Google's translate in real time, while apple's were a copy-cat of countless other wireless headphones. I'd argue the opposite of your claim. (Apple did make them smaller than usual though, which is new I suppose).
Also, which earbuds do you think the AirPods are copy-cats of? The only real wire-free buds out when they were announced were the original Bragi ones which were priced over $100 higher, had lower battery life, and were larger.
The tit-for-tat here is getting silly. If you have a Pixel, buy Google's if you have an iPhone buy Apple's. If you have neither buy a few pair for $3 and laugh at the fools wearing the $160 ones.
That being said, I've used the Apple ones and actually feel like they're a reasonable value at the price. The ease of pairing them (open the box with an iPhone nearby) will spoil you. They also are findable with the "Find my iPhone" app, based on their last known position which is a critical feature for such an easy to lose item.
Haven't tried the Google ones, but do think real time translation is a "magical" feature that Jobs would have loved -- assuming it's easy to use and works well. I'm the type to work my ass off learning a new language when traveling, so it does make me feel like people are cheating. But that's a feeling that we should all be getting used with tech advancements.
Apple is never the first or second or even third entrant into a new market, but when they do enter they're usually the best by a significant margin.
Managing to best everyone else at their best feature is what the AirPods do but nothing they do is innovative.
When you Google the word "innovative" that's almost the definition that comes up, only slightly different punctuation. Google says "featuring new methods; advanced and original."
In any case it's stating that to be innovative the method must be new, advanced, AND original. If it's not all three, then it's not innovative.