The cost of the Pixel/Pixel XL

[Commodus]

Only because you've been conditioned to want less.

High end devices get away with simply having amazing design and doing the few things they do extremely well (see iPhone); that's actually what I like sometimes as I have no need for an FM radio, or removable battery or even an IR blaster ... Those features are all useless to me.

But it's complete nonsense to somehow conflate the inclusion of those features with mid range; there's no logic behind that.

Essentially your line of reasoning boils down to "the market says premium doesn't include these features therefore anything that has it can't be premium". Any manufacturer can make a premium phone with good design while including those features. They simply don't because most of us don't care about those features.

The beef comes with just the opposite, of course: those people who get hung up on relatively minor features and insist that no phone is good unless it has that feature. It reminds me of the PC gamers who argue that no computer is worthwhile unless it has a high-end GPU. It's that tendency for some to assume that their personal preferences are shared by everyone, everywhere.

The Pixel to me succeeds precisely because Google was good at seeing the broader picture. It was focused on making a quality phone first rather than getting hung up on the size of its feature checklist, like Samsung, LG or Sony might. That's not to say that you can't make a good phone that also has a huge feature checklist, but these companies have historically obsessed with adding features that either do little or even backfire. Samsung's near-useless eye scrolling on the GS4, for instance, or Sony's high-res cameras that actually take worse photos than rivals with half the megapixels.

 

[Harry Lyme]

Pixel Xl best phone I ever owned. Came from 6P.

 

[dpham00]

I have no problem being in contract with Verizon if they throw me a bone like they used to. Being in contract now costs $20 more for the life of the contract? I don't see the incentive anymore. And as she explained the cost of the Pixel on a contract renewal it was just nuts.
I really liked T-mobile, thought they were great, the lacking coverage where I traveled is what finally drove me away. Would have no problem going back to T-mo when their rural coverage ever improves.

Since you are focusing on the phone costs and the direct costs associated with the phone, then you can move to the old nationwide plans which do not have a bump in line access charge since the subsidy is already built into the plan.

 

[imartez]

I prefer espn to The View at dentist office too. Just thought of that one! I turn it back when I leave.

What I can't fathom is why some prefer a phone NOT have ir blaster or fm radio available (even for free and giving up no features) while I have no beef that they like something useless to me like fingerprint detector or NFC.

I don't believe the fingerprint detector prevents having an ir blaster. In fact I know it doesn't since some phones have both.

Apple is always adding stupid useless features like 3d press and short movie clips called photos so please don't tell me they keep it simple. Take away headphone jack to add a silly weird new home button? Please.

Having those features in the phone without any additional cost, is adding value whether I use it or not is a different story. I also agree with you regarding Apple and they did it again when they announced their new MacBooks. They remove the SD card, MagSafe adapter but leave the headphone jack and make all ports USB-C, talk about complicating things.......

 

[recDNA]

Don't get me started on Apple.

Bottom line is the hardware of the Pixel XL is overpriced for the features or lack of features that you get. Now it is fine if Pixel target audience wants no additional hardware features however they shouldn't be charged more for less imo. JMO. As far as build quality being superior only time will show that. You can't claim it on a brand new phone. The Note 7 appeared tk have great build quality.

 

[Commodus]

Don't get me started on Apple.

Bottom line is the hardware of the Pixel XL is overpriced for the features or lack of features that you get. Now it is fine if Pixel target audience wants no additional hardware features however they shouldn't be charged more for less imo. JMO. As far as build quality being superior only time will show that. You can't claim it on a brand new phone. The Note 7 appeared tk have great build quality.

Yeah, how dare Google charge a premium for making the fastest Android phones you can buy, with some of (if not the) best cameras you can buy, better OS update policies than any other Android vendor and clever features like Google Assistant or the smarter fingerprint reader.

It's not about the size of the feature list, it's whether those features are likely to be useful and how well they work. I'd rather have a phone that does a limited number of things well than something that does many things poorly or is laden with gimmicks. You can make a case for a few things, like microSD storage or pen input, but I'm not going to say that every custom Android layer or hardware feature is worthwhile. Just ask Samsung owners how it feels when an update arrives 6 months late and bogs down their phone.

And when people talk build quality, they're usually talking about the qualities you can perceive immediately, like material choices/feel and the solidity of the design. Metal doesn't always feel better than plastic, but you can tell that the Pixel was well-constructed where Samsung's phones had this almost disposable look and feel to them before the GS6. The GS4 in particular had about as much aesthetic appeal as a laundromat's washing machine. Reliability, which is what you're getting at, is another matter... although fit and finish can have a real-world effect on that, such as reducing the chances that buttons will break.

 

[Topweasel]

How is it the bottom line? It's like stating it as fact. But I don't think anyone here (or at least too many) actually agreed on that statement. It might not have every checklist item that people could throw at it checked off. But it has one of the fastest SD CPU's, top or near top camera, Project-Fi, great build quality, tons of memory, decent space options, Android that has been wrapped around the phone for a premium performance and stability. Maybe the 6P was a better value at launch, but the one thing I have learned since I started getting Androids in 2010. But performance and Stability has been my top 2 checklist options (and a third not be Apple), if you can't check those two no amount of hand waving orders you pizza or can change the channel when a lose my remote features makes it worth it.

I also still don't understand how you can claim that the functions you want don't cost money they do even if they are included on cheaper phones. Adding something always costs something. More time or resources needed for chassis design (like finding a good place for an IR sensor), board real estate, thickness, processing power, battery usage, all this takes time and money to worry about even if the hardware itself is relatively cheap. There might be a demand which is why manufacturers that tend to skimp on resources or ones that specifically look to these markets for sale will include them. But there is a limit to packaging and low on the totem pole small niche features like that will always get the short end.

 

[andrew_ackley]

None of the items you mentioned affect functionality for me. Personally, waterproofing is a nice to have as I have never (knock on wood) dropped my phone into water or had water fall on it. SD card support to me is still not where it needs to be simply because it's not adopted as part of the internal storage and read/write speeds are sometimes slower than internal storage. Wireless charging is not something that I really used when I had the Note 7 or S7 Edge, so it's a nice to have for me. I agree on the stereo sound, I wish they would have incorporated a better DAC.

Some Android phones use adopted storage like HTC and moto.