Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zdfld t1_ist3u9r wrote

Reply to comment by nexus1011 in Nothing hikes price of Ear 1 earbuds by 50 percent - The $99 earbuds will soon cost $149 by speckz

I'm pretty sure the reviews were pretty good, I don't think they were overpriced at $99, considering you get Bluetooth 5.2, decent ANC, wireless charging, and average sound quality. $150 does make it a stretch

6

nexus1011 t1_ist4vhy wrote

And they're out on the market for almost 2 years now...

They're decent, but nothing out of this world. $99 was a price that was on the limit.

18

zdfld t1_ist57xo wrote

Eh, how many $99 buds are available on the market with those features today?

Audio technology has a different pace from other technology, it being two years old in this case doesn't really negatively impact it.

I agree $150 is too much, but I disagree with saying they're generic earbuds that aren't worth $99, since imo that's false.

3

HedgehogInACoffin t1_istve0n wrote

Tbh sound wise I bet they are worse than Anker buds that are like $30 (which are better than Samsung Buds + which are one of best in the $100 category from the reviews I've seen). Then there's ANC, wireless chargin and interesting-but-nothing-special design which add some subjective value, but for me it's absolutely not worth the difference in price. As long as they are not super fragile, build quality doesn't matter tbh - all of them have a 2/3 year expiration date.

1

zdfld t1_istxbdy wrote

>Tbh sound wise I bet they are worse than Anker buds that are like $30 (which are better than Samsung Buds + which are one of best in the $100 category from the reviews I've seen).

I can't really comment on this from personal experience, but I'd be pretty surprised if Anker buds sound better than Samsung buds+. I've not had good experience with Anker music items in the past, and the Samsung Buds+ are universally acclaimed. (Audio preferences can be subjective though).

>but for me it's absolutely not worth the difference in price.

That seems pretty subjective. IIRC, Anker's cheapest noise cancelling buds MSRP at $100, so I still don't see the Nothing earbuds as being overpriced at $100.

1

HedgehogInACoffin t1_isvd8y9 wrote

Absolutely subjective, but I did enjoy then better after a brief listen. Also tbh overall experience of using Buds+ is quite bad, controls are a nightmare.

With the value, it's all down to how much does one value the extra features I guess. It's less about audio and more about convenience, that's why airpods are so popular. (altho apparently the Pros sound great)

1

Suedie t1_ist5klh wrote

You can compare that to the earfun air/free Pro 2 which have the same features and are $56 on their site right now with free global shipping. Plus earfun is known for having really good ANC so it's not like they suck.

17

zdfld t1_ist6ibw wrote

That's a sale price, if we're talking about sale prices the AKG N400NC for $50 was still the best deal in Bluetooth audio.

At the Earfun's regular price they're around $89-99. I haven't listened to either so I can't talk to differences in audio, ANC, or build quality. I do know a lot of reviews for nothing praised the build quality at $99.

5

Suedie t1_istdg8a wrote

They're on sale very often though. It's a sale tactic where they put it at a higher msrp so they can claim to have very deep discounts and entice you to buy them on a "limited time" offer.

So yea sure on paper the price difference is $50 but in practical reality from a consumers perspective the earfuns will end up being around less than half of the new nothing price.

6

AffordableTimeTravel t1_it192ed wrote

As an average consumer who only has AirPod pros: This means nothing to me.

High price bad, low price good, unless apple or google gtfo with that expensive stuff.

1

zdfld t1_it2hmlq wrote

Airpods Pro costs more?

I'm not here to tell Nothing how to run their business, if they lose sales that's on them, I don't really care. Maybe for their customer base, the Nothing name brand is strong enough to justify the premium.

I'm just talking from the perspective of a consumer who has seen the reviews and has a basic idea of the specs, I disagree with people who think at $99 this was a bad deal

1

AffordableTimeTravel t1_it2oai1 wrote

I know they cost more but my point is that I’m buying from companies that are well established in the realm of production and innovation. So you typically get what you pay for.

‘Nothing’ is well known for their unique design aesthetic but not much more, and unfortunately for your average consumer aesthetic is not always enough to rationalize a high price tag.

Warranties, name recognition, and public opinion are more important, and Nothing doesn’t compete in that realm as compared to Apple or Google, so they get to charge higher prices.

1

zdfld t1_it2p4yr wrote

>I know they cost more but my point is that I’m buying from companies that are well established in the realm of production and innovation. So you typically get what you pay for.

Sure, I'm just not sure how that's relevant to discussing if Nothing earbuds are worth $99. Apple doesn't sell $99 earbuds, the Pixel Buds A don't compete with Nothing's feature set.

1

AffordableTimeTravel t1_it2tcsv wrote

Okay in that case then maybe It’s just an opinion of mine. Not really sure how to move this dialogue forward anymore.

1

richardawkings t1_it80l7t wrote

Sounds exactly like a $30 pair of Tozo earbuds on Amazon ($25 without wireless charging).

1

zdfld t1_it81qro wrote

  1. The Tozo don't have ANC

  2. Lol. The Tozo is not going to sound as good as the Nothing buds.

1

richardawkings t1_itax6kc wrote

They do on the $60 version. Great value (sound quality for the price) but unlikely to be a chart topper. The ones without ANC are still really quiet though.

1