Google Announces the Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL Smartphones (phonedog.com) 66
At an event in New York today, Google unveiled Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL, its latest flagship smartphones. The Pixel smartphones have over the years set a new benchmark for photography prowess. So you can imagine that a lot is riding on what Google, which has in curtailed several of its hardware ambitions in recent quarters, does with the new Pixel smartphones. From a report: Google makes it a point that the majority of the primary features are the same between the Pixel smartphones, with the primary exception being the display and screen technology. That is the case this year as well, with the Pixel 4 featuring a 5.7-inch Full HD+ P-OLED display, while the Pixel 4 XL boasts a 6.3-inch Quad HD OLED screen. Both panels support a 90Hz refresh rate, though. Inside both handsets is a Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 processor, and both smartphones boast 6GB of RAM. The handsets come in either 64GB or 128GB of built-in storage options, but there is no microSD card slot for expandable storage. There is a USB-C port for charging, and both handsets feature stereo speakers as well. The battery in the Pixel 4 measures in at 2800mAh, while the Pixel 4 XL has a 3700mAh battery tucked inside.
Meanwhile, around back, the real star of the show: the cameras. That's right, Google is bumping up the rear camera count to two. It starts with the standard 12-megapixel "Dual Pixel" camera, which is accompanied by a 16-megapixel telephoto lens. The rounded square camera housing also hosts a microphone and a flash. [...] And finally, the front-facing camera is equipped with a radar sensor that gives the handsets much more utility than previous models. It starts with true depth detection while using the front-facing camera to unlock the phone with a face unlock biometric feature. Google is also including a new "Motion Sense" technology, letting the Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL support gestures for controlling media playback and more. The pricing for Pixel 4 starts at $799, while its bigger sibling begins at $899. Unlike previous Pixel smartphone models, the Pixel 4 and 4 XL won't offer their users the ability to upload unlimited photos in their original resolution and qualirty to Google Photos at no charge. Both the handsets, though, come bundled with a new voice recorder app that transcribes voice recording in real time for free, Google said.
Meanwhile, around back, the real star of the show: the cameras. That's right, Google is bumping up the rear camera count to two. It starts with the standard 12-megapixel "Dual Pixel" camera, which is accompanied by a 16-megapixel telephoto lens. The rounded square camera housing also hosts a microphone and a flash. [...] And finally, the front-facing camera is equipped with a radar sensor that gives the handsets much more utility than previous models. It starts with true depth detection while using the front-facing camera to unlock the phone with a face unlock biometric feature. Google is also including a new "Motion Sense" technology, letting the Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL support gestures for controlling media playback and more. The pricing for Pixel 4 starts at $799, while its bigger sibling begins at $899. Unlike previous Pixel smartphone models, the Pixel 4 and 4 XL won't offer their users the ability to upload unlimited photos in their original resolution and qualirty to Google Photos at no charge. Both the handsets, though, come bundled with a new voice recorder app that transcribes voice recording in real time for free, Google said.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. Let me insert "Apple". (Score:2)
Whoops, sorry, I forgot: They are a jewelry conpany, not a tech company!
(The whole discussion is batshit insane from the start. So what do you expect from me here? A sensible comment? ... Sensible would be a proper optical zoom lens system and a solar synthetic/recycled green gasoline fuel cell that lasts a week, on a pocket modular personal computer, based on FLOSS hardware and software that is owned by the user, that costs nearly nothing because the makers care for the maximization of the advancement of h
Re: (Score:1)
Android or apple, you're going to encounter some shit in your sandwich at some point. Android has discrete flavor nuggets that sometimes explode and get all over everything, but if you're careful you can eat around them. Mostly. Apple has it spread out evenly throughout the sandwich, so every bite is shit, but they did take the time to pasteurize it.
There is no digital "zoom"! (Score:2)
It's just wasted pixels!
Just take the normal picture, and crop out the part you like.
No point in "interpolating" data to waste space. Or, worse, have a neural net literally make it up and guess.
That's not quite right... (Score:1)
Just take the normal picture, and crop out the part you like.
The thing about digital zoom as actual zoom that is useful, is it's more helpful to be able to see live what you are photographing - so you can tell if you have a good angle or if a subject has a pose you like. If you are just photographing and cropping it's much harder to tell if things in the scene in the area of the crop are as you wish them to be.
Having a TC lens makes the clarity of that preview a little higher which is nice, but again thos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but the Pixel is really behind now. (Score:1)
Pixels have had Night Sight for a while
By a while you mean a year... meanwhile they lacked all of the other features that iPhones had (like lIve HDR in preview image).
Apple's Night Sight mode one the iPhone 11 activates automatically.
Also does Android have anything like Deep Fusion? I don't think so, and from taking a lot of photos on the beta versions of iOS I'd say that make a big difference on the large majority of photos people actual take (in dim lighting, not dark enough for night siht to be that us
Re:Sorry but the Pixel is really behind now. (Score:4, Interesting)
You've never used a Pixel phone, have you?
Yes, the Pixel camera has something like "Deep Fusion." It had it before Apple did. The Pixel camera has always done something like "Deep Fusion," combining multiple exposures to create the best image possible.
Night mode on the iPhone is also terrible. It looks horrid, like someone took a dark photo and boosted all the dark areas in Photoshop, leaving you with a picture where the bright areas look too bright and the dark areas look like noise. Or would, if the iPhone noise-removal algorithm didn't turn the entire thing into a smooth mush of blurry colors. It looks bad.
And this was a test with an iPhone 11 Pro and a Pixel 3 of the same subject. The Pixel 3 using Night Sight absolutely blew the iPhone 11 Pro away. It wasn't even close.
All that combined with the lack of an ultra wide means anyone even moderately into photography would be crazy to get a Pixel over an iPhone 11 (which is cheaper than the Pixel 4) - or 11 pro.
I have yet to hear anyone come up with any sort of use case for "ultra-wide photography." Actually, that's not entirely true. I saw someone post a picture of a banana with the ultra-wide lens that made it look absolutely huge. So I suppose that's a use. But for people not taking pictures of eggplants, it's a pretty useless feature. A telephoto lens, on the other hand? People zoom in on things all the time, which is probably why Apple added the telephoto lens first and still has it on their "Pro" phones.
Re: (Score:2)
But for decent pics I'll just use my D850.
Re: (Score:2)
(Ultra)wide is very useful when inside and wanting to have the whole group in the frame, a quite common situation.
This is why just about every phone already has a wide-angle lens. The new iPhone's "ultra wide angle" is just absurdly wide to the point of uselessness. The full frame equivalent lens is apparently 13mm. That's a very wide angle lens.
It's especially useless on the back. You know when I have seen people want a wider angle lens to fit more people into a picture? When taking a group selfie, because there's only so far back you can move a phone that you're holding on to. Which is why Google places their ultra-w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Pixel camera has always done something like "Deep Fusion," combining multiple exposures to create the best image possible.
They have something like it but I don't think it works as well.
Night mode on the iPhone is also terrible.
Not from all of the example photos comparing them [dpreview.com] I've seen (remember that the example shots were all before Deep Fusion is out). You can always choose to reduce brightness in an image if that bothers you, you cannot gain back what was tossed out of an image to keep it looking d
P.S. - Video (Score:1)
Side note, laughable to claim you should buy a Pixel as a phone oriented camera now when the max video spec is 4k 30FPS!!! In a 2019 phone... I mean come on. There are lots more compelling Samsung options if you want or need an Android phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Side note, laughable to claim you should buy a Pixel as a phone oriented camera now when the max video spec is 4k 30FPS!!! In a 2019 phone... I mean come on. There are lots more compelling Samsung options if you want or need an Android phone.
0) I rarely record video... I take many still photos.
1) Is 4K at 30FPS not good enough? From a phone?
2) I'm considering getting a Pixel 4 because I like plain Android. I haven't tried a Samsung in years, but when I did, I truly hated "TouchWiz". Has Samsung dialed it
*ba-dum TISS* (Score:2)
There isn't even anything to *have* a look, on there!
Woow! It got another color than none (black/glass)! Amazing!
So it is totally not literally a featureless slab of void amymore! I swear! 3ct worth of colored plastic cover = InDiViDuALiTy!
You know why there is no game "Remove the brand and guess the company and product."? Because nobody could even tell the difference!
"Beautiful" my ass. /dev/null (not even /dev/zero), as that is clearly the most convincing
They should pull their advertisements for it out of
Looks (Score:2)
Come back to me when these are $250 or have a 7 day battery life.
There is no way in hell these are worth nearly $1000 dollars.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, majors cereals don't have something like.
https://www.amazon.com/Malt-Me... [amazon.com]
Which is my favorite.
Re: (Score:2)
What the fuck? How silly are you that you think saving money is a bad thing?
Here's a helpful hint: People get rich by not wasting money.
And even if they cost $1000 to make. (Score:2)
Might aswell just burn the money and smoke it. It literally would do more good and less harm to the world. ;)
Not newsworthy. (Score:2)
But definitely yawn-worthy.
If it is yet another featureless slate of meh, I don't want to hear it.
More news on modular open PC devices like the F(x)tec or better.
Or even better: Something actually innovative for a change. Feels like ages since that happened. (No, going back to something good, is not innovation either.)
LOL, NO (Score:5, Insightful)
"The pricing for Pixel 4 starts at $799, while its bigger sibling begins at $899"
As I said in the title, "LOL, NO".
For $900 I could buy a several very good phones, or one good phone and a new TV, or I could make most of a house payment.
Fuck all if I'm going to spend $900 on a phone that Google will likely orphan in a few years, and that will (in the meantime) track me relentlessly, hoovering up all of my sweet, sweet user data.
Re:LOL, NO (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, Google has done a very good job not orphaning their Pixel line. My original 2016 Pixel is still running strong and has officially distributed Android 10. It even got a security update to 10 yesterday afternoon.
Otherwise I totally agree. I paid $120 for this phone refurbished and I just got another one for my wife. I won't be caught dead paying more than $250 for any phone, especially one without a headphone jack.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the Pixel 4a will be out in 4-6 months. You can already get the 3a on discount at less than $300 unlocked.
Re: (Score:1)
Also, don't forget that Google in years past has had some really good black Friday deals that pissed me off since I bought the phone at full price.
Re: (Score:2)
" on a phone that Google will likely orphan in a few years, .
That right there outs you as a "never owned a Pixel" user. The pixel/nexus line has been some of the most long term supported phones in history. My wife had a Nexus 4 still getting updates when I owned my first Pixel. It's one of the major selling points that "justifies" it's price. That said, I recently tried a $200 nearly Android stock no-name phone from tmob the other day. Smart phone experience wise, it did match my $800 MSRP (not what I paid) Pixel 3. In every way except the camera. The camera blew. M
Re: (Score:2)
That right there outs you as a "never owned a Pixel" user.
Lol, "outs me", huh? I guess my dirty, shameful little secret is now public knowledge, oh the shame.
Oh wait- when did I ever claim to be a Pixel owner? That would be "never".
As far as pictures go, if that's your criteria for what makes a "good" phone, then be my guest and drop $900 on a Pixel.
Fingerprint reader? (Score:4, Interesting)
As a fan of the pixel line, I'm disappointed with the lack of a rear mounted fingerprint reader. That has been the best method I've ever used of unlocking my device AND auxiliary control ( you can swipe down on the sensor to pull down the notification bar ). It'so so integrated into my work flow that I'm planning on skipping this generation in the hopes that the 5 brings it back.
I don't really understand why face-ID is such a big draw; how does the phone know the difference between me checking the time and me wanting it to unlock? It's such a stupid security mechanism for that single reason that I don't really understand why everyone wants it. The tin-foil hat, conspiracy theory part of me wonders if it's some convert government program pushing smart phone makers to get pictures of their users for "law enforcement" purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
It's such a stupid security mechanism for that single reason that I don't really understand why everyone wants it.
I don't think this is people so much as wanting it, as it being forced down all of our throats.
Re: (Score:2)
But I want my phone specifically NOT to have a headphone jack. For... reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As a fan of the pixel line, I'm disappointed with the lack of a rear mounted fingerprint reader. That has been the best method I've ever used of unlocking my device AND auxiliary control ( you can swipe down on the sensor to pull down the notification bar ). It'so so integrated into my work flow that I'm planning on skipping this generation in the hopes that the 5 brings it back.
Ugh. I didn't notice that :-(
When I moved from my iPhone 6 to my Nexus 6 I thought that the rear sensor was gonna be weird, but quickly found that I liked it. Still like it on my 3XL. I too hope the rear sensor returns before I need to upgrade again, but the trend across all MFGs is that once they remove something, it doesn't come back...
Re: (Score:2)
I have hope. As radical a position as this apparently is, at some point UIX design ( hardware AND software ) will be the "last frontier" smart phone manufacturers can exploit in pursuit of customers.
The only question I have is whether MS, Android or Apple will get there first.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really understand why face-ID is such a big draw; how does the phone know the difference between me checking the time and me wanting it to unlock? It's such a stupid security mechanism for that single reason that I don't really understand why everyone wants it.
As far as I can tell, it's because Apple Did It. And Apple only did it because they wanted to remove the home button and had to come up with some other unlock mechanism, because Apple couldn't just move the finger print sensor to the back because that would be copying Android and they can't admit when Android did something better, even while they constantly copy Android features like the notification window and "Night Mode."
How does it tell the difference between wanting to unlock and just looking at the ph
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt it: social media has made multiple images of people's faces posted publicly common enough to easily supply the government with any facial recognition data they want. No need to get 3D scans off a phone.
It'd be more linking the person to a specific location at a specific time ( gps ).
I didn't used to be this suspicious. I don't know if you remember, but over a decade ago there were rumors of NSA equipment in AT&T's hubs recording gobs of telephone data. I scoffed at it as conspiracy theory nonsense, along with most people. Even if they wanted to do it, we said, it wasn't technologically feasible.
Then we found out it was real.
So now I don't discount anything.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, it's because Apple Did It. And Apple only did it because they wanted to remove the home button and had to come up with some other unlock mechanism, because Apple couldn't just move the finger print sensor to the back because that would be copying Android and they can't admit when Android did something better"
Might just be vanity, the finger reader would require them to move their giant ass logo.
Re: (Score:2)
Face unlock does indeed suck. My wife's iPhone 11 has it and it's slower than fingerprints.
It's a usability downgrade too. If you fully unlock on face ID it does it when you don't want it, like checking notifications/time or when just moving the phone. If you enable an additional swipe to fully unlock it's more work.
It's a big loss. I was thinking of up upgrading my original Pixel XL, but maybe not now. A 3 is fairly cheap now.
Re: (Score:2)
Face unlock does indeed suck. My wife's iPhone 11 has it and it's slower than fingerprints.
FWIW, my buddies who work on the biometric auth team at Google say that Pixel 4's face unlock is significantly faster than the iPhone face unlock. I haven't actually used a 4 yet, so I don't have any personal comment. Normally I have the new device long before it launches, but lately I'm doing less real work and more management so I didn't need one... that's a trend I need to reverse.
Re: (Score:3)
I hope so, but I can use the fingerprint reader as I'm picking up the phone so that it's unlocked and ready by the time I'm looking at it.
It will have to be extremely fast to match that, and then you still need to swipe anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so, but I can use the fingerprint reader as I'm picking up the phone so that it's unlocked and ready by the time I'm looking at it.
Agreed. I love the rear fingerprint scanner, moderately-good security and extremely convenient. I have a hard time believing face unlock will be as usable, but I'm reserving judgment until I have some firsthand experience.
I can see one advantage to face over fingerprint... all of the times my fingerprint doesn't work because I'm wearing gloves, or my fingers are dirty, or wet, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on your use case, there are a few advantages. I spend a lot of time in gloves throughout the year between cycling and winter. I also do most of the cooking, so my hands are dirty or wet a lot. Tapping on the screen is no problem, but unlocking the phone is impossible in those cases.
The other nice thing is that I have my phone on a stand on my desk in front of me. When notifications come in, the phone stays locked, and I see that the notification has come in, but few of the details (just the app na
Re: (Score:1)
The tin-foil hat, conspiracy theory part of me wonders if it's some convert government program pushing smart phone makers to get pictures of their users for "law enforcement" purposes.
Pfft! That's nothing compared to the terabytes of facial data we provide Google every day via Google Photos.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - I've owned every Pixel since the first, but will be skipping this generation. The rear fingerprint unlock was the IDEAL no-friction security. I literally don't see any room to improve it (even front/screen fingerprint reading would be less ergonomic).
I really hope they get this feedback loud and clear from other Pixel owners who don't upgrade (downgrade) to the Pixel 4.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your flagship phones are malfunctioning after 18-24 months then you're probably doing something wrong with them.
Also there isn't going to be another flagship with a user replaceable battery.
It pays to be late adopter (Score:2)
I am glad that in post- Moore's future there isn't a compelling reasons to upgrade expensive computing devices unless one you have reaches end of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've never understood the obsession with RAM and CPU speed in phones. By about 2016-2017 the CPU and RAM was really enough, assuming the OS developers didn't go out of their way to add eye-candy bling that just slows everything down.
The majority of phone games don't require top-end specs, firstly because that would limit their market share and secondly because generally the genre of most phone games like puzzles etc just aren't that taxing to run.
Time to jump off Pixel Bandwagon (Score:1)
Oooooh! (Score:2)
The Pixel 4 is getting features my LG V20 had....
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I bought the LG V30 as my new phone earlier this year. Would have bought a Pixel3a but they weren't announced at the time and the rumoured specs sounded crap.
Actually really glad I got the LG 'cause of the wide-angle lens on the camera. Very useful when taking photos on holiday.
No thanks! (Score:2)
Will keep my no-notch, 90fps screen, 48mp camera with 3x optical and 10x digital zoom, recharges in under an hour even if full active use, One Plus 7 Pro
Time to buy a pixel 3! (Score:2)
This is a great day! Now I can finally buy the Google Pixel 3!
No headphone jack = no sale (Score:2)
You can put all the AI spyware tinsel you want on it and you still won't sell it to me if it is missing its headphone jack. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
The last Google phone (sold by Google for Fi) to have a headphone jack was the LG V35, which is what is in my pocket, for that very reason.