able to stay within our budget. One of the most important
things we were considering during the design process was our market: college students.
Consequently, we chose the design with the connecting wire since it will cost the consumer less
though it will not be as stylish. This design option’s price permits us not to compromise comfort,
17
which is another important consideration of our design problem.
Alternative Design: Charger
We considered many ways to charge the headphones including a normal power charger that
plugs into the wall, and a charging case. After coming up with our detailed design and deciding on
a battery with a running time of four hours, we realized that consumers would not buy a pair of
headphones with a battery life of four hours unless there was ease in charging or some other
gimmick. Therefore, we decided on the charging case because it will allow the consumer to charge
their headphones easily and on the go. The choices to charge the case directly include a USB port
(similar to those in cell phone chargers) and a headphone-style jack.
Alternative Design: Adapter
At first we considered not designing an adapter to be sold with our headphones; however, we
decided that creating an iPod adapter would be beneficial and crucial to our sales. If there was no
adapter, iPod users would not be able to use the product because the current and previous models
do not have Bluetooth chips in them. Even if Apple were to come out with iPods with Bluetooth
technology, which we are expecting, not all consumers will buy a new iPod; some will continue to
use their older models.
Conclusion:
Our headphones will provide its users an incredible music experience since they can focus
all their attention on listening to music. Thanks to the behind-ear piece and the in-ear headphones,
the user has the hearing device securely yet comfortably plug in his/her ear as if it were custom
made. Even more, this design emulates many hearing aids that have to be worn all day long by its
users, without any possibility of the device falling. The user interface grants the user the necessary
tools to control their music trance, without having to reach their iPod at all times.
Future Predictions
Even though we have incorporated many features from other existent headphones, our
headphone’s design will be unique among its few wireless headphone peers. According to many
experts and to other products’ experiences in the market, the approach we have given our
headphones might be judged as bold and risky. Nevertheless, our product has many advantages,
which will be stressed in the next paragraphs.
All the wireless headphones out in the market have already dealt with successfully
introducing a new product and to making the general audience more familiar with them,
contributing to paving the way for our wireless headphones. Consequently, we will not have the
risks other companies, like TiVo, faced since we can be more confident that our product is not
ahead of its time. One of the reasons we chose to use Bluetooth technology versus the Kleer
technology used by Sennheiser was the fact that many of the products on the market are not
compatible with Kleer.
Besides our product’s unique mixture of features, our target market also makes our product
different from all other wireless headphones. As a result, for the moment, we would not face any
competitors since hardly any college students are going to buy the $200 wireless headphones
offered by other wireless headphone companies. Nevertheless, due to our survey, we are positive
that our target market needs our product; college students want wireless headphones and they want
to purchase them at a reasonable price.
18
In the future our company would expand our product with the market adjustments and
demand. Due to the fact that our user interface is on the right headphone, this may pose a problem
for left handed people. If it is demanded, we would offer an option with the user interface on the
left headphone. Another long term goal of ours is to evolve different aspects of the design such as
color, behind-the-ear piece, and compatibility.
19
References
Collins, Micah. E-mails January through March, <micah.collins@gmail.com>
Dorogusker, Jesse. E-mails February through March, <jesse@apple.com>
Encyclopedia II. “Headphones – Types of headphones”. Internet.
http://www.experiencefestival.com/ Access: March 8, 2008
Engadget. “JayBird reveals JB-100 Bluetooth Stereo Headset, iPod adapter”. Internet.
http://www.engadget.com/ Access: March 3, 2008
Fox News. “Survey: College kids like IPods better than beer”. Internet. http://www.foxnews.com/
Access: February 7, 2008
JayBird. “Bluetooth Stereo Headset”. Internet. http://www.jaybirdgear.com/ Access: March 3,
2008
Klaassen, E.L. “Materials”. Internet. http://www.devicelink.com/. Access: March 9, 2008
Patent Storm. “Headset with adjustable earpiece”. Internet.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6320960-claims.html. Access: March 8, 2008
“Review Criteria”. Internet. http://www.earphonesolutions.com/. Access: March 8 ,2008
Sennheiser. “MX W1 Wireless Earphones.” Internet. http://www.senngeiser.com/ Access February
7, 2008.
Wikipedia. “IPod”. Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/. Access: February 7, 2008 . “Headphones”
Internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/. Access: March 4, 2008