Google Pixel 3 / 3 XL 2018

[osubeavs728]

So sounds like yet another reason why Samsung's panels are better than LG's panels. Google should have invested that ~$1 billion into Samsung's panels rather than LG's.

Why? The investment was to try and bolster competition and reduce dependencies. Samsung has already bastadardized Android to all hell, why also allow them to have a clamp on every major phone makers gonads as the only supplier of high quality panels?

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Why? The investment was to try and bolster competition and reduce dependencies. Samsung has already bastadardized Android to all hell, why also allow them to have a clamp on every major phone makers gonads as the only supplier of high quality panels?

That and Google was pretty tweaked off at both Samsung and HTC's supply chain delays in the OG Pixel. Those things are Google's fault because they underestimated demand and therefore didn't buy enough units out of the gate, and Samsung makes it very clear that their own devices and other customers take precedent over rush orders that are due to customer (Google) error... yet Google still feels like Samsung should have been able to get many more displays in HTC's hands much sooner. Google wants to be LESS dependent on any single source for components unless they can get terms to prioritize their devices or have assurances that supply won't be an issue.

As an example, when you order a million units and then find out you're going to need four million more, it's understandable that you can't have all four million tomorrow. But if the place you're buying from cranked out the first million in 21 days tells you, "ok, you'll get the second million in 4 weeks, then the third million 4 weeks after that and then the fourth and fifth million will be 70,000 a week over the next 30 weeks..." Well that timeline is just entirely unacceptable as it's taking you well beyond the sales season and deep into the production of the next model, which houses a different screen!

 

[I Can Be Your Hero]

Why? The investment was to try and bolster competition and reduce dependencies. Samsung has already bastadardized Android to all hell, why also allow them to have a clamp on every major phone makers gonads as the only supplier of high quality panels?

First off, Android is open source and the whole point of it is to allow its partners to customise and add features to Android. So there's no such thing as a 'bastardized' version of Android. If Google didn't want this, they wouldn't have made it open source, they wouldn't have made it customisable for OEM's and they'd force all Android branded phones to have the Pixel UI. That's not the case, Android is open source, OEM's can make Android look however they want, consumers get variety - everyone is happy.

Second, if the reason why Google went with an inferior panel for their high-end, expensive flagship phone is out of spite to drum up competition from one of their own Android partners, then that is just mind-blowingly petty. If that is the case, then they're not doing what's in the best interest of their customer, they're doing what's in the best interest of Samsung's competition, which sounds insane to me.

Third, I'm all for Google getting screen panels from LG or JDC or whoever - if the screens are of excellent quality, similar to that of the competition. There was a noticeable and discernible difference in quality between LG's OLED screen and Samsung's AMOLED panels in pretty much every metric. For the price the Pixel 2 XL costs, I don't believe the screen is of acceptable quality for a phone at that price range. When LG's screens get to a point where they're close to as good as Samsung's panels, then sure, grab the LG screens, but in the mean time, high-end phones should have high-quality parts.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Second, if the reason why Google went with an inferior panel for their high-end, expensive flagship phone is out of spite to drum up competition from one of their own Android partners, then that is just mind-blowingly petty. If that is the case, then they're not doing what's in the best interest of their customer, they're doing what's in the best interest of Samsung's competition, which sounds insane to me.

No one said that is the case. What @osubeavs728 said was indicating fact that Apple and Google both started investing heavily in LG because Samsung's stranglehold on displays is bad for the market. That's not a "spiteful" position, it's a market health position.

 

[dsignori]

Well, no matter how you cut it, the display on the 2 XL is sub-par for a 2018 flagship phone IMO. Period. Full stop. It doesn't bother me on a daily basis, but anytime I look at someone else's phone, my display feels inferior.

Whether it was from spite or not (it wasn't), whether they want to try some new source other than Samsung, or anything else .. the bottom line is that for a $900 phone, you need a premium display. The 3 XL display needs to be great to be on par with modern flagships. I guess we will see what it looks like when it's in our hands.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

¯\_(o__o)_/¯

This is all I know.

 

[Mike Dee]

¯\_(o__o)_/¯

This is all I know.

That thar is one hell of a fancy, rooting, tootin, notch

¯\_(o__o)_/¯

 

[CincyGuy]

I actually found myself looking up current pricing of Galaxy s9+ yesterday evening after seeing this latest XL leak. Unbalanced top/bottom bezels, different corners, and big-butt notch. Terrible. Unless G reveals something automagical with the Pixel 3 cameras I'm getting the s9+ which will probably have some kind of sale going on around the time this is announced. Ugh.

 

[neil74]

I honestly think google had an open goal this year but from all the leaks it looks like they are going to scuff it wide from 6 yards!

I don’t get the obsession with front facing speakers, just like I did not get the whole LG boom box thing, better than other phone speakers sure but for any serious listening surely people use headphones or speakers? Even a cheap as chips BT speaker will sound better. Nice to have but I would not ruin the design of the phone for them.

Being slightly wider than the 2XL is worrying too, the 2XL is already a wide phone and makes the s9 plus feel quite compact and manageable, so wider still is not a good thing imo especially if it is only a 6” screen too.

Lastly with zero chance of an SD card I would hope for a 256gb option, but with a push on cloud services I suspect it will max out at 128gb again.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I don’t get the obsession with front facing speakers, just like I did not get the whole LG boom box thing, better than other phone speakers sure but for any serious listening surely people use headphones or speakers? Even a cheap as chips BT speaker will sound better. Nice to have but I would not ruin the design of the phone for them.

Think this is just a different use case. You probably don't just want to have someone watch a video with you with great stereo speakers very often. For personal listening they suck, but for sharing content, they're awesome.

Being slightly wider than the 2XL is worrying too, the 2XL is already a wide phone and makes the s9 plus feel quite compact and manageable, so wider still is not a good thing imo especially if it is only a 6” screen too.

It's bigger than 6", but also not as efficient on bezels as Samsung.

Lastly with zero chance of an SD card I would hope for a 256gb option, but with a push on cloud services I suspect it will max out at 128gb again.

SD cards introduce WAY more problems than they could ever solve, in Android, from Google's perspective. So far the only sizes publicly leaked have been 64 and 128 GB.

 

[vzwuser76]

I honestly think google had an open goal this year but from all the leaks it looks like they are going to scuff it wide from 6 yards!

I don’t get the obsession with front facing speakers, just like I did not get the whole LG boom box thing, better than other phone speakers sure but for any serious listening surely people use headphones or speakers? Even a cheap as chips BT speaker will sound better. Nice to have but I would not ruin the design of the phone for them.

Being slightly wider than the 2XL is worrying too, the 2XL is already a wide phone and makes the s9 plus feel quite compact and manageable, so wider still is not a good thing imo especially if it is only a 6” screen too.

Lastly with zero chance of an SD card I would hope for a 256gb option, but with a push on cloud services I suspect it will max out at 128gb again.

I don't need perfect sound when I watch most videos on YouTube, but I need them loud enough to hear them. And you don't always have Bluetooth speakers/earbuds with you. Also, as I mentioned in my previous post, FFS are generally better than other configurations. Sure, some bottom firing speakers may be louder, but if your hand is covering them, it can be extremely annoying. I've had devices with speakers on the back (Nexus 7 2013) on the bottom (Pixel 1), several with a single speaker, and 2 with dual FFS, and the dual speakers were the loudest and best sounding hands down. And if we're paying this much for a phone, we shouldn't need additional accessories for basic functionality.

 

[atakin77]

I honestly think google had an open goal this year but from all the leaks it looks like they are going to scuff it wide from 6 yards!

I don’t get the obsession with front facing speakers, just like I did not get the whole LG boom box thing, better than other phone speakers sure but for any serious listening surely people use headphones or speakers? Even a cheap as chips BT speaker will sound better. Nice to have but I would not ruin the design of the phone for them.

Being slightly wider than the 2XL is worrying too, the 2XL is already a wide phone and makes the s9 plus feel quite compact and manageable, so wider still is not a good thing imo especially if it is only a 6” screen too.

Lastly with zero chance of an SD card I would hope for a 256gb option, but with a push on cloud services I suspect it will max out at 128gb again.

Agree on the front facing stereo speakers. Would trade them in a heartbeat for a 3.5mm headphone jack which I'd use several times a week compared to a slightly louder but still tinny front facing speaker I use once a month.

The leaks to me basically look like a 2XL with a notch. The display on the 2XL could be better, but I get all day battery life - my first phone I truly never worry about the battery unless I'm tethering! It's also got a great camera, fantastic performance, and plenty of storage for what I need.

I guess I say all of this because I'm not sure what the 3XL is going to bring me outside of the notch. If they are going to use the notch, then at least they should maximize the screen then like the iPhone. Hopefully all these renders are fakes... I recall the 2XL leaks from 'reputable' sources looking a good bit different then what actually was released.

 

[I Can Be Your Hero]

I honestly think google had an open goal this year but from all the leaks it looks like they are going to scuff it wide from 6 yards!

I don’t get the obsession with front facing speakers, just like I did not get the whole LG boom box thing, better than other phone speakers sure but for any serious listening surely people use headphones or speakers? Even a cheap as chips BT speaker will sound better. Nice to have but I would not ruin the design of the phone for them.

Being slightly wider than the 2XL is worrying too, the 2XL is already a wide phone and makes the s9 plus feel quite compact and manageable, so wider still is not a good thing imo especially if it is only a 6” screen too.

Lastly with zero chance of an SD card I would hope for a 256gb option, but with a push on cloud services I suspect it will max out at 128gb again.

My issue with the front facing speakers is that they aren't even that good on the Pixel 2 XL. Compared to the Galaxy S9+, iPhone X and HTC U11, I found the Pixel has the worst sound out of them all, so pushing so hard for front facing speakers would be ok if the speaker quality was excellent. However, I'd be willing to forego front facing speakers and go with the HTC/iPhone/Galaxy setup if it meant smaller front bottom bezel.

 

[onthecouchagain]

You use your screen more than you use the front firing speakers. Basically every time you use your smartphone, you're looking and using the screen.

Dual speakers can be accomplished without them needing to be front-firing. Aren't the S9+ and iPhone X speakers rated louder and better than the Pixel 2 speakers? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I thought I read in a test couple of months ago.

As for covering up the bottom firing speaker, I'm sure users can figure out how to hold it so that doesn't happen (what have you been doing for years with smartphone speakers?).

The screen is arguably more important. As I said earlier, even HTC understood this and moved from their front firing speakers to the same dual speaker set up as Samsung and Apple. Google's the only one left. Everyone else recognizes the screen experience is more important.

 

[osubeavs728]

You use your screen more than you use the front firing speakers. Basically every time you use your smartphone, you're looking and using the screen.

Dual speakers can be accomplished without them needing to be front-firing. Aren't the S9+ and iPhone X speakers rated louder and better than the Pixel 2 speakers? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I thought I read in a test couple of months ago.

As for covering up the bottom firing speaker, I'm sure users can figure out how to hold it so that doesn't happen (what have you been doing for years with smartphone speakers?).

The screen is arguably more important. As I said earlier, even HTC understood this and moved from their front firing speakers to the same dual speaker set up as Samsung and Apple. Google's the only one left. Everyone else recognizes the screen experience is more important.

Cool

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

You use your screen more than you use the front firing speakers. Basically every time you use your smartphone, you're looking and using the screen.

Dual speakers can be accomplished without them needing to be front-firing. Aren't the S9+ and iPhone X speakers rated louder and better than the Pixel 2 speakers? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I thought I read in a test couple of months ago.

As for covering up the bottom firing speaker, I'm sure users can figure out how to hold it so that doesn't happen (what have you been doing for years with smartphone speakers?).

The screen is arguably more important. As I said earlier, even HTC understood this and moved from their front firing speakers to the same dual speaker set up as Samsung and Apple. Google's the only one left. Everyone else recognizes the screen experience is more important.

You just lost me. The bottom speaker, which is the only one that we'd consider moving to the bottom of the device, has no impact whatsoever on the "screen experience". It's not notched out, it's part of the bezel. Bezels, with the exception of notches, don't impact the "screen experience" because they are not part of, nor do they interrupt the display area. The display is, by part of it's definition, everything between the bezels. So this a false choice, we don't have to pick between a bottom facing or front facing speaker and or a decent display and or notches. You can have a great display with a notch (iPhone X) and a great display with front facing speakers (Pixel 2) or a great display with bottom firing speakers (Galaxy S9) or a bad display with a notch or a bad display with bottom firing speakers, etc. These three things are simply unrelated.

 

[onthecouchagain]

You just lost me. The bottom speaker, which is the only one that we'd consider moving to the bottom of the device, has no impact whatsoever on the "screen experience". It's not notched out, it's part of the bezel. Bezels, with the exception of notches, don't impact the "screen experience" because they are not part of, nor do they interrupt the display area. The display is, by part of it's definition, everything between the bezels. So this a false choice, we don't have to pick between a bottom facing or front facing speaker and or a decent display and or notches. You can have a great display with a notch (iPhone X) and a great display with front facing speakers (Pixel 2) or a great display with bottom firing speakers (Galaxy S9) or a bad display with a notch or a bad display with bottom firing speakers, etc. These three things are simply unrelated.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

You can get more screen (and in a smaller device) if there are less bezels. You can have slimmer bezels when you don't have front-firing speakers.

If the screen experience isn't affected by bezels, why is everybody removing bezels and talking about how that gives you a larger screen? I'm not simply talking about the display as you are. Yes, display certainly impacts the screen experience (quality panel, brightness, resolution, etc.) but so does design decisions, and Google's decision here to insist on front-firing speakers is, in my opinion, not worth it. It comes at the cost of bigger bezels. Again, why not just leave bezels as is then if all that matters in screen experience is just solely what's in between the bezels. What do companies like Samsung and Apple mean when they say an "immersive experience" when eliminating bezels? That's directly related to the screen experience.

We recognize the notch affects the screen experience (notification bar shows less information, there's a cutout, etc.). Why would we not recognize that bezels affect the screen experience, too?

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

My issue with the front facing speakers is that they aren't even that good on the Pixel 2 XL. Compared to the Galaxy S9+, iPhone X and HTC U11, I found the Pixel has the worst sound out of them all, so pushing so hard for front facing speakers would be ok if the speaker quality was excellent. However, I'd be willing to forego front facing speakers and go with the HTC/iPhone/Galaxy setup if it meant smaller front bottom bezel.

The 2016 device with the best speakers was the original Pixel, followed by the Axon 7. The 2 & 2 XL are better than that, with an increase of over 20 dB (up to 98 dB) without any noticeable loss in clarity. I believe that the new Razer phone surpasses the Pixel 2, and the S9 goes head to head with the Razer phone on music, while the Razer soundly defeats it on video, games and calls. Dolby enhancement goes a long way to improving the sound experience. Samsung gets louder than the Razer, but distorts sound.

All that said, the biggest issue with the statement you're making is that it's making the false claim that just because something isn't the best, don't mean that it isn't good, or even great. As an example, out of all the Olympic athletes competing in the 100M sprint, would you say that the 4th or 5th place runner is terrible at running? Or that they're not "that good"? The argument you just made does that and equates being someone who just missed a medal with someone who didn't even make the team and also with the fat kid down the street that can't run from the end of his lawn to the front door. There's obviously a world of difference. An effective way to mitigate that error might be to quantify the quality of each and rank them all as a percent of best. There are other ways as well, but it is important to try to avoid misleading statements such as, "they aren't even that good", and then immediately listing 3 out of the top 5 devices while neglecting to state that the one you are dismissing is ALSO among the top 5. And that also fails to address that the top 5 are also leaps and bounds better than most of the market, similar to the Olympian analogy.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

You can get more screen (and in a smaller device) if there are less bezels. You can have slimmer bezels when you don't have front-firing speakers.

If the screen experience isn't affected by bezels, why is everybody removing bezels? I'm not simply talking about the display. I'm talking about Google's design decisions here and how that impacts the screen experience. Display certainly impacts the screen experience (quality panel, brightness, resolution, etc.) but so does design. Again, why not just leave bezels as is then if all that matters in screen experience is just solely what's in between them.

We recognize the notch affects the screen experience (notification bar shows less information, there's a cutout, etc.). Why can't we recognize that bezels affect the screen experience, too?

This is what I meant when I said "you lost me". I don't understand what you mean by "screen experience" in this context. I am willing to grant that this is probably a failing on my part rather than something you didn't explain properly. Not trying to be obtuse on this, I just don't think we have a working definition of the terms and so it makes it difficult to figure out if we agree or disagree, and if we do disagree, on what exactly it is that we disagree. Sorry

 

[recDNA]

P L A S T I C allows wireless charging and is sturdier than glass. With glass you need a case anyway so what's the dif? Carbon fiber looks nice too. Using glass on the back is a silly fad. How many laptops are made of glass? It's nuts. Phones are pocket computers. Make it sturdy and put a REALLY nice bright flat screen on it. The screen is the pretty part!