Op Ed: Google's Looming Pixel 4 disappointment

[Almeuit]

Wide lens or bust.

 

[Golurk]

Clean and up-to-date software and a great single lens camera can only take Google so far. Look at the Pixel 3...great software/main camera, but compared to its rivals the battery life is mediocre, the camera setup limited (only 1 lens...no wide angle, zoom etc), the design a slight let down and only 4GB of RAM leaves a lot to be desired.

Google (similar to Apple in a way) is almost never the first company to bring flashy new features to a phone (e.g in display fingerprint scanners, multiple cameras, ultra modern design etc)...unlike Samsung, Huawei, OnePlus etc. What they do is refine those features and release them at a slightly later date. However, because its rivals are at the stage where the newly introduced features are already great, Google needs to up its game.

6 GB of RAM, dual/triple lens camera is now the bare minimum when it comes to flagships...

 

[anon(10092459)]

Well, I also think there's a different between wanting to sell a phone and having to sell a phone. Google doesn't have to sell a phone .. Other OEM's do however.

Samsung not selling a phone is more painful. Google could never sell another Pixel and accounting wouldn't even notice.

 

[mustang7757]

Back to topic ...

I hope that Google isn't straying too far away from keeping things simple with the Pixel 4. To me the Pixel/Google Experience is about clean UI and a functional, curated feature set. I see this camera set up on the back of the 4 and my concerns are heightened that Google is losing discipline with their Pixels.

I don't want them going down a path of adding to the feature set too much. That ledger is already starting to get a lil long in the tooth. Look at the camera app for example, getting a bit bloated and needs to be edited. But with additional camera and functions being added, the feature set will grow and that requires resources.

If anything, Google needs to edit the upcoming Pixel 4 and show some restraint. Fewer, but refined, feature set would be more enticing to me than just adding line items. Put most of the weight on GA and develop from that foundation.

I agree the camera UI getting cluttered in there lol, but I like beat little things they do , like if you taking a photo in dim light s pop will suggest night shot and from there you decide to use by a tap or ignore it . That's what they need to do more and hide the those others in the settings of the camera UI , just give little pop up to keep things going instead of searching which mode .

 

[mustang7757]

True

Well, I also think there's a different between wanting to sell a phone and having to sell a phone. Google doesn't have to sell a phone .. Other OEM's do however.

Samsung not selling a phone is more painful. Google could never sell another Pixel and accounting wouldn't even notice.

 

[Golurk]

Well, I also think there's a different between wanting to sell a phone and having to sell a phone. Google doesn't have to sell a phone .. Other OEM's do however.

Samsung not selling a phone is more painful. Google could never sell another Pixel and accounting wouldn't even notice.

Fair point...although as of late they seem to be getting hit with antitrust rulings every few weeks >_<

As for DMP89145’s concerns, Google is perfectly capable of keeping this simple with a dual/triple lens camera setup...they’re including it to keep up with the competition. If they can have all the cool new features WHILE keeping it refined, easy-to-use and continuing to provide the pure experience Google is known for, then they’ll truly have a competition-beating phone.

 

[anon(10092459)]

Fair point...although as of late they seem to be getting hit with antitrust rulings every few weeks >_<

As for DMP89145’s concerns, Google is perfectly capable of keeping this simple with a dual/triple lens camera setup...they’re including it to keep up with the competition. If they can have all the cool new features WHILE keeping it refined, easy-to-use and continuing to provide the pure experience Google is known for, then they’ll truly have a competition-beating phone.

Fewer and refined will always be preferred over cool and new, IMO. Adding more items on the list requires resources that could be dedicated to improving the already existing feature set.

For me, I don't want a software engineer team spending time trying to get 12 different themes (or whatever feature of the moment) slammed into a Pixel. Android has OEM's that do that and cater to that user space. No need to go that route.

I'd much rather they have a team work on improving video for the Pixel from just okay to great. All I'm saying is that they seem to be stacking more and more into the device feature set without editing enough and drifting away from it's foundation bit by bit.

On the hardware side.. Who cares..? Google could put out a phone encased in Lapis Lazuli with a crystal back and people would still complain. They could put in six cameras, 24 GB of RAM, 8,000 mah batttery and some people would still come out to complain that now the phone is too thick and heavy. So I feel like no matter what, the same Grumpy McGrumpy crowd will never be satisfied, so why even try to cater to them.

 

[Mike Dee]

Fewer and refined will always be preferred over cool and new, IMO. Adding more items on the list requires resources that could be dedicated to improving the already existing feature set.

For me, I don't want a software engineer team spending time trying to get 12 different themes (or whatever feature of the moment) slammed into a Pixel. Android has OEM's that do that and cater to that user space. No need to go that route.

I'd much rather they have a team work on improving video for the Pixel from just okay to great. All I'm saying is that they seem to be stacking more and more into the device feature set without editing enough and drifting away from it's foundation bit by bit.

On the hardware side.. Who cares..? Google could put out a phone encased in Lapis Lazuli with a crystal back and people would still complain. They could put in six cameras, 24 GB of RAM, 8,000 mah batttery and some people would still come out to complain that now the phone is too thick and heavy. So I feel like no matter what, the same Grumpy McGrumpy crowd will never be satisfied, so why even try to cater to them.

I've been waiting my whole life for Lapis Lazuli but it's like waiting for Godot

 

[anon(10092459)]

I've been waiting my whole life for Lapis Lazuli but it's like waiting for Godot

Helluva combo if we ever get it, that's for damn sure!

 

[Golurk]

Fewer and refined will always be preferred over cool and new, IMO. Adding more items on the list requires resources that could be dedicated to improving the already existing feature set.

For me, I don't want a software engineer team spending time trying to get 12 different themes (or whatever feature of the moment) slammed into a Pixel. Android has OEM's that do that and cater to that user space. No need to go that route.

I'd much rather they have a team work on improving video for the Pixel from just okay to great. All I'm saying is that they seem to be stacking more and more into the device feature set without editing enough and drifting away from it's foundation bit by bit.

On the hardware side.. Who cares..? Google could put out a phone encased in Lapis Lazuli with a crystal back and people would still complain. They could put in six cameras, 24 GB of RAM, 8,000 mah batttery and some people would still come out to complain that now the phone is too thick and heavy. So I feel like no matter what, the same Grumpy McGrumpy crowd will never be satisfied, so why even try to cater to them.

I think you’ve missed the point. I said that knowing Google Pixel’s team past phones, the Pixel 4 won’t be as feature-packed as let’s say, Huawei’s are, but they’ll have all the features you really want and they’ll be refined and easy to use.

People are complaining about the Pixel 3’s lacklustre specs...because usually lacklustre specs translate to a lacklustre phone...even Google can only do so much.

The way I see it, the Pixel 4 (from leaked info we have so far) isn’t anywhere close to being as flashy or feature-packed as its rivals. 6 GB RAM, dual/triple lens camera and slim bezels (hopefully a larger battery as well)...that’s building on the Pixel’s foundations, not destroying them!

Refining a product whilst improving it doesn’t mean adding as many new features as possible to the detriment of the overall experience...nor does it mean you have a barebones phone.

And from Google’s point of view, simply improving video capabilities of the Pixel 3 and giving it Android Q along with a Snapdragon 855 isn’t going to sell well at all. Now people WANT features like facial recognition and telephoto/wide angle lens etc.

As for the McGrumpy crowd...I believe that’s mostly tech reviewers.

Unfortunately for you, when people look at your ideal Pixel 4 (the one with better video capabilities, Android Q, incremental improvements) they’ll probably look at the S10 or P30 and go ‘Why spend all this money on the Pixel 4 when these two are better in every way?’ (Not many people think of software, and you can always use a launcher). Those people make up the majority of the consumer base. By catering to those people...however much you may disagree with them, Google makes more money. It’s a no brainer.

That’s just my opinion...and hopefully some people will understand my line of thinking. But maybe I’m wrong and in the minority here...IDK.

Sorry for the long post

 

[Mike Dee]

I think you’ve missed the point. I said that knowing Google Pixel’s team past phones, the Pixel 4 won’t be as feature-packed as let’s say, Huawei’s are, but they’ll have all the features you really want and they’ll be refined and easy to use.

People are complaining about the Pixel 3’s lacklustre specs...because usually lacklustre specs translate to a lacklustre phone...even Google can only do so much.

The way I see it, the Pixel 4 (from leaked info we have so far) isn’t anywhere close to being as flashy or feature-packed as its rivals. 6 GB RAM, dual/triple lens camera and slim bezels (hopefully a larger battery as well)...that’s building on the Pixel’s foundations, not destroying them!

Refining a product whilst improving it doesn’t mean adding as many new features as possible to the detriment of the overall experience...nor does it mean you have a barebones phone.

And from Google’s point of view, simply improving video capabilities of the Pixel 3 and giving it Android Q along with a Snapdragon 855 isn’t going to sell well at all. Now people WANT features like facial recognition and telephoto/wide angle lens etc.

As for the McGrumpy crowd...I believe that’s mostly tech reviewers.

Unfortunately for you, when people look at your ideal Pixel 4 (the one with better video capabilities, Android Q, incremental improvements) they’ll probably look at the S10 or P30 and go ‘Why spend all this money on the Pixel 4 when these two are better in every way?’ (Not many people think of software, and you can always use a launcher). Those people make up the majority of the consumer base. By catering to those people...however much you may disagree with them, Google makes more money. It’s a no brainer.

That’s just my opinion...and hopefully some people will understand my line of thinking. But maybe I’m wrong and in the minority here...IDK.

Sorry for the long post

I believe the acquired HTC engineerz have involvement in the 4. Will it make a difference? We shall see.

 

[anon(10092459)]

@Golurk

I think your line of thinking is the majority of the Android population. Because that's what Android enthusiasts love .. feature heavy phones... they like gimmicks. Nothing wrong with that.

And I haven't missed the point, though I think you've missed mine. You only have so much resources for any given thing. Time and energy can only be dedicated so much to things. Continually adding on to the feature set without editing is trying to stretch resources and attention of developers and, in turn, end up being jacks of trades and masters of none. Instead of ending up with 7 great dependable features, I end up with 14 meh features that break 4 months into a phone. Every line item feature that gets added has the risk of just half working and breaking something else from lack of time and attention to detail.

As an example, during the AMA with the Q developers, they were asked why the dark mode is either on or off, there's no timer to differentiate between nighttime and daytime automatically. The response was, "At this point of time Dark theme is not able to support time based activation. This is something we will be looking into. Apologies for it not being supported with the latest Dark Theme." So a user will now have to be going back and forth on those modes until hopefully something gets updated in R. That's a feature that's not completely fleshed out, but is being implemented in the coming weeks. Something like that, loaded on to a new Pixel 4 with this soli integration and what not. It just screams of needing heavy editing, to me.

What I want is a well functioning device that's not loaded with a bunch of distractions. I need it to "get out of the way". Google Pixels originally launched on that premise (OG and Pixel 2 did amazing, 3 meh) and appeal to that customer base. It's the main reason I don't buy Samsung. They make great devices, just not for me. Now if Google just wants to build Pixels to be another S model to appeal to that crowd, then I'd probably stop buying Pixels.

Google wants to sell phones, for sure. Now whether Google is trying to put it's partners out of business by catering to that crowd is another matter all together. I don't believe that they want to cannibalize all of Android for themselves, though I very well may be wrong. Personally, I feel that Google wants to appeal to the Apple consumer. Time will tell, I guess.

Listen, there's nothing wrong with differing opinions and I may be completely wrong about Google's approach. I enjoy hearing others thoughts and opinions on the topic. It's what we do here, right? No need to apologize for a long post.. at least not to me.

 

[Golurk]

@Golurk

I think your line of thinking is the majority of the Android population. Because that's what Android enthusiasts love .. feature heavy phones... they like gimmicks. Nothing wrong with that.

And I haven't missed the point, though I think you've missed mine. You only have so much resources for any given thing. Time and energy can only be dedicated so much to things. Continually adding on to the feature set without editing is trying to stretch resources and attention of developers and, in turn, end up being jacks of trades and masters of none. Instead of ending up with 7 great dependable features, I end up with 14 meh features that break 4 months into a phone. Every line item feature that gets added has the risk of just half working and breaking something else from lack of time and attention to detail.

As an example, during the AMA with the Q developers, they were asked why the dark mode is either on or off, there's no timer to differentiate between nighttime and daytime automatically. The response was, "At this point of time Dark theme is not able to support time based activation. This is something we will be looking into. Apologies for it not being supported with the latest Dark Theme." So a user will now have to be going back and forth on those modes until hopefully something gets updated in R. That's a feature that's not completely fleshed out, but is being implemented in the coming weeks. Something like that, loaded on to a new Pixel 4 with this soli integration and what not. It just screams of needing heavy editing, to me.

What I want is a well functioning device that's not loaded with a bunch of distractions. I need it to "get out of the way". Google Pixels originally launched on that premise (OG and Pixel 2 did amazing, 3 meh) and appeal to that customer base. It's the main reason I don't buy Samsung. They make great devices, just not for me. Now if Google just wants to build Pixels to be another S model to appeal to that crowd, then I'd probably stop buying Pixels.

Google wants to sell phones, for sure. Now whether Google is trying to put it's partners out of business by catering to that crowd is another matter all together. I don't believe that they want to cannibalize all of Android for themselves, though I very well may be wrong. Personally, I feel that Google wants to appeal to the Apple consumer. Time will tell, I guess.

Listen, there's nothing wrong with differing opinions and I may be completely wrong about Google's approach. I enjoy hearing others thoughts and opinions on the topic. It's what we do here, right? No need to apologize for a long post.. at least not to me.

If you don’t like the way Google Pixel phones are going...then I’d suggest Nokia phones. They have Android One/pure Android and they don’t have any of the flashy features like in display fingerprints (apart from the 9). Their designs are solid but not amazing (slim bezels, metal/glass construction). Their cameras and battery are supposed to be good as well. Judging from your wishes from the Pixel line Nokia phones are the most similar to the OG Pixels I can think of.

If not, then a more high-end option with pure and long-term OS support (the OnePlus 3T got Android Pie!) then OnePlus is a solid option as well

 

[anon(10092459)]

If you don’t like the way Google Pixel phones are going...then I’d suggest Nokia phones. They have Android One/pure Android and they don’t have any of the flashy features like in display fingerprints (apart from the 9). Their designs are solid but not amazing (slim bezels, metal/glass construction). Their cameras and battery are supposed to be good as well. Judging from your wishes from the Pixel line Nokia phones are the most similar to the OG Pixels I can think of.

If not, then a more high-end option with pure and long-term OS support (the OnePlus 3T got Android Pie!) then OnePlus is a solid option as well

Definitely in that Android One vein. Funny you mention Nokia. I looked at the 6.1 in 2018, but with me being on Verizon it was no bueno.

 

[Golurk]

Definitely in that Android One vein. Funny you mention Nokia. I looked at the 6.1 in 2018, but with me being on Verizon it was no bueno.

Do they not sell Nokia phones? In the UK, most people (I think) buy phones sim-free and then choose whatever contract they like, but apparently in the US the majority of users buy phones via their providers.

 

[Mike Dee]

Do they not sell Nokia phones? In the UK, most people (I think) buy phones sim-free and then choose whatever contract they like, but apparently in the US the majority of users buy phones via their providers.

It's not so much that people buy from their providers. It's more of a compatibility issue using certain unlocked models with networks, bands, and certain carrier features.

 

[Golurk]

It's not so much that people buy from their providers. It's more of a compatibility issue using certain unlocked models with networks, bands, and certain carrier features.

Ok

 

[anon(10092459)]

Osterloh did an interview in Oct 2017, around the time they released the Pixel 2, where he was pretty clear about the "Why doesn't do 'this or that' to be more competitive with the Pixel?". A couple of points from that interview:

Google's smartphone efforts are frankly not likely to sell in numbers that will threaten Samsung anytime soon. "We're focused on the high end in a few markets," Osterloh says. "So while there might be some overlap with the ecosystem, there are 2 billion Android phones out there. And our business is obviously much more narrow than that."

and

It's going to take some time before we can tell if Google's machine learning bet will play out. And who knows, it may eventually decide it needs to compete directly with Apple on chips. But what we can judge right now is the design of Google's hardware products. They focus much more on simple pragmatism than flashy design.

"You know, I don't think Google has ever been a 'flash' company, right?" Osterloh says. I remind him about the people parachuting out of a blimp once upon a time. "Let me restate that, then," he laughs. "The product design is attempting to reflect the brand. I think the company has always been about trying to solve real user problems and having the technology recede in the background."

Google's not trying to make edge-to-edge screens with cutouts, or even curved screens. ("Look, we don't think there's use in that.") Instead, Osterloh says, Google "wanted to try to keep it simple and nice and clean ... We're trying to be reminiscent of Google's main property: the big search box."

To me, that should answer the questions around design.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/4/...interview-new-google-hardware-vision-htc-deal

 

[Golurk]

Still, uniform bezels would’ve been nice. But otherwise true and I agree.

Google bought HTC’s entire phone design team so I think that’s where they got the dual tone finish etc from.

 

[neil74]

If it looks like this I am ok with it



If however it looks like this, I am not. Think it looks odd and I do not like the lack of symmetry.