Google has finally made the Pixel 9a mid-ranger official with a hefty battery under its hood, but it strongly feels like the search giant could have done even better on that crucial front.
If you’ve been following my opinion pieces these last few months (and their views counts suggest many of you have), you may have noticed I generally like to talk about high-end devices (released and not-yet-released) like Google’s Pixel 10, Apple’s iPhone 17 Air, Samsung’s Galaxy Z Flip 7, etc., etc.
The reason for that is very easy to guess, as most of you dear readers (and distinguished haters) seem to be primarily interested in these most sophisticated (and expensive) phones. But I’m here today to make a confession. I’m a mid-range guy (not my best phrasing, go ahead, laugh it up if you want).
If it were after me, no phone would ever cost more than $500 (forget $1,000 or $2,000), and if that means having to settle for a camera system composed of just one or two non-flagship sensors or a “cheap” plastic body, I’m perfectly fine with that. One thing I’ve never liked to compromise on, however, is battery life, so you can imagine my excitement when I first heard that the Pixel 9a was set to break the 5,000mAh cell size barrier.
But now that Google’s latest budget-friendly handset is finally official, I can’t help but wonder.
Sadly, I believe the simple answer to that question is no. Let me explain. Compared to last year’s Pixel 8a, the 9a adds 0.
