The cost of the Pixel/Pixel XL

[recDNA]

http://forums.androidcentral.com/google-pixel-pixel-xl/739679-cost-pixel-pixel-xl-6.html#post5534454

^^ still need you to read the response to the first time you asked this. I feel like the answer was very clear. Also, costs aren't just financial costs to me - they're costs in terms of the package. The V20 as a package is wildly inferior to the Pixel XL, in my opinion, so any particular things about it that I think are better or worse are not deal maker or deal breaker considerations except for one: the V20 is a less secure device than the Pixel phones and always will be.

I'm not saying v20 is better just that those features can be included at no monitory cost to consumer.


Would you return your pixel if you found ir blaster and fm radio were easter eggs accessible only through the download of an app to run them?

 

[Aquila]

Would you return your pixel if you found ir blaster and fm radio were easter eggs accessible only through the download of an app to run them?

I’m sorry, but when you ask the same question four times without ever reading the response to it, we’re done. I can’t continue to engage with someone who isn’t even reading, let alone addressing the arguments made. Have a good one.

 

[recDNA]

I’m sorry, but when you ask the same question four times without ever reading the response to it, we’re done. I can’t continue to engage with someone who isn’t even reading, let alone addressing the arguments made. Have a good one.

I've read responses. I didn't see whether you would or would not return your pixel if you found ir blaster and fm radio were easter eggs already in the device.

I addressed the arguments made by dropping the sd card (would cost space and $ I must admit) and removable battery (which some say couldn't be waterproof).

I've reduced my question to 2 simple very inexpensive features.

 

[Aquila]

I've read responses. I didn't see whether you would or would not return your pixel if you found ir blaster and fm radio were easter eggs already in the device.

Here’s the text of the original response:

“Not necessarily, but I would take those things, which are mistakes in my opinion, into consideration when evaluating the device. There isn’t a perfect device, so everything comes with dealing with some stuff you don’t want and not getting everything you do want. I like front facing stereo speakers. The Pixels don’t have that. But we buy packages, not a modular list of features.”

It seems to be a direct answer to all four ways in which you’ve asked the same question without responding to the point that response makes.

 

[1213 1213]

Can you elaborate?

By “cost”, I am referring to things coming at the expense of something else. So money, time, resources, space, weight, security, durability, etc. Is that the same thing you're referring to?

When you claim that more features would increase the price, you assume that the cost directly or indirectly would increase the price. However, that is saying that it is just a coincidence that the pricing of all models is identical to the iPhone. But it is obvious that isn't a coincidence. For example, the pixel xl has the same camera as the pixel, but the iPhone plus has a better camera than the iPhone. Given this, if the pixel has the same camera as the pixel xl, the pricing should be closer than the pricing difference between the two variants of the iPhone. But it isn't, because the pricing was more dependent on Apple's pricing than the cost of features.

 

[recDNA]

Here’s the text of the original response:

“Not necessarily, but I would take those things, which are mistakes in my opinion, into consideration when evaluating the device. There isn’t a perfect device, so everything comes with dealing with some stuff you don’t want and not getting everything you do want. I like front facing stereo speakers. The Pixels don’t have that. But we buy packages, not a modular list of features.”

It seems to be a direct answer to all four ways in which you’ve asked the same question without responding to the point that response makes.

Hey, to end our discussion on a conciliatory note, we agree on front facing stereo speakers! I love em. Wish they were included too.

 

[Aquila]

When you claim that more features would increase the price, you assume that the cost directly or indirectly would increase the price. However, that is saying that it is just a coincidence that the pricing of all models is identical to the iPhone. But it is obvious that isn't a coincidence. For example, the pixel xl has the same camera as the pixel, but the iPhone plus has a better camera than the iPhone. Given this, if the pixel has the same camera as the pixel xl, the pricing should be closer than the pricing difference between the two variants of the iPhone. But it isn't, because the pricing was more dependent on Apple's pricing than the cost of features.

Ok, we just misunderstood each other then. I’m saying that there is a cost by which I mean an opportunity cost or a direct cost, not necessarily an increase in price.

 

[1213 1213]

Ok, we just misunderstood each other then. I’m saying that there is a cost by which I mean an opportunity cost or a direct cost, not necessarily an increase in price.

Oh, fair enough.

But I'm pretty confident that Google is firmly following Apple's less is more approach, it works and most people here seem to be pretty happy with it. Obviously there is some opportunity cost, but it seems like Google was working on a tight schedule, preventing them from doing too much. Supposedly the reason for no waterproofing. They will probably conservatively add things with newer models, but not things like fm radio, ir blaster, sd card, etc.

But the interesting thing about fm radio is that it's present in the SD820, and that oems just don't enable it for some reason. I might be wrong, but I've seen enough people say this to think it might be true.

 

[bhatech]

I don't think they will add SD card in their phones. Nexus phones didn't have and I see nothing that makes them add in future models.

 

[cbreze]

You can blame T-Mobile... They were the first ones to remove the subsidized charge out of the line access charge. Everyone else followed. By doing so, the monthly charges are less but if you want a phone then you have to finance it. Verizon gives you the option to do two year contract for those who prefer it... But in the end you are paying about the same price. I know many people hate two year contracts so, but some like them. Personally I just pick whatever ends up the best Deal. Like in picked up a few z Play Droid for $20 after promotions and no contract...

The $20 charge to get the phone everyone charges but calls it something slightly different. They don't apply to all situations depending on carrier

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.

 

[Aquila]

Oh, fair enough.

But I'm pretty confident that Google is firmly following Apple's less is more approach, it works and most people here seem to be pretty happy with it. Obviously there is some opportunity cost, but it seems like Google was working on a tight schedule, preventing them from doing too much. Supposedly the reason for no waterproofing. They will probably conservatively add things with newer models, but not things like fm radio, ir blaster, sd card, etc.

But the interesting thing about fm radio is that it's present in the SD820, and that oems just don't enable it for some reason. I might be wrong, but I've seen enough people say this to think it might be true.

I would fully agree that several aspects of what Google did with the Pixels are directly in line with what Apple does – and my hypothesis is that it is because Apple has the most popular (and therefore most representative of what most people want) device in the most developed markets. They obviously want to offer a different way of doing things while appealing to an audience that has a lot of overlap.

 

[cbreze]

Yup. Ask them at Chateau Restaurant in Andover MA. Do it all the time. Multiple tvs and remotes disappear or are stolen.

Often I just mute it or turn it up or turn on cc.

Guess I'm just lost on the value of this feature, but if you pointed it at the bartender and he brought you a free drink then I'd be all over it.

 

[Aquila]

Guess I'm just lost on the value of this feature, but if you pointed it at the bartender and he brought you a free drink then I'd be all over it.

lol

 

[anon(9227267)]

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.

You got that right! I tolerate Verizon because their coverage has never let me down and the local store treats me fairly.

I think cellphones are kinda sorta like a drug like addiction. Reading through a lot of these threads re-enforces this thought...

 

[Aquila]

Hey, to end our discussion on a conciliatory note, we agree on front facing stereo speakers! I love em. Wish they were included too.

To be 100% clear, I am in no way saying that you shouldn’t want the features that you want. I’m merely saying that I believe that I have good reasons to want the features that I want and to not want the features that I don’t want and that I can make what I believe are logically consistent arguments for my preferences. My preferences though have absolutely no bearing on your preferences.

 

[recDNA]

Guess I'm just lost on the value of this feature, but if you pointed it at the bartender and he brought you a free drink then I'd be all over it.

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.

 

[akin_t]

3 out of the 4 of those would cause me to actually be less interested in the device. All four of them sound like features that ought to be found only in low to midrange budget devices.

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.

 

[Aquila]

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.

I can see I wasn’t clear because I was grouping all four features together. I think removable batteries and sd cards are great for budget devices and/or devices intended to be used in developing markets. Googlers in generally seem to agree with that as well, however the reason I believe this is because the nature of their presence and how they are used is indicative of a lack of the availability of better solutions. I know that in the US, most consumers do have access to better solutions, even if they choose not to use them. That’s not the case everywhere and so I view these features as being band-aids for that lack of options.

My argument is not based on the market, because I do not make my decisions based on what other people prefer. I am laying out a case based on how I examine my preferences. Again, I am not indicating what anyone other than me should prefer, which I thought would have been made clear by the statement, “To be 100% clear, I am in no way saying that you shouldn’t want the features that you want. I’m merely saying that I believe that I have good reasons to want the features that I want and to not want the features that I don’t want and that I can make what I believe are logically consistent arguments for my preferences. My preferences though have absolutely no bearing on your preferences.”

So the real crux of my position is that all features have a cost, whether it is in time, money, resources, etc. and that cost may or may not be translated into compromises in other areas of the phone, increased price or a worse design, etc. It is also that all devices lack some things other devices have and most have something or another that other devices lack. My preference is to have a device that most closely lines up to how I think devices ought to be, both in terms of feature set and design.

 

[cbreze]

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.

I don't care if it has it or not. There are always features on phones I don't use anyway. if someone likes it, cool then to have that feature. It's been around a long time that's certain.

 

[recDNA]

I can see I wasn’t clear because I was grouping all four features together. I think removable batteries and sd cards are great for budget devices and/or devices intended to be used in developing markets. Googlers in generally seem to agree with that as well, however the reason I believe this is because the nature of their presence and how they are used is indicative of a lack of the availability of better solutions. I know that in the US, most consumers do have access to better solutions, even if they choose not to use them. That’s not the case everywhere and so I view these features as being band-aids for that lack of options.

My argument is not based on the market, because I do not make my decisions based on what other people prefer. I am laying out a case based on how I examine my preferences. Again, I am not indicating what anyone other than me should prefer, which I thought would have been made clear by the statement, “To be 100% clear, I am in no way saying that you shouldn’t want the features that you want. I’m merely saying that I believe that I have good reasons to want the features that I want and to not want the features that I don’t want and that I can make what I believe are logically consistent arguments for my preferences. My preferences though have absolutely no bearing on your preferences.”

So the real crux of my position is that all features have a cost, whether it is in time, money, resources, etc. and that cost may or may not be translated into compromises in other areas of the phone, increased price or a worse design, etc. It is also that all devices lack some things other devices have and most have something or another that other devices lack. My preference is to have a device that most closely lines up to how I think devices ought to be, both in terms of feature set and design.

We do not agree that all features have a cost. We do agree (I think) front facing stereo speakers are better than huge featureless bezels. That's something anyway. Some features do have a very high cost in development and implementation like retina scanners. Some cost almost nothing like turning on access to fm radio chip or including an ir blaster. You may argue I said "almost' so I guess I must agree it might cost a dollar per unit to include those features. Their tech is well understood and has been implemented before so it is MUCH cheaper in time and money than new features like Android Assistant or retina scanners that I find useless.