The Pixel 3a and 3a XL, Google's first attempt at making mid-range phones for its Pixel lineup, have garnered a lot of attention over the last few days. These two phones are equipped with great OLED displays, some of the best cameras of any phone on the market, and a fantastic software experience for half of what the regular Pixel 3 handsets cost.

Some of Black Friday's best deals are already live right now so don't miss out!

The value proposition here is really great, but some people aren't entirely sure that "affordable" is the right word for phones that cost $400 and $480, respectively.

Here's what some of our AC forum members had to say on the subject.


I still don't get it. Why is the Pixel 3a/XL being lauded as an "affordable" phone? People might categorize it as a mid-range, but it screams budget phone to me. Only thing it has going is the camera and regular updates. But are those two enough to justify it's price and then call it "affordable"? No water resistances, no expandable storage, slow processor (per The Verge review), not even gorilla...


Couple of highlights inserted. Nobody is saying this is the be-all, end-all of the non-premium-tier phones, but it absolutely merits its price if you value what it offers. It's new, will have the latest software in 3 years (some of the others above will be lucky to get Q, much less R or S, or the security updates along the way), has a camera better than anything remotely close to its price...


I own or have owned most all the premium" devices from apple , Samsung , and Google . I love phones plain and simple. If speck makes a case for this phone I'm getting it without a doubt . Camera and battery life are huge for me . This thing has the makings of the perfect work phone for me . Basically everything I love about the pixel at half the cost .


What do you think? Is the Pixel 3a too expensive?

Join the conversation in the forums!