Google Pixel 3 / 3 XL 2018

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

My impression is that they want to be perceived as better than the sum of their parts and not as spec sheet rockers like Samsung and OnePlus. While I agree with everything you just said, I don't think that is the game they're playing. Apple does a lot better, performance wise, in a lot of categories, than most Android phones and it does it with hardware that in many cases, on paper, looks inferior. Google is emulating that and trying to provide something that just clicks with the average user and becomes something that they 1) don't have to worry about and 2) sometimes surprises them with a nice thing that it "learns" how to do.

For the users that want the absolute best possible audio, they should be buying LG. The users that want the absolute best displays on the market, they should be buying Apple. The users that want curved screens and the s-pen... you get it. So far we have never had an OEM that has tried to ring all the bells, mostly because it's an impossible feat because no matter which direction an OEM goes, the internet all becomes Reddit and trashes them for it. Some people want flat screens, some want curved. Some 16:9, some 2:1. Some want "bezel-less" and some want symmetry. Some people want more mAh, some people want better battery life. Obviously you can't meet the needs of everyone in any of those examples.

So, if we anthropomorphize Google and pretend that Google can think, I think Google might think that they don't NEED a whole bunch of extra hardware to overcome the software issues that they don't have. The best parts (IMO) of the Pixel user experience have very little to do with hardware and those that do are centered around aspects of the hardware that are typically ignored on the spec sheet. In thinking about it this way, many of the aspects of the spec sheet, in terms of hardware buzzwords, have nearly nothing to do with how we use the device and/or making it a better device, unless we are seeking the specific things that those upgrades provide - which very few consumers actually do, even with user facing features, relative to the market at large. The difference between IP67 and IP68, as an example, is absolutely 100% meaningless in real world terms - but the internet definitely goes nuts about it.

The game Google is playing seems to be about a cross between optimization and trying to overcome the hardware aspects that we could think of as somewhat placebo, whenever possible, with software solutions - because software is the game that they're good at, not hardware. As they grow maybe they'll become more like the Samsung everyone wants them to be... but for now, I prefer them the Google that they're rooted in.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

unless the pixel is priced considerably lower I don't see how this can really stack up against the Note 9 that will have more ram, a better screen, a bigger battery, the stylus, a flagship level camera and a more premium feeling device.

Aside from a "more premium feeling device" (not sure what that means), it might not stack on those exact features, but here's what I would expect it to meet the Note 9 on:

Better battery life, despite less mAh
Better camera
Better software
Better (faster and longer) update support
Better security out of the box
Better security update support
Better charging solution (USB Power Delivery vs "fast charge" which is based on QuickCharge 2.0)
Unlimited Photos
Traditionally (expect this to still be true) better Finterprint Sensor


Somewhat of a draw:
Same SoC
Storage - The Pixel is better in one way because of no microSD card slot, though the Note 9 will likely have more internal storage
Both water resistent
Both work approximately equally well on all carriers
Both made of glass, which sucks


Etc, etc.

Which one is better definitely depends on your priorities, not on any objective sense of anything being clearly to superior to anything else.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Obviously you can't meet the needs of everyone in any of those examples.

Personally, I don't think the Pixel brand is for everyone for this very reason. Every device maker can only resonate with a certain audience. I think a large swath of the population, through no fault of their own, have their own expectations of the brand and when it doesn't resonate, they suffer some disappointment.

It can be hard with so many choices within Android to find the device that resonates with you individually, I believe. Often times, I don't think that many people even know or understands what resonates with them. They just buy "something" and then run into frustrations.

 

[ChuckG73]

What is the Pixel for, why does Google build and sell their phones? I thought it was to illustrate what Android can be, Halo devices....right?

If so, it does not feel like they are achieving that goal. I had an iPhone X for awhile to see what the fuss was about and WOW I was really surprised how nice the experience was. That to me is a device pushing some boundaries showing what Apple can be.

Edge to Edge beautiful OLED display
Dual Cameras
A11 Bionic Chip
Craftsmanship
Attention to detail
Wireless Charging
Feel in hand and size is perfect

I sold it and came back to the Pixel 2, as I have always been a Google fan, but it really has me thinking what my next phone will be.......

How will Apple improve on last year's design, what will Google do to push the limit and be that Halo device.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I thought it was to illustrate what Android can be, Halo devices....right?

Not at all. They are building it as an example of how they interpret Android, not trying to show the best that it can be. Google is clearly not saying, "this is the best of all options available". They're saying, "here's a device that represents how we want to show off our software". Very different things.

 

[ChuckG73]

Is it the Pixel book then that is a Halo device?

I know I did not dream this...

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Is it the Pixel book then that is a Halo device?

I know I did not dream this...

I would agree with that for sure, they were swinging hard for the fences on that one.

 

[osubeavs728]

Not at all. They are building it as an example of how they interpret Android, not trying to show the best that it can be. Google is clearly not saying, "this is the best of all options available". They're saying, "here's a device that represents how we want to show off our software". Very different things.

Exactly. Because people seem to forget that Google was a data and software company long before they started making phones. These devices are vessels for their AI and software, which will always be priority one.

 

[onthecouchagain]

Regardless of priorities, Google has decided to make hardware. They should make it good.

 

[ChuckG73]

Regardless of priorities, Google has decided to make hardware. They should make it good.

They should make it great.

 

[osubeavs728]

It is.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

It is.

IMO you're right, and so are they - it depends on what each person is using to define their terms. This could fall again into the category of not everything that isn't the absolute best isn't good, but also falls into the nature of how we buy phones. We buy packages of features and components, we don't get to pick variants that ring all the bells. There's no such thing as a super phone, and there probably won't be in the foreseeable future. It totally makes sense to wish for Google to make top of the line hardware in every category, but it's simply not practical to be disappointed when they don't.

Here's how I look at some of it:
We begged for years for front facing speakers, the Pixels adopted it, now - according to this thread, people no longer want them.
We begged for years for accurate OLED displays, all three generations of Pixel devices have that - now we only want them if they're made by Samsung.
We want a "premium feel" (a meaningless term) - which the market has transformed to equate to a "fragile build quality made from fragile build materials" - Google does this, and adopts wireless charging and now come the pitchforks.
We want fast updates and updates for a long time - Google leads Android on this front, second best in the industry.
We ask for limiting bezels, which is accomplished by notches - and so Google does this and the internet freaks out. Yes, it's huge - it's accommodating two cameras and a speaker and Google seems less experienced than Apple at designing the face of the device. Apple's 11 years in, Google is 3.
People say they want an amazing camera - Google brings it.

The choices they have available are to either ignore the market in favor of the nerds or to ignore the nerds in favor of the market. Either you make a great phone that most people love and get absolutely trashed all day long on the internet or you make a phone for the nerds that is so expensive that no one would even consider buying it.

Almost every time someone says, "x phone is better than y" - they are stating that, according to the things in which they value, that the package of x meets their needs better than y. There are very few people, especially in the forums, who can separate that statement from an objective analysis. As an example, we know most of what there is to know about the Note 9 and the Pixel 3 XL. A lot of people will make the claim that either one is better than the other. All of them are right, if they're speaking for themselves and all of them are wrong if they're speaking for others.

Defining the terms - specifying in what ways is one thing better or lesser than another, and for whom is pretty important. Otherwise we're all just screaming, "chocolate is better! no vanilla!" when really everyone already should know that's it's obviously Reece's peanut butter cup ice cream.

 

[mgbosshogg]

so pixel 3 will not be a high end device yet it'll be priced like one. can't believe only 4gb of ram.

Same as the 2XL then.
Their flagship, not A flagship.

 

[anon(661246)]

Geez Google's philosophy is less for more. Google could easily bump the battery up to 4000 mah and offer 2 additional gigs of ram. Google has balls if they stand their with a serious face selling another "flagship" device with a substandard display.

 

[Mike Dee]

Same as the 2XL then.
Their flagship, not A flagship.

That's what a flagship is.

 

[anon(10092459)]

What is the Pixel for, why does Google build and sell their phones?

When I read the Google AI Blog and they reference some of the work that they are doing with Google's hardware, to me this what the Pixel is for first. The manifestation of AI driven consumer devices.

The use of Federated Learning is throughout the device for example. As a point of reference G-board is the example they use. That type of work is incredibly complex, however 99% of the population is unaware of it or how it's improving their experience on an ongoing basis.

From Google's blog, they say the Pixel is built to "provide our take on the best Google experience". Now that will vary from person to person for sure, but I think that's key "the best Google experience"

Rick Osterloh did an interview earlier this year (one of the better ones I've read and I'll post the link if anyone has an interest in ready the full piece) and from that article:

'The hope was that with this phone, at last, Google could give its software the physical form it needed. “We have a terrific ecosystem position with Android, but I think no one was really delivering the full Google experience,” Osterloh says.'

I think the AI being at the center is what gets overlooked with the Pixel phones. It's really an important part of the UX. From that same article:

"It’s getting harder and harder to make fundamental leaps in power and capability. Google’s advantage, he says, is in its algorithms and neural networks. Osterloh’s job is to push Google’s AI capabilities more deeply into people’s lives.

For the new hardware team, the task was clear: Find more ways to get Google Assistant in front of people and build a sustainable business around it."

https://www.wired.com/story/one-mans-quest-to-make-googles-gadgets-great/

It's a good read, imo.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Regardless of priorities, Google has decided to make hardware. They should make it good.

I think we all agreed with that. What is good, or even great, I think varies from person to person. I know I don't represent the masses when I discuss hardware, because hardware is what the masses like to discuss, but for me as long as the hardware doesn't impede the software experience, I'm probably going to be happy with it.

Others, like amazing hardware and that's okay too. I just think Google's strength lies in other places.

 

[Mike Dee]

Geez Google's philosophy is less for more. Google could easily bump the battery up to 4000 mah and offer 2 additional gigs of ram. Google has balls if they stand their with a serious face selling another "flagship" device with a substandard display.

If everything was easy, everyone would build the best of the best. It just doesn't work that way. If it was as simple as make it so than every OEM would put huge batteries, megamemory, the best screens and the best sound. Most of us here are not the mainstream consumer though we like to think we are. Google does a tremendous amount of research with consumers before they make a decision on a product be it software or hardware.

All I know for sure is that when I consider a product I weigh my options and if it doesn't work for me I move on and buy something else.

 

[I Can Be Your Hero]

Also, I don't understand why you can't achieve both good optimization + top of the line specs; we can't even hope for both as Pixel/Android fans?

That's what I'm struggling to understand as well. Why can't Google achieve both high end specs along with all the optimisation they want to do? Why does that seem mutually exclusive to Google? I mean the only argument I'm hearing for not including 6gb ram is because 'it can get by with 4gb'. Well it could also get by with 3gb ram, so should Google cut the amount of ram to 3gb?

There's a real-world benefit to having more ram, one that everyone would benefit from whether they know how ram works or not.

Hearing it'll only have 4gb ram is troubling to me. My current Pixel 2 XL has 4gb ram and I get lot of app reloads and delays multi-tasking, just as MKBHD posted in his video. No doubt 6gb ram is more beneficial. And being on Android P, I don't feel this is any more optimised or any faster than Android Oreo was.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

Geez Google's philosophy is less for more. Google could easily bump the battery up to 4000 mah and offer 2 additional gigs of ram. Google has balls if they stand their with a serious face selling another "flagship" device with a substandard display.

Is there another device you'd hold up as a more well rounded Android flagship?

*Disclaimer - I can shred any device just as easily as people hate on the Pixels.