Connect with us

Sci-Tech

Tesla’s Pivot to China Saved Musk. It Also Binds Him to Beijing.

Published

on


When Elon Musk unveiled the first Chinese-made Teslas in Shanghai in 2020, he went off script and started dancing. Peeling off his jacket, he flung it across the stage in a partial striptease.

Mr. Musk had reason to celebrate. A few years earlier, with Tesla on the brink of failure, he had bet on China, which offered cheap parts and capable workers — and which needed Tesla as an anchor to jump-start its fledgling electric vehicle industry.

For Chinese leaders, the prize was a Tesla factory on domestic soil. Mr. Musk would build one in Shanghai that would become a flagship, accounting for over half of Tesla’s global deliveries and the bulk of its profits.

Mr. Musk initially seemed to have the upper hand in the relationship, securing concessions from China that were rarely offered to foreign businesspeople. But in a stark shift, Tesla is now increasingly in trouble and losing its edge over Chinese competitors in the very market he helped create. Tesla’s China pivot has also tethered Mr. Musk to Beijing in a way that is drawing scrutiny from U.S. policymakers.

Interviews with former Tesla employees, diplomats and policymakers reveal how Mr. Musk built an unusually symbiotic relationship with Beijing, profiting from the Chinese government’s largess even as he reaped subsidies in the United States.

As Mr. Musk explored building the factory in Shanghai, Chinese leaders agreed to a crucial policy change on national emissions regulations, following lobbying by Tesla that was not previously reported. That change directly benefited Tesla, bringing in an estimated hundreds of millions of dollars in profits as China production took off, The New York Times found.

Mr. Musk also gained unusual access to senior leaders. He worked closely with a top Shanghai official who is now the premier, Li Qiang. The Shanghai factory went up at lightning speed and without a local partner, a first for a foreign auto company in China.

Mr. Musk, who has insinuated that American workers are lazy, got employees accustomed to long hours, without the strong protections that have led U.S. and European regulators to scrutinize Tesla and unions to target it for organizing. After a Tesla worker in Shanghai was crushed to death last year, a report citing safety gaps was taken offline.

And he got the emissions policy. Modeled after a California program that has been a boon for Tesla, the policy awards automakers credits for making clean cars. To lobby for the regulatory change, Tesla teamed up with California environmentalists, who were trying to clean up China’s soupy skies.

China helped make Tesla the most valuable car company in the world. But Tesla’s success there also forced homegrown brands to innovate. China is now churning out cheap but well-made electric cars, as the Chinese leader Xi Jinping aims to transform the country into an “automotive power.” Chinese automakers like BYD and SAIC are pushing into Europe, threatening established carmakers like Volkswagen, Renault and Stellantis. Detroit is also scrambling to keep pace.

“There’s Before Tesla and After Tesla,” said Michael Dunne, an auto consultant and a former General Motors executive in Asia, about the company’s effect on Chinese industry. “Tesla was the rainmaker.”

Mr. Musk is now treading a fine line. He has sounded the alarm about Chinese rivals, even as he remains reliant on the Chinese market and supply chain and repeats Beijing’s geopolitical talking points.

He warned in January that unless the Chinese auto brands were blocked by trade barriers, they would “pretty much demolish most other car companies in the world.” Earlier this month, Tesla’s share price plunged following lagging China sales, causing him to lose the title of richest man in the world.

The company is so ensconced in China that Mr. Musk cannot easily extricate himself, should he ever want to. Teslas cost significantly less to make in Shanghai than elsewhere, a key saving when the company is in a price war with its competitors.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are studying his ties to China and how he balances Tesla with his other endeavors. SpaceX, another company he owns, has lucrative Pentagon contracts and boasts near total control of the world’s satellite internet through its Starlink network. He also owns the social media platform X, which China has used for disinformation campaigns.

“Elon Musk has deep financial exposure to China — including his plant in Shanghai,” said Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It’s not clear whether Beijing has sought to exert leverage over Mr. Musk, but leaders have levers they could pull. Last year, several Chinese localities banned Teslas from sensitive areas, prompting the automaker to emphasize that all Chinese data is held locally. And in February, after the Commerce Department announced an investigation into data retention by Chinese electric vehicles, the Global Times, a Communist Party newspaper, warned that Chinese consumers could retaliate against Tesla.

Mr. Musk has taken China’s side in several international disputes. He has made China’s case for why it should control Taiwan, the self-governed island democracy that has resisted Beijing’s claims. (Taiwan is now building an alternative to Starlink, in part because of concerns about Mr. Musk’s ties.)

Mr. Musk has reportedly argued that there are two sides to repression in Xinjiang, home to the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs. In 2021, as other companies were pulling back from Xinjiang, Tesla unveiled a charging line ending there, which it called the Tesla Silk Road, after the historic route that has been revived by Mr. Xi in a campaign for global influence. The company has a similar charging line to Tibet.

Tesla, SpaceX and Mr. Musk did not reply to a detailed list of questions and findings. At The New York Times’s DealBook Summit on Nov. 29, Mr. Musk said that “every car company” relies in part on the Chinese market. He also dismissed concerns surrounding SpaceX and Starlink, saying they did not operate in China and that his companies should not be conflated.

But in an online conversation with two members of Congress in July, he was more direct. He acknowledged having “some vested interests” in China, and described himself as “kind of pro-China.”

In California, Tesla has enjoyed strong regulatory support. Since 2008, when it unveiled its first car, the company has earned cash under the state’s emissions mandate by selling credits to automakers that could not meet pollution targets. Those credits were worth $3.71 billion by late 2023, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office.

Mr. Musk has downplayed Tesla’s reliance on government help, but Alberto Ayala, a former emissions regulator for California, said that the policy helped Tesla survive when it was struggling. “That is what kept the company afloat.”

Another former state regulator, Craig Segall, said that Tesla lobbied extensively on the emissions regulations, seeking to skew them in a way that enriched Tesla.

In China, the company aimed to recreate California’s lucrative policy.

As California built ties with China, several groups were championing an emissions mandate as a cure for its pollution. Among the policy’s enthusiasts was then-Gov. Jerry Brown, who saw electric vehicles as a potential area of cooperation. Environmentalists were on board as well.

In 2014, as Mr. Musk talked about setting up a factory in China, Tesla joined the groups in pushing for a change.

Grace Tao, a Tesla lobbyist, met with people at the Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation, an environmental nonprofit based in Los Angeles and Beijing. The group, also known as iCET, had approached Tesla. They talked about working together on an emissions mandate in the country, according to notes taken by the nonprofit and shared with The Times.

“They needed that to be successful in China,” Feng An, iCET’s executive director, said about Tesla. But Chinese officials were initially skeptical, he added, because the policy would effectively require traditional automakers to subsidize E.V. companies like Tesla.

His group helped plan meetings with Ken Morgan, then a U.S.-based Tesla lobbyist, according to event materials and emails obtained by The Times. In 2015, Mr. Morgan met with officials in three Chinese cities, touting how California’s emissions mandate had helped spur E.V. production. (Ms. Tao and Mr. Morgan, who recently left Tesla, did not respond to questions.)

Local officials were keen to persuade Tesla to build a factory in their cities. That interest could “potentially be leveraged” to promote a mandate, Maya Ben Dror, who worked for iCET at the time, wrote in an email to Mr. Morgan.

Dr. An said he took two groups of Chinese city officials to visit Tesla’s office in California, adding that neither Tesla nor Mr. Musk gave iCET any money. He and Dr. Ben Dror saw the emissions scheme as sound environmental policy.

The priorities of the environmentalists and Chinese officials often differed. In the West, clean transportation was seen as a “tree-hugging kind of issue, while in China it was from the start seen as an industrial issue,” said Ilaria Mazzocco, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who studied the emissions policy discussions.

But as an innovative green business, Tesla checked both boxes.

In 2015, at a clean transportation conference in California, Chinese central government officials listened as a Tesla lobbyist laid out the reasons that Beijing should adopt an emissions mandate, said Yunshi Wang, an energy economist who organized the session.

“Obviously Tesla was all in,” said Mr. Wang, director of the China Center for Energy and Transportation at the University of California, Davis.

The emissions mandate eventually appealed to the officials, too. The existing government subsidy system was rife with fraud. The mandate was more efficient and would save the government money.

In 2017, China adopted the policy.

It was Tesla’s first big win there.

Mr. Musk did not want to share ownership of Tesla’s factory with a Chinese company, as was required at the time. So in 2018 officials revoked the rule for all foreign electric car companies. The change was Tesla’s second big win.

Soon after, Shanghai beat out other cities competing for Tesla’s factory. Mr. Li, then Shanghai’s top leader, became a key ally. He had visited Tesla in California, on a trip that also included a meeting with Governor Brown, Mr. Xi and others about climate cooperation.

Mr. Musk proposed constructing the factory in two years, state media reported. Mr. Li countered that they could do it in one — a goal that his government met.

“This was even faster than China speed,” said Tu Le, who heads the consultancy Sino Auto Insights, adding that Mr. Li’s help was key: “How quickly things happened points to his tacit approval of everything.”

Government officials used “very creative yet cautious approaches” to bend policy to Tesla’s wishes, Ms. Tao told Yicai Global, a Chinese media outlet, adding that she was “deeply impressed.”

At least twice, Mr. Musk and his team were allowed to drive Teslas into Zhongnanhai, the Communist Party leadership’s walled compound in Beijing.

Under Mr. Li’s watch, state-run banks offered Tesla over 11 billion yuan ($1.5 billion) in low-interest loans. The deal was so generous that Huang Yonghe, a senior official with a government-owned auto industry group, recalled one government minister balking at it.

“He said the Shanghai leaders were unbelievable — giving away the entire investment without Tesla having to spend a penny,” Mr. Huang said in an interview.

But Mr. Huang said the deal made sense for the banks.

He had long been impressed by Tesla, at one point importing a car and disassembling it to study how it worked. Like Mr. Li, he had visited the Tesla factory in Fremont, Calif., which had struck him as chaotic but promising.

China could improve on it, he thought, yielding an efficient foreign factory that would serve as a “catfish,” an aggressive creature that makes other fish swim faster.

Tesla also created a market for Chinese suppliers, saying recently that 95 percent of components used in the Shanghai factory are locally sourced.

One key supplier is a once-obscure battery company. In the United States, Tesla had a partnership with Panasonic, but in China it switched to mainly using batteries from CATL, which built a factory near Tesla’s. Today, buoyed in part by Tesla’s business, CATL is the world’s largest battery maker.

Another supplier, LK Group, developed enormous casting machines that can make an entire section of a car with Tesla’s help. The company’s founder, Liu Siong Song, told The Times in 2021 that LK planned to supply the machines to six Chinese companies.

That year, he said that he hoped the technology would “help our country’s automotive industry become bigger and stronger,” linking it to Mr. Xi’s “Chinese dream” of national resurgence.

Before the Shanghai plant opened, Fremont was Mr. Musk’s principal factory. He sometimes slept on the factory floor to model the intensity he expected of his employees.

In China, workers were accustomed to long workweeks, a fact that Mr. Musk saw as an advantage.

The Shanghai plant’s schedule involves an unusual weekly change in shifts. According to two former employees, workers there pull four straight 12-hour day shifts, followed by two days of rest, before switching to four 12-hour night shifts. (Fremont employees typically work seven 12-hour shifts over two weeks.)

As the coronavirus pandemic spread in 2020, the Fremont factory was shuttered for nearly two months.

But the Shanghai plant closed for only about two weeks, helping Tesla turn a profit for the first time and causing Mr. Musk’s wealth to surge.

China has also offered Mr. Musk an escape from California’s strict labor protections.

During Shanghai’s 2022 lockdown, some Tesla workers slept on the factory floor. They were paid extra to continue working, but Tesla demanded six twelve-hour shifts in a row, the two workers said. (Employees who chose not to work were also paid, but less than their normal salary.)

Chinese workers “won’t even leave the factory,” Mr. Musk said at the time, speaking generally, adding, “whereas in America people are trying to avoid going to work at all.”

In Fremont, accidents have set off regulatory investigations. But in Shanghai, when the Tesla worker was crushed to death by machinery last year, a report published by city authorities citing safety gaps was taken down shortly after it went online.

The Shanghai government bureau that released the report did not respond to faxed questions.

China’s vision of Tesla being a catfish for local electric vehicle brands has proved prescient. BYD, a top Chinese rival, overtook Tesla in worldwide sales late last year.

But China’s electric vehicle push has prompted anxiety in Europe. “When we decided to shift from thermic engines to E.V.s, we were late vis-à-vis China — I would say between five and seven years late,” said Bruno Le Maire, France’s finance minister.

In September the European Union started an inquiry into whether Chinese policies give electric vehicle brands there an unfair edge. Although Tesla is not technically under investigation, it could face tariffs on cars exported from China.

In the United States, the Biden administration pushed through the Inflation Reduction Act in an attempt to compete. The White House is now considering raising tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, which are already at 25 percent.

California officials reject the idea that Tesla’s rise in China has been bad for the state. “It’s not really a zero-sum game,” said David Hochschild, chair of the California Energy Commission, who said he saw “robust growth” ahead in E.V.s for both sides.

But Shanghai has replaced Fremont as Tesla’s global export hub, sending more than 175,000 cars to Europe from China last year, according to Schmidt Automotive Research.

And while the Chinese emissions program brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in credits for Tesla, according to the market analysis company CRU Group, the price of credits is dropping because Chinese companies are manufacturing more electric cars.

“We have reached the tipping point,” said Lei Xing, an independent auto analyst focused on China.

Despite rising competition, Mr. Musk remains strong in the country.

In October 2022, Mr. Li, the former Shanghai leader, was promoted to the country’s No. 2 spot. Mr. Musk is also building a battery factory in Shanghai, which a state-owned research firm said last year would use CATL cells. When Mr. Musk traveled to China last May, the battery maker’s chairman welcomed him with a 16-course banquet. At his side for at least part of the trip was Ms. Tao, the lobbyist, who had risen to the post of vice president at Tesla. (CATL did not respond to questions.)

Even the plant Tesla is building in Nuevo León, Mexico, will use Chinese suppliers, several of whom the state governor has said will set up factories nearby.

Late last year, Mr. Musk attended an exclusive reception for Mr. Xi in San Francisco.

On Weibo, a Chinese social platform, Mr. Musk posted a photo of him shaking hands with the Chinese leader. “May there be prosperity for all,” he wrote.

Keith Bradsher, David A. Fahrenthold, Eric Lipton and James Wagner contributed reporting. Susan C. Beachy, Kitty Bennett and Kirsten Noyes contributed research.

Audio produced by Sarah Diamond.





Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sci-Tech

Silicon Valley shaken as open-source AI models Llama 3.1 and Mistral Large 2 match industry leaders

Published

on


Join our daily and weekly newsletters for the latest updates and exclusive content on industry-leading AI coverage. Learn More


Open-source artificial intelligence has reached a watershed moment, challenging the long-held dominance of proprietary systems and promising to reshape the AI landscape.

This week, two significant developments have propelled open-source AI models to the forefront of technological capability, potentially democratizing access to cutting-edge AI tools.

On Tuesday, Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive of Meta, unveiled Llama 3.1, declaring it had achieved “frontier-level” status.

This bold claim suggests that Meta’s freely available AI now rivals the most advanced systems from industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic.

Just a day later, Mistral, an emerging French AI lab, released Mistral Large 2, a model that reportedly matches or surpasses existing top-tier systems, particularly in multilingual applications.

These back-to-back releases mark a pivotal shift in the AI world. For years, tech giants have jealously guarded their most powerful AI models, citing concerns over safety, potential misuse, and competitive advantage.

This week’s developments have shattered that paradigm, igniting debates about equity, innovation, and the ethical implications of democratizing such transformative technology.

Industry experts are hailing this week’s developments as a potential turning point in AI history, comparable to pivotal moments that have sparked technological revolutions in the past.

The sudden availability of frontier-level open-source models is expected to dramatically accelerate AI development globally, potentially reshaping entire industries and altering the balance of power in the tech world.

This rapid democratization of cutting-edge AI capabilities could usher in a new era of innovation and competition, with far-reaching consequences for businesses, researchers, and society at large.

Open-source challengers shake up the AI status quo

The implications of this week’s announcements are far-reaching. Smaller companies and individual developers can now access sophisticated AI capabilities without the hefty price tags or vendor lock-in associated with proprietary systems. This democratization could fuel an unprecedented wave of innovation, as diverse minds from around the globe contribute to and build upon these powerful tools.

However, the widespread availability of advanced AI also raises new challenges. Organizations must now grapple with how to differentiate themselves in a world where cutting-edge AI capabilities are becoming commoditized. The onus falls on business leaders and technical decision-makers to rapidly develop strategies that leverage these open technologies while adding unique value.

The geopolitical ramifications of this shift are equally significant. As AI becomes increasingly central to national competitiveness, the proliferation of open-source models could alter the global balance of power in technology. Countries and regions that effectively harness these openly available resources may gain significant advantages in AI development and application.

A double-edged sword: The thrilling and terrifying dawn of AI for all

Despite the excitement, skeptics urge caution in accepting claims of parity with top proprietary models at face value.

The AI field is known for its rapid advancements and shifting benchmarks, making “frontier-level” a moving target. Moreover, raw model capability is just one factor in AI system effectiveness; data quality, fine-tuning, and application-specific optimizations play crucial roles in real-world performance.

The abrupt open-sourcing of frontier-level AI also intensifies ongoing debates about AI safety and ethics. While transparency can aid in identifying and addressing biases or vulnerabilities, it may also lower barriers for malicious actors seeking to exploit these powerful tools. The AI community now faces the urgent challenge of striking a delicate balance between openness and responsible development.

For policymakers, this week’s developments underscore the critical need for adaptive regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological advancements while ensuring public safety and ethical use of AI. The tech industry may need to rapidly reevaluate business models and competitive strategies in a landscape where cutting-edge AI capabilities have suddenly become widely accessible.

Navigating the new frontier: Collaboration, ethics, and the future of AI

As the dust settles on this landmark week, the true impact of these milestones will be determined by how effectively the global community harnesses the potential of open-source AI while mitigating its risks.

The sudden democratization of frontier-level AI has the potential to accelerate innovation, reshape industries, and fundamentally alter our relationship with artificial intelligence.

In this new era, collaboration and ethical considerations will be paramount. The open-source AI revolution promises to unlock unprecedented possibilities, but it also demands a heightened sense of responsibility from developers, businesses, and society as a whole.

As we navigate this transformative period, one thing is clear: the future of AI is becoming more open, more accessible, and more participatory than ever before, and the pace of change is accelerating rapidly.



Source link
Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

ISPs are fighting to raise the price of low-income broadband

Published

on


A new government program is trying to encourage Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer lower rates for lower income customers by distributing federal funds through states. The only problem is the ISPs don’t want to offer the proposed rates.

 obtained a letter sent to US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo signed by more than 30 broadband industry trade groups like ACA Connects and the Fiber Broadband Association as well as several state based organizations. The letter raises “both a sense of alarm and urgency” about their ability to participate in the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment (BEAD) program. The newly formed BEAD program provides over $42 billion in federal funds to “expand high-speed internet access by funding planning, infrastructure, deployment and adoption programs” in states across the country, according to the (NTIA).

The money first goes to the NTIA and then it’s distributed to states after they obtain approval from the NTIA by presenting a low-cost broadband Internet option. The ISP industries’ letter claims a fixed rate of $30 per month for high speed Internet access is “completely unmoored from the economic realities of deploying and operating networks in the highest-cost, hardest-to-reach areas.”

The letter urges the NTIA to revise the low-cost service option rate proposed or approved so far. have completed all of the BEAD program’s phases.

Americans pay an average of $89 a month for Internet access. New Jersey has the highest average bill at $126 per month, according to a survey conducted by . A 2021 study from the found that 57 percent of households with an annual salary of $30,000 or less have a broadband connection.



Source link

Continue Reading

Sci-Tech

These transparent earbuds by Nothing made my AirPods look and sound boring

Published

on


A hand holding the Nothing Ear (a) earbuds

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

ZDNET’s key takeaways 

  • For $99, the new Nothing Ear (a) earbuds offer clear sound and a thoughtful design. 
  • Their affordability, comfort, and long battery life make them a great option for budget-conscious shoppers.
  • Unfortunately, its middling noise-canceling tech doesn’t protect you from external noises. 

Most of the audio tech on the market right now errs on the side of aesthetic caution. I’ve tested plenty of earbuds this year, and something I’ve noticed is that many manufacturers sacrifice style for functionality, opting for blacks, grays, and enough matte finishes to fit inside a therapist’s office — much to my chagrin. In the words of the late, great Andre Leon Talley, “it’s a famine of beauty” over here.  

Also: Why I ditched my AirPods Pro for Nothing’s new transparent earbuds (and don’t regret it)

So when Nothing sent me its new earbuds, I was excited to finally see a cool, fresh, and exciting design, and they’re worthy of a callout. I’ve been testing the new Nothing Ear (a) earbuds since launch, taking them on a ten-mile run, working deskside, and commuting on the subway with them in my ears. One question that informed my initial testing was: Despite their stylish design, how does the audio tech stack up to similarly-priced competitors?

View at Amazon

The Nothing Ear (a) advances on the specs from the brand’s Ear (1) earbuds from 2021. The new buds offer plenty of upgrades like improved active noise cancellation, transparency mode, longer battery life, Bluetooth multipoint, minimized latency for gaming, and pinch controls.

Also: The best earbuds of 2024: Expert tested and reviewed

Nothing plays with solid color and transparent accents and puts the two at the forefront of its product design. You can’t help but obsess over the brand’s unique visual appeal: a stripped-down design that reveals the inner workings of the technology cast against bold colors. The clear design of both the earbud case and the earbuds itself offers users an inside look into the tech’s internal components and an appreciation for what is often obscured. 

Nothing Ear (a) on a table

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

The earbuds come with three ear tip sizes in the box and are available in three colors: black, white, and yellow. I tried these buds in yellow, which is the first non-neutral color in Nothing’s earbud lineup. The color feels daring and bright and is just as much a fashion accessory as it is a tech accessory. 

Other competitive earbuds can’t say the same: I looked at my list of best earbuds to see if there was any color diversity and found that every top earbuds I’ve included are either black, a muted white, or white, from Sony’s WF-1000XM5 and JBL’s Tour Pro 2, to Bose’s QuietComfort Ultra and Apple’s AirPods Pro. These earbuds, on the other hand, are like the AirPods Pro’s funkier younger sister who went to art school, buys gifts for friends through the MOMA Store, and can explain the difference between white and orange wine to you. 

The case is lightweight and compact, so it won’t be obstructive or heavy in your pocket. The earbuds themselves are comfortable and easy to wear, with an extra tactile ear tip that keeps the buds attached to your ear canal as you move around. Nothing also equipped these buds with Bluetooth multipoint and in-ear detection when you wear these, two nice touches that inexpensive earbuds occasionally lack. 

Also: The best earbuds I’ve ever listened to are not by Bose or Sony

I ran for five hours and worked and commuted with these earbuds for a week straight and still have a battery life of 80%. Needless to say, these earbuds won’t die easily on you. 

Nothing Ear (a) held up to a mirror

Nina Raemont/ZDNET

One of my favorite design choices with the Ear (a) is that the controls are dictated by pinches instead of taps and swipes, similar to the AirPods Pro 2. Most earbuds that I’ve tested with the same form factor have touch controls on the top of the ear stem where the bud meets the stem. I always run with earbuds in, and when my ears get too sweaty, and my earbuds begin to slip out, I accidentally touch and activate the touch controls when I’m attempting to press the bud back into my ears.

Also: The best earbuds under $100

Nothing eliminated this problem for me, as the touch controls are at the bottom of the stem, far away from accidental touches. Despite needing a pinch to activate the controls, they are reliable and responsive. The pinch controls allow you to play and pause music, skip tracks, and toggle between ANC and transparency mode.

Speaking of ANC, this feature is where the Ear (a) buds begin to show their affordable price. I turned on the ANC while I worked in the office, and I could still hear my colleagues’ computer notification pings and conversations around me. For $109, I wasn’t expecting mind-blowing ANC, and that’s certainly not what I got. The earbuds will drown out some noise, but you’ll have to pay a higher price for premium ANC.

Review: Nothing Ear Stick: Earbuds, but make it fashion

When it comes to the actual audio quality, however, these earbuds produce a balanced, clear, and bright sound. While listening to Moses Sumney and Shabaka’s Insecurities, the harp and flute whistles in the upper midrange shimmered in my ears without being too harsh. Bass-heavy songs can get an extra boost by tweaking the Bass Enhance algorithm in the Nothing app. While listening to Kaytranada’s What You Need, I toggled between the five levels of bass enhancement to boost the lower frequencies. This feature created a noticeably different sound with deeper, richer bass. 

ZDNET’s buying advice 

The Nothing Ear (a) are best for people who want a relatively affordable pair of earbuds with thoughtful functions and a unique design.

If you want earbuds with more effective noise-canceling for a similar price, consider the JLab JBuds ANC 3 for their strong noise-canceling and snug fit. If you like Nothing’s unique and charming design choices but want better sound, more effective ANC, and more premium features, try the Nothing Ear.





Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2024 World Daily Info. Powered by Columba Ventures Co. Ltd.