Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Pixel Buds

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 375 posts

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#121

Post by PaulHoule »

magicalist wrote: post #112
sneak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything about the pixel buds is a blatant airpods ripoff, it appears. That’s fine by me, though. I’d love to see a third company/platform try to get in on the act, too.

> I’d love to see a third company/platform try to get in on the act, too. A third company making wireless earbuds? There's an absurd number of companies doing that :) https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wireless-earbuds/

Exactly. If Google has come out with "true wireless" before the the market was flooded they might seem relevant. This is just sad. And you can really look like a dork with G in your ear.

Like any Google product, however, we have to enter it in the deadlock at launch time since it is only a matter of time before they see some shiny...

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#122

Post by magicalist »

PaulHoule wrote: post #121
magicalist wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’d love to see a third company/platform try to get in on the act, too. A third company making wireless earbuds? There's an absurd number of companies doing that :) https://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-wireless-earbuds/

Exactly. If Google has come out with "true wireless" before the the market was flooded they might seem relevant. This is just sad. And you can really look like a dork with G in your ear. Like any Google product, however, we have to enter it in the deadlock at launch time since it is only a matter of time before they see some shiny...

> If Google has come out with "true wireless" before the the market was flooded they might seem relevant.

Eh, as near as I can tell like 10 brands came out at once in 2015, so it was always like that. More options aren't a bad thing.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#123

Post by falcolas »

bb123 wrote: post #113
notechback wrote: post #71

Marvellous! Another product with non-replaceable batteries. Hostile to both consumers and the environment. Really sad to see that all these big companies don't care even to the smallest degree about all their own environmental pledges.

I think that the issue here is it would be very hard to create a product that has replaceable batteries of this size and: * Is waterproof * Is small enough to be comfortable * Has a battery large enough to be useful * Has easy battery replacement - this is a really important one to me here. Remember that not everyone using these has the manual dexterity of a healthy 20 year old. These products have to be designed so…

A screw and gaskets would keep it waterproof, add little weight and size, and if the screw is has a Phillips head, it will be sufficiently easy to replace.

But, it requires more work to assemble, and does not create an end-date on the existence on the product, so there’s really no reason a mainstream company will do this on their own; they’ll leave it to niche providers.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#124

Post by dilap »

sneak wrote: post #35
clusmore wrote: post #20

Off-topic but this website is such a blatant rip-off of the AirPods Pro landing page[1] (EDIT: Discussed at the time [2]), and I _hate_ the UX. I'm not sure what device this is optimised for, but it requires a tonn of scrolling, it's janky, you end up scrolling past the info you want, it breaks basic functionality like Ctrl+F. Why not just make a video instead of a webpage, since that's clearly the effect they're goi…

Everything about the pixel buds is a blatant airpods ripoff, it appears. That’s fine by me, though. I’d love to see a third company/platform try to get in on the act, too.

It's mind-boggling. A company with Google's resources should be able to come up with unique designs. They should be making top-tier competitors, not shit that looks like a generic brand knock-off.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#125

Post by falcolas »

hnra wrote: post #97
encom wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know it won't be. Wireless headphones are disposable. My wired Sennheisers are 10 years old. I've replaced the foam pads on them, which are still available from 1st and 3rd parties. I know someone who just replaced the pads on her Sennheisers which are 25 years old now. I was basically called a luddite here the other day, because I thought firmware updating headphones is madness, but I stand by what I said. Wirel…

I'm guessing you mean earbuds? Wireless or not, earbuds don't seem to last long for me. I've owned multiple Sennheiser and Beyerdynamic buds over the last years and not a single one lasted a year. Bought a pair of "true" wireless ones this time around which seems a lot more durable, but time will tell.

I have a 5 year old pair of etymotics, and just recently replaced a pair of Shure IEMs due to a broken stem. I was able to buy the exact same model, and re-use my 3rd party cables and eartips.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#126

Post by falcolas »

gadnuk wrote: post #23

Is there a reason they announced this a few hours before earnings? They look good, but I don't see it on par with the AirPods that have noise cancellation, sweat and water resistance. And given Google's inability to support their hardware products past a few years, doubt these would take off (but I hope they do).

Probably an attempt to offset the bad news of this quarter’s revenue. “This last quarter sucks, sure, but look at what will boost our revenue next quarter!”

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#127

Post by pilif »

72deluxe wrote: post #67
foepys wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safari doesn't support WebP.

That's insane!

Apple doesn't want to expose itself to the still somewhat murky situation around patents which might or might not be covering WebP (which is basically a still frame encoded in VP9).

Aside of the potential risk of a lawsuit, what makes this worse is that as a partner of the MPEG-LA, they might even be in the position of compromising the MPEG patent pool itself.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#128

Post by rooam-dev »

bzb3 wrote: post #78
notechback wrote: post #71

Marvellous! Another product with non-replaceable batteries. Hostile to both consumers and the environment. Really sad to see that all these big companies don't care even to the smallest degree about all their own environmental pledges.

Big companies care about what their customers care. Customers don't care about replaceable batteries, or at least not enough to stop buying.

I am sure customers care about their products lasting longer.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#129

Post by AshamedCaptain »

encom wrote: post #103
matwood wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wireless headphones are a solution to a manufactured problem, You can think that, but getting rid of wires is an improvement over nearly any situation other than sitting at a desk. And even then, I still sometimes slide away from the desk and yank on the cord.

On the face of it, no wires seem like a good thing, but it brings with it a range of drawbacks. Compatibility: Bluetooth isn't supported on all devices. And Bluetooth setup and pairing can still be a mess. Analog means round peg goes in round hole and it always works. Sound quality: Bluetooth, as far as I know, still doesn't transmit PCM, so audio is compressed, which may or may not be perceptible to you. Latency: Un…

I could argue for example that wires also bring a lot of problems. E.g. cables die, and the connectors tend to wear significantly depending with use.

I am yet to see a TRS 3.5'' connector last me more than a decade. This includes the headphones connectors on expensive TV, and believe me, it is about as annoying to replace a headphone connector on a ~2010 "superglue manufactured" TV as it is to replace a battery on a 2010 "superglue" headset.

Wireless does not have this problem, and batteries I can change (I only buy headsets with replaceable batteries, even when they cost triple or quadruple of "superglue" products).

That said, wired USB-C doesn't have the problem either, and it's also uncompressed PCM to boot.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#130

Post by glaberficken »

thanksforfish wrote: post #102
clusmore wrote: post #20

Off-topic but this website is such a blatant rip-off of the AirPods Pro landing page[1] (EDIT: Discussed at the time [2]), and I _hate_ the UX. I'm not sure what device this is optimised for, but it requires a tonn of scrolling, it's janky, you end up scrolling past the info you want, it breaks basic functionality like Ctrl+F. Why not just make a video instead of a webpage, since that's clearly the effect they're goi…

This is a good reminder that if you want good design, don't just rip off another site, implement it, and ship. Build a prototype, user test it, and when they say this sucks, try something else. I'd love to see some more tech companies go the Berkshire Hathaway route: https://berkshirehathaway.com/ Metrics for load time, readability, usability, are great. :)

Well... strangely enough, this kind of no frills design is open only to some people/businesses. You need at least one of the following:

A) to not care how other's will perceive your website

B) enough people know who you are so well that it doesn't matter how they perceive your website

If you don't fall into either A or B, I'm sorry but you will need at least a "professional looking" website. Within that of course I agree there's still ample room for good UX and fast load times

Post reply on HN