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.)
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.
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.
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.
1: http://www.macrumors.com/2016/02/18/ios-android-market-share...
> 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.
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.
PS Plus, it's Bloomberg. Not really expecting much in the way of technical details from them.
Well, iTunes sucks, and it is pivotal in the Apple ecosystem.
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.
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.
The article headline is just clickbait.
0: https://infographic.statista.com/normal/chartoftheday_4431_s...
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.
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.
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?
Apple wants $650 for a phone with a ~720p screen.
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.
* 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.
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.
* 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".
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.
I don't like Apple because it's a walled garden and millions other reasons.
I don't like Samsung because they bloat Android.
I don't like Huawei because I don't trust the Chinese government to not do stuff to it.
I don't like LG and HTC because the smartphone market is slipping away from them.
Am I just getting old?
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.
I don't like Samsung because they bloat Android.
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?
Started from scratch, yet the end result looks like a iPhone knockoff from a random Chinese shanzhai company?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The market share is bottom heavy.
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.
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.
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.
You mean not including the time they bought Motorola?
We're hackers, let's get fucking excited about the new cool gadgets! This phone is awesome.
How about, before nitpicking and criticizing, we take a moment to appreciate and celebrate the new technology developed by our colleagues?
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.
The point is that we've seen this strategy before (Nexus) and there's not much in value add over some generic cheap Android phone.
Only thing new here is camera enhancements. Nothing new, really.
"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.
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.
I think Google Now On Tap is gone.
And who is the servicer of broken phones? Is there a warranty? Can I get a customer service agent on a real voice line?
Given Google's track record of hardware they could have answers for all of this and I still wouldn't own one.
Very responsive, and yes, a real customer service agent picked up the phone.
And who is the servicer of broken phones? Is there a
warranty? Can I get a customer service agent on a real
voice line?
I would hope they have the same support, or better, for their more expensive hardware.
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.
This is a "courageous" decision ;)
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…
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.
But the Pixel C is also a Pixel device and also Android so there's definitely precedent for them allowing unlocks.
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?
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! ;)
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.
It's not a differentiator from the iPhone it's a marketing bite. Not a lot to pull me into this phone either.
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/).
As an incremental step, I'm seeing more cell phone cases with a slot to store credit cards, cash, and ID.
I know, ideally they'd be gone though.
Outside the US it is not the dominant platform. Sure, it has a good share of the market, but it's not like Apple even outsell Samsung's Galaxy range.
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.)
The gap from 88-92 is actually shorter than the gap between 86-89.
[0] https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehp0sn8w04fpf2q/Screenshot%202016-...
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.
Look for a third ecosystem to come out of China.
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...
(BTW the LeEco Le Pro 3 also seemed good, has slightly higher specs that OnePlus 3.)
Treated the same, to a limit, I guess. If everyone is treated the same, they wouldn't be able to guarantee to be the first ones out with Nougat.
Let's see how short or long the lead start is they will give their own phones.
Apple it seems can do it for devices in those price range.
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.
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.
I can't justify spending $650 on the newest phone for a slightly better camera.
My current iphone 6 is just fine, the battery is waning but not unbearably so.
Does the pixel offer anything that justifies the price? Or would a consumer be better off just purchasing an older generation smartphone?
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.
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.
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.
I still dont understand why Google didn't keep pushing the mid-range nexus. They were onto such a sweet spot.
I've only heard bad things about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY
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.
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 really, really, really want a good phone with hardware keyboard.
Even better if the dialer is not a common app, and is something you can access immediately even if the "user OS" crash.
(comment copy-pasted from https://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles/Pixel-smartphone-camera-revi...)
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.
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.
Maybe we'll actually start seeing Tizen headsets from Samsung.
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.
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.
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?
Like I buy pants. But 4 at the store and return 3
Maybe I'll just hold out on my Nexus 5 for a couple more years...
Vertical integration FTW.
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.
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.
> Pixel comes in two sizes, 5” or 5.5”, and three colors: Very Silver, Quite Black and our limited edition for the U.S. only, Really Blue.
What's your problem Google? You keep being the only big company still pulling this "U.S. only" stuff.
Edit: Ah, I was mistaken. Contract exclusive, still outright.
Oops!
Sorry I'm so absolutely excited.
That's funny, I thought all the ones before it were "iPhone killers". Hmmmmm.
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.
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".
