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

191–200 of 375 posts

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#191

Post by eastbayjake »

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…

More of an Amazon Echo Buds rip-off than AirPods, yeah? (Right down to the name and competing voice assistant.)

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#192

Post by marcus_holmes »

Please Google, just because my browser is in Berlin, that doesn't mean I speak German. I'd like to look at your product. I might even be interested. But I can't understand what you're telling me.

I have language preferences in my account, and you definitely know who I am because you're showing my picture in the top right corner.

So why does where I am take precedence over who I am?

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#193

Post by maest »

Hurdy wrote: post #171
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.

All marketing pages are awful if you open them with the intention to hate it.

Are you suggesting the GP opened the page with the intention of hating it? If so, what makes you think that's the case?

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#195

Post by orliesaurus »

Guest0918231 wrote: post #32
orliesaurus wrote: post #12

I wonder how much electro magnetic radiation they will emit...there were quite a few scaremongering videos out there about the airpods...or bluetooth headphones in general. The issue is that most people (that I've noticed in the US) just have them in their ears ALL DAY. The earbuds/airbuds/headhphones are connected to cellular phones (and hence transmitting just to stay connected). That CAN'T be good for your ears/br…

> That CAN'T be good for your ears/brain...Not an doctor myself but just common sense I believe? Electromagnetic radiation sounds like a scary word, but visible light also falls into that category. Does this mean it's unhealthy to be in a room with light? Should we cover our windows, turn off our lights, and live in the dark to limit our exposure?

Well when the source is INSIDE your ear... That's different than shining on our skin

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#196

Post by hocuspocus »

crazygringo wrote: post #176
a254613e wrote: post #4

What's up with google and their inability to: A. Launch products, both software and hardware, worldwide (or at least majority of countries). B. Launch products with clear dates and not just "Join a waiting list". At least in German store that's the only option.

Do you realize how insanely hard that actually is to do? It's not like you just localize some webpages and add a currency option to your payment. You've got to deal with certification, taxes, customs, warehousing, shipping partners, warranties, refund, and all with wildly varying levels of government agency cooperation and efficiency. Apple is the only consumer company I know of who does this well, because it's their…

> (And yes you can work with local distributors, but that doesn't solve all problems, presents its own set of complex challenges, and sometimes may simply not be economically viable -- e.g. their cut will make the product non-profitable, and there isn't a market to sell at a higher price.)

Cry me a river. I can buy a $150 Nokia at the electronics store down the road, but somehow it's too hard for Google to sell its Pixel lineup (which is not cheap by any means) and make a profit?

They bought a chunk of HTC 3 years ago. HTC has known how to distribute their products for nearly two decades.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#197

Post by thanksforfish »

yaitsyaboi wrote: post #114
thanksforfish wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :)

You might like that website, but do you really think most consumers would have faith in your product if the landing page looked anything like that? People use external markers like that all the time--the bathroom at this diner is nice == the kitchen must be clean.

My suggestion is to user test your site. I agree most consumers would not like such sites (and that you'd learn that in user tests). I also believe consumers hate scroll jacking, janky experiences (anecdata elsewhere in the thread). My personal taste is just one data point.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#198

Post by fxleach »

hobofan wrote: post #141
aikinai wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The products and pages look the same since they all copied Apple. The same thing has happened with packaging. I guess you could technically call it standard now, but it all originated with Apple.

I don't know how so much people believe that AirPods were the first of their kind of product. This isn't the first time I had to make a similar comment. Bragi crowdfunded "The Dash" in early 2014 (to much publicity) and released them in late 2015. To my knowledge this was the first high-profile pair of "disconnected wireless earbuds". AirPods were released late 2016, so a full year later, so they were not the first w…

Don't forget about Samsung's Gear IconX earbuds, they came out before Apple as well.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#199

Post by fxleach »

mikestew wrote: post #178
hobofan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how so much people believe that AirPods were the first of their kind of product. This isn't the first time I had to make a similar comment. Bragi crowdfunded "The Dash" in early 2014 (to much publicity) and released them in late 2015. To my knowledge this was the first high-profile pair of "disconnected wireless earbuds". AirPods were released late 2016, so a full year later, so they were not the first w…

As for product pages, I sadly don't have paper trail Good, I would hate for you to waste effort on something few but yourself care about. Because I doubt you'd find many that would agree that Google is really ripping off "The Dash" because they were "first!!11". As much as it will pain some to admit, Google is ripping off Apple, not some Kickstarter project no one has heard about.

There were many wireless earbuds around the time Apple came out with the AirPods so you're really not selling your point here. Just because a company wants to get into that market now doesn't automatically make it derivative from Apple. The Dash was very popular, people have heard about it. Samsung Gear IconX earbuds were also popular and out before AirPods. Should we say that Apple is derivative of Samsung because they came to the market first? By your logic, yes we should.

Re: Google Pixel Buds

#200

Post by mattacular »

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…

Seems like a really inefficient system. Bringing down the price of a finished good requires another entity's ability in making a separate clone of it?
Post reply on HN