
Hands-On with the $159 Google Pixel Buds - rbanffy
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10/04/hands-on-with-the-159-google-pixel-buds/?ncid=rss&utm_source=tcfbpage&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&sr_share=facebook
======
axaxs
My opinion: Google is selling and pricing hardware based on software
capabilities. For a lot of people, myself included, some of these features are
amazing. That said, at the end of the day, it's still a $160 version of
something that are commonly broken, and have cheaper 'dumb' versions of for a
few bucks. This makes me really hesitant to buy.

Ideally, what I'd like to see to make myself, and I'm sure some others, a
buyer is a free replacement program. I'm more than willing to support awesome
software if I don't have to worry about it's backing hardware breaking so
easily, especially something a lot of folks jam in their pockets.

~~~
jib
I'm on the other side I guess, but with the same conclusion.

I can tell from the design that I will never wear those ear buds. There is no
way to create a decent seal in the ear using just hard plastic, so the sound
will suffer for music, and that's the main reason I buy earbuds.

I'm not a snob about music stuff, but for around 100 USD I get a decent pair
of earbuds that create a proper seal and gives me good music quality. I'd love
the features, but I'm not going to sacrifice the main reason I use in-ear
headphones in the first place - the ability to relatively cheaply have good
quality sound.

~~~
nvarsj
They can be a safety hazard. Pedestrians wearing them don’t pay attention to
their surroundings at all. The fact they are in ear means it’s hard to notice
when someone is wearing them. I view non isolating as a necessary feature for
earphones generally used on the go. I know people swear by them for long train
and subway commutes but I think it’s pretty stupid wearing them for walking
about, just like wearing headphones while cycling.

~~~
potatolicious
Agreed - I'm into these earbuds specifically because they _don 't_ seal. I
have nice headphones at home for "actual" listening.

When I'm out and about I have to balance sound quality with not getting hit by
a bus. For me anything I wear outside needs to let in outside noise.

------
dingo_bat
This is just google trying to be apple, except with shitty products. The $160
airpods actually bring something new and worthwhile to the market. This $160
"wireless" wired earbud brings nothing except inconvenience.

~~~
soared
Google's translate in real time, while apple's were a copy-cat of countless
other wireless headphones. I'd argue the opposite of your claim. (Apple did
make them smaller than usual though, which is new I suppose).

~~~
djrogers
Googles _don 't_ translate anything though - all they bring to the party is a
button that works with Google's translation software on your phone. Previous
HN threads included responses from googles who worked on the feature that
confirm this.

Also, which earbuds do you think the AirPods are copy-cats of? The only real
wire-free buds out when they were announced were the original Bragi ones which
were priced over $100 higher, had lower battery life, and were larger.

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15404918](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15404918)

~~~
connorl33t
I seem to remember FreeWavz & HearNotes before Apple's "AirPods"

~~~
allwein
You mean the FreeWavz that still aren't shipping or the HearNotes which ripped
off all their Kickstarter backers before getting sued into oblivion?

~~~
cptskippy
Earin actually shipped and so did Bragi.

~~~
macintux
Earin: no microphone. Bragi did ship first but with lots of flaws.

------
donald123
Do the earbuds actually do any of the translation work? I think they are just
bluetooth earbuds with touch control, all the real-time translations are done
in google's translation app. Google released this real-time conversation
translation to the app back in 2015. I don't see anything special to the
hardware itself that could justify the $160 price.

~~~
dharma1
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15404918](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15404918)

~~~
euyyn
Thanks for the pointer! That explains it.

------
dorfsmay
Read the article because I thought google came out with a "light" version of
the pixel.

Given how fast phones become outdated, and battery life deteriorate, 200$ is
what I want to pay for a phone if I have to replace it every other year...

I lose and break headsets all the time. For me they are consumable. That's way
too expensive for consumable.

~~~
jsight
Just get a Moto G or something. They fit the price and function well as a
"consumable".

~~~
bronson
The G5 is dirt cheap at Costco. It's a great phone except for the camera.

If Moto could put a decent camera in there (go ahead and charge me an extra
$50), it very well could be my ideal phone.

~~~
intrasight
What is the G5 price at Costco?

~~~
maxsilver
The Moto G5 Plus is around $220 at Costco, but has been as low as $180
depending on sales that may be running in any given week.

~~~
puzzle
It should also have the same sensor as the Pixel 2, although not the same
software, OIS, etc.

------
vanattab
What I really want is a windows desktop version of the google translate app so
I can understand all the Chinese PUBG players who are playing on the NA
servers(For some reason I can't really wrap my head around the Chinese say
their own servers are unplayable do to latency). It's supper frustrating join
a 4 play squad game on the NA servers and discover you can't understand any of
your teammates in a game where communication is fundamental.

------
nunez
This is not a good review. It was a quick “I put them in my ears during the
event and wrote about it” article.

