Pixel Miss (ccsinsight.com) 67
Ben Wood and Geoff Blaber, commenting on Google's new Pixel smartphones at research firm CCI Insight: Historically, Google has been one of the leaders in developing and implementing computational photography, mixing optics with digital sleight of hand to make imaging magic. And again, Google is promising great photography by using software smarts. The camera on the new phones has an ultrawide lens, a Night Sight feature that works in portrait mode, and a setting that lets users adjust the lighting in post-processing. The challenge for Google is that its camera capabilities are no longer unique, as all leading smartphone makers focus on camera and imaging tech to try and make their latest and greatest devices stand out.
[....] Given Google's scale, the progress of the Pixel business has been disappointing, particularly in light of the difficulties Huawei has faced. Mobile operators, retailers and consumers would benefit from a credible alternative to Apple and Samsung. On paper Google should fit the bill, but the company has consistently failed to live up to expectations. Sadly, it's hard to see how these new devices will do anything to address these shortcomings. Google's smartphone hardware strategy is in need of a reset. The company either needs to deliver differentiated flagship Android experiences or mass-market products with broad distribution. Right now, it provides neither and sits awkwardly within a vibrant ecosystem of Android players led by Samsung. Google must prove that Pixel still has a role.
[....] Given Google's scale, the progress of the Pixel business has been disappointing, particularly in light of the difficulties Huawei has faced. Mobile operators, retailers and consumers would benefit from a credible alternative to Apple and Samsung. On paper Google should fit the bill, but the company has consistently failed to live up to expectations. Sadly, it's hard to see how these new devices will do anything to address these shortcomings. Google's smartphone hardware strategy is in need of a reset. The company either needs to deliver differentiated flagship Android experiences or mass-market products with broad distribution. Right now, it provides neither and sits awkwardly within a vibrant ecosystem of Android players led by Samsung. Google must prove that Pixel still has a role.
pixel miss? Try apple wannabe miss. (Score:2)
Re:pixel miss? Big Big Miss (Score:2)
Re: pixel miss? Big Big Miss (Score:2)
The smaller screen, or smaller body really, is exactly why Iâ(TM)m upgrading.
Re: (Score:2)
smaller battery .
The Pixel 3 XL has a 3,430 mAh battery. The Pixel 5 has a 4,080 mAh battery. The biggest battery the Pixel series has ever had. WTF are you talking about?
Re: (Score:3)
it takes time for consumers to latch on to a device.
Given that the Pixel 5 is out now, it's safe to say that consumers have had time to latch on were they wanting to do so. While the first three Pixel phones were well regarded and sold decently well, the Pixel 4 has had [wccftech.com] disappointing [androidauthority.com] sales [9to5google.com], and the Pixel 5 felt was launched with virtually no pomp or circumstance, most conspicuously lacking from Google itself. It felt like it was shoved out the door by a company that stopped believing in the product line, but figured that they might as well put it out since t
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't really launched yet, there are no reviews out. The big push will probably be closer to the end of this month.
Re: (Score:3)
My Nexus phone and tablet still stand as the best smart devices I ever owned. I do like my Pixel 2, but it's getting long in the tooth and the battery is showing it's age, so I'll definitely be bumping up to a new Pixel before Christmas. Frankly, I just like the Google products because they come with less extraneous shit than LGs and Samsungs, and my Pixel has been rock solid as a phone. They aren't flashy, and that's just fine by me.
Re:pixel miss? Try apple wannabe miss. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah - I'd never buy a Samsung. I just want Android and it's hard to find a phone with plain Android that doesn't replace one of the more important apps with a garbage alternative.
Moto - no bloat, factory supported root, unbrick (Score:3, Interesting)
> I just want Android and it's hard to find a phone with plain Android that doesn't replace one of the more important apps with a garbage alternative.
Check out the Motorolas. I've bought three mid-range Moto for my family, because I liked the first one so much.
They don't have a bunch of factory bloat taking up space. Motorola supports unlocking the bootloader. If you well and truly screw it up by flashing all the wrong images, the manufacturer provides an unbricking tool that will put everything back t
Re: (Score:3)
Motorola, or the chinese OEM using the name, locks boot loaders making the phones software impossible to alter or control. They also load impossible to remove apps, overlays and other bullshit that because of the locked bootloader can't be fixed.
Motorola and LG are both shit for that reason. In fact almost everyone does the same bullshit except for the Google devices.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you got your (mis) information, but as I said I have three different Moto models for the family, all with unlocked bootloader's, and none came with any bloat.
Maybe you're thinking of a different brand.
Here's Motorola's page with instructions on how to unlock the bootloader:
https://motorola-global-portal... [custhelp.com]
I suppose it's also possible that you financed a phone through your carrier, agreeing to pay $25/month extra for 24 months to get a $300 phone. In which case the carrier may have locked
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah - I'd never buy a Samsung
Are you sure? I really enjoy how my Tab tablet asks me, every single day, to create / sign into my Samsung account.
Re: (Score:3)
I have a Galaxy Tab A tablet, and yeah, that's a real pleasure. It's nice to have an entirely different app store plugged in with some really shitty apps. Samsung's file browser has to be the most gawdawful thing I've ever seen. Oddly, I can't get ES File Explorer working on the tablet either, but fortunately I mainly use my tablet to watch TV, so I don't give that much of a shit, but I'm going to add Samsung to the list of manufacturers I won't buy tablets or phones from. At least Samsung has a way now to
Re: pixel miss? Try apple wannabe miss. (Score:2)
The new pixels are both $200 too expensive for what they offer. That's a big miss.
Re: pixel miss? Try apple wannabe miss. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Google doesn't put any long-term promise to support these products, let alone the Android OS, thus we have this "feature creep is a performance metric" problem that overshadows all Google products from Android to Chrome to Stadia and Youtube, to plain ol google ads and analytics which have been circling the toilet for the last 5 years. If a feature can't be fixed by AI, or can't be monetized effectively, it gets axed.
Google has single-handedly destroyed the ad revenue model for websites, and
Re: (Score:1)
Don't you have this backwards? The Nexus was a more mass-market line, and the Pixel was a big jump to a premium price range. Only with the "a" models are they getting back to a mass-market product.
tl'dr (Score:2)
"the company has consistently failed to live up to expectations. Sadly, it's hard to see how these new devices will do anything to address these shortcomings."
In case you are wondering what the shortcomings are, they are not having enough new features to differentiate them from the competition.
Now you don't have to read the article, it's not worth the electrons.
Re: tl'dr (Score:2)
It's actually the price. The phone are fine, but not at that price.
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually the price. The phone are fine, but not at that price.
Google has a history of reducing the price of phones during Black Friday and at other times. Unless you absolutely need a new phone because your current one is broken, wait a while. The price may drop $100, $150 or more in a month or so. Then the phone price might be attractive.
Re:tl'dr (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality is that Google is fundamentally an old fashion ad house. What makes an ad house work and popular is that the costs are low, the metrics opaque, and the profits are high.
What makes a phone important to google is that people inherently trust a phone and will supply huge amounts of personal data that Google can monetize. They can track, they can look at your texts, they can crunch your purchases, it is a gold mine.
What makes a camera important is that young people love taking pictures, and it is critical to young people to have better stuff than their friends, to the one applying peer pressure, not the loser. Or the parent with the best picture of their kid, supplying all the data to sell for later.
But Google is an Ad firm, and is wants profits now, so it does not sell anything as a loss leader, or give anything back to the consumer, so their stuff is as expensive as anyone else. If google sold this thing cheap, like made deals with mobile retailers to almost give it away, it would roll out the door, and google would have all the data they want, and sell it. Some loss of profit, but a grateful public practically selling their child for the latest phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe add a headphone jack? That will distinguish them from the other flagship phones.
Whose expectations? (Score:4)
On paper Google should fit the bill, but the company has consistently failed to live up to expectations.
Whose expectations are they referring to? Google seems content with the modest sales the Pixel line generates each year. They would do things much differently is they expected to compete with Samsung and Apple. Only pundits and faceless analysts seem to have higher expectations for the Pixels.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole purpose of Pixel is to show the likes of Samsung, LG, etc how it's done. And yet none of them will offer a vanilla Android experience.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet none of them will offer a vanilla Android experience.
If they did, it'd make them a commodity. They all want to be Apple. They can't mark up their product if their value is determined solely on the number of cameras and pixels. Software is cheap compared to hardware, so differentiate on software.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that it was never intended to go toe-to-toe with flagship devices from other manufacturers while selling in comparable quantities, and I think it was always unrealistic for pundits to hold it to that expectation, but that doesn't mean that the line has met Google's expectations. In fact, we know the opposite to be true: it's coming up short.
Sundar Pichai got on an earnings call earlier this year and said that one of the things they'd be working on was broadening distribution for the line [androidauthority.com], which, on
Re: (Score:2)
Google did advertise the Pixel 3A with photo comparisons against the much but expensive iPhone... But that was the marketing department so maybe but the design goal.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take a vanilla Android device over Apple any time. I owned precisely one iPhone, and that was enough for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Whose expectations are they referring to? Google seems content with the modest sales the Pixel line generates each year. [...] Only pundits and faceless analysts seem to have higher expectations for the Pixels.
Really? If Google was fine with sales, they wouldn't have increased the value of trade-ins and discounts [wccftech.com] shortly after the Pixel 4's release, would they? After all, the only reason to do so is to spur slow sales because you aren't content with where they are.
But maybe sales picked up after that and met their expectations? Well, actually, we know they didn't, because their CEO said on an earnings call a few months later in which they announced declining hardware sales [androidauthority.com] that one of their key goals for the line
Re: (Score:2)
Now, realistically, did they actually expect to compete with Samsung and Apple? Probably not, and I certainly don't fault them for not reaching those sorts of sales figures, but they were certainly shooting for something quite a bit better than where they are now. I suspect that they were hoping to carve out a niche in between the low and high ends, but they haven't managed to find the sweet spot yet. Let's see if they pivot and come up with something better.
No doubt Google would like higher sales. My point was that these pundits seem to think anything short of Samsung-like sales is a failure when that is not Google's goal.
Re: (Score:2)
Very much agreed. While I'm sure Google would have loved that outcome, as you said, they're not playing the game in a way that would have reached that result, so it's fairly obvious that wasn't their target.
Pixel Hate (Score:4, Interesting)
I've never understood the amount of Hate pixel phones get.
I've owned both a Pixel XL and currently a Pixel 3a XL. both of these phones have been the best smartphones I've had short of my Kyocera 6035 I had back in the day. The other phones I had (a Galaxy Nexus, OG Droid and an OG Moto X) needed constant rebooting, had massive battery life issues and (with the exception of the Galaxy Nexus) had problems with useless bloatware and lack of software updates.
The Pixel's have had none of these problems. The only complaint I have is the three year hard cutoff that Google bakes in all of their phones but by that time, the battery is so far gone that its time to upgrade anyway. In fact the battery wear (and the lack of a Pixel 4a XL) is the only reason I switched to the 3a XL. Even the transfer was seamless with the USB transfer feature.
Short of Google bailing on large batteries, they will keep me as a customer. I'd would have bought the Pixel 5 (especially since it has a big battery) if the Pixel XL's battery could have gone 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pixel Hate (Score:4, Insightful)
Every Pixel review is "It's a good phone with a good camera, but it's not as good or fast as other flagship phones because it doesn't have (insert fad feature here)" with the exception of the a series reviews, which reviews tend to be "The best mid range phone you can buy"
Now people are shocked that the Pixel 5 is basically the Pixel 4a XL with the flagship name and are going after it because it's not a flagship competitor.
The point of the Pixel line was to make a OEM android experience that works better because it's not filled with bloat or unnecessary features. Not to be a market shaping leader. And in that position the Pixel wins hands down. It just works and it works very well. It doesn't have features no one needs like curved screens with notifications on the side, folding displays or pens. They even resisted the multi camera fad in favor of software tweaks and hardware stabilization and frankly, they were doing fine until people constantly railed them on features and they bowed to pressure for relatively useless features like selfie cams, face unlock and wide angle lenses.
Re: Pixel Hate (Score:3)
It's because they're charging flagship prices but only offering high-end mid range features, and nothing that differentiates them from other flagships.
In some cases they have specs that are only midrange - pixel 4 launched with a 2800mah battery when other flagships were coming out with 4000+. Somehow multiple other vendors are able to do market research to work out what customers want, but Google can't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because they're charging flagship prices but only offering high-end mid range features, and nothing that differentiates them from other flagships.
They've corrected that with the Pixel 5... upper-mid-range specs and upper-mid-range price.
Re: Pixel Hate (Score:2)
No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Flagships are $999+ nowadays, not $699.
Re: Pixel Hate (Score:2)
And Samsung offer a better phone for $599.
From Anandtech:
a Galaxy S20 FE 5G for $599, with an SoC that obliterates the Pixel 5â(TM)s, a better higher-refresh rate screen, bigger batteries, Wi-Fi 6, and a more complete camera module setup
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it has SAMSUNG SOFTWARE on it, which makes it pretty garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Flagships are $999+ nowadays, not $699.
That wasn't really my point though. This is a $499 phone that they are trying to sell for $699.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nexus and Pixel devices are the only ones that after a few weeks of use I didn't want to fling against a wall. They've been rock solid for me; not cutting edge, but more than capable. I tried one of the mid-range LGs, and it sucked in oh so many ways. Right now google's got a sale on the Pixel 4a, and that's what I'm getting. Mid-range price for a mid-range phone.
Re: (Score:1)
> Where are you seeing that hate?
This thread?
Re: (Score:3)
"Hate" from bored "journalists" is not a real thing. These are great phones, and hopefully they will stay that way and not be made to serve spoiled people who burn up trees with laser pistols. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhwdkvfxlCY [youtube.com]
Bullshit (Score:1)
Pixel product team is terrible (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been a nexus/pixel owner since the start. The program has been plagued with crazy.
- Wild variations in device prices, such that each generation has completely disregarding the existing base
- Periods in time (towards end of model year) where it's been impossible to buy a new Pixel because there's no inventory remaining
- Constantly pushing new hardware features, then taking them away again in the next generation (wireless charging, active edge, etc.)
- Trying to roll out advanced Google features, like AR maps, on phones with very scant battery life
- To a large degree ignoring common owner requests, like sdcard support, 3.5mm jacks, to sell cloud services or be like Apple
- Even though it's better than many manufacturers, still only offering 3 years of OS updates, certainly making the higher-priced models more questionable value
They just don't do a good job of delivering for any specific user base over several generations. Almost every year they're disappointing someone.
Pixel 5 vs. Pixel 4 (Score:5, Interesting)
The Pixel 4 was sold at a premium price, to compete with top-end iPhones. But older Pixel and Nexus phones were sold at more middle-of-the-road prices, as the Pixel 5 will be. On price, Pixel 5 is going back to normal.
And in fact I would rather spend middle-of-the-road prices for my phone than premium prices. I bought the original Pixel, and then when it was three years old and security updates stopped coming, I did buy a Pixel 4. But I wasn't happy to spend that much. So some pundits say the Pixel 5 is "disappointing" but IMHO it's getting back to closer to what I want.
The Pixel 4 has Project Soli, a radar system to read gestures from your fingers. No real use for this has been demonstrated by anyone. It is 100% useless, just a waste of space and power. The Pixel 5 got rid of it. Good.
The Pixel 4 has face unlock. In this time of wearing masks in public, face unlock sucks. Pixel 5 returns to a fingerprint reader. Good. (Nearly enough to make me switch now instead of waiting two more years for security updates to stop on my Pixel 4.)
The Pixel 4 has two cameras: a general-purpose one, and a telephoto camera with 2x optical zoom and 4x digital zoom for a total of 8x zoom. I deeply love this. I have taken some pictures that no other cell phone I have ever owned could have taken. (My favorite one is an owl sitting on a branch of a tree. The owl would have been a little speck with any other cell phone camera I have owned.) When I read reviews of the Pixel 4, all the experts agreed that Google was stupid to offer telephoto, a second camera should have been wide-angle. Now the Pixel 5 still has two cameras, and the second one is a wide-angle. The experts must be pleased but I am not. I have never wished I had a wider angle lens, and panoramic photos solve the problem if you need wide angle and don't have it.
I guess a three-camera setup (all-around, wide-angle, and telephoto) would be too expensive for a middle-of-the-road priced phone. But if the Pixel 5 had telephoto, I would get rid of my Pixel 4 early and buy one. As it is, I guess I'm waiting two years for my next phone.
Re: Pixel 5 vs. Pixel 4 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the advice. I'll consider it. Have a great weekend!
Re: (Score:1)
The Pixel 5 makes sense if its matched with a 5XL (Score:2)
But Google didn't complete the set. Where's the high-end partner?
When is the 5XL coming out?
Re: (Score:2)
So much This.
I was seriously considering upgrading my Pixel 3XL this year, and waited with baited breath for the Pixel 5 specs. When I found out that there wasn't going to be a XL, and that for $699, (minus whatever I got for trade in,) I'd be getting a SD765G that's really about the same as the 845 in the 3XL, along with an inferior GPU and ppi, I decided I could wait another year.
If Google were, in a month, to announce a Pixel 5 XL with a SD865 and a commensurate price tag, I'd be first in line to buy.
Re: (Score:2)
According to another source (alas, I can't find the link) the 4a 5G sortof *is* the 5XL. Apparently 5XL is a victim of COVID supply chain issues. I was actively looking to upgrade my crusty old original XL, but the 5 is a hard to justify at $700. If the 4a 5G had gorilla glass, thats the way I'd go. So I'm probably going to sit on the old XL, hope Fi supports more/better phones from other brands, and see if the 5XL makes an appearance in the spring (maybe Sundar P will pay attention to the tepid response an
Who said (Score:2)
The company either needs to deliver differentiated flagship Android experiences or mass-market products with broad distribution
Who said that's one of their goals. Hardware is hard, and the margin is low. Why would they want to sell hardware, if they can get others to do it for them?
I don't have any special insight into this, but Google certainly has almost unlimited resources to throw at this, if they wanted... yet year after year they release a new device on the down-low that doesn't have the features or design to compete.
One theory is that they aren't really interested in competing. They build a phone as a reference device for An
Still using the Pixel 2 (Score:2)
Bought the Pixel 2 for $350 a few years ago, and I have yet to see a phone that has is worth spending more for my use case (email, browsing, video conferencing, some utility apps, light photography, little video or gaming). I wish my battery life was better, but outside of industry reviews, I encounter almost nobody who says "oh, last time I charged my phone was yesterday, can I borrow a spare charger?" (i.e. everybody always makes sure their car, their desk, etc. can charge their phone). The only thing t
Smartphones are mature tech at this point (Score:3)
There's not a lot left other than simple iterative improvements. At this point, people who want to be "wowed" are either going to be perpetually disappointed, or they have to go way out to the fringes and look at folding phones and whatnot.
I mean, it's been two years since Apple basically admitted this - remember their keynote where 75% of the time basically was devoted to talking up Memoji? That was when it became blazingly obvious there wasn't much of anywhere left to go.
Phone prices are the real tragedy (Score:5, Interesting)
You can buy a very nice laptop for less than $1K. Who wants to pay over $1K for a disposable mobile phone? The removal of features like replaceable batteries and analog headphone jacks doesn't help. All of the crappy phones on the market now are assembled using double-stick tape. Clean them a few times with alcohol and the adhesive dissolves, then the back panel starts coming off. We need good quality, serviceable, devices assembled using screws, not this disposable crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Close. If it was available in the US with US specific frequencies, I would already own one.
Re: (Score:2)
Same :-/
The Pixels are only a miss (Score:2)
If you are forever chasing the newest and shiniest thing around. If 'latest and greatest' isn't your mantra, the Pixel line has a LOT to offer.
Not what consumers want (Score:1)
My own experience (Score:1)
The winner (Score:1)