clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

What the hell do you call these Bluetooth fashion crimes?

New, 84 comments

If you buy something from a Verge link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

If you haven't seen them around yet, you will. They're in-ear headphones, technically, but they lack the long cord that tangles up after about a week. Instead, two tiny wires connect buds to an inexplicably large band that rests loosely around your neck and houses all the circuitry necessary for wireless connectivity.

Here, it'll just be easier to show you:

That's the new Moto Surround, wrapped around the neck of a model who's trying his hardest to make them look beautiful and alluring. It's not just Motorola, of course: LG has a whole series. From there, the form factor seems to trickle down to about a dozen or so small manufacturers.

To call them "earbuds" is oversimplifying a new form factor that's becoming increasingly popular in the cheap-enough-to-be-almost-disposable headphone market. But then, what should we call these things? The most popular term, judging by Amazon product descriptions, seems to be "neckband," a sartorial term for the collar of a garment. It's not ubiquitously used, however, and also I think we can do better. So I asked my colleagues for a few suggestions, and now I'm putting it to a vote.

Update: