And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true. For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go, and this article does nothing to tell me why this time it will be different. Perhaps because it won't be.
Of what very few details the article outlines, they just go on about nifty hardware. Have we not learned by now that cool hardware still sucks when hamstrung by crappy software? (A Samsung logo popped in my head while writing that, don't know why.) Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
(EDIT: the Pixel phones could be all that, but I wouldn't know it because I'm currently content with iPhones and have paid no attention to Pixel. Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.)
>Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
Not sure I agree with this. I've been on android for a while, so I'm sure I'm biased, but stock AOSP Android is pretty much perfect for me. Very minimal and aesthetically beautiful, but still powerful and customizable.
Honestly, in terms of staff UI design cred Android is in better place than iOS right now.
With the Sidekick, PalmOS, and then Material Design, Matías Duarte has been consistently at the forefront of mobile UI design.
Jony Ive is probably the most brilliant consumer electronics hardware designer in the world, but I have yet to see any indication that he has any idea how to lead a platform UI design project. I had issues with Scott Forstall's style, but he was at least leading the charge somewhere.
In my opinion, force click, Siri, 3D wallpapers, etc, have not been major coups in terms of UI finesse. At best Apple is in a holding pattern right now, I haven't seen any indication that they're pushing the state of the art outside of the hardware. The animations keep getting flashier and smoother, but that's not really UI design.
I thought Ive's strong understanding of design methodology would be enough, but I think maybe software design requires a different way of thinking. I don't know.
I think it is a matter of personal taste. I personally don't like the material design. I enjoy the thin typography and design of iOS, and finding myself enjoying the experience of "Messages" in iOS at the moment. The "tapback" feature letting me heart/thumbs up some message is elegantly done IMO. And the knowledge that the receiver is also getting it the way I intended is great.
Design is not a matter of personal taste. It either achieves the goals of the designer or it doesn't. It can be evaluated on a purely objective basis. You're talking about style, which is about expression more than outcomes, and is received in a very personal way.
When someone reacts so negatively to material design that they won't use it, that is a failure. There's no matter of opinion there. The purpose of the design work is to make it usable.
>Design is not a matter of personal taste. It either achieves the goals of the designer or it doesn't. It can be evaluated on a purely objective basis.
No it cannot. First, because nobody cares about the goals of the designer -- it's all about the goals and satisfaction of the users.
(E.g. if the designer is in love with themselves and find everything they do great, then any crap design they've made that they're fine with, can be said to "satisfy their goals" and by this logic is "objectively good").
If you meant "satisfies the designer's stated goals when it comes to actual use" (e.g. make the UI intuitive, convenient, powerful, etc") then notice how all those words are still subjective, and the various hard objective design laws (Fitts law, etc) are not enough to cover the entirety of a design.
And of course all those are about the UX. A design can have great UX but still look like crap in the aesthetics department -- and this is also quite subjective.
>When someone reacts so negatively to material design that they won't use it, that is a failure. There's no matter of opinion there.
That's (someone's rejection) is the definition of subjective though.
So much for "design success is objective". If you meant "refusal to use can be objectively measured" sure, but that doesn't say much about the design.
Said person could be a bizarro outlier that prefers some way worse design for example.
"Design is not a matter of personal taste. It either achieves the goals of the designer or it doesn't. "
But, what if I like/dislike the designers goals? In other words, if the designer painstakingly crafts a detail I don't care about, does it mean it is a good design?
Not trying to prove any point. Just trying to understand your perspective.
> In other words, if the designer painstakingly crafts a detail I don't care about, does it mean it is a good design?
If that detail helps them achieve their desired business outcomes, then yes. You might not like the product, but the design work is good. If you are trying to weed your garden, a Tesla is not useful to you. That doesn't mean it's a bad design, it just wasn't designed for that particular need.
All design comes from a specific set of values, and can only be evaluated within the context of those values. The notion of universal design is a fiction. It's the remnant of the colonialist mindset, where there is a presumption of universal values.
>Sounds like you're describing Art more than Design.
And even at that, parent goes for a controversial, "if it fits the goals of the artist it is fine" view of art, which is hardly some universally accepted standard for art.
Dictionaries usually lag consensus among practitioners about what a field is really about. What is software engineering? We update our answer year after year, but Oxford English only does every decade at best.
Matías Duarte has been consistently at the forefront of mobile UI design.
This is a pretty subjective statement. It seems that a lot of Duarte's designs are somewhat derivative. Material extends MS's Flat design. I'm also not sure how much of that is Duarte, its a pretty open secret that Google makes use of some pretty high end digital agencies who aren't allowed to let folks know what they're working on.
WebOS was pretty tacky though an interesting OS design - actually implemented better by LG on their SmartTVs.
The Sidekick may have been his most interesting product but it was completely broadsided by the release of the iPhone and was n't anywhere near competitive to the Blackberry so I'm not sure how innovative it was.
If anything Duarte's had pretty good record for working on products with innovative features but never necessarily ground breaking on UI/UX
> WebOS was pretty tacky though an interesting OS design - actually implemented better by LG on their SmartTVs.
I've got to stop you there. WebOS was far ahead of its time, and especially considered in the context of a small startup going against established players, was brilliant.
It offered in some ways better and more intuitive usability than iOS, along with a great app development ecosystem and philosophy.
Palm's WebOS devices were a pleasure to use, in a time when that was a very rare thing for a mobile device.
Agreed. WebOS was the only other OS other than iOS that offered the singular upgrade experience.
It was clunky under the hood and never received enough love. It would have been interesting to see where WebOS (phone) would be today had Palm survived.
Preware was one of the most amazing pieces of software I've ever seen on mobile (I remember going out at lunch multiple times to hang around a fast public wifi spot to try and download an LDXE-based chroot that was too large for my home connection).
Stuff like Xposed is interesting, but I haven't seen any software for mobile that managed to match the kind of community driven tweaking that Preware fostered.
I see this any time WebOS is mentioned but this makes WebOS sound a lot more innovative than it was. WebOS is widely lauded for two things: (1) the card application interface and (2) the accompanying physics/gestures, especially swipe from edge. Now these are great and appropriately lauded but that is a short list that really pales compared to a similar list of things the iPhone OS had introduced at that time. Other than that WebOS is basically a nicely polished clone of the iPhone OS. Even the cards metaphor itself, the hallmark of WebOS, was used two years earlier in the original iPhone in Mobile Safari and Cover Flow.
My wife had a Palm Pre with WebOS when I had an iPhone 3G. The Pre was pure crap, but the OS was very interesting and intuitive. I rarely had to help her with it. She's had iPhones since then, which can frustrate her due to how it handles settings, and she hates changes -- this week it's the removal of swipe to unlock :)
Apps that follow it will all have a similar look and feel on a platform... however, you can still make both good and bad UIs within that (or any other) framework. It doesn't alleviate the need to work with a UI designer.
There are certainly a fair number of developers who will just download a Material-styled template. But please don't assume that you can't do much more.
I don't agree with this. It is the same as iOS: design an app with the barebones, you will have a soulless app. The OS doesn't matter. What it matters it's what devs do with the visual kit. There is few innovation in app design in Android and this will be like this until the Android market turns out more profitable.
It's kinda like reference hardware. It's the baseline, with nothing special or unique. It takes a talented designer to take the toolkit and design language, and extend those to inject their own style and character into the finished product so that it both solves the specific needs of the product being designed by clarifying the interface to the user - and hopefully delights the user in some way to make the experience of using the app not just tolerable but delightful.
So, in a sense material design is too restrictive to let designers think outside of the box.
I get that opinion. But allow me to play the devil's advocate:
Mobile interfaces are small and restrictive. Touch screens and gestures have zero discoverability. Interfaces must scale to a multitude of different screen sizes and resolutions. Flare hurts usability in these situations. When designers break convention it is far more likely to result in confusion or frustration by end users. Well defined standards can enable me to use your app without even looking at the screen and drastically improve accessibility for things like screen readers.
I think the tendency toward flare stems from design education that emphasizes print media and tries to make a direct translation into Web/UX Design. Print media, and advertisements are meant to grab your attention, establish unique brand design language and brand identity. But If I'm already on your website or using your app you already have my attention. You've already sold me. Now simply help me accomplish the task I am here for in the least painful way possilbe. Branching out beyond common guidelines and creating new interface conventions may scratch your creative itch but it is rarely more efficient or easy to use that established conventions.
Coming from someone who WANTS to love android for philosophical reasons and bought the google nexus, google nexus 5x. I always went back to iphone. The biggest issue is the device is not very good in comparison to the current gen iphone. It feels 1-2 gen behind in performance.
In a nutshell: Android itself isn't actually any slower, but it _seems_ slower due to garbage collection pauses.
When Android stutters, you can put money on it being down to the garbage collector running at an inopportune moment. This is the downside of most Android apps being built in Java, whereas most iOS apps are written in Objective C, which uses reference counting and so you have more deterministic release of allocated memory. The upside of this is little or no stuttering, but the downside is that you can still end up with pauses, but they can be in places which are hidden from the user. The other downside of GC is that developers can lean on it a bit more than is justifiable to create needless duplicates of objects on the assumption that they'll be garbage collected eventually... which can lead to GC stutter. A lot of Android's 'slowness' issues would go away if devs were a bit more careful with how they allocate their objects.
Another thing that makes Android seem slower than iOS is that Android gives apps a pretty lengthy grace period when they hang for some reason and will alert the user if it thinks the app has hung. iOS, OTOH, is less tolerant of this kind of thing and will just kill the offending app and rely on the app to restore its state when restarted. This hides a lot of issues with apps on iOS that are more obvious on Android. Which choice is better is a matter of debate: the iOS route gives the better user experience 90% of the time, but when you want that 10%, you really want that 10%.
Emulators (and quite a lot of games too) tend to be written in C and C++, which means they do manual memory management or use the conservative Boehm GC, so you end up with little or no GC stutter. OTOH, if the developer isn't careful, you're more likely to end up with memory leaks.
You must have a lot of nightmares then.
My old iphone 4 lasted happily for 4 years and after I gave it to my sister in law. I couldn't force myself to use the awful nexus 5 for even two years.
And I really went close to throw that piece of crap against the wall.
Apparently the "new" nexus 5x is even slower than that for some reason that is beyond human comprehension.
You really have very low performance standard, like my friend that enjoys his Nexus 5x even if it feels like a slo-mo fest compared to my iphone.
Good for you, but please don't even try to convince anyone of the super performance of your favourite phone.
iOS is in a tough position, the road of incremental changes is coming to an end. The icon-based home screen is showing it's age and will need a revolution rather than an evolution. You can kinda see Apple dipping it toes into the widget arena with the notifications area, yet they're probably hesitant to remake the whole home screen and risk alienating their current users. Tech savvy people won't mind a new home screen concept but for the "dad's and mom's out" there it might be a tough sell.
Apple's leadership in UI design the last couple of years has been a little lackluster. While they seem to be able to iterate, with a few missteps, I'm less sure about their capability to get a whole revamp done right.
The talent is surely there but the question is whether the leadership and willing to take the right risks is. It's going to be interesting going forward, I'm guessing they will have to introduce something widget/tile -ish in the next phone
It seems very telling to me that the Standard Windows Desktop is generally considered a wasteland of discarded program and file icons, basically where you throw your digital trash...yet iOS decided that this was the design they wanted for the main start page of their OS.
No wonder there is such a divide among users. I don't think age has anything to do with it though.
The huge difference here is that on iOS you don't have random files lying around your home screen. The springboard is for apps, with a dock for the most common ones to persist between screens.
On Windows (and macOS) the desktop is fundamentally different, used differently, and is often obscured by your windowed content.
If by "single folder on a hidden home page containing unused default apps" you mean "App draw", then you've described Androids (arguably superior) default UX.
Put another way.. You're manually 'fixing' the iOS UX to operate like the Android "default"?
Glanceable information on the home screen is useful so users don't have to open every app, it also changes the home screen from being just "an launcher" to potentially provide useful information that you might need rather then being "just a launcher". It's just "one step less" in some scenarios.
Notifications are great for things that need your attention but the home screen becomes a little more of a seredipious view of app information that can increase the usefulness and engagement with an app
I think right now using the notifications screen for this 'at a glance' info and using the home screen for launching full apps, accomplishes the goal you are seeking.
I would love to see the iPad interface evolve a bit and not look so much like my phone. I don't feel like they are using all that space as elegantly as they could be.
It's getting there, but it's not ideal yet. At a glance means I don't have to do anything but glance. To see the widgets now, you have to wake up the phone and then swipe right.
On recent iPhones, waking up the phone just means picking it up. The swipe right is still an issue, though; it'd be nice if they could get rid of that. (Maybe default to the widgets view if there are no notifications?)
You are spot on. IIRC correctly there are built in hacks to make at least the clock and calendar icons show correct information, but for example the weather icon never tells you it rains. IMHO the Microsoft Live Tiles on Windows phone do make iOS look dated. Luckily for Apple, no one is buying those phones.
Age is not a sign that's something is broken. Apples main lead is they need much less hardware to get good preformance which means smaller and longer lasting battery's and better profit margins. Giving that up for a useless status screen is a terrace idea that would cost them 10's if not 100's of billions of dollars.
Nothing wrong with the age of an UI per se, but I think the notion of App's as silos which need to be individually opened get its information is rather old fashioned, and not ideal from an UX POV. Being able to quickly glance information from weather, email, social media does do quite a lot to lessen unnecessary UI excise.
I don't think it has anything to do with hardware, they can be engineered in such a way they don't needlessly drain the battery, nor do I think most people would feel it was useless. Then again, people sometimes don't miss something before they have it :)
This kind of thinking is the one of them forces that drive initially good-enough designs into complete bullshit by spiral "aging" and "revolution" of even simple things. Thanks for all software that I dumped because of that.
The problems I have with the iPhone are 1) lack of a back button, so I have to learn every single screen of every single application and 2) the app store.
I had to help a friend to find a qrcode app on Sunday. Look for qrcode in the store, 842 found. Wow... None of them has a review or stars. How do you trust them? We kept scrolling for a while, nothing. Compare that with the Google store. It doesn't tell me how many qrcode apps are there but it gives me a rating for every single one. Then it's the usual hunt for the app with no ads and least permissions, but that's the same on the iPhone.
A back button would make no sense to me. There are situations in apps when you can't "go back" -- wait, do you mean some physical back button?! Otherwise, there's the "Return to..." feature, the fact that the back button in most iOS apps is always the top left button of the navigation bar, and there's always the left edge swipe. If you can't figure out how to go back in an app, then it's the app's fault, not the phone's. "I have to learn every single screen of every single app" -- come on, bro, that's a bit much.
As for the store, well, the App Store actually has standards and minimums for apps and reviews. I would think a google search for "best qrcode app ios" would yield better results than your strange method, but, hey, to each his own.
Samsung phones have physical back buttons. Other Androids have them on screen, which I find very annoying. In my limited experience not every iOS app has a way to go back to the previous screen. Maybe it doesn't make sense there but Android apps and web pages are built around that concept of history. I couldn't find a way to go back from an app detail page to the search results page in the App Store. My friend, which uses iOS since a long time, couldn't too. I guess she's not very expert at navigating iOS apps. Maybe that left edge swype would do, I'm learning it now, she seemed not to know it.
She was as clueless as me about the lack of stars. We looked for qrcode in the App store. This is what I would have done on my Android. She didn't suggest an alternative. A very basic iOS user?
> The icon-based home screen is showing it's age and will need a revolution rather than an evolution.
Well, perhaps they can license Live Tiles from Microsoft. There are definitely things to like there, and Microsoft's certainly not using them on phones anymore - at least not as far as real-world usage can show.
Well, they're half way there with the "force"-push shortcut actions on icons. It's a good idea even if discovery is a little bad. That was easier to add however since it really doesn't interfere with existing users. Changing how the home screen looks for everyone might be perceived as risky.
> In my opinion, force click, Siri, 3D wallpapers, etc, have not been major coups in terms of UI finesse.
I wouldn't say force click is a coup... it's like Android's menu button in the way it hides functionality and non-standard UX. Heaven knows what's going to happen if I trigger it random app. Google was wise enough to drop the Menu button in Android
It's hard to buy that argument. It doesn't appear Material ever attempted to be better than iOS, just different. And now Google Design is quietly backtracking (dialogs are transitioning to iOS action sheets, hamburger button is being phased out for bottom tab navigation). And now the phone even looks even more like an iPhone. Let's be honest, there are only two rules for design at Google: "Not Apple" and "good enough".
Honestly I notice more Android on my iPad than I notice iOS on my phone. iOS finally got custom keyboards so I can use a proper mobile keyboard like Swype, the notification panel isn't as useless as it was and is a lot richer like on Android. Its really only a matter of time until iOS introduces widgets on the home screen. I've convinced more than a couple people to switch to Android for their phone simply because you can have your calendar and todo list right where you can always see it.
Were hamburger buttons an Android thing? I noticed them everywhere, including on the web.
I had also thought that it was more of an Android thing. But apparently it's been the rat in the walls of computer UI since the 1980s on the Xerox Star and DOS, now blown up by Twitter and Facebook.
https://blog.placeit.net/history-of-the-hamburger-icon/
I second this.Gmail is something that I use regularly on iOS and the interface is so ancient compared to gmail on Android.
This is true for a lot of applications except maybe google photos.
I'm already regretting giving Google so much of my personal data, no way in Hell am I going to give a copy of it to MS. But I agree about the interface since I use Outlook for work emails.
> I've been on android for a while, so I'm sure I'm biased, but stock AOSP Android is pretty much perfect for me. Very minimal and aesthetically beautiful, but still powerful and customizable.
You can get AOSP on a lot of phones, you just have to be comfortable flashing a custom ROM.
I don't understand why anyone would pay iPhone prices for an Android phone. Even if the hardware quality is similar (which it won't be, because Apple SoCs are at least a generation ahead of everyone else) Android app quality is much worse.
I'm saying this as someone who has only ever used Android.
I just can't see the justification to spending this much money on a phone Google will drop support for after 2 years, in addition to never fixing some issues that are present at launch (look up the Nexus 4 camera reset issue, which Google never fixed).
I'm using a Xiaomi Redmi 2 I picked up new from AliExpress for $125 USD with free shipping to Europe, and I'm running Marshmallow via CM. Works perfectly, in fact most of the time it's better than $300-400 phones thanks to not being loaded to the gills with Google Apps crapware (seriously I have no use for Google Play Music, Books, News, etc)
Edit: for people down voting this, could you explain why? I've left my opinion here and if you disagree with it, I'd love to hear why. I don't believe I've stated anything factually incorrect.
> I just can't see the justification to spending this much money on a phone Google will drop support for after 2 years, in addition to never fixing some issues that are present at launch (look up the Nexus 4 camera reset issue, which Google never fixed).
Plus, you can't just walk into a local Google Store and use the accidental damage insurance to replace your phone on the spot (or repair it within an hour or so) if you dropped it and cracked the screen.
I don't want to mail my phone in to a repair center and be without a phone for a few days. I want it fixed or exchanged in a short time while I wait, and I won't pay iPhone prices for a Pixel phone if I can't get that level of service.
Purchases of high-end items are not motivated merely the items themselves. They are also motivated by the level of service the buyer gets if something goes wrong. For example, if you bring your Toyota to the dealership for service, you'll be lucky to get a loaner car. If you bring your Lexus to the dealership for service, you'll almost certainly get a loaner car that's even nicer than the car you brought in.
If you buy an Apple product, you get a pretty big network of retail stores with free support and fast service turnaround. If you buy a Pixel, what do you get other than the phone itself?
> I don't want to mail my phone in to a repair center and be without a phone for a few days.
FYI: I've been a long time Android user and can tell you that the process works different. And is actually not as bad as you think.
1) You call the hotline, they send you a link via mail
2) Clicking this link will place you in their shop with a promo-code
3) You buy the replacement phone
4) Once you've got the replacement you send in the broken one (or if you feel like it earlier)
5) Once they recieved the broken one, you get a refund on you purchase
Knowing this process so well is the reason I've bought me an iphone 7 now ;-)
I had an HTC One with a defective camera and HTC had no process like this. I would have had to send them the phone and wait.
Verizon helped me out and sent a refurb phone without me having to return my phone first. The refurb camera was even worse.
After that I went iPhone. No reason to pay the same price for Android and get crappy service, especially when the iPhone has resale value. A used Android has no resale value whatsoever.
However, if the Pixel is like other Androids the list price is a joke and carriers will be discounting it shortly.
I wonder if the Pixel will have good resale value. It seems just as well-built as an iPhone, but unless Google changes its update policy, the Pixel won't be able to run new versions of Android after two years. That is a huge drag on resale value.
I don't know about you, but if I was in the market for a used phone, I'd go for one that could run the latest OS.
The Pixel seems to me to be a vindication of the Apple model: controlling both the hardware and software can get you a pretty good product, and in the case of upgrades, you only have to support the hardware that you yourself have released. There is no technical reason Google can't support the Pixel phones for years, like Apple does, but I doubt they will do that.
Indeed, google on promises 2 years. But are typically much more generous. For instance the nexus 5 came out in Oct, 2013. It got marshmallow, but not nougat. I suspect it would have (it has plenty of ram/cpu), but for whatever reason qualcom didn't update the video driver for the snapdragon 800.
If it really bothers you the open bootloader makes it easy to find AOSP built from whatever community that floats your boat.
> If it really bothers you the open bootloader makes it easy to find AOSP built from whatever community that floats your boat.
Or I can buy an iPhone and run the latest software with zero effort.
That is a big difference, especially when you consider that the vast majority of consumers would have to look up the terms "AOSP" and "bootloader" after reading your comment, and even after looking them up, would have no idea what to do.
I should have added that I had this process with multiple nexus devices, thus my "shop" was google. I would expect them to handle the pixel phones the same way.
Yup, get a OnePlus, get a Xiaomi, but what's the gain in going from one of those devices to a Pixel or the latest Samsung or even an iPhone? Pretty much nothing, a different UI, maybe a slightly better camera. It still does almost everything the exact same.
Specs are very often on par (this Pixel is pretty damn close to a OP3, less RAM and less ) and the phones are 40% or more cheaper! It's just plain stupid.
I picked up a used Nexus 6 (in excellent condition) recently, and it is an incredible device. I'm also on the bleeding edge OS-wise, as I get Android Beta/Preview releases.
My primary device is an iPhone 6 Plus, and I have to say, Nexus 6 and Android N is really impressive from both a hardware and software perspective.
That being, I wish Google decoupled device drivers from the Android image.
If they adopted the Windows on PC device driver model, it would be so great for users, especially those with older and less supported phones.
>If they adopted the Windows on PC device driver model, it would be so great for users...
I seriously doubt it. I just changed my broadband provider at home. Our Macs, mobile devices and WDTV connected to the new wifi router immediately, but it took 2 hours to get the Windows laptop to connect to the internet. It found the wifi network fine, but no internet. This has happened before. Googling found dozens of hits for this issue, all with different solutions that worked for different people and each time it's happened to me on the same laptop different solutions have worked, such as: Delete the device in device manager and then scan for new hardware; ipconfig /renew; fiddling with Advanced driver settings.
This time I fixed it by reverting from the Microsoft driver to the vendor provided driver. The last thing we need on our phones is hardware, drivers and OS developed by different companies that don't talk to each other and don't do proper whole-system integration testing on all builds and upgrades.
The battery-conserving mechanisms of Android are not particularly hardware-specific on most devices.
Ideally, Android (or their patched version of the Linux kernel) would expose an API for each different kind of device. An general API for cameras, an API for audio, etc. The manufacturers would then write device drivers that implement / fulfill the functionality of these open/generic APIs. (This is how things are done on PCs.)
Some phones have two CPUs or SoCs, one being energy-efficient and the other highly-performant, and the system switches between them based on the workload. But an update of the OS could simply add & expose an additional new API for dual-SoC systems.
Decoupling device drivers and OS releases would be a huge win for everyone. We'd get the security update swith newer OSes, and even driver updates would be simpler.
PC peripheral manufacturers often release updates to their device drivers, and for a Linux and Windows users its relatively straightforward to update a device driver. E.g., I just updated my Nvidia graphics driver on Linux to the latest version two days ago. I have several kernel modules installed, and apt-get handled everything seamlessly, and built a new kernel image in a jiffy.
How often do you see device drivers updated on Android? Especially if there's a bug, how long before it's fixed? All of the drivers on Android are baked into this giant system image, and the system image contains so many disparate components, that shouldn't all be locked together. The Android system image release process is so broken. The Google -> Manufacturer -> Carrier approval & release is slow and dysfunctional.
The best way to go would be to adopt standard Linux distro practices, use a good package manager (like NixOS) that'll manage and assemble all the disparate system components, instead of shipping one giant frozen-in-time system image.
> The manufacturers would then write device drivers that implement / fulfill the functionality of these open/generic APIs. (This is how things are done on PCs.)
This is not a full picture how things work on PCs. There are also dependencies - i.e. you cannot power down the bus, while the device on the other end is not powered down. Things get more interesting, when you have SoC that implements multiple functions and there are interdependecies, where you would not expect them. The entire problem with Skylake mobile chips is, that nobody knows how to properly change the power states and Intel isn't telling anyone.
Even linux distros are on their way to manage the system in image-like way. See project atomic, or this video: https://youtu.be/XNLPkMDf9LI
Where are you basing this on? Out of some social media apps (Facebook and Snapchat) I have found that Android apps are on-par with their iOS counterparts.
Not the grandparent, but having used Android for years I would argue that's true too. Consider that Android apps are generally even made second for a lot of startups, so in a lot of cases Android forfeits by not even having an app in their ecosystem. Most YC companies are in that boat too--companies that make the iOS version first.
I use both. Currently I have an ipad and an android phone.
Android apps are neglected next to ios. Examples:
* spotify is shit on android. They broke audio playback during system announcements (like google maps directions) and just didn't give a damn for two months. It's not like anybody uses spotify and maps in a car or anything.
* most bank apps on android still don't take advantage of fingerprint auth to avoid typing long bank passwords. Four word passwords with punctuation are super fun to type on mobile.
* fitbit: Until about 6 months ago, pushing back from various subscreens would take you out of the app instead of navigating back to the main screen. There's clearly no-one who matters at fitbit that cares about android. It also doesn't particularly reliably connect to the device. Graphs and data desync from each other. I have not seen this on ios.
* there really isn't any reader on android as nice as GoodReader
* games come second, if ever -- eg kingdom rush frontiers
At the time I bought it, Good Reader's advantages where:
* a full file manager, with folders;
* various ways to get files on and off: a built in web server to upload files, good dropbox integration;
* the ability to crop pdf pages to just the text to get rid of margins so your ipad isn't displaying an inch of whitespace next to the text. Also the ability to set different crop sizes/locations for even and odd pages.
* bookmarks, plus the ability to email them to yourself
* tabbed files, including the ability to open a single file more than once so you can easily switch back and forth between different locations
I haven't kept up with Adobe's Reader, but it has 3 stars while goodreader costs more and continues to get glowing reviews.
I agree with this as an Android user. The lack of device support from Google is appalling. And all my nexus devices (4, 7) have had major hardware flaws that never get fixed - once you're past the warranty, you're SOL. The 7 had many touch screen problems, and a very flimsy charger port (which broke under warranty, then broke again after - so I can't charge it anymore :|).
If you want decent hardware on Android, you have to go with Samsung. But their support for devices is even worse than Google - my Tab S just got Marshmallow. And touchwiz really hurts the Android experience.
Compare to Apple - I still have a first generation iPad that my kids use, and it's still going strong. It's a bit dented, but that thing is a tank.
I match your 1st gen iPad and raise you an iPhone 3GS. My youngest just upgraded to a hand-me-down iPhone 4 a few weeks ago, but my old 3GS is still working fine and even still works with the App Store. I can still download apps on to it that I bought back in 2009 and don't even show up in the store on modern devices, but they're still there for the 3GS. She used it for Whatsapp a lot. Gobsmacked.
I match your iPhone 3GS and raise an 3G. That thing had last iOS release 4.x, which made it unusable and I was scrambling to return it to 3.x. It wasn't capable to download anything from Apple Store for years. It still works as a phone though, also most of the built-in apps work, (except for syncing with Google account, since Google disabled ActiveSync support).
What a difference one year of device age can make.
I had a 3G as well. We got maybe 3 years of useful work out of it, but that's all. It ended up with my wife's sister in China. The 3GS looked the same and seemed like an incremental update, but the improvements made a massive difference. Then the year after they came out with the iPhone 4. Wow! Those 2 years look like 5 years or more worth of advances in retrospect.
>(which it won't be, because Apple SoCs are at least a generation ahead of everyone else)
Can anyone confirm if this is true? I thought the general advantage for i[a-zA-Z0-9]\+ is a well defined small N number of targets, which allow great optimization. Generally, the parts on apple things are a bit older than the competition but they pull off more (at least in user's eyes) compared with Android due to that optimization.
> the parts on apple things are a bit older than the competition
Not sure where you got that impression, maybe you're thinking about Apple's laptops? Apple get the best and the latest from TSMC, which at the moment is 16nm finfet and next year expected to be 10nm finfet. Intel is the only company with a better process, and they don't make smartphone SoCs. And Apple has hired all the best Austin-based talent for their design team, poaching AMD and others heavily.
Recently, Apple has been about a year ahead. Compare the A9 (which shipped in the 6s in fall 2015) with the Snapdragon 810 (which shipped in the Nexus 6p at the same time).
Especially since there's not much effort from Apple needed to keep the Mac lineup modernized. Intel does much of the work for them.
Apple could just drop new Intel chips into their existing MacBooks as they get released, and easily be getting improved speed + efficiency each year. The new Kaby Lake chips even do hardware 4K video and VP9. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/08/intel-unveils-kaby-la...
They have a lot more control over the mobile processors. The laptop processors have to maintain compatibility with all the software that people run on their laptops; effectively, that means they're stuck with other people's processors.
That's not really true. x86 emulation is a solved problem at this point, and Apple has shown willingness to use emulation to bridge an ISA transition in the past.
I think the real reason is some combination of (a) ARM isn't competitive (or only recently became competitive) at the high power/high performance point that Intel CPUs excel at; (b) the Mac line generates so much less revenue and operates at so much smaller of a scale than iOS devices that it isn't worth developing CPUs in-house for them, not to mention the fixed costs associated with undergoing a transition.
I guess Apple could 'survive' releasing a new generation of laptops which run slower than the previous ones to facilitate a user-invisible component sourcing decision, but it seems like a bad move.
It'd be temporary and only for third-party apps, not Apple-supplied ones. But yes, I do agree that it's not worth it for them--this is part of what I mean by high fixed costs of switching.
I would - only because of the investment required. Over the past few years, Apple's been very involved in its iOS ecosystem, while investing comparatively little in its Mac lineup.
Dumping Intel chips would take a ton of effort and resources, in an area where Apple isn't interested in making an effort or investing resources.
You're right, it would take a huge investment in effort and resources. You will know they are doing this when you see the Mac lineup sit unchanged for a long time...
Single core performance is still the single most important metric for most users, especially since things like web browsers tend bottleneck on single thread performance and browsing is one of the most common things people use phones for, especially given how commonly native apps use embedded web views.
Measuring browser performance is hard because there's a lot of different functionality but notice how routinely we see reviews where the device the Android flagship phones are trying to beat is the iPhone 6 or even 2013's 5S:
Some of that reflects the considerable amount of work which Apple has put into Mobile Safari but a lot of that is going to come down to single thread performance.
That's why I mentioned embedded web views: a lot of time recorded as native apps involves embedded web-views and these days that means things like JavaScript or layout performance matter more than might be immediately obvious. On iOS, the least involved way to see this is in things like news apps where Safari content blockers also block advertisements in the app.
The other side of this is that we're not really talking about which app has the most time in the foreground so much as which app causes the user to wait the most. Much of that time will be network I/O which is a real challenge but also not relevant to this discussion about CPU performance.
Fundamentally, all I'm trying to say is that Amdahl's law still applies until we're at the point where the user is never waiting on computation. Developers have been getting better at multithreading but uneven CPU usage is still common enough that I'd favor fewer faster cores over more slower cores.
Part of that is not so much just that Apple is "way ahead" as it is that Qualcomm is falling far behind -- and Qualcomm's roadmap is effectively Android's roadmap, for many OEMs.
That Xiaomi Redmi 2 seems to be exactly what I've been looking for. Maybe a little big but I'll take it if it means CM support, replaceable battery and swappable SD card. Any idea if it works on Project Fi? I can't seem to find a definitive answer.
If you aren't aware (I wasn't), xiaomi phones run miui which is somewhat different than stock android. Google miui before you buy. Or you have to be comfortable installing an android distribution.
Really? That's sad to hear, back in the Android 2.4 days I used to love MIUI and would flash it on my devices intentionally as it had so many features that weren't yet in Android. Quick settings, dial by letters, just generally nicer look and feel. I guess a lot of this has been integrated now, but damn, it used to be nice.
Careful what you wish for. I have an Ubuntu phone which is mainly web app based, and while its fine for most things, traveling abroad without a roaming plan renders the phone pretty useless.
I didn't mean that they could do it literally today. Offline capability is already present in some browsers though and producing a polished web app allows universal deployment. It wouldn't have the same look and feel as native apps though and performance is an issue for some things, but not most things.
Agreed, and I personally like Cyanogenmod and OxygenOS a lot, too. In fact, I think Touchwiz is the only (major) Android iteration that I haven't enjoyed using.
Frankly, I don't get all the hype about iOS' user experience - every time I've had to use an Apple device, I've found just about every task much more cumbersome.
Having used both extensively (but Android more so), I find them both pretty straightforward to use for most common tasks. Both still have their more granular settings hidden behind menus but that seems to be the tradeoff for surface simplicity and aesthetics.
That said, every so often there's something I need to do or want to do that's a little bit outside of the default setup. Little things that matter to me nonetheless. Things like keyboard layout, default apps, home screen layout, icon spacing, etc.
On iOS the keyboard thing seems to be solved now with addon keyboards but even those other minor preferences or layout tweaks are often limited or impossible on iOS (unless you manage to jailbreak your device). On Android they're usually just a setting change, app install, or (rarely) an APK install from an independent developer away.
This isn't meant so much as a critique of the Apple way of doing things. I'm well aware that my needs and wants aren't necessarily the norm or in line with the majority. Spending efforts addressing every possible use can cause just as much harm as good in a final product.
That said, once I have multiple options that both "succeed" well, I start to choose based on which one "fails" better (ie: which one makes it easier for me to change or fix the rare thing that doesn't just work the way I want it to).
Frankly a lot of people don't get the hype about having to install custom ROMs to make their phones behave in a tolerable way.
People are always going to find computing on devices they don't normally use to be more difficult than computing on devices they normally use, yet to you this is proof Android is better?
THANK YOU! We are mostly techy folks here, and I don't understand how anyone could say to the average user "just install a ROM and it's a big improvement on the software that ships with it." As correct as that is in my experience, you seriously expect grandma or even just your average non-techie user to even give a shit? My wife can't be bothered to turn wifi on when she gets home because she doesn't even think about it, and you want me to have her unlock her bootloader and flash something? hah. Perspective folks.
I'm a technophile myself albeit one that has spent the better part of a lifetime interacting with non-technical users. Such experience has left me with impression that expecting end-users to do anything I would consider bothersome, or requiring even a modicum of effort, is a no sale proposition. This is true when it comes to actually improving one's experience, to say nothing of achieving a reasonable baseline. If people have to jump through hoops to achieve usability, it seems a fair bet that they won't be a repeat customer.
This is a crux isn't it? Do you want an information appliance that simply works and happens to have pre-approved software choices (albeit a huge number), or a pocket general purpose computing device (with less accessory/software support, but hey you can always install custom software)?
I like a happy medium myself. For whatever it is worth, I've found that despite an appliance-like nature, I can extend iOS with third-party and custom software to my satisfaction. The key point here is that I don't have to resort to such in order to have a good experience as an end-user.
I'd argue that iOS falls between the extremes you've highlighted. It isn't really a general purpose computing platform as evident in the differences between say how multitasking and filesystems are implemented and what they expose to the end-user. On the other hand, the core OS has always supported preemptive multitasking and has always had a real filesystem to boot. The limitations of the presentation are inconveniences to be sure, but still I can slap together an app in Objective-C or Swift and slap it on the phone with ease.
That said I'm sure there are some tasks more easily achieved on traditional systems. That noted, if memory serves this was also the case with the PC/desktop transition. Desktops couldn't do everything big iron could do, but they did enough, it would seem.
Well, given that most Android users don't do that, and that iOS users do their share of custom ROM installation, 'a lot of people' seem to be 'setting up straw men' as opposed to 'getting the hype'.
>People are always going to find computing on devices they don't normally use to be more difficult than computing on devices they normally use, yet to you this is proof Android is better?
I use an iPhone 6S daily at work, so I'm not one of those people and I don't deign to speak for them or anyone else. As far as my experience is concerned, yes, Android is better.
> Well, given that most Android users don't do that, and that iOS users do their share of custom ROM installation ...
I never named any specifics on the matter of platform preferences as regards installation of custom roms.
You seem a bit defensive.
> I use an iPhone 6S daily at work, so I'm not one of those people [who ... find computing on devices they don't normally use to be more difficult than computing on devices they normally use]
You're employing a different and less expansive standard of normal use than I. Using a tool for work is using a tool in only a single context.
Unless you have a lot of time to burn playing around on your phone at work, or develop for the phone you use at work, you're not likely to get to know how to use the device very well outside of the specific tasks entailed in your job duties.
> and I don't deign to speak for them or anyone else.
Reference my comment to r00fus above and note the terminology I used when speaking of my opinions.
"I like a happy medium myself.", "I've found", "I can", "to my satisfaction", "I don't have to"
I made no less than five references to myself in a single paragraph where I rendered an opinion on personal preferences. And even then I didn't resort to suggesting experiences that forged my personal preferences dictates what is best for others.
> As far as my experience is concerned ...
"The plural of data is not anecdote."
> yes, Android is better
This is the kind of generalization I have a hard time with. Android is better for some tasks, and iOS for others. Just as Windows is better for some tasks, and macOS for others, and Linux others still. One should always use the right tool for the job. You won't see me making any sweeping claims about which platforms are better.
Also it's worth noting how many comments' worth of debates there are in this thread over specific processors, phones they come in, and software configurations, when the competitor's answer is "we put out a phone once a year, just get the latest whenever you feel like upgrading and it'll be the fastest one out there".
Agreed. I tried iOS for six months this summer, and I found the overall UX very disappointing compared to modern Android at this point.
Some things are still better - unified music controls, backups, and night shift especially. And the hardware/firmware is undeniably fantastic.
But Apple's emphasis on poor contrast and lack of differentiation within the UI really hurts usability, and there's still a lot of unexpected behaviors, such as links opening with a web page telling me to install an app I already have.
Going to back to only having two real notification modes - noisy or silent - felt like a major step backwards as well.
But worst of all was the lack of consistency between apps. I get that some people think MD on Android leads to apps feeling too similar, but I prefer that. My phone isn't a piece of art, it's a functional communication device. I want my apps to use the same, practical design language that gets to the point and doesn't get in the way by trying to be "different".
I have both a nexus 5 and an iPad. I greatly prefer stock Android. Just yesterday my girlfriend was trying to figure out how to turn her ringer off at night while still being able to hear her alarm. Little tasks like that are trivial on Android but difficult on iOS.
How is it not easy to discover? You flip the switch, the phone buzzes and shows you what happened. It's one of the few buttons on the phone, it's not like it's hard to find. Not to mention contextually it's right next to the volume buttons which is where it should be.
When you do that it has a big crossed out bell, which worries you the alarm isn't going to go. I never sleep well if I have an early flight as I'm never 100% sure I haven't silenced the alarm!
I'm pretty sure it's literally impossible to silence the alarm from the built-in Clock app on iOS. Third party apps are subject to the usual notification settings, though.
I was a windows phone user for a long time currently switched to android.I checked quite few android devices and I think Windows phone has better feel and usability for apps like messages, dialer,recent call list,app list etc.I have never used a nexus device though.how is stock Android's basic apps like messages, dialer etc? Do we need to install apps to get basic features like nice threaded views, message search,recent call list which shows duration or simple call history search(instead of searching entire address book) etc?
No message search in hangouts makes me angry to no end. I had message search on my old Windows Phone and got so used to it I don't ever want to go without it again, especially when my girlfriend and I talk about something and then want to refresh my memory later (We discuss ideas we have, preferences, etc. and I used to be able to search for them again, now I can't).
I find the search capabilities in most messenger apps appalling. I have to remember to copy/paste important things to somewhere else because a week later I cannot find them anymore. Whatsapp seems a good exception.
Just got the moto g4 and for under $250. I have a really good looking color customized phone with stock android, that feels good in the hand, unlocked that I can take to any carrier. That is a killer.
I've had the worst time since switching to the OnePlus 3 and from what I've read the OS on this phone is very close to stock Android.
The only way to have a good experience with email, calendars and contacts is to use Google Apps – which I refuse to migrate to. The stock apps have no support for IMAP IDLE, CardDAV, or CalDAV. You have to resort to 3rd party apps for these and they are without fail either slow, buggy, very unappealing visually, or all three.
Have you tried using third party apps on the iPhone? You can't change the default browser, mail client, maps app, etc. on iOS. At least it's possible to switch the defaults to 3rd party apps on Android.
But it sounds like the core apps on iOS work the way they want them to, whereas the alternatives on Android are all lacking. So being able to change is a nice option, but if you don't use it, doesn't really add much.
> But it sounds like the core apps on iOS work the way they want them to, whereas the alternatives on Android are all lacking.
It doesn't make sense to compare the core apps on iOS to the alternatives on Android. The core apps on Android are just as good as (I would say better than) the core apps on iOS.
This is absolutely true -- I'm on a nexus 5/android 6.
There's no native caldav. I use a paid client called caldav-sync which is mediocre. For a while on android 5/lollipop, you had to install a second app (free from the same author) to prevent settings being wiped during OS upgrades/patches. When I upgraded to android 6 I couldn't figure out why calendars weren't syncing until I discovered caldav-sync decided to sync every 6 hours instead of every 5 minutes. The whole thing feels and works like a hack.
Using the gmail app as an imap client for fastmail is crap, particularly if you access the email account from a desktop. The Gmail app regularly desyncs from the state of your email. It has recently decided to announce old emails as new. If you move/delete an email in fastmail from the web client on your desktop, you have to manually tell gmail to sync or it won't notice, even hours after the fact.
I was hoping for a cheap nexus replacement and was also looking at the OnePlus 3. Dual sims are nice too. That's too bad that you don't like it...
I used Aquamail & Davdroid (paid on Play,free on F-droid) for that combo (before my hosting got ActiveSync, for which I another excellent client app called Nine), was working without issues you write about.
The problem with ActiveSync -- which you may be aware of? -- is it gives the server the rights to remote wipe your phone! Great if you control the server and are really (really really really) sure it will never be hacked...
Nine allows you to specify a variety of security-related options including local passcodes, internal app data encryption, and whether the security policy (remote wipe capability) is applied at the application level or at the device level.
I believe many of the other third-party Exchange-connecting apps have the same type of options.
Actually, when I was doing my research, Nine was the only app that allowed you to limit the Exchange policies to app-only level, not device-wide. That's the reason why I ended up using it.
TouchDown, one of the oldest (which does not automatically imply best) should also allow this, though their description isn't quite as clear: "Corporate Data Separation: TouchDown keeps your corporate data separate from your personal data. Without TouchDown, your employer can actually flatten your phone to factory defaults. With TouchDown, they can only remove corporate data belonging to them, leaving behind your personal information."
I might have skipped TouchDown at the time, because 1) it does not integrate with the native calendar and contacts (or at least the screenshots imply that it is a built-in functionality), 2) it looks like from Gingerbread era, 3) has separate versions for phone and tablet.
I had similar problems to those described above and aquamail did alleviate it but at the cost of major battery life. I ended up going back to Gmail since that worked so much better.
I was very surprised to see Android lacking support for CalDav out-of-the-box. Seemed like an obvious feature for a calendar app, yet no provider. So while it might not be much; there are CardDav/CalDav-adapters on f-droid.org, they are free software and work very good in my experience. It integrates so it allows you to use the stock calendar app.
In the end, though, I think the idea with phones like these is that they work "best" if you use the services that the manufacturer supplies, be it Apple or Google. If you use Gmail, Google Drive, Google everything, it's got a lot to offer.
it is quite close to stock android and i think it is quite unfortunate that it is not actually stock android. your critique, while somewhat valid, is not of the oneplus3 but of google's applications.
Try getting an IMAP PUSH on iOS or staying logged in to XMPP or SSH all day and you'll take that back pretty damn quick. How about not wanting to use their phone app and use SIP instead?
These are things I find necessary for day-to-day stuff, but which are simply impossible on iOS. If you want good 3rd party integration, Android is your only option in many cases. You just have to find the good apps.
I guess I should have know. It's just that out of the two I would have expected Apple to be the one forcing you into their ecosystem, yet on iOS I had no trouble having a great experience in respect to email, contacts and calendars without signing into iCloud.
They're both all about forcing you into their ecosystem. The difference is that Apple's business is (mostly) about their hardware ecosystem, while Google's is (mostly) about their online services ecosystem.
This is part of the problem though. Everyone's experience is different. You are on stock, not everyone is. Android market is fragmented whereas with Apple you and your Mom and neighbor are all on the same iOS. Its not hype its real. You showing off your stock android running smooth as butter doesn't help convince someone running a phone preloaded with bloatware and a different UI.
I don't know what the right answer is but Apple has one phone and one OS, android has many phones and many looks to their OS. This could be part of why there will never be an iPhone killer aside from Apple themselves.
The results would be closer on pretty much any other test, but it's hard to do an apples to apples comparison on anything other than talk time. Most review sites still find that this generation of Android flagships have longer web browsing times than the iPhone 7.
Unlike the other dimensions, the difference between ridiculously thin and absurdly thin isn't terribly user-visible, especially given that many people will increase the thickness of their phones by more than that simply through their choice of protective case.
Does not matter, original point was that you should compare apples to apples, and comparing HTC 10 to iPhone 7 plus seems more fair than to iPhone 7 due to their dimensions.
Looks like Apple is middle of the pack among premium phones these days. My experience was with NEXUS 4 and 5, which would often be out of juice when I needed them.
FWIW: I think it's pretty sad that almost all of these phones are certainly collecting this data (even if only in internal dogfood populations, etc), but then the stats we get are based on random things like "talk time" or ...
I wonder if anyone started a public app project that auto-tracks and uploads battery stats that folks can participate in.
> Not sure I agree with this. I've been on android for a while, so I'm sure I'm biased, but stock AOSP Android is pretty much perfect for me. Very minimal and aesthetically beautiful, but still powerful and customizable.
This is the go-to line for every Android fan. How many devices out there run stock Android? Is it possible to buy a device with stock Android? How much comp-sci experience are you going to need to make your device run stock Android?
What difference does it make how good the OS is if Google gives it's OEM's free license to ruin it?
I use the Nexus, which runs stock android by default. This new pixel phone will probably also do so, being a direct (ish) google phone. I think its because if the cruft 3rd party OEMs have been adding that google has been making these phones.
So, yes, you can buy a device with stock android. It just has to be a google phone, not a 3rd party for the most part.
Except now, two issues:
1) More a quibble, but I'd say that people around here pushing AOSP makes the term "stock Android" a bit less clear.
2) Article claims the new Pixels will have some other variant of Android, based on current stock Nougat but with additional support baked in for things like their new VR headset and Google Assistant.
Which strengthens FuzzyZeus' point: determining which version of Android a given phone comes with (and which it can support, both now and in the future) is an extremely muddled game, with the OEMs and now Google itself not doing anyone any favors.
Unless google has changed paths recently, I'd imagine that the additional support is just hardware+apps. I don't think they modified the OS in any way exclusive to the Pixel. The same OS software will likely be available to any other OEM shipping that version of nougat.
You can choose any android you want, even if its not a Nexus/Pixel.
It just might not be as good, because its not controlled by google. But, I do think that argument died a long a time ago because of the cruft OEM's have been adding to android and the common refusal to upgrade phones (though that has been getting better lately).
Other than Nexus/Pixel phones there are plenty of manufacturers that use flavours of Android that are very similar to stock. It's unfortunate that for many people the go-to alternative to the iPhone are Galaxy phones which only helps to tarnish the experience and overall impression most people have for Android.
I have second gen Nexus 7 tablet and Sony Z2. One is stock, one isn't, but both are pretty much the same. Great and unobtrusive. Love both devices. Manufacturer that keeps it cool on crapware can go a long way these days.
You probably haven't used a Google branded Android phone in the last 3-4 years.
Project Fi + Nexus 5X + Stock Android is as good as it gets in integration and UX. The other day I lost my phone so I typed "where is my phone" into google. It showed me immediately. How many passwords do you have to type and licences to accept to do that on your Apple cloud?
I agree the article doesn't explain it very well, but the bottom line is google is now controlling hardware, software, network and full online life (search, gmail, google play, calendar, map, etc) and they have the capacity to integrate it all.
I recognize people are happy with their iPhones and they won't switch because of switching cost or fashion, but Google is creating some word class product here nonetheless.
>How many passwords do you have to type and licences to accept to do that on your Apple cloud?
No out-of-the-ordinary licenses, I just have to use the find-my app on iOS or my password + the iCloud.com website to locate any of my missing devices (including laptops), and make them play a sound. Apple's internet services are often behind, but I don't think this is a good example here - it just works, the UX is very discover-ably named "find my x", and it's reasonable to require a password for this.
I think we need real competition as consumers. I know I don't want to see Apple's approach of the phone being the product and privacy as a feature being "killed". But I don't think they're in any danger yet.
> How many passwords do you have to type and licences to accept to do that on your Apple cloud?
I made the switch to Nexus last year for work, but my wife is still a devoted iPhone user and recently upgraded to the 7. As I was setting it up for her I was shocked at how poor the UX was and the number of times the iPhone asked for a password (in some cases asking for the same password multiple times). Just a week earlier I had set-up a new Android device and I entered my Google login details once and that was it. The contrast was jarring.
"Project Fi + Nexus 5X + Stock Android is as good as it gets in integration and UX."
This would be so great if the nexus was an all-purpose, general use phone. Lack of storage expansion (sd card) makes this, in my opinion, not the case.
>The other day I lost my phone so I typed "where is my phone" into google. It showed me immediately. How many passwords do you have to type and licences to accept to do that on your Apple cloud?
You'll miss the passwords the day your wife turns the home computer on, googles that and finds out you're in some other woman's house. All without passwords or licences. ;P
Given that we all know headlines are made for clicking, I think it's pretty clear why this time is very different vs the previous 10 years: "He notes that the company is now managing inventory, building relationships with carriers, sourcing components, making supply chain deals and managing distribution. Google is even making accessories, including cases and cables." This article isn't about the technical approach, it's more about the business/go to market approach.
That's _very_ different to how Google went to market prior. Is this going to materially impact the iPhone? I don't know. But it is different enough that it warrants some sort of "This is a new approach by Google to taking on the iPhone" headline.
It's different, but it doesn't mean it's an iPhone killer.
MS started making their own hardware and it certainly helped push the market but the Sufarce never turned into the 'iPad killer' that tons of sites decided to declare it.
It's a new Android phone, Google was heavily involved (more than the Nexus line). That's it. That's not bad, but it doesn't automatically make something an X killer.
Wasn't saying it was an iPhone killer. Actually specifically said I have no idea. More addressing OP's questioning that there was anything of real import in the article.
> MS started making their own hardware and it certainly helped push the market but the Sufarce never turned into the 'iPad killer' that tons of sites decided to declare it.
The Surface is basically a superior option to the iPad Pro, which all accounts give inferior sales to.
Besides "using iOS apps" what exactly is the iPad's use case? Certainly the Surface line as a whole has seen a really big uptake from the art community. So while the pen specs are slightly better on the iPad side it doesn't seem to influence consumer behavior.
I'm a grad student. I have a workstation in my office. But at home, it's perfect for reading research papers thanks to the high resolution display, the fact that I can disconnect the keyboard, and the included pen which I can use to annotate.
Yes, the iPad can do all that, but I can reconnect the keyboard, and continue using Matlab, or log in remotely to my office machine and continue my office work, or edit spreadsheets/PPTs/thesis in full MS Office. And it's light enough that I can throw it in my backpack "just in case" I need it. Honestly, the being able to disconnect the keyboard thingy seems gimmicky before you get used to it. After you do, it's a godsend.
I have one collecting dust. My partner was going to use it for digital illustration but ended up hijacking my S4 and I use a SB now.
They're really quite nice. Not sure why people are predisposted to hate them. Certainly it can't be the usual privacy concerns: the iPad Pro is more instrumented than any install of Win10 could ever dream of getting away with.
There's a hell of a lot more "windows apps that weren't designed for a tablet" - 20+ years' worth - than there are "iOS apps". And not just apps but also a lot of hardware peripherals. I play '90s games at lan parties (which aren't really substitutable - iOS might have strategy games, but it won't have Supreme Commander and that's what my friends are playing). I run eclipse (is there any kind of Java IDE on iOS?). I run the vocaloid software (which iOS doesn't have, though it might have other music synthesis software), and the fan-made 3d modelling software that people use to animate the characters (which definitely won't exist for iOS); I render and encode the resulting video. If a program hasn't got a windows release I can compile it on the surface itself and run it there (can iOS do that?). If I want to run a program for a different platform I can run an emulator on the surface (which the iOS app store disallowed last I knew).
How many non-crossplatform apps does iOS have? How many of those don't have acceptable substitutes for at least most use cases?
It's an excellent development environment for everyone but iOS and macOS developers. It's got a great set of digital illustration tools with a lot more time put into development than the newer iOS equivalents. It's is a full windows box, which gives it impressive range. It has better linux binary support than MacOSX (unfair, that has none).
There are a lot of windows apps that are designed and work really well on the tablet. It's not like Apple holds a monopoly here.
Well every other manufacturer has looked to Google (largely) for the sw and built the hw. It's this bundling together of the two that's being presented as unique and is different to every other Android manufacturer.
But that's hypothetical. I'm not seeing any features that Google is uniquely placed to offer. And it's not like Android is so antithetical to third party modifications.
To be fair, the article links to the review of the camera by DXOMark [1], who rate it very highly. In my opinion, they're the most reliable reviewers of cameras out there so if they say its the best phone camera, then it is.
Yes, though interestingly DXOMark seems not have reviewed the iPhone 7 Plus yet. Perhaps they're waiting for Portrait mode to be publicly released? Regardless, Google is on slightly shaky ground to claim that they have the best smartphone camera when a top contender hasn't been reviewed yet.
This number is used by most Android flagships when they launched. Surprised Google put it into their video ads, as it sure will not be the best when other flagship Nougat phones are launched.
Every Android phone is an iPhone killer. Android owns ~80% of the market, to iPhone's ~18% [1]. Having many price points turns out to matter a lot; but, I think even people who are not price sensitive often prefer Android (I certainly do). I've loved every Nexus device I've owned...the pure Android experience is hard to beat, IMHO.
I've been a long-time Apple and iOS user. However, I can recognize that this is a big move by Google.
> For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go...
The headlines says Google's first "real threat" to iPhone, not that this is an iPhone "killer". Let's not be hyperbolic.
You don't need a lot of detail other than the fact that Google is designing, building and selling smartphones (and increasingly other devices) to recognize as legitimate the claim that this is merely a threat to iPhone.
> Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
This seems biased. Everyone has their own tastes, but Google's software and UX have become pretty top notch across many of their product lines, imo. It's fine to state your personal preference or dislike of their design ethos but painting with such a broad and unequivocal brush is silly. This is not a universally shared sentiment.
> And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true.
Again, you seem to be creating a strawman in taking about an "iPhone killer" claim. Certainly this represents some kind of threat. Other threats to Apple's iPhone have sprung up in the past, and some to great success. Google's new foray may or may not be successful in its own right over time and it may or may not impact the iPhone's success, but I bet Apple themselves view it as a competitive threat to monitor.
> Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.
The tl;dr is that Google created a major new hw division that spans multiple devices including new smartphone lines and Google directly will carry the supply chain and inventory risk on their balance sheet. This is a major, major move financially and strategically and it's all that's necessary to back up the actual headline claim. On top of that, they provided some specifics on the phone offerings (eg two sizes, first phone to offer Android N, first phone with built in Google Assistant, the Pixel's design was unveiled (certainly a large part of Apple's phone unveilings, so why not count it for Google's?) including backside glass, lots of camera details (12MP, DXO Mark ratings, auto-stabilization for vid), free unlimited cloud storage, the fingerprint scanner+track pad, Daydream VR support, etc, etc).
Not sure how you came away with such a stark view of the articles headline vs content.
Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front - I disagree. Material ui is an order better then iOS or metro ux. Coming from Android iOS on my iPad felt like a dated os in terms of ui and ux was not that good as well.
Have never had an iPhone but I've exclusively used phones that have the stock Android experience (Moto G, Nexus 6). And to me nothing that Google has shown today is at a all threat to Apple (or Samsung for that matter).
The only interesting thing in the whole presentation was the talk about AI which isn't really even anything that has to do with the hardware but the servers that it connects to.
Maybe if they released a 4" phone or a standalone smartwatch they'd have something special. But two generic phones? Meh.
Ya know, I don't know why I can't remember that. She writes an article with a working title "First Preview of Google Pixel Phone", subtitled "Light on Details, but Here's What We Know" and we end up with this instead.
I've had a iPhone for three years and have been a MacBook owner for over ten years. I can't remember thr last time I used iTunes. It's just an app which some people use. It's hardly pivotal...
I don't think this is true at all. I haven't touched iTunes in a long time. With direct iCloud syncing and direct phone updates, you never have to go into iTunes for just about anything.
google has never sold a phone directly. The pixel is the first one. Second no one know how much income google generates from Android or Android related services.
This Pixel is really no different from the previous Neuxs phones, except that they're not emphasizing the manufacturer as much. The hardware is made by HTC, and Nexus phones were also sold directly through Google.
not when you can control 85% of the market and just want your software in front as many people as possible so you can sell them ads. Do you really think google cares that much about making profit on smartphone hardware?
To drive consumer demand in a direction that favors their software and online services, even if its other manufacturers (and, especially, other Android manufacturers) actually selling most of the hardware in the long run.
Not that they'd mind if their hardware took off, its just not the primary goal.
"Percentage of industry profit" is a stupid metric. "Percentage of industry revenue" is an interesting one. But if Google sells phones at a loss, and they eat into Apple's sales, it is not a good thing for Apple.
If they fail at doing it, then you'll be able to tell by market share or percentage of industry revenue. But profit share as a metric would have it that even if Google succeeds and lowers Apple's market share and revenue, but in doing so causes itself serious losses, that's somehow good for Apple.
Which is stupid, and particularly so in the case of the competing platforms market of this, where even if a strategy ends up being long-term bad for Google, if it lures people into Android and away from iPhone, there are barriers to switching back, and Google's hypothetical loss is more likely to be Samsung's gain than Apple's.
But this is all by design. The profit-share metric -- a metric that you never, ever, ever heard about before iPhone became a highly profitable phone with a low market share -- is a vanity metric that's made precisely to make a low market share/high profitability phone look good. The flaws of the metric are baked into it.
Apple's profits are amazing for them. Their market-share is not great, and their percentage of industry revenue is not great. Trying to hide the latter fact by using one metric to report both of those things is stupid.
Having money means you can continue to keep up with the investments in technology needed to stay relevant in the mobile phone business.
And the reason people keep bringing up the profit share metric is because companies like HTC, Sony, LG were running at losses for so many years that it put in jeopardy their continued presence in the mobile phone market. And nobody wants to buy a phone that isn't supported in a year or two.
Nobody is denying that Apple is making money. "Profit" is a great metric. Profit share is a terrible one. Because how much money Apple makes is precisely the point, and whether a competitor has wide margins, narrow ones, or negative ones does not affect how much money Apple makes, but it does affect their profit-share.
Huawei and Apple have roughly equal marketshare. If "nobody wants" to buy a phone from an unprofitable manufacturer, how come that's true?
I'll just assume you don't live on planet earth in 2016 where iPhone is the top sold model of high-end smartphone basically since it's introduction (because yes the article refer specifically to phones over $400)
I actually prefer modern Samsung variants of Android over Google (aside from the not-updating quickly thing). I really prefer S Planner over Google Calendar, and the Samsung Keyboard is superior to the Google Keyboard too (Samsung's runs much faster).
Samsung has hardware buttons which are extremely useful. They find the way to squeeze them on the bezel which other phones still have and they don't waste space on the screen. S Planner is good but I can't compare it to Google Calendar which I never used. Same for the keyboard. What I can say is that Samsung keyboard wins against SwiftKey and ties against Swype.
I've been a happy iPhone user for a long time and of all the things all these so called iPhone killers have demonstrated none of them have ever touched on the one thing that would make me switch.
1 TB of storage. I run out of space on my phone all the time and would love nothing more than unlimited (or close to it) storage on the device.
I honestly could care less about VR or home assistant.
Yep, this doesn't meaningfully change the equation, except for making the Nexus-quality phones even more expensive.
If you liked Android before, this will look great to you (though very expensive). If you didn't like it so much before, nothing has really changed with this specific device to change your mind.
I'm not sure what about the iPhone needs to be killed? As far as I know it's not got the majority market share? If they're talking about the ecosystem where iPhone is definitely making a killing, then they need to work on their software more than their hardware.
It's the single best selling phone, but that's in part because Samsung has 12 options that compete with it so naturally no individual model has the same numbers.
>Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
I can tell you haven't really used any Google products in some time or if ever. And that bit about Microsoft and UX design - I couldn't tell if you were joking or not. You may want to add emoticons next time to make it more clear.
I have been running my Nexus 5 into the ground (soldered on a new power button when the original broke) in anticipation of the next Nexus phone. Pixel is no Nexus.
Seriously, what does this have that the year-old Nexus 6P and 5X don't, other than incremental hardware improvements? And a massive price hike? Why should I buy this?
(Seriously, Google? You want $650 for a phone with a 1080p screen? I know there's benefits to a lower resolution but then why not drop the price? It's ridiculous.)
My perception is that Google no longer knows what it's doing. Reference Allo for an even better example. The company can coast on their existing products but only for so long.
> what does this have that the year-old Nexus 6P and 5X don't, other than incremental hardware improvements?
As someone who owns a 5X:
- The Pixel is a premium 5" phone, not a budget one. It has a flagship SoC rather than a mid-tier SoC.
- The camera is better and more responsive (the camera on the N5X is slow and annoying).
- The body isn't plastic, which means there will be less issues with heat and CPU throttling than on the N5X.
- I can finally get a phone with a reasonable amount of storage and no bloat. The 5X only went up to 32GB and had no expansion. Alternatives from Samsung etc. are mostly carrier locked, unrootable and stuffed with OEM overlays.
- There's no camera bump, so it can sit on flat surfaces less awkwardly.
- They actually mentioned this phone during the announcement, unlike the 5X last year. They might actually pay it some attention in the future.
As always the most compelling thing about the phone is Google's support - fast releases and minimal carrier bloat. You have a nice list of positives and I'm not disputing them.
But the feature list for what is now Googles top phone is underwhelming. 4 GB of RAM is barely adequate - it should be 6 GB like the other Snapdragon 821 flagship. No water proofing? That's the new black. Bottom-facing speakers? Complete regression from the Nexus 6. Including a smoking camera but no optical image stabilization? Make up your mind - is it a digital camera competitor or not?
And frankly since there's no waterproofing there's no excuse for a fixed battery and no sd-card slot. Even some waterproof phones offer those features now. Google needs to blow Apple away with features rather than aping the latest iphone.
I'm not disagreeing with you but what makes you say this? I've never owned a phone with more than 2GB of RAM and I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.
> no optical image stabilization
I trust a software company like Google with EIS, particularly given their work with HDR+. I owned an iPhone 7 for about a week and loved the stabilisation Google's app did on my Motion Stills.
> Google needs to blow Apple away with features rather than aping the latest iphone.
The impression I got from the announcement is that that's what they see their assistant being. Personally that doesn't win me over at all but we'll see how it goes. I could see my mother and her friends all wanting the phone that can talk to them (and it looks more impressive than Siri).
> I've never owned a phone with more than 2GB of RAM and I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.
It's Linux under the hood which will always make use of more memory, but our phones are slowly migrating towards service platforms. When my phone is fully kitted out playing Ingress with friends I'm running Slack, Glympse, Zello, team-specific app(s), Ingress and maps. I want the device snappily switching between and/or giving cycles to all those apps as needed without being forced to save state off to my flash storage which is a wasting asset.
I would imagine VR apps will be even more hungry with the large and complex objects and interactions modeled and displayed.
On EIS yup if that replaces OIS I'm fine with it. The assistant may be really cool but it won't remain a google-exclusive for long and it doesn't justify a (in my mind) $200-$300 premium for the phone.
I'll probably pick up the pixel XL when the sales start but as someone who has been an Android acolyte since my developer's edition G1 came in the mail this is not a compelling upgrade for me from the Nexus 6, particularly at this price.
>> I've never owned a phone with more than 2GB of RAM and I'm not sure what I'm missing out on.
> It's Linux under the hood which will always make use of more memory,
Linux won't really be the beneficiary of all the extra RAM in this case. The motivation behind the extra RAM is Java.
It is well known (i.e. researched) that garbage collection system performance is heavily dependent on free RAM. You typically want around 4x the amount of your peak memory usage to keep the garbage collector speed reasonable. The more free RAM, the better the performance.
But having 4x has been a real challenge for mobile and Android over the years, especially as people want to do more and more with the phones. It also didn't help that Dalvik and ART are new ground-up implementations of the Java VM which means a lot of optimizations for garbage collection needed to be reimplemented from scratch.
The lack of needing to support a garbage collector is a big reason Apple can get away with shipping far less RAM in their phones which in turn helps keep their profit margins high.
> Including a smoking camera but no optical image stabilization? Make up your mind - is it a digital camera competitor or not?
Why does it need OIS if its EIS produces a stabilized image better than anyone else's image stabilization?
The feature is image stabilization - whether or not it's done optically or electronically is irrelevant, all that matters is how good the end product is. And DXO's review claims that the image stabilization in Pixel is superb.
Your link only talks about video stabilisation, it doesn't appear to even try and examine still image stabilisation and if it is superior to OIS as you claim.
Do you have a link that supports the claims made above? That one simply does not.
> it doesn't appear to even try and examine still image stabilisation and if it is superior to OIS as you claim.
Yes it does, but it'd be under "blurry photos" description rather than stabilization because stabilization is more inherently a video issue than a photo one.
In the case of OIS and photos you want to look at the low-light performance, which DXO did test and the Pixel did do very well on.
But DXOMARK! The camera metric we've been relying on to buy our phones! Its the highest score ever! Think about how relevant the incrementally better lens will be. Wait till your friends read the EXIF data on your Facebook and FOMO at the mouth. "I saw the DXOMark for that lens" immediately escalating your life from the mundane to the exciting.
Innovations in photon capturing technology like light field be damned. This is the best.camera.ever.
>The Pixel is a premium 5" phone, not a budget one.
what makes it premium other than the fact that they're charging lots of money for it? i can't find a real differentiator over something like the oneplus 3, which costs half as much.
i agree with you that it's better than the 5X, but comparing it to this year's competition, it doesn't look so good.
More memory, faster CPU, better GPU, and most important to me - best camera on the market.
The Oneplus 3 is four times the size, the firmware running on it tends to be buggy, and the battery life is nothing close to the same.
I get it - if you're on a budget you can probably do better with the Oneplus 3. But there are a MILLION options in the budget space. Pixel is about showcasing a high end Android phone WITHOUT all the bloat that Samsung adds. I can just about guarantee if Samsung would relent and just run stock android, Google would end the nexus/Pixel program overnight.
The phone vendor always sets the frequency the snapdragon processors run at - some vendors choose to run their processors at higher clock speeds than others because they have better cooling, some get a better binning, but it's the same processor.
yeah, i understand that it's better than the $300 nexus 5X that's a year old. that goes without saying.
but since the Nexus 5X was released, there's been a bunch of metal bodied phones with the SD820 released that only cost $399 - the oneplus 3, zte axon, honor 5x, xaoimi mi5... and there's nothing to differentiate the pixel from those phones, other than a 40% higher price.
If I'm in the market for a premium phone (and I am) then I either go with Apple which is known to deliver quality (I can buy a products without prior research because they are rarely bad) or I go with something innovative that is high quality.
The Samsung Note 7 comes to mind with its phenomenal build (except for the explosions), display and some unusual features like a stylus and microSD slot.
But what does the Pixel offer here for a premium price in comparison?
The CPU is premium but weaker than current iPhone processors. Nexus cameras have always been crap even though Google always claimed that with the new generation and some revolutionary changes they have finally "fixed" it. And they always drop support rather quickly, although they always claim otherwise when they launch a new product.
The Nexus devices were at least cheap and so I could overlook this stuff, but I'm not going to spend that kind of money on a device that will probably be a Nexus device with a metal case.
There's a Note 7 and an iPhone 7 that isn't brick size, just as there's a Pixel XL that is brick sized.
These options exist because many people do prefer larger smartphones. In fact this is the first year where there's higher demand for the iPhone 7 Plus than there is for the iPhone 7.
Nexus 6P and 5X have the same camera, and it's one of the best smartphone cameras out there.
DxO rated them 84, while iPhone 7's is 86. While Pixel's is ranked 89, it's not that far ahead. And 5X is a really cheap phone, I routinely see deals under $200.
I'm pretty sure this was supposed to be a Nexus phone, everything points to a change of strategy late in the development. They claim that it's designed and developed by Google, but everyone that has been paying attention to the leaks knows it's made by HTC, and it shows. It looks nothing like the other Pixel devices, but it look's exactly like a Nexus phone by HTC. The Pixel launcher was named the Nexus launcher until recently. Next year's Pixel phone will probably be much closer to Google's own vision, if they make one. This years model have a premium price tag and might have good build quality and an expensive SoC, but otherwise it's underwhelming, especially at that price point. I prefer Android over iOS, but I don't think the Pixel can even match the iPhone 7 hardware for a lot of key specs, like CPU/GPU performance, camera, battery life, etc. The Pixel XL 128 GB costs over €1000 and they still only promise software updates for two years, that's inexcusable.
This reminds me of the Pixel C that allegedly was supposed to run Chrome OS until a change late in the development, and the Nexus 6 that allegedly was supposed to be an Android Silver device by Motorola until the Android Silver program was scrapped late in the development process. Will Google follow through on any hardware project from start to finish without interference from above?
I'm not saying that Google didn't have any input, I'm sure they do the exterior design to some degree and choose which components are in the phones. And while they're not exactly identical, the 6P does have some similarities with the Huawei P8, like the black band on the back. Not as many as the Pixel have with the HTC 10 though.
I can't compare without trying the others out but the camera on a Nexus 6P is amazing. I am not sure how big a difference would the camera be on the Pixel over the 6P.
VR headsets greatly benefit from a higher resolution. Even the 2K display on the late model Samsung phones produce low resolution when paired with a Gear VR. Supposedly this won't be resolved until 8k or even 16k mobile displays.
Its not an $80 VR headset. The thing that goes around your head is $80, but the expensive part is that phone which you put in the front, which needs a 1440p display (minimum) to avoid the screen-door effect.
If we reject the $80 VR thing lets make it $880 or so, including the cost of a phone. That's still a lot less than the ~$3000 it costs to get a legitimate VR headset plus a gaming PC. Add onto that the fact that virtually everyone is going to own a smartphone anyway, and you can basically eliminate the cost of the phone in there. It's definitely value VR.
Agreed, the only other item that reaches the phone VR price point is Sony's Playstation VR (PSVR).
Oculus Rift OC1 and HTC vive is still targeted to developers and high end PC users. The price point is still too high for general consumers when the PC cost is factored in.
Mobile has to lead the way, which Samsung and Oculus did very successfuly with GearVR.
Cardboard was seen as a gimmick and now it has graduated to become a daydream.
You still notice it. One of the reasons I moved from a 1080p to 1440p phone (~440ppi to ~560ppi) was how on the new one I actually can't see the pixelation, which I could in the other one. I imagine there are very few gains at 5 inches from going past 1440p though, except for VR. Larger sizes will probably still benefit from an even higher resolution though.
>You want $650 for a phone with a 1080p screen? I know there's benefits to a lower resolution but then why not drop the price? It's ridiculous.
Are you serious? Did you know that the larger iPhone 6S Plus and 7 Plus are 1920x1080? Or that the iPhone 7 is 1334 x 750? And you're complaining that Google's 5 inch phone is only 1920x1080 and have the nerve to question what they're doing? Ridiculous, indeed.
I think it is just me but I find this 'book me a concert and fancy dinner' schtick rather boring. May be well off people are so busy and book these things so often that these virtual assistant really save time if price is of no concern to them.
* Quick conversions "How many Tablespoons are in a Cup"
* Setting Reminders "Remind me at 9:30am today to pay my rent"
* Setting Timers "Set a time for 10 minutes"
Anything else and I can normally do it faster. That's not to say Siri couldn't beat me at doing something but that I have to repeat myself or I get the dreaded "I search the web and found this..." Not only are the results normally shit but it's Bing.... Need I say more? Timers, conversions, and reminders are the only thing she can consistently beat me on. Also I RARELY use her in public as it's distracting/annoying to the people around me. Reminders in the only thing I will use in public and only if I need to enter it in fast. If I have the time I'll manually enter it.
That is quite honestly the exact three reasons I use Siri. I do, however, open Google fairly often to search for complicated answers. The Google voice dictation engine is so incredibly accurate.
See, 9 times out of 10 when I try this I end up getting a generic Google search result page back. It's gotten to the point where I rarely even use Google Now beyond the items parent mentioned above. Google Now is awful at conversing (unlike Siri, Echo or Cortana) by which I mean if I don't use exact syntax the other services seem more forgiving whereas Google gives me a search result page. What the hell am I ever going to do with that? Has anyone ever used voice dictation then actually wanted to see a search results page? At least anecdotally everyone I have asked about this said if they get search results back they just immediately close it sometimes even to open up a web browser and re-search for it!
Hmm my comment is getting downvoted but I don't understand why. Do people have a difference experience with Google Now than I do? Seemed fairly common to people I knew. I'd love to hear some feedback. For instance I've even had it open up a search page when I asked for the weather for a certain area; if the syntax isn't really really close you just get search and that's it.
Even when price is no concern to me, I am pretty picky about the exact arrangements. Which seats at the concert? Which restaurant, what reservation time? Which airline and seat on the plane (for the also common travel example)? Etc. Yeah, I'm busy, and I book this kind of stuff all the time. But I don't trust an automated system to arrange things the way I like them. With a human assistant, they quickly learn my preferences and style, and can make informed guesses (or ping me for a preference if they need to). Automating this isn't attractive to me.
I'm less worried about the creepy factor, and more about the nuance that I think would be hard to encapsulate in a user profile. There are a lot of complex factors that go into a decision. It can't be boiled down to "I always want to fly United, and I must have an aisle seat." Or "Italian is my favorite kind of food." There are a ton of other factors that go into the decisions, and those factors may change day to day. One day I might choose a different airline than usual because they have a nonstop flight. The next day, I might decide to stick with my primary airline despite two connections because I need the miles. When I choose restaurants, I often like to skim the yelp reviews -- not choosing solely on star rating or cuisine, but on the comments. I don't know how a virtual assistant could navigate this kind of stuff, even with tons of data about me.
This is why I still see it as a novelty. In time this will most likely change. Currently, my issues with it all boil down to trust and efficiency. Let's use two simple examples. Uber and movie ticket booking.
Let's say I wish to book an Uber. Usually, I open pop open the app and hit the request button. Doesn't take long at all. I get visual confirmation through the map and the little lollipop Uber driver photo. It's fast and I have the feedback to know that what I set out to do has been done. What if I had used the assistant? Well, now I have to waste a lot of time chatting to it. Sometimes it reads my address wrong or it doesn't understand Australian. So after a few mishaps, I finally get told that it's on the way. Okay. Then the twitching starts. The need to check that it was actually entered properly kicks in. So I open up the app to check the lollipop heating-seeking Uber driver is on target. I end up at the same place I attempted to avoid. Yet this avoidance was less efficient. I didn't receive enough feedback so I was unable to trust.
The second example is ordering a movie ticket to go see Batman 27 with my wife. I ask the assistant awkwardly to book for me and give it a time. It tells me that it's all good and dandy. The trust issues then kick in. So I go head off to my e-mail to triple check my confirmation. I wasn't active during the booking process, so the feedback is all I have to work with. It's date night too, so I can't waste it or I'll be sleeping on the couch. I've just wasted time.
Then it occurs to you that by bypassing their system, you may have possibly missed some little announcement or some benefit that is only visible to you during the booking process. For example, doing it manually may show me that there's a time slot that has more ticket availability than the one we were originally headed to. This means an emptier cinema so that I don't get weird looks when she starts telling me about her day mid-movie. The assistant wouldn't have told me that. The assistant also can't toggle around the tick boxes and drop boxes that would have told me I would have been able to do a 2-for-1 deal if we had gone an hour later.
Being there during the actual process isn't always a bad thing. Abstracting away these manual processes would be fine if all processes were identical. They're not though. You're losing too much control and being provided with too little feedback. Now, I can very much see the benefit of the assistant while driving. It makes sense there. You're usually unable to hold the device and that form of interaction is a best fit.
I don't think it's ready yet. I can do everything faster manually. It doesn't add anything at the moment, it just subtracts.
It's the same reason I have no use for Cortana on Windows 10 or Siri. Why would I talk to the computer when it's considerably more efficient to just start typing.
Does anybody actually use these virtual assistants? They seem like the bluetooth dongle of the mid-2000s - friends wouldn't let friends use them. Is it just for people who drive? Or will there be a tipping point when it won't seem so arrogant barking commands on the subway or in a quiet office?
This is exactly the kind of exasperating dialogue I've had with underwhelming organic assistants too. It is not a problem confined to machines. Ergo, the next step in virtual personal assistants is learning your preferences and being able to apply them. It's not hard to imagine the following exchange:
"Alexa, book me a flight to Sydney for Wednesday"
Alexa knows that I'm in Melbourne, that I always fly economy class on flights under three hours, have a strong preference for Oneworld airlines, fly direct whenever possible, and like to fly in the mornings except between 8am or 10am on weekdays.
"I found three flights on Wednesday that match your preferences. On your kitchen screen now. Which one shall I book?"
The next development after that would be intermodal transport scheduling and calendar awareness: "Alexa, book me travel for the Sydney board meeting". "Here's an itinerary that matches your diary and preferences."
That would be lovely, but there's no way that's the next step. The next step is "I booked a flight with our GreatDeal™ Partner [and you're paying more than if you had used a discount booking site]"
Agreed, i don't want it to do any of that. With that said, there are plenty of things i'd love to be able to use it for. Texting _(via Telegram.. app support, not just SMS!)_, remind/alarm, and information are my main ones.
Currently, i only use it for alarms. I'd love if Assistants became good enough to conversationally text someone.
Ditto, the Echo is worth it alone for this. "Echo, what time is it" "Echo, set an alarm for [+8 hours]". And when I'm about to sleep and I realize I've forgotten the alarm, I don't have to turn on a glaring blue screen.
I had a similar use for my 5X the other night. I was laid in bed and remembered a task I needed to do the next day but would likely forget by morning (terrible memory). An "OK Google" followed by "Remind me to do x tomorrow" and a reminder was set without me so much as opening my eyes. Battery capacity sucks after a year though (perhaps due to the way I charge it)
"Text my wife <message>", "Call my wife", "Play <band> on Spotify", "Open Waze" (after playing music on Spotify, Waze is no longer on the screen so I can switch back to it).
The reservations stuff? No way, I want to choose my seats and price point.
The usual sporadic usage of Google now with voice controls, for me, comes from playing music and setting up alarms/reminders. I like waking up in the morning and going "Ok Google, play some music". If I had a more integrated system (right now I just have a Pixel C tablet that I use to listen to music, not the best) with Google Home and the appropriate stuff then I would probably use it more. I also get especially frustrated when I have to repeat my "Ok Google" trigger like 5-6 times before it catches on but I think that might be due to the poor reception + distance of my tablet which is a bit sloppy.
The only thing I ever use them for is to set an alarm to wake me up the next morning. Even then, the semantics of the built in alarms make it needlessly painful. They stick around in an inactive state after going off and there's a maximum number, and the virtual assistants all just give up when they hit the maximum.
That, and seeing what in says in response to personal questions, insults, jokes, etc.
Supposedly it's open for integration with mobile apps, so you could say 'Order ahead my usual at Philz', and it would ask you back, 'Order a large tesora for pickup at Philz Coffee in Santa Clara in 15 minutes?', to which you say 'yes'. Theoretically, anyways.
The way I see Google assistant is that it's a combination of many apps (or maybe interface to many). Now I can have Google Assistant Icon on my homescreen and use it to do many things like:
* Set up an alarm
* See the Distance
* Search nearby places/restaurants/gas stations
* Play some song
* Look up facts
* Look up news
* See my agenda for the day
* Search for my personal photos
and maybe much more....
I rarely use the voice input. The thing I liked about allo is that I can chat with it. Even when i'm in a crowded bus, I can use my assistant instead of saying "OK Google".
I use the Echo/Alexa for calling an uber (because my last step for getting ready to leave is usually 'find my phone').
Also, reservations are pretty easy to do over voice. "Book me a table for 2 at Hakkasan this Friday at 7" is enough for an app to get right, clocking in at only 11 words.
Not to mention the Xperia Z5 Compact was the ONLY phone last year carrying flagship specifications with a screen under 5 inches. It's crazy to me that no other phone manufacturers are trying to capture the market for smaller phones now that even Apple no longer makes them.
Unfortunately, most people in the US have no idea Sony even makes phones because the company has utterly neglected to market them here.
I bought the BQ Ubuntu tablet. I hate to say it, but it's terrible. You have to set up a cloud account with Canonical to download or update apps (no reason given). Most of the apps are pretty bad. It's constantly pinging YouTube and news websites to show me stuff I don't care about, and can't turn off. No easy way to set up a VPN. No CalDAV, CardDAV. Difficult to imagine Shuttleworth himself using one.
Fine for watching films on airplanes, but very little else.
Is it a real linux system under the hood though? I don't care much about apps or anything, I care about being able to customize it to work how I want. terminal, cron, scripts, etc.
Technically yes, it's a slight variant of Ubuntu. However the packaging system out of the box doesn't allow `sudo apt-get install x` (at this point I stopped).
I run Ubuntu Touch on a Nexus 4, have done for about 6 months now.
It's tolerable, and refreshingly non-intrusive compared to Android. At one point I started craving Snapchat and put Android back on, but all the intrusive nag screens put me off and I went back to Ubuntu.
It crashes a lot but that might just be my Nexus 4, it used to do it on Android too.
It's a bit slow, the camera app is rubbish, there's no Snapchat, the email client has some weird bugs, there's no adblock. But it has Telegram, and it can do calls and texts, the web browser is OK, and the terminal app is good.
Isn't its bootloader locked? Last time I checked you needed to go to Motorola's website to download a key specific to your phone so you could unlock it, but it voided the warranty.
My entire family uses different Moto G versions. I have the G4, one of my sisters has a G3, and my parents and my other sister have G1s. They just seem to work and are very good first-time smartphones for my parents. It has been several years since they got them, and I don't even have to provide technical support. Honestly, I see very little reason to unlock the phone.
It wasn't mandatory mostly because Motorola was commited to provide the latest Android which ensures you'll never be out of a new feature. But G1 aren't supported anymore, if today's Google conf apps aren't Lollipop friendly you're stuck with unlocking.
For two years I used an S4 I put CM12 on, and now I have an S5 with CM13. I get all my phones for <$180 after they are two years old and just stuck a 64GB SD card in the S5 with the mergable Android 6 storage for room.
I've never seen appeal in new release phones. If there was some high end Android game I'd want to play, I wouldn't want to play it on a tiny screen anyway and I'd just play it on ARC. As it was, I still think the S4 is plenty spiffy a device for day to day use, and my S5 is even faster than that.
It is similar on the desktop. Who needs a high end i7 when an AMD APU does good enough? Unless you need performance, riding the bleeding edge is a waste of money and frustration when things break.
Use your data against you how? Like frame you for a crime? Figure out when you're on vacation and burglarize your home? This doesn't seem a likely business model. They generally attempt to use your data to assist you. I mean maybe the NSA hacks them and reads your emails but that's hardly Google maliciously trying to make your life worse.
Out of your points, this might be the easiest one to solve. I got a Samsung after being a Nexus owner, and it's not so bad! You can change to the Google now launcher, Google keyboard and so on, and Samsung does not actually get in my way.
I see it uses USB-C but I don't understand the difference between Dash Charging and just regular fast charging over USB-C. It feels like unnecessary confusion.
Even after Googling I'm left wondering what the difference is beyond patents - as a user why do I care about this what method it uses to charge quickly?
Just charge quickly, and do it with any (specs compliant) USB-C cable if it can be negotiated with the power brick.
This is an interesting option for a phone despite that though, I'll have to find a colleague or friend who has it to checkout the OS and inspect for bloatware but this looks promising.
The reason Dash Charging is fast is because it moves some of the charging hardware into the brick itself, meaning the phone doesn't get as hot when charging, allowing it to charge faster. One of the main reasons charging speed is limited is because the phone gets too hot, so moving heat to the brick means the charging speed can be faster without having to throttle to keep temperatures low.
You might call the branding unnecessary confusion, but in my experience it's been a differentiating feature, one that less tech savvy people I know mention when talking about reasons to switch to a OnePlus 3. And it's not a marketing gimmick either; I've seen it work in real life, and it's speed is kind of incredible.
The corporate structure of Alphabet does not make sense to me.
Nest was broken out as a peer to Google, but now apparently hardware is using Nest staff and expertise, but hardware is part of Google.
And apparently this new hardware team is going whole-hog after the smartphone market, which is WAY larger than thermostats and web cams. But Nest is an Alphabet sub, and hardware is under Google.
And Android needs a "firewall" to protect existing hardware vendor relationships from the new hardware team. But both Android and hardware remain under Google, with YouTube and Search.
And there are 2 separate Alphabet subs for biosciences, and 2 separate subs for finance.
It doesn't look like it's implementing any sort of coherent strategy. Aside from company politics, why are some programs peers to Google, and others are subsidiaries of Google?
I recall news that many of the developers at Nest were basically moving to Google Hardware. There's a valid question on whether or not Nest will even produce anything going forward, or if they're legacy support for products that eventually will be replaced by Google Home equivalents.
I love my Nexus phones, i also have already ordered a Pixel XL. With that said, i hate the look of this phone compared to the Nexus 5 and 5X. I really felt the 5 and 5X were a good, unique and fitting feel for Nexus. The Pixel doesn't seem to have any identity of it's own.
Frankly, with Apple already having sued over phone designs.. i'm shocked this is so blatantly similar to the iPhone.
Only thing that feels unique is that weird glass bit on the back.. and that's ugly as hell imo.
Hardware design on this feels entirely uninspired, Chinese knockoff of last years iPhone and Samsung devices.
If they truly started from scratch and ended up here then this hardware initiative is going to fall flat. But I'm gonna guess they didn't start from scratch and this is just a rebadged device as people suspect.
Why on earth would you launch such a cheap plasticky looking device in such a similar form than your competitors device last year when their update was moving that device into more premium materials (iPhone 6 looks positively cheapo next to the 7) and making it seamless.
I was confused -- I think that the home-screen edit was unnecessary in the context of the joke; assuming he means that the hardware, not software, looks like a knockoff.
As someone who has owned the first LG Prada: please, don't. The LG Prada was nothing like the iPhone and I was glad to get rid of it by the time the iPhone 3G came out.
First of all, the discussion here was about the design/look of the phone and plagiarism and there was no similarity in their look as another commenter already proved. But even in terms of operation, there was no similarity either. The LG Prada had a UI that was meant for non-touchscreen phones operated through a touchscreen. Scrolling was done.. by moving scrollbars. You couldn't scroll unless you touched the scrollbar itself. Those scrollbars were small and the touchscreen was unreliable. Fun times! The experience was like using a Windows Mobile PDA/Phone with a touchscreen instead of a stylus. Which made everything much worse. It didn't have the iconic homescreen that shows all the apps you may want for quick access either. And trying to browse the web on that device was a worse experience than the non-touchscreen competitors like the Nokia N95, which was a much better pre-iPhone device than the Prada.
Any mention of the LG Prada in comparison to the iPhone is just revealing you as a baseless Apple hater who does not comprehend the amount of innovation Apple brought to the market and how it changed the landscape. I don't even use iPhones anymore, as midrange, cheaper Android devices suit my needs just fine these days. But those phones owe a big lot to the groundwork Apple laid out in terms of UI. Even in terms of software tech. Chrome forked off webkit, and webkit was the first engine to ever be truly usable on mobiles. Browsing the web on an iPhone was a game changing experience before the market started photocopying everything Apple did.
Last week we tried to launch an Android-first app at a major startup conference with 5000 visitors.
95% of the visitors (startups, entrepreneurs, investors, executives) had iPhones. We later confirmed this by looking at the network stats and couldn't believe it. In a country where Android statistically has 80% marketshare. The Android users loved the product, but we failed because we couldn't generate word-of-mouth.
For the target audience of the Pixel, this is an uphill battle.
Actually that shows a big opportunity exists for startups in Android space. Clearly the startup world is not where the customers are due to various reasons.
Go where the customers are, observe what they are doing and make something they can use.
I truly see a big opportunity. Launching at startup events is wrong unless your customers are them.
Sure, but potential partners and investors want to use your product and try it out. If you have Android-first the only thing you can do is you lend them an Android phone. And then you get 80% feedback on general Android topics and they boot the phone just to try the app and can't determine all its implementation and integration potential.
If your app is mostly targeting startups (cue stereotype of hipsters on Macs in coffeeshops and coworking spaces), then Android should probably not be your first choice of platform.
If your app is targeting a non-startup audience and you can identify a conference or tradeshow more relevant to your actual audience, that may be a better place to try for attendee interest than a startup conference.
Pretty much all the data indicated that iOS users will readily pay for apps and content, while far fewer Android owners do. Attribute this to whatever reason you want, but it seems foolish to chase after a market that costs more to develop for (due to fragmentation), more to maintain for (due to ancient versions of Android), and won't actually net you as much revenue.
You need to target based on you end customers. In my country more then 90% users are on Android. So going Android first is no brainer. We recently launched a App using react native, getting positive reviews.
What if 90% of users are dumbphone users? Would it be a nobrainer to target them?
My point is: the marketshare of Android does not tell the whole story. A lot of Android phones are lower end phones which are never used as a real smartphones, just some feature phone, which happens to run Android. I think that part should be excluded from your potentional market to see the more realistic picture.
Network stats viewer discretion advised. The log content may be self selecting to certain individuals and is not representative of the larger population.
One of the best things about the Nexus range was they offered the Google vision of android at a reasonable price. The Nexus 4, 5 and 6 were affordable.
I purchased my Nexus 5 for a shade below £300 when it came out, which I thought was excellent value for money in comparison to how much I had paid for a Samsung previously.
This Pixel line seems to have abandoned that ideal to compete directly with the iPhone.
Personally I'd feel very uncomfortable walking around with a £600+ phone.
Absolutely agree. I know there are other cheap android phones but Nexus was always a good bang for your buck. This is like Toyota discontinuing the corolla to compete with Maserati.
I don't think that the aim is to compete with the iphone directly. I am already a Pixel owner - the laptop variant - and I see 'Pixel DNA' in this phone product.
The Google Pixel laptop was there to further Google's own thing, not compete with the MacBook. The laptop has better hardware than the Apple or PC offerings - a 3:2 touchscreen in super-hi-res, amazing speakers under the keyboard, the nicest feeling keyboard ever, the finest of trackpads and a gorgeous aluminium case that just feels nice to touch. For what it does - surf the internet - nothing connects to wifi so easily and scrolling big pages is a very speedy thing. Yet you cannot run Word or Photoshop so it is generally reviewed as a crazy, expensive machine.
So I see some of this design philosophy in this phone. The AMOLED screen and the exceptional camera are features I would expect from a Pixel gadget, not a Nexus gadget.
Is the Pixel phone really just an over-priced Nexus phone? Not at all, it is about raising the bar as to what is possible. The VR hardware needs this phone.
Despite today's hype this will not sell in iPhone quantities, even with Verizon as a carrier. It is too expensive for that.
When you look at how much you do get for GBP 300 from Motorola and whomever else I would say that the Nexus idea has worked, there are plenty of phones out there that are excellent value for money even if not with all the latest flagship features.
No offence intended but I think "better" is subjective. I find the keyboard and trackpad on my MacBook Pro absolutely perfect, and the aluminium case could be argued to be "gorgeous" too. I do not need a touchscreen on a laptop if I have the finest of trackpads.
I would argue that with 32GB SSD storage and only the ability to browse webpages that the Pixel laptop is basically useless as a "normal" use machine (ie for people that like to create stuff locally on a microcomputer without being tethered to a mainframe, or devs, eg compile C++ on it, or store any normal amount of data on it) so does come across as an extremely overpriced terminal.
But as for this phone - I am not sure who the target market is myself. I know I am not their market, that's for sure!
I think at this point one should give up any hope on 2 things in Google Hardware program:
First, hardware so great that it remain excellent for more 2 years of usage for most use cases and/or price remain attractive so one does not mind upgrading after 2 years.
"Their debut signals Google’s push into the $400 billion smartphone hardware business and shows that the company is willing to risk alienating partners like Samsung Electronics Co. and LG Electronics Inc. that sell Android-based phones."
You mean not including the time they bought Motorola?
Google is a like an ADHD kid, one minute they want to conquer Android hardware market with Motorola, and other days they are so annoyed by hardware that they sell Motorola to Lenevo.
The Nexus 5 was amazing, the 5X was acceptable, this.... makes me want another option.
Maybe you care about the camera, but I barely use mine except as a scanner replacement when sending documents.
All of the interesting announcements were about everything except the hardware, which IMO was extremely boring, and they've discontinued their mid-range line of phones so it's not even clear that you can get the software on other phones. You could argue this is exactly what Apple does, but that's the reason I refuse to buy Apple products.
I'm expecting and hoping a flop that causes a return to the spirit, if not the name, of the Nexus line.
Even look at Flickr's top camera usage: https://www.flickr.com/cameras (which has a selection bias towards people who take and upload certain pictures to Flickr)
Think about the number of other places images are taken (and shared!) Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. etc. I think you might be in the minority when it comes to images.
> Maybe you care about the camera, but I barely use mine except as a scanner replacement when sending documents.
Yah, if I go back through my photos there's the occasional "that looks cool!" but the vast majority fall into 3 categories: receipts, equipment and equipment closets, and cats. None of those scream a need for exceptional image quality.
It feels like people are being negative just to sound all intelligent, skeptical, and subversive. In my opinion, there's no wisdom in naysaying. Haters are just as much a part of a groupthink as fanboys. Negativity, by itself, does not make discussion more interesting.
I think it's okay to have an intelligent, critical discussion about new things. But what I am observing on the recent Hacker News threads does not feel like that. It feels like another mindless trend. People in pop culture enjoy picking apart failures of celebrities. People here enjoy finding flaws in anything new released by a big company. I do not like this part of human nature. Putting it on hold would make HN a more fun place to hang out at.
I don't think it's just being a hater. Google's marketing campaign leading up to this event is a classic case of over-promising. They really built up expectations so I'm not surprised that people are disappointed.
Okay, I'll appreciate and celebrate it, but at $649 with only 2 years of feature updates, I'm not going to buy it. I just don't make enough to afford shelling out this much money every two years.
Oh, come on! A new good looking android phone with a cool camera, vr, and super advanced AI assistant is not good enough for you? How revolutionary was the last project that you have developed?
What qualifies as "new technology" by your high standards? Do you expect it to be able to mine uranium while giving you a blowjob? I'm pretty sure it'll be able to do the later thing when new cool VR apps come around =)
Creating new things is hard. Creating new complicated thigs is incredibly hard. I think we would live in a much better world if people, instead of bitching, would support and cheer for anything new that is being created.
It looks like every other apple phone, the camera quality is table stakes, come off with that "super advanced" ridiculous hyperbole (it's just Google Now rebranded), and... wait that was all? I'm supposed to be leaping around in excitement over that?
> What qualifies as "new technology" by your high standards?
Well, why don't we start at the standards that Google is advertising with? It's them who are acting like this is the best thing since sliced bread, while it's really just yet another average phone.
New in what way? Finally it looks like that Google consolidated it`s efforts in something meaningful. With google home, wifi, casts, pixel (for which they control manufacturing), AI in the front, google photos for free (unlimited full-res storage for pixel phones), you can not say that they are not going in the right direction. Complaining because of some price bump or some nitpicking is closing the eyes on the big picture. This is the first nexus(now pixel) phone that I am excited about after the first one was announced.
"Google Assistant" replaces the Google search bar... but only on the Pixel? So this is yet another Android device that behaves differently from every other.
The exclusive carrier is Verizon. Why not Google Fi?
The default video app is Duo. Why not Hangouts?
Does "Google Now On Tap" get replaced by the assistant for the Pixel? Is that just for the Pixel?
I don't get it. I don't understand how Google can think this produces a cohesive, meaningful experience for their users when they keep changing things or fragmenting their platforms.
Edit: Full disclosure, my only smartphone is a Nexus 5X. I like it, I don't like Google's platform chaos.
I see this too. And I have stopped watching I/O yearly due to the incessant changes of UI every year, undoing what the recommended the previous year (position of buttons, menus, slide out menus). It is wearying. Nobody would accept that kind of stunt on other platforms, eg. PC.
They are in a difficult situation though - if they don't announce new stuff, the short-sighted industry will think they are stagnating, instead of being robust and reliable and having mature APIs that you can count on not to change.
BTW I must say I am happy with Android as a platform and phone (got a Wileyfox Swift with update ROMs from Cyanogen) but as a developer I find the ping-pong changes tiring. I'm not here just to bash Android.
I've bought a Nexus phone every year since the Nexus One (and a few tablets as well) and throughout those years have received a few warranty replacements. One was even a free replacement of a replacement more than a year after the initial purchase. I always get a human in a chat or phone call without any effort, and I always get free next day shipping. I bought Nexus protect on my current phone, and although it is through a third party, when I damaged my phone the replacement process was basically the same (except I had to pay $79). I personally think their hardware support is awesome.
I'll add my voice to those who've had only excellent experience with Google Nexus customer service. Real person on the line, went out of their way to fix a problem that was entirely my fault.
I wanted to confirm a change of address for a phone order when i was moving, and got a real person on the line very quickly. American (probably) too, which is appreciated. Not knocking foreign support, but when i call Comcast, there is definitely a bit of a language barrier.
I had an issue with my Chromecast and felt it was defective...yes, that little $25 device. I called up the support line, got an American (at least, someone with an American accent) and went through a few steps. I didn't have to twist their arm to send me a replacement or anything. It was resolved within 10 minutes (though I recall there was a wait).
I would hope they have the same support, or better, for their more expensive hardware.
Did you watch the announcement? There is a built in support function that lets you call or chat with support AND share your screen with them to troubleshoot.
> Burke says the company will eventually be able to ship its own custom “silicon,” a buzzword for customized processors that make devices work better.
Silicon is not a buzzword. It is the element with which the processors are built. Perhaps it's colloquial or jargonistic to refer to processors as silicon, but it's not a buzzword.
I'm sorry, I just don't trust Google hardware efforts anymore. Nothing they've done indicates that they won't completely abandon this in a year and a half. It would probably end up in my Google Graveyard sooner rather than later, right next to my Google TV and Galaxy Nexus with Google Voice.
iPhones receive OS updates for like 4 years after release where as most Android phones seem to be forgotten as soon as the next model comes out. As an Android user, this is one thing that I have to admit Apple wins at.
Not to mention the fact that Google seems to have a habit of deprecating their own apps for seemingly no apparent reason.
I've owned iDevices, and they have this curious ability to 'age' themselves into the dumpster after two years of iOS updates. The latest iOS versions run incredibly slow (or not at all) on older devices and you are left with something you can't even flash a custom ROM on.
True. I often wonder if it is intentional or if it is just a result of running software which was designed for faster hardware.
Either way, non removable lithium batteries usually take care of the obsolescence issue anyway. After two years, devices seem to barely hold enough charge for an hour.
This is the most frustrating thing for me. I have a three year old HTC M7 which works beautifully (running a stripped down ROM and I avoid all app updates). However, the battery is starting to get weak, and I’m afraid to take it apart.
I wish the LG G5 was more competitive. The removable battery is a huge deal to me, especially now that everything supports rapid charging, which I’m sure wreaks havoc on batteries.
The hardware deprecation doesn't upset me so much (I bought a Wileyfox and can get ROMs from cyanogen for it so can update it as I see fit) but the deprecation of their apps for no obvious reason is the one that angers me the most. I know I am a freeloader and don't pay a penny to use their apps but it is frustrating.
Take Google Chat / Talk / Hangouts / Duo / whatever is next. They must surely see how many people are using those apps before they decide to rewrite it for no obvious reason??
Galaxy Nexus support was dropped very quickly. I had to start installing cyanogenmod to get new features when they stopped supporting the phone after a very short period of time.
It's not an apple jab. I really hate when cameras stick out the back of phones. I'm actually complaining about my Galaxy S6 if that matters. Most manufacturers do it though.
Fortunately, the slim case I have produces a raised lip around the camera bump, so that if I'm careful, I'm not scraping and scratching the protective glass against every surface I set the phone down on.
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask, but has there been any information released regarding whether the bootloader can be unlocked or not?
I guess what I'm really asking is if I will be able to flash a custom "ROM" and kernel to this. I've heard rumors of Google taking a more aggressive stance on locking down their hardware, so I'd like to know if there's been any new information regarding this.
If I can't flash custom software to this, I may get the iPhone or HTC 10 instead. The main attraction to Android phones to me was the fact that you can flash modified kernels to do things like force fast charge on USB data links, etc…
And imho, the main appeal to the Pixel is that it's Google-controlled and provides the same benefits as Apple-controlled iPhones do: timely updates, strong security, things that "just work", tight 1st party ecosystem integration, etc.
You may or may not be able to flash custom ROMs to you Pixel, but if you choose not to, you'll probably have a fairly optimal stock Android experience. If you absolutely have to have custom everything, there are hundreds of other Android handset options, which is a boon for everyone.
I'd like someone to save me from Apple's garbage cloud services, but I just can't get away from their hardware. It's just too good.
So... Can anyone convince me that this thing is going to be different from the iPhone killers that are reported on every year in these regurgitated press releases?
I use all of Apple's cloud services and am perfectly happy. Can you elaborate? I'm curious.
My only problem with Apple right now is they won't sell me an unlocked iPhone7 Plus. Every single person I talk to at Apple gives me a different story on how to buy one, but if I show up at the store with money, they won't sell it to me, or even reserve it. I even offered the store to just hold on to my credit card for a week or whatever and mail it back to me. They thought I was crazy! ;)
I have an unlocked iPhone 7 Plus in my pocket. I bought it from Apple. I gave them my credit card info and they mailed me a phone. It wasn't really that complex.
Are you trying to buy a "sim free" phone? I believe those are expected to go on sale soon.
Can you please go with me to the Seattle or Bellevue Apple Store and help me make this transaction? I went to both over the weekend and things did not go well. They didn't seem to understand the basic process you outlined above.
All phones sold at Apple stores are unlocked, but they come with an unactivated carrier SIM. I purchased an iPhone 7 (t-mobile), then popped out the SIM and put in my old AT&T sim. No problem. I suggest just buying the t-mobile device and doing the same, if you're looking for a GSM device.
I just want a phone that works. All of those words are confusing.
Seriously though I showed up at Apple with a credit card and a SIM card 48 hours ago and they were not able to sell me a phone. To make it even weirder, I had the (unopened) phone I wanted in a bag, but it is a "locked" one from TMobile. I thought that was ancient history.
What carrier do you want to use the phone with? If, say, you want to use it with AT&T, just go in and buy an AT&T phone. It will be unlocked. Just swap out the SIM card in the phone with the one you already have if you don't want to activate the provided SIM card for some reason.
I thought I could do that but s/AT&T/TMobile. 3 TMobile retail stores have refused to unlock my phone. It's still unopened in a box. I paid full retail price for it and have never had a TMobile account, which is where they get confused.
Did you buy your phone from Apple or from TMobile? If you bought it from Apple, it should be unlocked already. You should be able to drop in your SIM and go.
In fact, I did this two years ago with the 6 Plus. I bought a T-Mobile phone from Apple because they were unlocked (at the time the others weren't, even if purchased directly from Apple) and used it with my AT&T SIM.
You simply choose your current carrier so they know which brand of SIM to put in afaik. When you get to the final page choose "Pay in full" and you get the unlocked version.
Maybe not the greatest UI decision - but it's hard to imagine someone who isn't already on a carrier.
Yep, that's what they told me at the store, so I ordered a Verizon phone. To the parent's point, I had no problem doing this, I am not currently a Verizon customer and they sold me a bare phone without a contract.
All phones sold on Apple's online store are unlocked, but they come with an unactivated carrier SIM. I purchased an iPhone 7 (t-mobile), then popped out the SIM and put in my old AT&T sim. No problem. I suggest just buying the t-mobile device and doing the same, if you're looking for a GSM device.
It depends on what cloud services do you want to run away from...
As a recent dad, having more than one copy of my pictures is paramount :) so I "backup" with Google Photos and OneDrive. As these services exist both in Android and iOS I feel like I could change phone without worrying too much about my pics being safe.
What I loved about the nexus phones is that they were cheap enough that I'd stop caring about the hardware. They were cattle instead of a pet. They really should have gone further down this route. Rather than compete with apple on hardware, play up the awesome web services and the fact that dropping your phone in the toilet is no longer a big deal.
I'm in the same spot. I tried to give Apple another shot with iCloud Desktop and Document syncing but that feature is extremely buggy and I've already had to restore from backups because the syncing success is intermittent at best.
Do they say how long this infinite capacity will continue for? Given their past track record I can envision them pulling the plug on it in a couple of years as they would technically be incapable of offering infinite storage.
I don't claim to be knowledgable in all of the Android devices, but I don't believe there's an Android device with an equivalent to the Taptic Engine and 3D touch.
Let's not go into a fight about Google vs Apple, but consider the landscape.
1) It is interesting to note that, different from the desktop market a decade ago, there is no monopoly by a single provider for smartphone tech. This means that the upcoming challengers try to challenge using the same tech rather than come up with something really innovative. That there is no monopoly in this space, might actually reduce the speed of innovation! These parties are happy to compete with each other on familiar grounds. To me this comes across as a gentlemen's agreement in which knights establish the boundaries of their fight. Google says: it's gonna be phones, don't be afraid we come with weapons that you're not anticipating.
2) If we limit ourselves to smartphones, what would real innovation look like? For me it's twofold: a) getting rid of the other things in my pocket. I currently carry: keys, a wallet, a public transport card, a customer loyalty card, a squash subscription card, and a driver license mainly as ID. b) never worry about charging. The former can solved by actually making use of the existing technology. The latter needs a wireless charging infrastructure that works on a distance and a few R&D years (http://www.wi-charge.com/).
I think the most unfortunate thing about this being so expensive and underwhelming is that now there's no good alternative for people that don't want to spend that kind of money on a phone to have an Android phone without an OEM skin and with quick updates to new Android versions. This premium phone is only guaranteed updates for two years, and the update situation in Android land is still appalling. Why isn't anyone working on a better driver model for smart phones like for the PC? I want the latest version of Android without any kind of skin, but I don't see any real alternative for me anymore. How can the company behind Android be satisfied with this situation?
Not just the US, it dominates in other Commonwealth/Anglosaxon countries as well, plus Japan, France, Scandinavia - quite a chunk of the world, and in a great many countries both platforms are roughly head-to-head
One thing I like about the iPhone is the strong emphasis on security. Many features in the iPhone are built around it such as password inputs eventually stop working after a certain amount of tries, plane tickets show up on home screen without needing to unlock the phone and default encryption. I like knowing that if I lock my phone, not even the FBI can get into it. This gives me confidence to use services such as Apple pay. How does the Google Pixel compare in security?
So far, aside from the camera (apparently excellent), everything I've heard about why the Pixel is so great comes down to software.
So far, of everything software that people have enthused about with the Pixel... none of that software shines if you only have Google Apps accounts.
Aside from the camera, why would anyone with a Google Apps account buy this?
(I'm referring to the Allo AI assistent, etc which only has limited functionality for Google Apps users, as does Now, Trips, Spaces, App Sharing, Play Music Family, etc.)
Also this probably means that for most non US customers, the really cool software features will be lacking or missing. I'm Swedish and My Nexus 4 still hasn't decent Google Now support...
I really think this is grasping at straws. So you think they placed the 'Pixel' data point a little too far to the right? I didn't really get the impression that this was supposed to be super accurate and quantitative chart of their comparative performances - just a little graphic showing which phones it scored ahead of.
I'm not saying the whole presentation is null and void I'm saying that graphic is plain wrong. You don't get to lay out data on a line like that and plot every other phone the correct relativity apart and then put your phone out further than the +4 gain when your phone only has +3 gain. This presentation wasn't slapped together by some intern there is no excuse.
The interesting part will be for how long will the Phone + Software be supported. Now that the price is the same I think it's fair the support should be the same as the iPhone.
- Last feature update: Marshmallow: October 5, 2015
- Last security update:
According to Google[1]: Nexus devices get security patches for at least 3 years from when the device first became available, or at least 18 months from when the Google Store last sold the device, whichever is longer.
So, worst case scenario: October 2016 is the last security patch. We might get more, depending on when the Google Store last sold the Nexus 5, but I don't know when that was.
No, the Nexus 4 and 5 don't get Nougat either. What he meant would be the 4 is still getting the monthly security updates. And typically you'll still always get the new Google stuff like Assistant and all, since they've decoupled most of what they can from the OS.
As somebody who bought and used the iPhone, 3g, 4, and 6 plus. And having owned a nexus 4, 5, 5x, and 6. (not including tablets on both sides)
I don't have any hard figures but my recollection suggests Google supports their phones longer than Apple typically does the iPhones. Plus you have the option of open source images like cyanogen when google finally gives up on it. I'm not sure about the nexus 5 now that they just released android 7, but the nexus 4 is the only one that isn't on android 6 at the moment. They are currently in the processes of releasing the android 7 images to these devices.
> Funny how many users are mentioning price as their main reason for dismissing the Pixel
It's easy to make an excellent phone to retail for $700.
It's much less easy to make a good phone to retail for $300.
This means that a lot of people, probably the majority, have to make-do with sub-par, or second-previous-generation from eBay, or order something from the Chinese market.
Hence the cynicism when Google unveiled yet another $700 phone. It's like another 200 mph supercar from Bugatti, pretty to see and technically fantastic but irrelevant to the market as a whole. Next time Google, how about taking-on a challenge?
I think Google is forced to charge $649 because of their relative experience in hardware, which exacerbates their already high labor cost. Perhaps they could've charged $499, but it would've resulted in an accounting loss.
Perhaps the next iteration of Pixel will be cheaper as they ramp up on hardware expertise and reign in on cost.
They worked pretty hard to whoop Apple in the camera department. The HDR looks great, 4k video, unlimited online full-res storage through Google photos, it's the quickest camera ever, and yeah, I can't wait to play around with image stabilized video- I've been waiting to see that in a camera for a long time, it addresses a huge problem.
My hope is for an alternating fall/spring release schedule. New flagships for the large and extra large market every September/October, and a new medium sized phone built around the same innards in March/April.
"Small" designation deliberately omitted. That's what I'd call the iPhone 1 through 4S, but it doesn't seem likely that we'll get any new ones.
Exact same situation here. Portability is much more important than an immersive experience for my use. Many people spend a lot more time on their phones than me though. I only use mine when on the move and would much rather be on a laptop once settled.
I love my N6, and if anything i'm afraid the PixelXL will be too small for me. I take comfort in knowing that the N6 can be a bit cumbersome at times.. despite me loving it, so maybe the XL will be perfect.
I'm not looking forward to stepping down from a Nexus 6 to a smaller screen. But then I'm a 6'3" dude. Phones under 5" screens feel like toys to me now.
That's what I've been saying for years. My last phone was a Galaxy Nexus, and my current is a Nexus 5. The change from 4.65" to 5", along with less-rounded edges, meant that the new phone was really a mixed blessing for me. I'd really prefer something that fits in my pocket without me noticing and that I don't need 2 hands to be comfortable using. People still think I'm crazy when I tell them that 5" is too large for a really usable phone.
Depends how big your hands are. I have a 5.0" inch and can use the whole screen no problem one handed no problem. 4.5-4.7" would exclusively be a downgrade for me.
It's not just how it feels in your hand, it's how easy it is to tuck away in a pocket. Unless you carry a purse or wear some sort of belt clip, a phone can get quite annoying to tote around.
They both locked enough people in an ecosystem where they control the competition well enough that they can justify asking twice as much as their device is worth...
I was hoping to upgrade a nexus 5 I paid 399 CAD and this year they want to charge 899 CAD for the base model!
This is insane and I just ordered a OnePlus 3 (519CAD) hoping that we'll see more competition instead of reliving the 90s desktop OS situation...
The Zuk Z2 is good for devs. Costs around USD 260 from online Chinese retailers. Great specs and battery life, easily unlockable bootloader, and lots of unofficial cyanogenmod builds available if you search github.
You're right, not being carrier-locked is another attribute of a developer-friendly phone. I wasn't saying developer equates with cheap, but typically "developer" phones are secondary devices that people feel comfortable hacking on without risking destroying their daily driver. Therefore it wouldn't make a huge amount of sense to pay for a top-of-the-range phone when it will likely be a secondary device.
Not that I'm defending it, but it looks like Google is moving from being a platform provider to a (for profit) device provider.
Given the endless bullshit surrounding third party vendor foot dragging, abandonment, etc., I'm not sure they had any other choice. For my part, I'm done with anything Android that isn't directly from Google (or maybe Samsung, for a phone). And even Google, I distrust, after they left Motorola and my Moto X to "rust" before I was even done with its contract/payments term.
My 2013 Moto X, bought in early 2014, got left by Google/Moto/Verizon on the 5.whatever that doesn't fix Stagefright.
Until I switch away from Verizon, I stuck my already activated SIM into a Nexus 5x -- the first Nexus to work on Verizon's network.
That Nexus 5x just got the upgrade to Android 7. Because the update is shipped directly from Google and Verizon has no control over it with respect to my independently acquired Nexus 5x.
At the time I bought the Moto X, from a Motorola then owned by Google, Google/Motorola/Verizon was promising that this new ownership/alliance would ensure timely updates. Yeah... so much for that. Updates came slower, and all too soon choked out.
That's on contract. As a developer at a small agency, getting a $650 purchase approved can take months or even longer because every expense is larger than you think.
Have they improved their OS yet? (Cyanogen or Oxygen? I am not sure what it is right now)
I got a OnePlus One when they launched (Ditched the Nexus for the first time in years). Can't say about the development experience on it but I've had some terrible experience with their Cyanogen OS.
It was fine at first, and then every single update broke something major (Like getting stuck on fullscreen video, Speakerphones not working, etc). The next update would fix it but break something else.
I decided to only stick to vanilla Android Nexus after that.. And now that's gone.. sigh
You cannot be serious Google?
$1079AUD for Google Pixel when it's $650US....At current conversion would be $853AUD. Of course there is shipping, projected volume of sales in Australia etc... but $226 in shipping is a bit much...
https://store.google.com/config/pixel_phone
You are forgetting taxes which puts it to $981AUD, and the cost of customer protection requirements (warranty periods etc) which are more onerous in Australia than US.
Also, US buyers get a free Daydream VR headset (worth £69) if they pre-order, whereas UK buyers don't. Very annoying especially since a 128GB Pixel XL costs £819!
Yeah I fail to see why I would get this over a Galaxy or iPhone (if OS doesn't matter). They claim the best phone camera yet it doesn't have OIS so it isn't going to be the best for video I doubt.
> They claim the best phone camera yet it doesn't have OIS
The video stabilization looked really good in the demo at the Google event [1] despite using the smartphone's gyroscope [2] to do what the camera would do if it had OIS.
A neat trick but it won't be as good as proper OIS. Considering the price I can't believe they were unable to put in a camera with OIS.
IMHO it is a damn shame to see the Nexus line replaced with such high end devices. I can't see them selling that all that well. They are priced way too high.
For a "threat to Apple's iPhone" article the content is pretty low on camera specs. Not to mention a comparison to the rest of Apple's extremely integrated and streamlined hardware/software.
I'd be interested in being corrected on this but here's my understanding.
Assuming you don't use actively use Google services (i.e. use someone else for search or email) and you say 'no' to every question about tracking during setup then as far as I'm aware the only tracking that remains is the use of the radio to collect anonymised wifi and cell location data to use for A-GPS. And I think it's possible to disable this too (although it's probably not immediately obvious where the setting is).
I guess the Play Store tracks usage but you could use F-Droid.
I'm sure there is some residual tracking after the above is taken into account but the devil is in the detail. Is it anonmymised or personal? Can you view and potentially delete it via your Google profile?
I'm genuinely interested as my privacy is a cost/benefit tradeoff and I want to make an informed decision rather than accept hand-wavey "everything you do is tracked" claims.
At this point, while Google is an ad company, it is important to realize that the true value they offer only comes with acceptance of tracking.
AI needs to know everything about you to truly personalize the experience and be more valuable.
Don't believe me? Here's an interesting exercise. Watch the movie Her. They do a great job of showing where these nascent AI efforts could go. Now think through on every scene what kind of device permissions and data access and tracking would realistically be needed to deliver on that.
Biggest problem with this phone is how it looks, and it looks like an iPhone, which for me is not a good looking phone.
Why the bottom is so big? Why does it have all those rounded corners?
The thing people often overlook is the value of iMessage. I switched to Android for a few months and using plain SMS with my friends was a definite downgrade. True, we could use a 3rd party chat network, but everyone seems to prefer a different one.
Also, hard to quantify, but there was an element of social cost in that every knew I no longer using an iphone because the texts weren't blue. HN tends to dismiss such things but branding/advertising are important to perception of value, like it or not.
It seems roughly equivalent to a fairly recent iPhone. I see nothing like being officially water resistant like the iPhone 7, and seemingly no now widely lauded portrait mode thanks to dual cameras and its depth perception. The iPhone 7 also seems to use an (in normal use) more powerful CPU.
So maybe it's more like a premium priced iPhone 6s or so. Outside of Apple's ecosystem. How in the world would that be a "real threat"? The 32 GB Pixel is expected to land at $650, the (now finally) 32 GB iPhone 6s will cost you $550. It'll cost you $100 more and it'll make you lose your ecosystem!
It looks like a method for Google to stop the drain to Apple through an alluring Apple design at best, not something that will do much in the other direction.
As an iPhone user, this doesn't interest me in the slightest, other than an "academical" interest where it's interesting to see Google finally seeing the light. Now let's see if Google will introduce a certification program so people can look at a label in the specs of any Android phone and know that the smartphone will not be loaded with crap. Let the OEM's be still free to do it, but let people have an easier time to vote with their money.
Big time Nexus fan (and owner or N5, 6P) here. One thing that is of big concern for me now is that previously (until the Nexus line) their only OS was Android AOSP, and making it better was their sole motive. Now, it's in Google's best interest to market their exclusive Pixel phones, and differentiate Pixel Android from the 'other' Android, the AOSP. The whole Android community might suffer because of this.
Aren't they playing right into Apple's hands by pricing it like an Apple product?
Google will never, and I mean NEVER, be able to compete with Apple on fit and finish as well as the all round user experience with which Apple are able to justify their seemingly outlandish pricing.
If anything, people will now scrutinize fit and finish even more closely at this price range and that's the last thing they need.
If pixel is completely replacing nexus, then it's a complete bummer, as one of nexus' best points were very good hardware in reasonably good package for half the price as flagship competition (galaxy, iphone). OTOH, it's maybe a good business move if they manage to take galaxy users to buy pixel, Google will make a good buck for it.
The main reason I see/hear people coming across from Apple to Android is they get a quality handset at half the price. Given this pricing is inline with Apple, I cant see as something that will seriously threaten other than crowding the market a bit more.
I still dont understand why Google didn't keep pushing the mid-range nexus. They were onto such a sweet spot.
Whether it's a nice phone or not, I'm not tempted. I left Android due to an inability to get o/s updates. Android depends on the cell carrier (Bell Canada, in my case) for o/s updates, a model that doesn't work well, in my opinion. With Apple the o/s is always up to date.
Definitely not true for Nexus / Pixel devices. I'm in Canada, have had the Nexus line from the Nexus One, and every time an update releases I have it immediately.
But they still did. The "Verizon" Galaxy Nexus was basically a completely different phone from the other Galaxy Nexus versions and didn't get the same support or updates.
Yea that Verizon Nexus was the least Nexus-y of them all. One of the reasons I swore off Verizon for good. But that was 4 years ago and hasn't been an issue with other Nexii since.
Hm, same price as iPhone7, according to Wired (will have to see). I'm interested in leaving iOS but on a more mid-tier smart phone level. Very compelling design and size though in my opinion, would definitely be in the market if budget was available. Well, pending some reviews.
The bottom of the article says the phone is assembled by HTC. I suppose the difference between this and the Google Nexus phones is that Google is no longer doing hardware design in collaboration with outside manufacturers. However, collaboration in hardware assembly continues.
You managed to use 5 acronyms in one sentence. Unfortunately even though I have been an programmer for a while I was unable to understand any of them, also googling is not that helpful. Could you elaborate?
Curious to know what's the diff of using HTC and partnership with Huawei, LG for past Nexus. It appears to be the same arrangement as Nexus, except this time Google is able to place only their logo on the phone. If it is all deigned by Google, wouldn't it be cheaper for Google to get lower tier manufacturer such as Foxconn to produce?
This phone isn't going to kill the iPhone - in fact it would take a big screwup on the part of Apple for people to start migrating away from its products. Not that Apple is incapable of screwing up, but so far they've sailed their ship pretty well.
Apart from the hardware, there's the whole ecosystem of app developers, programming environments, cloud services.. Ultimately it's about who can attract the more talented developers - and that is a lot more difficult than snapping a faster CPU or better camera in your phone.
Apple manufactures fashion items which also facilitate communication. You can't threaten a fashion item. It doesn't work that way. Technological comparisons also don't apply. Only some truly epic fail on Apple's end would threaten them.
> Pixel is available for pre-order today starting at $649 in the U.S., U.K., Canada, Germany and Australia. Pre-orders in India will begin October 13.
In the Google Store.
However, availability in 5 countries? Google, you want to take on iPhone with that? Apple phones are available globally. Even with previous Nexuses, they were available in many countries because the manufacturers did sell them, not because Google. Google sold them only with few countries; even in EU, they bothered only with about 14 of 28 (depending on product).
Thankfully, for only $649, you can get the 32 GB version, which has the same storage capacity as the Nexus 5 released in october 2013. Oh yes, the Nexus 5 was sold for $150 less.
I see several references to good video stabilization, but never mention if it's 1080p or 4k, since I didn't see any mention to OIS and sensor resolution is almost the same as 4k (at least the width) how can it effectively compensate to electronic video stabilization in 4k video?
It looks like a good device, but is it that special?
At $649, it's in iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 territory.
It doesn't have an impressive curved display like the Galaxy S7 Edge so the 5.5" Pixel is likely to be larger than a 5.5" Galaxy S7 Edge.
The Snapdragon 821 is probably the best processor they could get, but it doesn't stand up well against an iPhone 7 (or even older iPhones on common tasks like web browsing). So, that doesn't bring anything impressive to the table that I couldn't get before.
Google has just said that the display is "Hi-Definition" in their presentation slide. Looking at one of their videos, it looks like 441ppi on the 5" which means 1080p and 534ppi on the 5.5" so the 5.5" matches the S7 Edge, but the 5" is a lesser display than the Galaxy S7. Not sure it makes much of a difference, but it doesn't best a competitor at the same price.
The Galaxy S7 and many other devices come with 4GB of RAM.
There doesn't seem to be anything in this device that's so exciting with the possible exception of the camera. But how much of that is software? The DxOMark review notes that "Pixel’s biggest innovation is an enhanced version of Google’s HDR+ multi-image capability. . .the Pixel pushes the capability further than we’ve seen before". So, is this simply software that Google is going to keep proprietary in order to sell its device? That's certainly fair game, but it points to exclusive software, not hardware being the draw.
Unlimited photo and video storage is nice, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the device. That's just google offering an exclusive service with purchase.
To me, it mostly looks like what I can get in competitive phones, maybe with some exclusive software. It's not faster (constrained by the best Qualcomm can muster). The camera is marginally better than an iPhone 7 (though no word on the iPhone 7 Plus). The display is competitive with or worse than a Galaxy S7 [Edge].
I think Google has a better chance if they start developing their own chips as the article alludes to. Apple has a large single-code speed advantage that's particularly noticeable on the web (https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/775777790494846976).
The Pixel looks fine, but it doesn't have something amazingly impressive. It's good, but nothing that truly makes me think that Google has outdone itself. If I were in the market for a new Android phone, I'd consider it. But the OnePlus 3 seems to have most of the same in a much cheaper package. The Galaxy S7 Edge seems to have a cooler package for much the same equipment. Plus, I guess my concern is whether Google is going to care about the Pixel phone 9 months from now. Maybe this is a huge new push. But OnHub seems to be abandoned for this new Made By Google thing after a very short time and generally Google has a bit of a history of not caring about things that don't immediately gain traction. So, maybe a couple years from now it'll look more attractive.
EDIT: looking at the specs, it's 8.5mm thick at the thickest which is how they avoid the camera bump compared to an iPhone 7 at 7.1mm thick.
EDIT 2: I'm very glad that Google is getting into the hardware game. I think they can create great devices and help push the industry forward. I think competition will be great for consumers. I think there are lots of areas (like WiFi) which need to be made better. But it's hard to beat the best smartphones with your first model. I'm glad Google is creating a phone, but smartphones aren't low-hanging fruit to create something remarkably better.
The unlimited storage is linked to the device in that for many people that is the biggest storage hog. Stuff it in the cloud and 128GB goes MUCH further.
Why do they presume there is a risk of alienating other Android device makers? Those non Apple device makers are too deep in the Android universe with no viable alternative.
Before owning an iPhone, I was very happy with an (at the time) expensive Samsung Galaxy Nexus.
But then... Google dropped updates for this phone after just 18 months and the microUSB crappy plastic connector started to fall apart and don't charge.
It seems that now Google is selling premium hardware (finally), but what about software updates? I get about 4 years of updates on an iPhone now, who knows what are the plans for this Pixel.
Pixel's "integrated assistant" just smells too much like Internet Explorer embedded into Windows. I like Google Now, but I don't need something like an AI interface and everything clumped together. There are some things I don't use, and I'd like the choice to have it not get in the way.
Google's business model is based on gathering data from users and hence by definition will not be as secure to use as Apple which derives their income from the high margins on the phones they sell instead of gathering data on us to monetize. Hence, no matter what you say, Google software based phones will not be as secure as Apple ones nor will they protect your privacy as well as Apple does.
I had that fear after loving my Nexus6 dual speakers for so long, and it can still be nice at times _(mainly for volume level)_, but lately i've just been bluetooth'ing all my music from my Nexus6. The speakers just sound _(mildly!)_ crackly at loud levels, it makes me wonder if they were damaged from my loud playing. So, i guess i'm saying i don't really trust nice built-in speakers for playing music, and am willing to go back to a mono speaker knowing i can just use bluetooth instead.
My theory is the only reason people switch from iPhones is that they no longer want an iPhone. There are plenty of other options but unless someone is driven to it by flaws from the iPhone then they are not going to switch. For me it was battery life, lack of customization, and my iphone/itunes not playing nice with a windows pc.
A lot of things like connecting to a public WiFi (which tries to connect to a Google page which doesn't work), Google PlayStore, Google Maps, email apps, etc.
In China you need an Android that doesn't come preloaded with Google stuff or an iPhone which just works fine incl the AppStore.
It's very strange that Google doesn't offer at least basic support there.
I think this doesn't make sense from a business perspective. The cell phone like the PC will become a commodity item. Why get into a business with a lot of competitors. No real differentiation. Google should be trying to get google search into every phone which they are already doing. That is where they make their crazy margins and strength.
Android has already won. It is the hardware that has not managed to challenge hardware. But then Android's key selling point has always been about "choice". Blackberry like Android phones ? check. Android phones that feel like Windows UI ? Check, $30 phones? check, phones that look more like gaming devices ? check.
I'm a dedicated iOS user and don't own any Android devices, but you're quite right. Google's objective with Android was to ensure that there would always be an open mobile platform with a standard browser and access to Google services without a platform gatekeeper getting in the way. Mission accomplished. The mere existence of Android keeps Apple honest in a lot of ways.
Because their goals are different, Apple and Google can both win in Mobile. Android's success hasn't stopped Apple becoming the most valuable company in the world and Apple's success hasn't stopped Android serving many market segments Apple has no interest in addressing. As consumers, regardless of which platform we prefer, we've all won.
The first reaction of a friend of mine, Android developer, was like "Maybe I'm buying an iPhone 7 on leasing, because the Nexus are dead and the Pixel costs so much". Then he realized that the iPhone costs even more. He's not buying anything at the moment. He's got plenty of phones after all.
That's crazy. $650 buy-in for what is for most people a somewhat risky wireless service proposition. Given their past track record of 86ing products this can't bode well.
The Pixel isn't locked to Fi. It can be used on any carrier. Fi is also pay as you go which means you can leave at any time. It's really not risky at all even if they shut it down tomorrow.
I think the parent was stating that Pixel phones will soon be the only way to actually get into Fi. For now, you can start service if you bring a 6p or 5x but who knows how long they'll support that.
Besides the obvious economic benefits to the companies that make these phones, is there any real benefit to the user of not having a user replaceable battery? I feel really comfortable keeping an extra battery on standby for emergencies, especially since their charge capacity usually greatly diminishes in about a year or so.
Surprised they went with a form factor so similar to Samsung and the iPhone 6, just looks pretty dated really.
Think now would have been a good opportunity to go for something less rounded. An iPhone 4 style sharp design would probably end up looking futuristic next to all the faceless rounded blobs the market is full of.
Carrier crapware? I guess possibly if you decide to buy yours from the Verizon store. Still, I'm not sure why you'd get it there instead of ordering online straight from Google (unless you can only get one that works on VZW from the Verizon store).
Interestingly, on the order page they don't even ask you what carrier you're on. When I've ordered iPhones from Apple they usually ask if you want the Verizon model, the AT&T model, the Sprint model or the TMo/unlocked model.
Wonder if this means it's finally a non-issue and if so, why they didn't bring this up in the keynote as it's at least as much of a perk as some of the other techie details they mentioned.
> Still, I'm not sure why you'd get it there instead of ordering online straight from Google (unless you can only get one that works on VZW from the Verizon store).
One reason is that VZW structures the phone price into your bill. So buying directly from Google costs more than getting it through them. (They don't lower your bill for not using the phone upgrades.)
I've had the 4, 5, and currently the 5X. Never had any crapware, always got updates within a week or so of releases. Insofar as I'm aware it's totally stock.
Was only true of the Galaxy Nexus purchased directly through Verizon and one of the reasons Google immediately changed how the Nexus line was handled in the subsequent releases.
From the pricing, and the fact that the blue version is available only in the US, this seems to be an "iPhone for Muricans that don't want an iPhone" (for whatever hissy fit). Now they have a choice, exactly like between Republicans and Democrats. Enjoy your HTC Pixels.
I am just hoping for a smaller phone like the iPhone SE. I never understood the drive towards huge screens that prevent proper single handed usage. I'm still using a Blackberry Q10 because it's a productivity monster - no time for games.
Is or has there been any way I could purchase a new phone assign it my number and have 2 phones ringing at same time? I would have a side by side comparison in each pocket?
I am sure there is a way to do that using VOIP or something to receive calls on both phones. But for most test cases, you don't need an active phone number on the phone, no? You can just buy the phone unlocked with no contract and test it out.
No wireless charging is rather disappointing for me. Other than those from Samsung, are there any options left for a recent flagship with built-in wireless charging?
Maybe I'll just hold out on my Nexus 5 for a couple more years...
I'm liking my Nexus 6 but it feels a bit big at times so I think the trend towards 5 or 5.5 is a good thing. Not sure about the price though, my 6 would have to completely croak before I upgrade from it.
What Google need to do next is to finally get out from under Qualcomm. They're a big part of the reason why older hardware can't be supported by newer versions of Android.
The hardware isn't really that impressive. iPhone still has the best hardware in my opinion. I'm not even talking about performance, battery, etc, I'm talking about usability.
Fortunately, I'm not feeling the need to replace my Nexus 5X yet. Maybe next summer when the Moto G5 comes out, I'll see if it's worth switching -- or maybe I'll wait until 2018 and get a Moto G6, but I'm not getting a Pixel.
And if some key apps I use ever end up getting ported to Windows 10 Mobile, I'll consider Microsoft for my next device. But that'll be a ways off: I rely on Lyft to get around, so I can't use a phone that has no Lyft app.
Even though you'll probably do not get much support? Microsoft seems to have abandoned the mobile. As far as I know, they won't make any new phones themselves. And I'm not sure other manufacturer will go on making Windows 10 phones as they don't seem to sell well.
I've been using a BLU R1 HD with Amazon lock screen ads and if I were Apple I'd be very worried. It's a very nice, fast phone with a solid camera.
After using Android for a few weeks I would be pretty happy using it instead of IOS. Among top tier apps and Google provided apps it's definitely now on par with IOS. $59 for a phone is unbelievable.
I just got my iPhone 7 and while it's a great phone and has a slightly higher build quality, it's more than 10x the price.
You're probably right - look at the value such regulatory concern (in its infinite wisdom) brought to Yahoo shareholders by complicating concerns of Microsoft's (non)acquisition of Yahoo oh-so-long-ago.
I'm with verizon anyway.. but just switched to a 6p about 6 months ago, so will hold off a while... nice to see a Verizon option out of the box... getting my 6p setup with Verizon as a byod wasn't fun.
This line from their product announcement page indicates that even though they're teaming up to have the phone available in Verizon stores, they're also selling unlocked directly from the Google Play store:
> We’re also offering Pixel unlocked on the Google Store and, for you Project Fi fans out there, you'll be happy to know that Pixel is the latest device to work on the Fi network.
Apple innovates while other companies imitate. This looks exactly like an iPhone without a home button. I'm sure the hardware is fast and it's probably a very good phone. But what does it do better than iPhone? Unless it runs iOS, there's no way Android will ever catch up to iPhone.
<vaguely off topic rant about Android 7.1 - but relevant as they control the hardware and specs here>
Why is Google still insisting (with 7.1) that the 3 navigation keys (menu, home and back) need to be on screen - either wasting real-estate or annoyingly hidden - requiring a swipe to expose them?
Old Android phones used to have hardware or software keys that were off the bottom of the screen - and in fact my Xiaomi Mi Note Pro still does - it frees the entire screen for content. If the '3 keys' regularly changed meaning I could see the need to have them 'on screen' but they don't.
To turn this around: why did the old phones insist that the hardware buttons take up valuable face space that could be used for more screen, where the buttons could be dynamically drawn and repositioned based on the content and orientation of the phone.
Not in all cases. Which is why apps have an API where they can turn it off if they want to reclaim that space for their own use.
Interestingly, no on ever figured out how to implement this trick when apps wanted to use their hardware buttons for extra screen space. I suspect this is a big reason for this particular compromise.
Maybe, but look at the bezel at the bottom of the Pixel, plenty of room for software buttons, we just don't have full edge to edge screens yet in all directions. So with plenty of room we are choosing to waste screen.
I prefer screen ones to hard buttons. First of all, it can make using a wallet style case awkward. Second, hard buttons click, wear out, and have other downsides. And third, they can be hidden - this gives you more real estate when you want it.
Sorry it I wasn't clear - my current android phone has software buttons below the screen, so fine in a wallet case, no hardware button to break and when not in use the backlight dims and it's 'hidden' from me - see here: http://images.fonearena.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/...
I'm using the Kindle Fire a lot right now, and the on screen buttons suck - a pain to trigger, and when in a view where you have to have them all the time they eat up space, esp in landscape view. Android still feels like tablets and landscape use are an afterthought. I LOVE android, but this just really riles me, and has steered me away from android tablets for a while now.
I also still don't understand why they never did anything more useful with it.
For example, there's an XPosed module which let's you swipe to the right over the navigation keys to change them out for music controls. If you swipe to the left, you can access some apps that you've pinned there as well as quick-toggles for system settings (such as WiFi on/off).
I'd have thought that with innovation and greater availability of components, smartphones would become cheaper. Instead, I experience quite the opposite with all these new devices.
Using this as evidence for that view is sort of like saying you're surprised at the relatively increasing expensiveness of cars after the press release about the new BMW 7 series, or Tesla Model S. Big sexy press releases are for high-end products. Consumer grade, cheaper offerings generally don't get as much media since they are lower margin products, but they do exist[1].
Seriously. You can get a decent smartphone, new and unlocked, for like $50 now. The market has just expanded hugely so of course entries like this, which vie for "best phone in the world" status, are going to be higher price.
They do, made by Chinese (Xiaomi for example). They don't boast with 12k screens, 32mpix cameras, but are rather simple and perform fine for daily apps, while costing from 120-250€ and sporting expandable storage/2nd SIM and huge battery (3500-4000mAh). They don't perhaps bump the Android version, but basically all phones released in last 2 years will get MIUI 8, with Android monthly security fixes.
No threat to either iPhone or Note 7 and incredibly overpriced. Pixel is basically a mid-range phone for high-end price. OnePlus 3 for $400 in mid-range or Meizu M3 Note for $140 in lower end are much better deals.
Note 7: Huge screen. 5" is a practical limit for me.
iPhone: I want direct filesystem access and 3rd-party app stores, app sideloading, etc. Also, to not have to re-purchase the apps I already have.
The smaller Pixel is more interesting to me than either the Note 7 or iPhone 7. Of course, I've got a weird combination of requirements for phones, and they go against the direction that most of the market is headed, so I'd have to agree that these aren't likely to make a huge dent in the market. They're phones I'll be considering for my next upgrade, though.
Do you remember the Duke controller on the original Xbox? It was usable but not comfortable, and a year or two after the console's release the market pressed for smaller controls. Microsoft started shipping the model sold in Japan.
I feel the same way about phones. 5"+ is usable, but only with an uncomfortable degree of strain in my hands. I honestly don't see why the "bigger is better" mindset rules the market. I just see that every decent handset out there is a usability compromise.
Thank you for pointing out the S7, though. It's only slightly larger than my current phone, and it would be near the top of my list if I were to go out and buy a new one tomorrow.
Haha, what? Google already thoroughly beat the iPhone: they made Android. This is just a ridiculously overwrought way to say "Google is making a new phone".
Of what very few details the article outlines, they just go on about nifty hardware. Have we not learned by now that cool hardware still sucks when hamstrung by crappy software? (A Samsung logo popped in my head while writing that, don't know why.) Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
(EDIT: the Pixel phones could be all that, but I wouldn't know it because I'm currently content with iPhones and have paid no attention to Pixel. Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.)