Google Pixel Buds • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#181

Post by mikestew » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:47 PM UTC

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…

On the face of it, no wires seem like a good thing, but it brings with it a range of drawbacks.

Which does not make wireless headphones a "solution to a manufactured problem". You're fine with wires, fine, but others don't have the same use case you do. Your list of drawbacks? There's your "manufactured problems", none of those things matter to me when I'm out for a run.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#182

Post by moftz » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:49 PM UTC

choward wrote: post #159

The scrolling on that site is atrocious. What's up with the "Pixel" branding on the headphones? After the Nexus 6P, I'm never buying another of their phones again. I see "Pixel" and immediately think "not buying that". Do I need a Pixel for these to work? Will I be missing out on features of I don't have one? I can't find anything mentioning what makes these "Pixel" headphones. Google's marketing is awful.

I'm in the same boat. Loved my Nexus 6P but they bungled the warranty response to the bootloop issue. I didn't buy a pixel because they were out of my price range. Everyone I know in real life that has one really likes it. The branding is confusing, I guess Pixel is just Google's phone hardware and accessories brand now.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#183

Post by whalesalad » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:54 PM UTC

po1nter wrote: post #30

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…

I 100% agree with the point you're making but at least Apple's landing page is scrolling smoothly on Firefox (76.0b8 (64-bit) on Windows 10) unlike Google's which is "jumpy".

The experience from Google transcends this page. What you’re describing has been the difference between iOS and Android for years.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#184

Post by moftz » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #154

kernelbugs wrote: post #136

Does anyone else really struggle with comfort when using headphones which go into the ear canal (IEMs)? I know there is better sound isolation, but for some reason I cannot stand the minor pressure of them in my ears.

I don’t like them either. I also don’t like the sound isolation. It makes me feel sort of numb and out of touch when I walk around with such headphones.

I really dislike trying to have conversations on a mic that uses a closed design. I can't really hear myself so I feel like I end up talking very loud.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#185

Post by hedora » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:55 PM UTC

govg wrote: post #96

Symbiote wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That alone isn't a good counterargument, since x-rays and gamma rays are also electromagnetic radiation.

True, what needs to be emphasized is that the visible spectrum lies above bluetooth / 5G and whatever when it comes to energy, whereas x-rays and the like lie above the visible spectrum itself.

That’s not a good argument either. Microwave ovens are at a similar frequency to Bluetooth.

The important factor for cancer is how much energy penetrates the outer layers of the skin and is therefore able to damage DNA.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#186

Post by fxleach » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #148

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…

The entire product is a copy of the AirPods. But you know what? I'm fine with that. That's how competition works, and competition is what brings down prices. And I personally find the scrolling page design (both Apple's and Google's) pretty cool. It would drive me nuts if a site I used daily implemented something like that, like if it became a trend for news sites. But to show off a new product where I'll scroll thro…

How are they a copy of the AirPods? The AirPods, to me, look hideous. You take the original Apple headphones and cut off the wire. But putting that aside I'm finding it hard to see how these headphones resemble anything like AirPods. I mean, they're wireless headphones...? Is that the issue?

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#187

Post by wodenokoto » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 2:58 PM UTC

In true google “organizing the world’s information”-fashion this page is not available in certain countries and you are not even informed that you have been blocked or that you tried to go somewhere “you shouldn’t”

This silent blocking makes me unreasonably angry.

Why is it a secret that google is selling a phone or a set of earbuds? Why can’t they acknowledge that it exists?

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#188

Post by ebg13 » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

hacker_newz wrote: post #106

I will never understand why Google continues to invest in products they fail miserably at. They were late to the market with the first Pixel buds, and this doesn't seem any better. That battery life is terrible.

> That battery life is terrible.

It's the same as airpods, and people love airpods.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#189

Post by richbradshaw » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

bzb3 wrote: post #80

72deluxe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's insane!

What, Apple not sucking up to whatever new format Google wants to shove into the web?

I do agree, but do serve webp when I can to save bandwidth. Webp has been around over 10 years now, so it's not exactly new.

As a somewhat interesting aside, Apple don't even support their own HEIC in Safari, so maybe they just don't have a team working on this area of Safari!

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#190

Post by richbradshaw » Tue, Apr 28, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

choward wrote: post #159

The scrolling on that site is atrocious. What's up with the "Pixel" branding on the headphones? After the Nexus 6P, I'm never buying another of their phones again. I see "Pixel" and immediately think "not buying that". Do I need a Pixel for these to work? Will I be missing out on features of I don't have one? I can't find anything mentioning what makes these "Pixel" headphones. Google's marketing is awful.

I've always wondered if they named it after tracking pixel technology, something Google is very familiar with. The idea that your 'pixel' can be taken anywhere and can ping back location etc to Google seems very much like a pixel.