Apple Review Bias in INFURIATING!!!!

I was looking into picking up a pair of Pixel Buds 2 while they are on sale and ran across this article. And while it is FAR from the worst example I've ever seen, I STILL can't get past the glaring bias in the review.

These biases typically expose themselves in a few ways. For instance, a feature missing from an Apple product may be ignored or treated as a foot note. But, any Apple features missing from a competitor are immediately treated as glaring omissions. Or, niche/weird features are treated as extras or something special in Apple devices but treated as irrelevant or distracting in the competition. And we'll see examples of both in this.

Let's just start out the gate with the preamble. A feature is mentioned here and would normally count as a point against the product. But, because it is in the intro it isn't scored. And that is that Apple's Air Pods will only auto-resume on iOS whereas it doesn't appear that the Pixel Buds are equally encumbered by this particular platform specific issue. 

YES this is incredibly minor. But, it is likely Apple intentionally under investing in other platforms to prop up their own. And THAT sort of "feature walling" is a way Apple tries to lock users into their own ecosystem and THAT is a valid point for or against a product. And we haven't even started "officially" comparing the devices.

The first category talks about the charging cases. Oddly, there is no winner/verdict here. This is REALLY strange. Especially since, while both are deemed to be "equally attractive" there is a major functionality difference. Apple's case has a single LED whereas the Pixel Buds have multiple LEDs and can serve as a charge indicator. That is a substantive feature difference. But, by not actually including a winner, this win for Google is swept under the rug.

Next we get into a ranked category on controls. The conclusion is basically "both product did well, so I'll give the win to Apple because they are the 'gold standard'". SERIOUSLY. While I am paraphrasing, this is basically what it says. 

Also, I want to point out the audio sharing note from the article here. It is pointed out as a niche feature and noted as a plus and they go out of their way to fabricate real world scenarios in which it would be beneficial. And to my mind, both scenarios are realistic sounding, but highly contrived and unlikely.

The next section microphones. Aside from being a listening device, the second most important things these things do is act as a microphone. And they leave this to a vote! From listening to the audio provided, the Pixel Buds were quite a big clearer in my opinion. They argue that outdoors the Air Pods performed better. It would have been nice to have a recording to back these claims up as well. Based on the evidence provided though, this seemed like another point which should have gone to the Pixel Buds.

And then we get to connection strength. And here a feature of the Pixel Buds, their long range is treated as useless. Yay reviewer! Their examples here are just lacking any attempt at imagination and claim this is limited to sports activities like training in a field. I leave my wireless headphones on the charger while I go down for a coffee. On one end of the house there is a risk of disconnection. This is no contrived example! A longer range would help and would improve my experience. Daily. But it is treated as nothing.

Then, rather than actually do any testing it simply hands the win to Apple saying there are rampant complaints about connectivity. Despite the fact that the section start by saying both devices have strong connections. And despite the fact that a quick search reveals the same complaints about Apple's Air Pod Pros. It is trial by public opinion rather than any fact. And tipping the scales in Apple's favour without actually testing the claims is EXACTLY the sort of bias I'm talking about.

Then we hit battery life... Google wins. It is the shortest section ever. And it spends most of this minuscule section trying to argue things back in favour of Apple (ANC is power hungry, charge times are similar, Apple has slightly more charge in the case, etc...).

I would say 75% of the paragraph on battery is spent trying to prop Apple up. And, I will point out, the reviewer has spent ZERO effort trying to justify Google's prior losses. 

The rest of the article seems less overtly biased. ANC does a better job of cancelling noise compared to the passive cancellation and Air Pods score a 9.2 to Google's 9.1 so, yeah they win.

Without having read other articles by this reviewer it is hard to know if these are as influenced by bias as the other sections. But, what I will say is when I was reading reviews for over the ears head sets a lot of reviews actually considered ANC as a negative as it tended to interfere with sound reproduction resulting in less accurate sounds despite technical capabilities.

This isn't mentioned at all in the article. Not even in the section on sound quality. Also, without seeing other reviews it is hard to see if this is the case, but often a difference between 9.2 and 9.1 would just be called a tie. The choice to emphasize this as a clear win for Apple seems odd to me. And I wouldn't quibble here were not for the omission of any talk on how the ANC might actually detract from that 9.2 score and the fact that the air pods are also substantially more expensive.

I would also point out that aesthetics aren't reviewed. Air Pods, to my mind look ridiculous. It is a styling which kept the "stem" of corded ear phones to facilitate touch controls which was likely a design compromise at the time. The Pixel Buds are leveraging technology advances to allow them to include this without the extra stem. Which is a point worth attributing to Google. Apple COULD change their designs. Their stubborn refusal to do so is not a positive. Apple REGULARLY holds for dear life to past compromises.

And, to be clear I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong.

But, what I am saying is that the biases in the review would make it difficult for someone comparing these two products to actually get any sense of their relative worth.

It is hard to decide on a most egregious fault. But, I think I would hand that to the part where Apple was handed a win in an otherwise tie because it is the "gold standard". By declaring Apple the "gold standard" you're basically acknowledging a bias. To turn around and use that as a basis for a win is just... mind blowing. Given the acknowledged bias even rendering it a tie would have seemed self-serving. But, ruling it a win?

A close second would have been ruling connectivity a win in Apple's favour based on community complaints without any direct testing and ignoring similar complaints against Apple. Because, otherwise, I think that the enhanced range (which was mocked) would have meant a clear Pixel Bud win.