Google Pixel 3 / 3 XL 2018

[Mike Dee]

Same ... After upgrading to Pie, I've only used 27% (about 17G) of the 64 GB available. I consciously run a "skinny" phone.

I guess, from what I read, some users literally store everything locally for years and thus need/want high storage or SD Cards. Maybe cloud storage isn't their cup of tea or just haven't bought an external drive or whatever...

If you listen to high quality audio the files they take up a lot of space.
128 is good enough for me though

 

[dsignori]

The benefit to the consumer is covered by the opportunity cost portion of it - money not wasted on unnecessary upgrades - that can be better invested in putting more time, aka money, into improving other features that provide better bang for the bunk to the user.

Oh please. For $900+ we should have the higher RAM plus whatever other "opportunity cost" benefits supposedly are gained by only using 4GB. At $500 or $300 you can talk trade offs. At $900+, it all just sounds silly IMO.

 

[dsignori]

Listen, I do appreciate you having a different take, but you really need to build a facts based case to get traction with this. 6GB is just an arbitrary number.. Why not 8GB or even more? At what point does it make sense that it's a waste and inefficient to you?

Do you know that the 3G of RAM in the iPhone X is the MOST RAM they've ever put into an iPhone? First time ever to use 3G. Now do you think that any of their phones are just cost cutting with no benefit to the consumer because of that? Surely not...

Well the AC editors are not thrilled about the 4GB of RAM either.

So maybe it's a simple case of: When you spend close to $1000 on a phone, "arbitrary" or not, it should have specs that are competitive with other high end Android phones. Period. Comparing it to a phone with a different OS is silly as well ..

 

[osubeavs728]

Oh please. For $900+ we should have the higher RAM plus whatever other "opportunity cost" benefits supposedly are gained by only using 4GB. At $500 or $300 you can talk trade offs. At $900+, it all just sounds silly IMO.

People keep throwing the price out like it should justify something. You realize $1000 isn't a lot of money to some people, so the price is irrelevant. It's more about does it do what they want it to do.

 

[onthecouchagain]

I'm over the fact that the Pixel 3 models will only have 4GB, but the above poster is right, it's absurd to assume that going with 4GB of RAM means the money saved automatically makes other areas improve due to re-allocated resources. You don't know this. Nobody knows except Google, how resources are allocated. I'm confident Google could have found some way to fund an additional 2GB of RAM without sacrificing quality elsewhere. Why so little faith in a multi-billion dollar company? Isn't RAM affordable these days? You're saying Samsung can do it, but Google can't?

It's also silly to keep bringing up the iPhone with 3GB of RAM. So what? That's a different OS. Isn't Android multi-tasking much better than iOS' anyway? Doesn't it make sense to compare something closer, like another Android device? And why compare down? Why not compare up, say like MKBHD does with the OnePlus 6? Why are we setting the bar to "good enough?"

Heck, let's just discuss the Pixel 2 XL -- MKBHD and others have already said the RAM affects real world usage. Why do we keep ignoring this when they're telling us point blank?

And as I said before, if limited RAM means I have to wait for apps to reload, then that is slower. If I can use an app right away versus seeing a big white screen and then waiting for the content to reload before I can use it, that is slower. You can argue that the wait to reload is tiny or that you yourself don't use so many apps that you often see reloads, but none of that changes the fact that it is slower.

The Pixel 3 models will have 4GB of RAM. We all have to come to terms with that and then make our own decisions with our own wallets, but some of the arguments and excuses made here for Google are unfortunate. Google doesn't need your defense. What Google needs to do is compete better, plain and simple.

 

[Mike Dee]

Well the AC editors are not thrilled about the 4GB of RAM either.

So maybe it's a simple case of: When you spend close to $1000 on a phone, "arbitrary" or not, it should have specs that are competitive with other high end Android phones. Period. Comparing it to a phone with a different OS is silly as well ..

The AC editor didnt say much about why we need it other than desire.
There are plenty of articles that discuss whether we need more than 4GB of RAM on the web and even one on AC from Jerry Hildenbrand.

 

[osubeavs728]

I'm over the fact that the Pixel 3 models will only have 4GB, but the above poster is right, it's absurd to assume that going with 4GB of RAM means the money saved automatically makes other areas improve due to re-allocated resources. You don't know this. Nobody knows except Google, how resources are allocated. I'm confident Google could have found some way to fund an additional 2GB of RAM without sacrificing quality elsewhere. Why so little faith in a multi-billion dollar company? Isn't RAM affordable these days? You're saying Samsung can do it, but Google can't?

It's also silly to keep bringing up the iPhone with 3GB of RAM. So what? That's a different OS. Isn't Android multi-tasking much better than iOS' anyway? Doesn't it make sense to compare something closer, like another Android device? And why compare down? Why not compare up, say like MKBHD does with the OnePlus 6? Why are we setting the bar to "good enough?"

Heck, let's just discuss the Pixel 2 XL -- MKBHD and others have already said the RAM affects real world usage. Why do we keep ignoring this when they're telling us point blank?

And as I said before, if limited RAM means I have to wait for apps to reload, then that is slower. If I can use an app right away versus seeing a big white screen and then waiting for the content to reload before I can use it, that is slower. You can argue that the wait to reload is tiny or that you yourself don't use so many apps that you often see reloads, but none of that changes the fact that it is slower.

The Pixel 3 models will have 4GB of RAM. We all have to come to terms with that and then make our own decisions with our own wallets, but some of the arguments and excuses made here for Google are unfortunate. Google doesn't need your defense. What Google needs to do is compete better, plain and simple.

Thought you were over it?

 

[Morty2264]

Yeah, I’m sure I do too just might wait to see it in person before I pull out the AMEX

Always a smart plan!

 

[onthecouchagain]

Thought you were over it?

Don't have much of a choice, but we can still point out bad excuses, can't we?

 

[anon(10092459)]

So maybe it's a simple case of: When you spend close to $1000 on a phone, "arbitrary" or not, it should have specs that are competitive with other high end Android phones. Period. Comparing it to a phone with a different OS is silly as well ..

From your post, it would seem that you believe that Google is marketing to other Android users when, I beg to differ. There's no benefit to Google or Android to take money out of their left pocket and put it in the right pocket. In other words they aren't try to compete against other Android OEM's. You won't find one marketing piece, interview or company press release that says otherwise.

Google markets to current iOS users. You know, the ones with the 2GB and 3GB of RAM phones. This idea that there is some connection between how much RAM is in a phone as a measurement of being flagship worthy or not, when there are flagship devices without 6GB of RAM makes no logical sense.

It's also silly to keep bringing up the iPhone with 3GB of RAM. So what? That's a different OS. Isn't Android multi-tasking much better than iOS' anyway? Doesn't it make sense to compare something closer, like another Android device? And why compare down? Why not compare up, say like MKBHD does with the OnePlus 6? Why are we setting the bar to "good enough?"

See Above.

 

[onthecouchagain]

From your post, it would seem that you believe that Google is marketing to other Android users when, I beg to differ. There's not benefit to Google or Android to take money our of their left pocket and put it in the right pocket. In other words they aren't try to compete against other Android OEM's. You won't find one marketing piece, interview or company press release that says otherwise.

Google markets to current iOS users. You know, the ones with the 2GB and 3GB of RAM phones. This idea that there is some connection between how much RAM is in a phone as a measurement of being flagship worthy or not, when there are flagship devices without 6GB of RAM makes no logical sense.



See Above.

No doubt Google wants to capture iOS users, but is this really the best way? To try to match the lower specs of the iPhone? That doesn't make any sense to me. I'm confident Google can cater to both iOS users who don't care about specs and others who do.

Also, when apps start refreshing, what's the explanation to iOS users then? There are plenty of iPhone stories about Safari being unable to keep more tabs open due to limited RAM, etc. If Google really wants to entice iOS users away, why not offer a better guarantee that the software won't run into walls like that? I asked this question before, why should Google lower the bar to match the iPhone? Why are they going for "good enough?" And why are we defending it?

As a fellow Android, Pixel, and Google fan, I don't follow this line of thought. I rather have Google compete better. This speaks to more than just RAM. That is to say, no one is saying RAM is the only thing that makes a device flagship worthy.

If Google really wanted to capture iOS users, they could be doing better in hardware design, they could have kept the headphone jack, they could have kept wireless charging and face unlock from the Nexus-days, include USB-C earphones instead of nothing in the box, and more. They are finally rectifying some of these.

The bottomline is, we should hold Google to higher standards, not lower.

 

[anon(10092459)]

As a fellow Android, Pixel, and Google fan, I don't follow this line of thought.

The point is, it's not about higher specs for that user. Apple sells literally hundreds of millions of phones with lower specs than the current Pixel.

It's the same reason some Android users are having their grumbles about Pie. Follow this thinking from EK Chung, Lead designer for Android UX and Pixel UX:

'One of the biggest talking points of Android Pie has been its gesture navigation system, which marks the first functional change to Google's navigation since Ice Cream Sandwich debuted on the Samsung Galaxy Nexus in 2011. While it seems odd to those of us who have used every Android phone under the sun, EK makes an interesting point that "[Android users] are all familiar with what those buttons do, but people who are new to Android are puzzled by it."

Does that sound like the focus for Google getting that user is around the headphone jack?

Maybe this is why Google is just focusing on iOS conversions and NOT competing with other Android OEMs..

https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/06/ios-safari-us-market-share/

 

[dsignori]

The AC editor didnt say much about why we need it other than desire.
There are plenty of articles that discuss whether we need more than 4GB of RAM on the web and even one on AC from Jerry Hildenbrand.

I'm not gonna beat it to death, but it isn't about need necessarily. Your arguments have merits for a $400 or $500 phone. But, for a $900+ phone there should be no compromising.

 

[dsignori]

From your post, it would seem that you believe that Google is marketing to other Android users when, I beg to differ. There's not benefit to Google or Android to take money our of their left pocket and put it in the right pocket. In other words they aren't try to compete against other Android OEM's. You won't find one marketing piece, interview or company press release that says otherwise.

Google markets to current iOS users. You know, the ones with the 2GB and 3GB of RAM phones. This idea that there is some connection between how much RAM is in a phone as a measurement of being flagship worthy or not, when there are flagship devices without 6GB of RAM makes no logical sense.



See Above.

My post wasn't about marketing, it was about your silly comparison to the iPhone. Be happy with less RAM if you like for $900, that's cool. I am not.

 

[anon(10092459)]

My post wasn't about marketing, it was about your silly comparison to the iPhone. Be happy with less RAM if you like for $900, that's cool. I am not.

Cool. I'll buy the phone and be happy. You don't have to and can be happy with something else.

Cheers!

 

[dsignori]

Cool. I'll buy the phone and be happy. You don't have to and can be happy with something else.

Cheers!

Looking back on my posts, I should've chosen my words better ("silly", etc), sorry about that.

Honestly, I'll probably end up buying it, as I learn more about it closer to launch. We'll see. Right now my 2 XL is a lag fest for the last month, and this RAM news isn't informing my decision about the 3XL in a positive way right now.

That said, there are many excellent phones out there for this price, so Google better make it great.

 

[Mike Dee]

I'm not gonna beat it to death, but it isn't about need necessarily. Your arguments have merits for a $400 or $500 phone. But, for a $900+ phone there should be no compromising.

Price has nothing to do with it. That's just your take on it. Likewise... I don't think a high end phone should be made of glass just to get wireless charging but many people will disagree. I can live with the glass back by putting it in case and buying insurance. So that isn't a total deal breaker for me. For those that need 4GB and more than 128GB of storage there are other phones out there.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Looking back on my posts, I should've chosen my words better ("silly", etc), sorry about that.

Honestly, I'll probably end up buying it, as I learn more about it closer to launch. We'll see. Right now my 2 XL is a lag fest for the last month, and this RAM news isn't informing my decision about the 3XL in a positive way right now.

That said, there are many excellent phones out there for this price, so Google better make it great.

No hard feelings, mate! I understand when people put their money down, they have their own expectations and that's cool. I'm the same.

All I mean to say about the 4GB or 6GB ... whatever.. is that the specs aren't the deciding factor for the market that Google is wanting to convert.

Samsung is Android's lead stallion. They throw everything they can at Apple. Every stat and spec... every feature .. every bell and whistle. Yet the iPhone X reigns supreme, not the GS9+.

In any event, I'm sure we both will have our bank cards ready come Oct 4th.. well I will, for sure.

 

[onthecouchagain]

We don't have to discuss price relative to the individual. All you have to do is show that other $900 dollar phones have more RAM or storage. Or show that even cheaper phones have more RAM. Google can afford more RAM and more storage if they wanted to in their similarly priced devices. They don't want to, and that's what's unfortunate.

Anyone see the Note 9 announcement from today? You can do the same thing here. The Note 9 looks like a way better value at $999 versus say the iPhone X at the same price with less features/specs. We don't need to mention whether $999 is worthwhile or not for me or anyone else to notice this.

 

[onthecouchagain]

At the end of the day, I have my eyes set on the regular Pixel 3 most likely. Just unfortunate for all of us that Google is holding back when they clearly don't have to. I'm sure no one would complain that Google didn't allocate their resources correctly if they saw 6GB of RAM in the Pixel 3.