NY TImes reviewer doen't think much of the Pixel XL...

dsignori

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2010
2,540
40
48
Visit site
Yeah, it's been discussed here. Pro-Apple piece. His negatives were a slower Geekbench score than the iPhone, rear fingerprint sensor (not front), 1 example photo, and no water resistance. His one positive against the iPhone he mentions in passing is the headphone jack which the iPhone removed, but the writer states " the iPhone's omission <is> not a big deal". I doubt many around here will put much stock in this kind of review. But we each can judge on our own I suppose :)
 

Robbie317

Well-known member
Jun 7, 2010
2,752
12
0
Visit site
Meh... It's the New York Times...... You can totally tell when a writer/reviewer is a major iPhone fan and not open to a truly honest review.
 

N4Newbie

Trusted Member
Nov 15, 2012
5,006
1
36
Visit site
Many of the commenters called him out on his dislike of the rear-mounted fingerprint sensor. The reviewer (Brian Chen) made the unusual move (for NY Times writers...) of replying within the comments thread to say he tried the FPS again based on previous commenters coming to its defense and was still unimpressed with its location.

Personally, I love the rear-mounted FPS (on my Nexus 6P) and think it is much easier to use than the iPhone's.
 

tgp

Trusted Member
Nov 15, 2011
761
0
0
Visit site
Many of the commenters called him out on his dislike of the rear-mounted fingerprint sensor. The reviewer (Brian Chen) made the unusual move (for NY Times writers...) of replying within the comments thread to say he tried the FPS again based on previous commenters coming to its defense and was still unimpressed with its location.

Personally, I love the rear-mounted FPS (on my Nexus 6P) and think it is much easier to use than the iPhone's.

I've used an iPhone 6 and Samsung Galaxy S5, and I now use an iPad Mini 4, with a front fingerprint reader. My phone for the last several months is a Nexus 6P with it on the back. I'd have to say that I almost prefer it on the front. One minor complaint I have about the sensor on the back is that it cannot be used while the phone is laying down. I say "minor" because it is not often I would use it that way, but I would occasionally.

I guess I can understand either preference.
 

Jeremy8000

Well-known member
Jul 11, 2012
2,567
159
63
Visit site
One would hope that anyone writing for the New York Times would understand the definition of "mediocre" and not apply it to the performance of a camera just because it came in 2nd in his personal survey of what are generally regarded as 3 of three best phone cameras ever produced...

While I don't have an issue with respecting everyone's right to their own opinion, is difficult to pay them much attention when they lack the ability to express it.

Very shoddy piece of journalism for the Times.
 

NexusNick123

Well-known member
Nov 11, 2013
313
0
0
Visit site
I don't agree with this, in all the youtube videos i watched this phone looks fast and take beautiful pictures. Can't wait to get my hands on it soon..
 

T48

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2011
464
34
28
Visit site
Most mainstream media sorts live in the walled garden. They generally are not objective.

Yeah, it's been discussed here. Pro-Apple piece. His negatives were a slower Geekbench score than the iPhone, rear fingerprint sensor (not front), 1 example photo, and no water resistance. His one positive against the iPhone he mentions in passing is the headphone jack which the iPhone removed, but the writer states " the iPhone's omission <is> not a big deal". I doubt many around here will put much stock in this kind of review. But we each can judge on our own I suppose :)

Not bashing the Pixel at all. But do think it would have been cool if Google could have had both a front & rear finger print sensor. Even if the first implementation had some bugs. Would have been cool to see them push some sort of innovation on that front that no one else has.
 

mzanette

Zee
Aug 22, 2012
826
14
18
Visit site
What a terrible and non-objective review.

This last blurb basically sums it up:

If you are uninterested in Project Fi and are not deeply invested in Google’s ecosystem, there is another route: Try an iPhone. Apple’s iPhone 7 and 7 Plus outperformed the Pixel in every way in terms of hardware features.

Outperform "in every way" in terms of hardware features? Like what? Is the fingerprint sensor faster on the iPhone? Is the camera faster? This guy needs to get a clue.
 

dsignori

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2010
2,540
40
48
Visit site
..Not bashing the Pixel at all. But do think it would have been cool if Google could have had both a front & rear finger print sensor. Even if the first implementation had some bugs. Would have been cool to see them push some sort of innovation on that front that no one else has.

That would be cool, and actually satisfy everyone. I actually prefer a front fingerprint sensor, as my phone is usually on the desk next to me. But, such a small thing, especially to be listed as a negative on a review.
 

swebb

Well-known member
Dec 17, 2009
1,071
96
48
Visit site
I don't put much creedence in newspaper reviews. The technical abilities of the reviewers are all over the place, plus their objectivity is not a given. Much more credibility from CNET, Wired, and AC(of course), among others.
 

T48

Well-known member
Dec 2, 2011
464
34
28
Visit site
That would be cool, and actually satisfy everyone. I actually prefer a front fingerprint sensor, as my phone is usually on the desk next to me. But, such a small thing, especially to be listed as a negative on a review.

Agree. But one has to assume that is the method to the madness of Samsung throwing in all sorts of little things at users. They are hoping that one of those small features becomes something that is a need that their consumers cannot find elsewhere. Regardless if it is software or hardware based.


I don't put much creedence in newspaper reviews. The technical abilities of the reviewers are all over the place, plus their objectivity is not a given. Much more credibility from CNET, Wired, and AC(of course), among others.

The problem with articles like the NY times(hit piece) are the masses of people that do NOT follow tech all that much or research elsewhere. So they gloss over the article noting the the Pixel is a sad first attempt, Samsung explodes & have received confirmation that their walled garden is perfect. :mad:
 

dsignori

Well-known member
Jun 25, 2010
2,540
40
48
Visit site
Agree. But one has to assume that is the method to the madness of Samsung throwing in all sorts of little things at users. They are hoping that one of those small features becomes something that is a need that their consumers cannot find elsewhere. Regardless if it is software or hardware based. ..


Right, I meant that for the writer to list as a negative the FPS being on the back, not the front, is such a small thing...
 

Ry

Moderator Captain
Trusted Member
Nov 16, 2010
17,656
214
0
Visit site
Meh... It's the New York Times...... You can totally tell when a writer/reviewer is a major iPhone fan and not open to a truly honest review.

But it's the NYT. More "regular" folks will see that review.
 

Ry

Moderator Captain
Trusted Member
Nov 16, 2010
17,656
214
0
Visit site
Many of the commenters called him out on his dislike of the rear-mounted fingerprint sensor. The reviewer (Brian Chen) made the unusual move (for NY Times writers...) of replying within the comments thread to say he tried the FPS again based on previous commenters coming to its defense and was still unimpressed with its location.

Personally, I love the rear-mounted FPS (on my Nexus 6P) and think it is much easier to use than the iPhone's.

I like being able to not have to pick up my phone to unlock it. I can see why people prefer a front FPS. Like the reviewer, I would prefer a front FPS and if I reviewed the Pixel, I'd call that out.
 

russell1997

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2010
98
0
0
Visit site
I left this comment if they approve it:

I have read all the Pixel reviews and this review is by far the most embarrassing and a reason the NY Times will never be my go to for tech news.

This is basically an opinion piece with little to no facts or stats backing it up.

"It is slower than Apple’s iPhone 7 and the Galaxy S7, Samsung’s smaller flagship phone. Photos shot with Pixel’s camera don’t look as good as the iPhone’s. And Google’s built-in artificially intelligent virtual assistant, called Assistant, is still fairly dumb."
Where are the numbers?

The camera is fantastic and Assistant blows Siri out of the water as do most other voice assistance apps including the Amazon Echo.

It's a shame the non-tech regular people will only hear about the Pixel from this article.
 

jd78

Well-known member
Dec 23, 2013
100
0
0
Visit site
I like being able to not have to pick up my phone to unlock it. I can see why people prefer a front FPS. Like the reviewer, I would prefer a front FPS and if I reviewed the Pixel, I'd call that out.

I've heard that argument, but no one ever seems to mention that FPS is not required to unlock the phone. Sure its quicker, but not required. Personally, i'm not sure how I feel about the location yet, but the FPS on the S7E was crap for me, so any improvement at this point would be welcome.