Google said Pixel is designed and built by Google. Is this a true statement? If not this is abominable. It is completely against western standard.
Seems pretty clear that Google designed the overall device, tho past HTC design work heavily influenced the shell. Apparently next year they're going even further with the "designed by Google" meme and creating their own custom silicon, tho details on what chips are targeted is very sketchy. I seriously doubt it includes the CPU, but various sensors or audio chips certainly seem possible.
The Pixel is a vessel for Google's AI and Machine learning prowess.
And right now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a phone with a better AI and multimedia experience than the Pixel.
This is why the Pixel is better than any phone Apple has created. And will continue to be better than any Phone Apple will create moving forward.
Unless of course, AI and Machine Learning is just a fad.
We shall see.
People vote with their wallets.
You can make up all the high sounding jibberish you want. But ultimately its the consumer who decides which phone is the best for the 'real world'
We shall see how many $650 Pixel phones Google sells vs the iPhone7.
That will be the answer to which is the better phone.
The Pixel is not going to sell better than the iPhone 7. It's a new brand. And Google doesn't have the retail and supply chain expertise that Apple has.
However, if Google continues to be at the forefront of AI and Machine Learning, then within the next couple of years, the Pixel will become a serious and formidable contender to the iPhone.
Google with the Pixel brand is the only company that can topple the dominance of the iPhone. Apple should be very worried, considering that they're behind in AI and Machine Learning.
Google over the years has avoided directly competing with Apple, but now, they've just dropped the gauntlet. People are underestimating the Pixel based on specs. That's misguided.
The Pixel's nuclear bomb is AI. It has better smarts than any smartphone. Period. And those smarts are only going to get deeper and more profound as the months and years pass by.
Are you telling me the AI in the Pixel won't be available on $99 Android phones?
And stop acting like Google somehow discovered the AI god-child. Give me a break. Apple already has a huge AI team. IBM, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon.
Stop acting like Google has a monopoly on AI. They don't.
And please explain to me why the average consumer would choose a Pixel phone over an iPhone based on AI? Why? 90% of iPhone users don't even regularly use Siri. Why the hell would they abandon a brand they trust for AI? Give me a break.
AI on its own is useless. It's how you use it that matters. Google is at the forefront of AI not because they're good at it, but because they've figured out how to harness it in ways that has left plenty of the industry flabbergasted and flatfooted.
A car that drove itself was in the realm of science fiction just a couple of years ago, until Google made it a reality. A computer that could defeat Go was supposed to be many decades away, until Google demolished that myth this year. Indexing the worlds knowledge and making it accessible to all made for a nice corporate mantra, until Google made it happen.
Google has consistently delivered on the promise of AI in a manner that is accessible to anybody, and in a way we take for granted today. That's why Google is better. It's no longer research for Google. They're now ready to unleash it to the world.
If you look at Google's hardware event through the lens of just specs, then yeah, there's nothing to impress. But if you dig deeper and look closely, the specs really don't matter. Google is transitioning from the web to hardware. And hardware is just a vessel for their AI.
Google Home is not out yet, and it's already better than the Amazon echo without even trying. Mind you the Echo probably has the better specs. But specs don't matter beside smarts.
AI isn't the end all be all. Look at Maps. I think you would agree that Google Maps has better AI than Apple Maps. Yet 80% of iPhone users use Apple Maps. PEOPLE. DONT. CARE.
Woah I have to stop you hear. I don't know a single iPhone user that doesn't have Google Maps or Waze installed on their iPhone. Heck I know people that work for Apple that have Google Maps installed.
I have Google Maps on my iPhone, and almost never use it. The user experience between the two is now negligible, and since Apple Maps is embedded in so many other apps, the use of a map defaults to Apple Maps all the time.
For example, the inter-relationship between Apple Maps and the Apple Watch is excellent, since the Watch taps the wrist to alert for upcoming turns. This is tremendously helpful if the noise level in the car can't always be controlled and ambient noise otherwise might cause a vocal direction to be missed. Google Maps doesn't have a play here.
Both services are, by now, excellent, as the aggregate of users has polished the integrity of the databases from which each draws its information. For that reason, I have both. But I can't recall a time in the past 1-2 years where I had to use Google Maps because Apple Maps gave me bad directions or simply failed to locate a destination I requested.
Same. I have Google Maps on phone, but rarely use it (basically a backup if Apple Maps isn't finding what I am looking for). It is better at search in some cases, but that is all in my experience. Much prefer the app UI and usability of Apple Maps.
Google said Pixel is designed and built by Google. Is this a true statement? If not this is abominable. It is completely against western standard.
Seems pretty clear that Google designed the overall device, tho past HTC design work heavily influenced the shell. Apparently next year they're going even further with the "designed by Google" meme and creating their own custom silicon, tho details on what chips are targeted is very sketchy. I seriously doubt it includes the CPU, but various sensors or audio chips certainly seem possible.
And built by Google? What does Google mean by built by it?
Google said Pixel is designed and built by Google. Is this a true statement? If not this is abominable. It is completely against western standard.
Seems pretty clear that Google designed the overall device, tho past HTC design work heavily influenced the shell. Apparently next year they're going even further with the "designed by Google" meme and creating their own custom silicon, tho details on what chips are targeted is very sketchy. I seriously doubt it includes the CPU, but various sensors or audio chips certainly seem possible.
And built by Google? What does Google mean by built by it?
Similar to Apple's earlier iPhone builds? I assume they mean farmed out to a handset builder (such as a Foxconn, or in this case HTC who also owns their factories), much as Apple started out doing years ago. Google design, Google spec'd build, but they don't own the factory or employ the workers that put it together. IF Google sticks to it (a big if) they say they'll be further customizing even the internal chipsets. We'll see if that really happens.
Google said Pixel is designed and built by Google. Is this a true statement? If not this is abominable. It is completely against western standard.
Seems pretty clear that Google designed the overall device, tho past HTC design work heavily influenced the shell. Apparently next year they're going even further with the "designed by Google" meme and creating their own custom silicon, tho details on what chips are targeted is very sketchy. I seriously doubt it includes the CPU, but various sensors or audio chips certainly seem possible.
And built by Google? What does Google mean by built by it?
I assume they mean farmed out to a handset builder, much as Apple started out doing years ago. Their design, their build, but they don't own the factory or employ the workers that put it together. IF Google sticks to it (a big if) they say they'll be further customizing even the internal chipsets. We'll see if that really happens.
Google is too proud to price the Pixel phones anything other than the same as iPhone. On the hardware spec the Pixel phones are really outdated. The back of the Pixel phone are just hideous. If you need glass then do the glass iPhone 5/5s/SE way. And with all the human brain power and AI brain power they come up with "Real Blue", "Quite Black" etc, what the fuck was Google marketing people thinking? Is that a signal the marketing people don't have much confidence in the products? Weird. It is great DED would call out Pixel phones what they are really are while other bloggers, journalists just ignore the obvious facts. I am sure the price for Pixel would be slashed or discounted heavily during the holiday season.
You do know that the really blue and quite black are just shots at apple and their crazy colors like space grey and jet black. Its a joke and a way of saying they aren't taking themselves as serious as apple.
To be honest, this is a nonsense article. More to benchmarking that computation (really? how much computation you doing on your PHONE... right.. almost 0). The truth is, storage bandwidth, memory bandwidth, battery, antennae would be considered much more priority. In any case, can we stop with the Android vs iOS device comparison? It is *truly* a useless endeavor as all modern mobile devices are fairly capable, and you're realistically arguing over 10-15% in either direction (yeah, you won't notice that even if you claim to...). What we really should be looking at is the ecosystem of each platform, and what the pros/cons were to each (there are plenty in both columns, right?). That might be helpful, this is just more pro-my-device, please justify my opinion/purchase decision, Fox/MSNBC nonsense.
What's your point? You obviously don't buy products based on who owns the market otherwise the market would have never been stolen from Microsoft back when Apple didn't have anything, but computers. Product quality has nothing to do with how much a company makes. Heck the popular vote got us Trump and Hillary so if this was a popularity vote we already know where that gets the US. Crap vs crap.
now don't move the goal posts. sog was answering your specific question/stamement - "I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats". now you do. apple's non iphone business is vastly larger than googles non ads, and larger than many big players.
and this was all in reponse to the guy who said google is playing the long game but all apple has is the iphone. that's the troll trope, and it's bunk. revenue shows they have more than iphone driving their business, and i wouldn't believe they aren't working on "long game" technologies and road maps as well. why wouldn't they?
IMO, the long[er] game, say, 2020 will consist of:
local hardware devices designed to provide specific capabilities and satisfy different needs -- e.g. phones, tablets, computers, TV controllers, watches, IOT, monitoring/comtrol, etc.
cloud services
cloud data storage -- affordable, world-wild scaling
cloud integration of device capabilities through cloud services and cloud data storage(backup, synching, updates, etc.)
IOW. your hardware devices will have its OS and its apps tailored to specific local uses. All your data will reside in the cloud (encrypted) -- with portions, accessed, as needed on your devices. Specialized apps and services will reside in the cloud. Upon requests from your devices, these specialized cloud apps and services will access your cloud data, process it, and store the results in the cloud.
I think that, currently: • Apple has the lead in local hardware devices and their OS and local apps -- as well as local intercommunication among these devices. • Arguably, Apple and Google are tied in cloud services to support the local hardware using their systems • Cloud data storage -- big advantage Google • Integration of device capabilities through cloud services and cloud data storage -- advantage Apple
So, to my mind, the challenge is:
Apple getting its cloud data storagekit together vs Google getting its local device kit and cloud integrationkit together.
Some additional thoughts...
Apple has pioneered iPhone as a Service, by providing the iPhone Upgrade program -- no reason a similar program couldn't be offered for other Apple Devices.
With the open-sourcing of Swift and the IBM efforts to use Swift on the cloud servers/services there could be rapid growth implementing new cloud services. BTW, the big 4 providers of cloud storage/services are: Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and Google.
Apple's A10 chip, easily, has the compute power to satisfy the needs of many Cloud servers that mainly do I/O and little compute (web pages, email, upload, download, backup, streaming, etc.). If Apple were to make an A10 variant with more robust I/O, say TB 3, it could easily handle I/O-bound server duties.
There are certainly opportunities for Apple to level the playing field with Google vis-a-vis cloud data storage!
It's pretty clear where Google wants to take things. And it's pretty clear they don't have the hardware expertise to use an assembler to put the various parts together like Apple contracts with Foxconn. Google needs the expertise of a complete phone manufacturer like Samsung, LG, Huawei and now HTC.
Perhaps HTC doesn't care if their brand is diluted. Still, they aren't the most capable Android hardware manufacturer. Samsung still is followed by LG.
Perhaps if Apple hadn't tried denying profits to the Android OEMs, we'd be seeing more fragmentation as those manufacturers attempt to implement their own services instead of Google's. They would certainly put some those profits to work in doing that. They are all trying to put everything they can into hardware to compete with Apple in hardware while Google gets to take the software driven profits and continue development of their own services.
Google obviously senses very real threats. Both Amazon and Facebook are moving in on Google's ad driven revenues. Both companies could easily move the market off of Google services.
They need to control their own platform. Just like MSFT realized it needed to. Almost too late in the case of MSFT. The commodity hardware model isn't working. LG and Samsung are going to become the dominant cell phone players outside of Apple and it isn't inconceivable to see Samsung achieve dominance even over LG. If 90% of Android software runs on Samsung and the Korean Chaebol decides to drop Android, Goolge would be in trouble.
I fail to see how using HTC as a contract manufacturer for Google is going to change the situation. Samsung makes its own cameras, sensors, memory, modems and CPUs. They are still on the road to dominance unless LG can remain competitive. Google will be alright for a little longer if LG stays in the game as the two Korean chaebol are more competitive with each other than even with Apple, much less Google.
It is in Google's best interests to strengthen LG. Why they aren't doing so is puzzling. HTC absolutely has no chance remaining competitive with Samsung over the long term.
They built a decent, but not stellar phone that is overpriced. And likely heavily subsidized by Google. I am assuming that Google will take the losses when the phone doesn't sell and not HTC. Because the phone won't sell well. And if HTC has to bear the losses, it's doubtful that they build phones for Google down the road.
HTC doesn't have any technology that would allow them to remain competitive over the long term. Samsung's economies of scale and state of the technologies are going to overwhelm HTC. They already are. And Google is hoping for them to achieve major sales just with the Google name? Not going to happen.
Yes, it's my first post here. But... I've used Apple products since the early 80s. I've owned more Macs than I can count and half a dozen iPhones as well as numerous other Apple items. I was a moderator on MacRumors.com for years. I've got fairly decent credentials as an Apple fan.
That all being said, I've been primarily an Android - and mostly Nexus - user for about 4 years. I do also have an iPhone SE because, well, I can't leave that ecosystem behind either (yes, I carry them both, and have a Fire Phone as a GPS in my car), but... I know enough about Android (particularly Google's version of things) to call BS on a lot that's being said here, and enough about Apple/iOS/iPhones to call BS on a lot that's being said to counter it.
Flagship-class phones on both sides are more than fast enough these days, period. I stopped caring about specs long ago, as should you all. As OSs become more complex, phones need to be faster to handle them, but both sides have phones which are incredibly fast for their respective OSs. The Nexus 6P on Nougat is no slower or faster, all things considered, than the SE on iOS 10. Both have 2015-era internals running a late 2016 OS. No issues with either. The iPhone 7 is even faster... but it doesn't much matter. Phones were fast enough years ago. I'm sure the Pixel XL I ordered will kick the butt of my 6P in benchmarks, but I won't notice.
The only important thing any more is that you get a phone with the OS and features you prefer, because any even mid-range (and most low-end) phones will give you what you need on any platform. Parity has been achieved for almost anything that matters to most people. There's no need for a pissing match about why one is better than the other. If you need something one OS or phone has and the other doesn't, then there's your answer. Most of the other things are misinformation spread over the years. Examples: Android, at least on Google/Samsung/other top-tier phones isn't any more subject to malware than iOS. Please don't tell me you think iPhones are immune to zero-days; there's been plenty of proof they aren't. Android phones don't reboot any more than iOS ones. My SE rebooted this weekend, two days after I bought it, for no discernible reason, whereas I can't remember the last time the 6P rebooted spontaneously. iPhones, likewise, aren't more expensive than Android over time because they actually retain resale value. The Walled Garden is a great thing in that it promotes phenomenal interoperability and a terrible thing in that it restricts a lot of great options.
Anyone who has truly used recent versions of either can't say that either one is perfect, nor that either one is seriously lacking. It's all a matter of preferences any more.
As I said, I'm currently on Android, at least until next year. I've ordered the Pixel XL. There are things I do not like about it - namely the lack of waterproofing (which, oddly, only seems important to iPhone users this year), the lack of stereo speakers (ditto), and the lack of wireless charging (which, I am sure, will only seem important to iPhone users next year). The camera seems excellent; I don't care if it's a little worse or a little better than the iPhone 7 Plus, because it'll be more than good enough for me when I'm not using my DSLR. The other hardware is... fine. Not amazing, not terrible. I'm glad about Daydream because there's finally a reason for the super-high-def screens.
I'll grant that it's slower than the iPhone 7, that it's not waterproof, and that it doesn't have stereo speakers. I'd also guess it's not as well-built.
However... I think the software (Google Assistant, etc.), the unlimited photos and video, the cheaper warranty, and, for me, the included Daydream VR headset make up for the deficiencies. Remember. iOS fan here, too. I dig what Apple wins at: Messages; integration; smoothness; better-looking, earlier-out-the-door, nicer apps; all of that. But... Google's Assistant is going to kick the ass of Siri, because Siri already loses to Google. Apple has no VR option, and the iPhone screens aren't pixel-dense enough to do a good job of it anyway. 24/7 online support will help those who aren't geeks use their phone (granted, mostly because they can't count on half the people around them having the same phone as they do).
And, the stuff I prefer about Android is still there (among other things, the app drawer is enormously nice in my opinion, as is the fact icons don't always have to go top-left to -bottom-right with no way to skip gaps).
So, yeah, for me it's worth it, because the hardware is more than adequate, and I'm psyched about the software. Doesn't mean I won't go for the iPhone 8. But I don't think this article did a very good job at all of doing anything other than soliciting a comment war. It's simply untrue that most Android users crave removable batteries and SD cards (a vocal minority do, true). It's untrue that Android - on top-tier phones - is any less secure than iOS unless users make it less secure by rooting, etc. It's simply a different choice.
Like I said, I carry an Android phone and an iOS phone every day. I love them both. They both have traits I prefer over the other, and things I really wish were different about them. It's like kids, I guess. I just think, though, it's unfair to paint the Pixel as a failure in the way this article did, because it's simply biased without reason, and it appeals only to those who are ignorant of the other side - and I mean today's other side, not the way it was in 2011 when you used some low-end Android phone for a week and hated it.
It's pretty clear where Google wants to take things. And it's pretty clear they don't have the hardware expertise to use an assembler to put the various parts together like Apple contracts with Foxconn. Google needs the expertise of a complete phone manufacturer like Samsung, LG, Huawei and now HTC.
Perhaps HTC doesn't care if their brand is diluted. Still, they aren't the most capable Android hardware manufacturer. Samsung still is followed by LG.
Perhaps if Apple hadn't tried denying profits to the Android OEMs, we'd be seeing more fragmentation as those manufacturers attempt to implement their own services instead of Google's. They would certainly put some those profits to work in doing that. They are all trying to put everything they can into hardware to compete with Apple in hardware while Google gets to take the software driven profits and continue development of their own services.
Google obviously senses very real threats. Both Amazon and Facebook are moving in on Google's ad driven revenues. Both companies could easily move the market off of Google services.
They need to control their own platform. Just like MSFT realized it needed to. Almost too late in the case of MSFT. The commodity hardware model isn't working. LG and Samsung are going to become the dominant cell phone players outside of Apple and it isn't inconceivable to see Samsung achieve dominance even over LG. If 90% of Android software runs on Samsung and the Korean Chaebol decides to drop Android, Goolge would be in trouble.
I fail to see how using HTC as a contract manufacturer for Google is going to change the situation. Samsung makes its own cameras, sensors, memory, modems and CPUs. They are still on the road to dominance unless LG can remain competitive. Google will be alright for a little longer if LG stays in the game as the two Korean chaebol are more competitive with each other than even with Apple, much less Google.
It is in Google's best interests to strengthen LG. Why they aren't doing so is puzzling. HTC absolutely has no chance remaining competitive with Samsung over the long term.
They built a decent, but not stellar phone that is overpriced. And likely heavily subsidized by Google. I am assuming that Google will take the losses when the phone doesn't sell and not HTC. Because the phone won't sell well. And if HTC has to bear the losses, it's doubtful that they build phones for Google down the road.
HTC doesn't have any technology that would allow them to remain competitive over the long term. Samsung's economies of scale and state of the technologies are going to overwhelm HTC. They already are. And Google is hoping for them to achieve major sales just with the Google name? Not going to happen.
I'd add; HTC said "yes" to Google when others said "no":
"Google, of Android operating system fame, released its first Pixel smartphones Tuesday to replace its Nexus lineup. HTC has been selected to assemble the device, becoming for Google what Foxconn is to Apple. "Google has done the design work and a lot of the engineering," the Mountain View-based company's hardware chief Rick Osterloh told Bloomberg News.
Ouch! That's gotta hurt. After spending years building its design and engineering chops, HTC has been demoted to water boy. Supplying Google with smartphones isn't a victory -- it's an embarrassing end to HTC's decade-long campaign to break out of that contract-manufacturing business and stand on its own two feet."
There are few important con/pro that I read on Anandtech.
Pro:
I also spoke with Qualcomm and learned that Google optimized its HDR+ algorithm to run on Snapdragon 821’s Hexagon 680 DSP, taking advantage of vector instructions to enable HDR processing with zero shutter lag. Qualcomm also said this approach consumes less power than running the algorithm on the CPU.
That may be behind good photo score
Con:
Electronic image stabilization (EIS) for video recording (the camera still does not have OIS) was one of the highlight features mentioned in Google’s presentation. While testing the camera, I noticed that EIS is used for video modes up to 1080p60 but not when shooting 4K video. There’s still a processing/power hurdle to clear.
Not sure that was considered in video review and score.
Google said Pixel is designed and built by Google. Is this a true statement? If not this is abominable. It is completely against western standard.
Seems pretty clear that Google designed the overall device, tho past HTC design work heavily influenced the shell. Apparently next year they're going even further with the "designed by Google" meme and creating their own custom silicon, tho details on what chips are targeted is very sketchy. I seriously doubt it includes the CPU, but various sensors or audio chips certainly seem possible.
It's entirely possible Google plans to design its own chips but the idea seems odd, given Pixel may sell only a few million units and the economies of scale don't favor such a strategy, as opposed to buying whatever Snapdragon chip is available at that time.
Herbivore2 said: You are going to have to back that one up. Apple is building out their own server farms. The real question on my mind is whether Apple is using Intel's Xeons or perhaps waiting on an ARM solution which would be more elegant in meeting Apple's specific needs and likely more efficient. The only service in which Apple does not compete in yet is search. Siri is based on Bing. But so is Alexa and Alexa works quite well maps is rapidly improving. And the most important search queries are being lost to Google as the public moves to mobile devices for most of their computing. Amazon's app is where much of the shopping starts, not on Google search. And the most important demographic, prime members finish their shopping there. Amazon is not sharing that data with Google. And it is far more valuable than search these days from an advertising perspective. I can't stand the Chrome browser. I don't use it at all. It has been deleted from all of my computers and computing devices. Duck duck go is my default search engine. And Google's messages are interesting when I follow a duck duck go link to a YouTube video. They disapprove of my search engine choice. Apple still has the far more valuable data and effectively walling off Google from it. Amazon is doing the same. Google has the data they collected in the past from iOS and Amazon users. They need to act on it quickly because they are losing more and more access to those populations. I am going to add the Amazon Fire to my iPad. It now comes with Alexa. The Echo is an outstanding device. And it ties into the Amazon marketplace. Google has no access to that data and Amazon does. And if anyone thinks AI can function in a vacuum without data, they had better think again. Because my Amazon product searches are far better than ones I make on Google. Amazon knows me far better. And the suggestions are far more "thoughtful" than Google results. It's definitely noticeable to me. And don't think it isn't lost to the CEOs of Amazon and Google. Google has a new threat to worry about also. Verizon just purchased Yahoo. Does anyone really think that Verizon, the largest network carrier won't be using Yahoo for default search? This is a desperation move for Google and likely the reason the device was released in the Verizon network. It still won't sell. The Samsung Exynos processor is better than the snapdragon 821 and Samsung phones are better overall. Google services are getting locked out. That trend will continue to accelerate. Samsung now has Viv, Verizon has Yahoo, the most lucrative shopping demographic is moving to apps, Apple is rapidly upgrading maps, Facebook has a billion users and sights on Google's advertising. This is the only play that Google has. They are playing their poker hand the best they can. It is actually a pretty weak hand. Most of the public care about the quality of pictures, not how well Google assistant works. Apple's position is still far stronger than Google. And there are things happening that could still propel MSFT in the mobile OS space. What gets me is how Google tries to take on ALL of the tech titans at once. Apple with the Pixel and Android. Facebook with Google+ and now Oculus with their own VR, Samsung with the Pixel, Amazon's Echo with Google Home, Internet explorer with Chrome and now they are going after Yelp also. Does the leadership at Google not know that all of these companies are now targeting them specifically? Only Microsoft decided to go after Google with Bing. None of the others did. They picked on the wrong guy with Bezos. He will finish the task that Steve Jobs started. Google still doesn't realize that iOS users aren't going to purchase the pixel just to get Google assistant. Most of the public cares about buying things as inexpensively as they can. Some care about convenience and quality. Amazon has captured many of them with Prime and Apple with iOS. Google assistant won't help much to capture those users. And Google is now using HTC to build their phones. If Samsung is having difficulties competing at the high end, the HYC device is going to get slaughtered.
Maybe data centers or server farms are new for Apple, and you look excited for it. MS, Google, Facebook and Amazon have been doing it for years. And some of them are running with customized CPU/GPU's.
Apple still has the far more valuable data and effectively walling off Google from it.
From what I have seen, most of iOS users have their data in non-Apple services from Google and MS. So Apple don't have the data, even though people use their devices.
Most of the public care about the quality of pictures, not how well Google assistant works.
Looks like Pixel may have a better camera than the iPhone 7+. And when you add Google Assistant to it, it become a very interesting alternatives to iPhones.
Apple's position is still far stronger than Google
Camera - I still believe that the iPhone camera will have the better optics regardless of what benchmarks say. But to discredit a benchmark just because it doesn't favor your phone of choice is just plain fanboyish. iPHone 7 got 2nd place beating the Galaxy phones; that's reason to celebrate.
What DED may not want to accept is that the Pixel camera may be better because of the pixel size on the camera sensor. For years when Android phone offered 16-20 MP cameras we were told that its not the number of pixels but the size of each pixel that makes the difference. From what I remember when Apple went to the 12 MP camera in the iPhone 6S they kept the sensor size the same decreasing the size of individual pixels. I don't feel like its much better than the camera in my iPhone SE. The fact they fit a bigger sensor into the phone without a hump is a design plus. That said Google has a long, long, way to go to establish themselves a a brand that competes with Apple. The XL seems overpriced compared to the dual camera set up of the 7Plus; The 2X camera is a great feature, but maybe they should have put it on the iPhone7 too.
Design wise I still like the look of the HTC ONE10. Unfortunately they probably won't be able to capitalize on the problems of the Note7.
All the back and forth gets more than a little tiresome. As a "house divided", I feel I have some knowledge of both camps. My first smartphone was the original Nexus, and there have been models 4, 5 and 6 in this house over the years. Wife's stuff is bound in Google apps and it is easier for her to use Android for that reason. Plus, she likes the wireless charging of the Nexus 6, since she finds Micro USB frustrating to use, though never a complaint regarding the Lightning connector on her iPad. My phones in the past several years have been 4S, 5S and 6S+, but since I am tech support for her, I spend a reasonable amount of time under the hood with Android as well.
The whole "first Google phone ever" statement almost hurts my feelings--these Nexus phones I purchased were through Google (or Play) stores, some were available ONLY through Google and not through any carrier, and were the fruit of the specs dictated by Google engineers. The wife's Nexus 6, in theory, best qualifies as the original Google phone, since Moto made it while Google owned the company (the Lenovo sale didn't finalize until a few weeks after N6 was announced), which means Google owned the manufacturing as well as the engineering for that phone--a claim not even Apple can make. But apparently now, Google was only kidding with those phones, and the Pixel phones are said by lapdog tech "journalists" with horrible memories to be truly the only phones Google has ever made or sold.
The acolytes for Android keep pointing to Google Assistant as the game-changer for Pixel (that, and the VR capabilities), but I suspect most folks with Siri and OK Google on their phones use that feature rarely, if at all. I use Siri for messages while driving, wife has tried OK Google on her Nexus and had hilariously frustrating results. Our kids, who are late 20s to mid-30s don't use the assistants at all. Never. Kind of amazes me, since I would think a younger demo would be the kind which would adapt to these new technologies the fastest.
The VR component is important to the incredibly small subset of supporters who mention it in threads as a reason why Pixel will be a serious threat to iPhone, but the truth is Samsung (which is vulnerable right now if the recent story of the "fixed" Note7 catching fire on the plane turns out to be accurate) is the only brand which needs to be concerned about Pixel, and I doubt there is much sleep lost. Pixel sales--which will be small by the standards set by iPhone and Galaxy products in the past few years--won't cause a ripple in iPhone sales. Pixel simply won't matter. The only reason why stories appear on the internet comparing the two products is that it causes people to stop and read. Google has shown it has no talent for selling hardware in a retail environment (as opposed to selling/giving services), and there is little reason to believe that the company is suddenly gifted with ability in this arena. The Nexus 5 apparently represented Google's high water mark in sales at just under 1M units per month, which is a fraction of the volume of iPhone or Galaxy sales in a *week*. Worth noting N5 was sold on price, with a 32gb version sold for $400, when iPhones and Galaxies were $700 and up. Volumes were worse for N6, N5X and N6P, so a downward trend in sales needs to be reversed before Google can start dreaming of playing with the big kids.
For those who are completely amped over the release of Pixel--vaya con dios. Hope it is the best phone you ever owned. For our house, there is nothing in the specs and hype which justifies the price Google is asking for the phone. If they had priced it aggressively like the N5, then this would be a completely different conversation. But Google clearly feels its product is capable of the same respect as iPhone and Galaxy, not understanding that respect is earned, not demanded. The Nexus history hasn't earned it that level of respect.
If one is comparing specifically the hardware of the iPhone 7/7P to that of the Pixel/XL, then this report might have some merit. That is a strong "might". However, the reason I and others will be purchasing the Pixel is because of it's VR capabilities, ML assistant, and being the official Google phone, it will get the latest features. As a dev, I'm quite intrigued by these features.
That last point was long the argument for Nexus phones, that they were for developers and thus received all the latest advances in software. But Google has no problem writing OS which doesn't support Nexus phones, with the N5 being left in the rearview mirror with the Nougat release. That's one of the reasons we always bought Nexus, so we wouldn't have to wait for Samsung/Verizon/Whomever to approve and pass along an update to the software. Meanwhile, wife's Nexus 6 still waiting for Nougat push.
As a developer, it make sense you might not keep a phone longer than 12-18 months, but if a phone sold new by Google through Summer 2014 is now considered incapable of running the newest OS version, doesn't that impede the developer's ability to embrace both the newest software features with the broadest customer base possible? Average folks do keep their phones longer than 2 years.
I think people here aren't going to like this, but iOS/Siri is more of a liability for Apple than it's ever been since the first iPhone. Pixel is basically trying to sell itself on software and artificial intelligence. They are selling this as their A.I. phone. You can giggle about the spec wars, but you're missing the big picture that Google has surpassed Apple in software years ago, and Google is going to drive their "information" advantage into a hardware war that wont be about who has the faster CPU or most RAM.
I can only imagine in 2030 it's really about what company has the bigger server farms, artificial neural networking and machine learning algorithms that determines which product makes consumers lives the easiest. Not some display resolution or wide color gamut.
Google has the long game here. We're still figuring out what Apple has besides their phone at this point.
uhh what does google have besides ads? apple's non-iphone revenue is larger than many industry players.
Google home Google cast Pixel Nest Thermostat Nest Smoke detector Nest Cameras Waze- Arguably the best mapping service for traffic Youtube- Arguably the most watched streaming platform Boston Dynamics- Robotics
Basically hitting some highlights here. Tons of other products though.
apple's non-iphone revenue is much greater than all of those*. that was my point -- the bogus troll meme that apple is a one-trick pony isn't served by the reality of their product lines revenue.
* but how how does Google Home or Waze or robotics bring in revenue? and isn't Youtube paid for by ads?
Youtube has a paid service as well as an ad based. Similar to Spotify, but with videos too. Boston Dynamics is known as the leaders in their robotics division based in (duh) Boston. The internet mostly knows them for a reindeer they made that got hit. Obviously, Apple isn't a one trick pony. The Macbook is still arguably the best computer on the market, and people still buy ipod touches over other devices. Plenty of other good products by Apple are out there. I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats.
And what did all those non-ad businesses add up to? BUMPKISS.
Google's non-Ad revenue (other Bets) didn't even reach HALF a billion dollars:
Those other bets you are bragging about lost the company $3.6 BILLION in losses.
Pathetic.
On the other hand Apple's NON-iPhone revenue was $79 BILLION. Over 150x more than Google's non-Ad products.
The Apple Watch alone made more revenue than all of Google's non-Ad revenue streams COMBINED. And the Watch made hundreds of millions in profits while Google's non-Ad divisions LOST $3.6 BILLION
What's your point? You obviously don't buy products based on who owns the market otherwise the market would have never been stolen from Microsoft back when Apple didn't have anything, but computers. Product quality has nothing to do with how much a company makes. Heck the popular vote got us Trump and Hillary so if this was a popularity vote we already know where that gets the US. Crap vs crap.
now don't move the goal posts. sog was answering your specific question/stamement - "I am not sure about Apple's non-iphone revenue being greater than Google's non-ad revenue, but I also don't have those stats". now you do. apple's non iphone business is vastly larger than googles non ads, and larger than many big players.
and this was all in reponse to the guy who said google is playing the long game but all apple has is the iphone. that's the troll trope, and it's bunk. revenue shows they have more than iphone driving their business, and i wouldn't believe they aren't working on "long game" technologies and road maps as well. why wouldn't they?
Yeah my sole purpose of jumping to the comments section was to point out a few key facts the author mis-wrote. There are things I don't like about both devices and things I like about both devices. It is funny to me that the vast majority of features that people complain about google not having are things apple was second to the game with. Waterproofing, two lenses etc... I highly recommend you check out both devices side by side, and if you can afford it get both as they both are a vastly different experience. I pick up my iphone for a few things I prefer to do on it, but I pick up my nexus for most tasks. Movies, flights, etc where i need quick access to an aggregated list of things.
ah no, normal people don't get multiple phones. no device is perfect but you get the best one that handles your use cases.
Yes, it's my first post here. But... I've used Apple products since the early 80s. I've owned more Macs than I can count and half a dozen iPhones as well as numerous other Apple items. I was a moderator on MacRumors.com for years. I've got fairly decent credentials as an Apple fan.
That all being said, I've been primarily an Android - and mostly Nexus - user for about 4 years. I do also have an iPhone SE because, well, I can't leave that ecosystem behind either (yes, I carry them both, and have a Fire Phone as a GPS in my car), but... I know enough about Android (particularly Google's version of things) to call BS on a lot that's being said here, and enough about Apple/iOS/iPhones to call BS on a lot that's being said to counter it.
Flagship-class phones on both sides are more than fast enough these days, period. I stopped caring about specs long ago, as should you all. As OSs become more complex, phones need to be faster to handle them, but both sides have phones which are incredibly fast for their respective OSs. The Nexus 6P on Nougat is no slower or faster, all things considered, than the SE on iOS 10. Both have 2015-era internals running a late 2016 OS. No issues with either. The iPhone 7 is even faster... but it doesn't much matter. Phones were fast enough years ago. I'm sure the Pixel XL I ordered will kick the butt of my 6P in benchmarks, but I won't notice.
The only important thing any more is that you get a phone with the OS and features you prefer, because any even mid-range (and most low-end) phones will give you what you need on any platform. Parity has been achieved for almost anything that matters to most people. There's no need for a pissing match about why one is better than the other. If you need something one OS or phone has and the other doesn't, then there's your answer. Most of the other things are misinformation spread over the years. Examples: Android, at least on Google/Samsung/other top-tier phones isn't any more subject to malware than iOS. Please don't tell me you think iPhones are immune to zero-days; there's been plenty of proof they aren't. Android phones don't reboot any more than iOS ones. My SE rebooted this weekend, two days after I bought it, for no discernible reason, whereas I can't remember the last time the 6P rebooted spontaneously. iPhones, likewise, aren't more expensive than Android over time because they actually retain resale value. The Walled Garden is a great thing in that it promotes phenomenal interoperability and a terrible thing in that it restricts a lot of great options.
Anyone who has truly used recent versions of either can't say that either one is perfect, nor that either one is seriously lacking. It's all a matter of preferences any more.
As I said, I'm currently on Android, at least until next year. I've ordered the Pixel XL. There are things I do not like about it - namely the lack of waterproofing (which, oddly, only seems important to iPhone users this year), the lack of stereo speakers (ditto), and the lack of wireless charging (which, I am sure, will only seem important to iPhone users next year). The camera seems excellent; I don't care if it's a little worse or a little better than the iPhone 7 Plus, because it'll be more than good enough for me when I'm not using my DSLR. The other hardware is... fine. Not amazing, not terrible. I'm glad about Daydream because there's finally a reason for the super-high-def screens.
I'll grant that it's slower than the iPhone 7, that it's not waterproof, and that it doesn't have stereo speakers. I'd also guess it's not as well-built.
However... I think the software (Google Assistant, etc.), the unlimited photos and video, the cheaper warranty, and, for me, the included Daydream VR headset make up for the deficiencies. Remember. iOS fan here, too. I dig what Apple wins at: Messages; integration; smoothness; better-looking, earlier-out-the-door, nicer apps; all of that. But... Google's Assistant is going to kick the ass of Siri, because Siri already loses to Google. Apple has no VR option, and the iPhone screens aren't pixel-dense enough to do a good job of it anyway. 24/7 online support will help those who aren't geeks use their phone (granted, mostly because they can't count on half the people around them having the same phone as they do).
And, the stuff I prefer about Android is still there (among other things, the app drawer is enormously nice in my opinion, as is the fact icons don't always have to go top-left to -bottom-right with no way to skip gaps).
So, yeah, for me it's worth it, because the hardware is more than adequate, and I'm psyched about the software. Doesn't mean I won't go for the iPhone 8. But I don't think this article did a very good job at all of doing anything other than soliciting a comment war. It's simply untrue that most Android users crave removable batteries and SD cards (a vocal minority do, true). It's untrue that Android - on top-tier phones - is any less secure than iOS unless users make it less secure by rooting, etc. It's simply a different choice.
Like I said, I carry an Android phone and an iOS phone every day. I love them both. They both have traits I prefer over the other, and things I really wish were different about them. It's like kids, I guess. I just think, though, it's unfair to paint the Pixel as a failure in the way this article did, because it's simply biased without reason, and it appeals only to those who are ignorant of the other side - and I mean today's other side, not the way it was in 2011 when you used some low-end Android phone for a week and hated it.
so as a MR mod can we hold you accountable for the ugly den of trolls and haters it's become? or how MR bans you if you even use the word "troll" in reponse to its trolls?
anyway, i'm struggling to understand how you can argue having OS encryption off by default is every bit as secure as having it on and built in as on iOS.
9 years later fandroids claim "google finally got it right"
It seems obvious to me that the phone on the left has a cleaner interface, which is disappointing as a long-time Apple fan. Yes, they're both rounded rectangles, but what matters is what's on the screen, and Google's screen is cleaner. It really doesn't matter who did what first - both sides have appropriated ideas from the other. What matters is where they are now. I use both OSs daily, and Android wins on usability as an OS just as much as iOS wins with virtually every app. Messages wins. Siri loses. And so on.
it's not cleaner - they just removed all the apps. my dad wouldn't know what to do next.
the only thing obvious is what a blatant copy the one on the left is, down to the ocean wallpaper. it's despicable.
Comments
IF Google sticks to it (a big if) they say they'll be further customizing even the internal chipsets. We'll see if that really happens.
IOW. your hardware devices will have its OS and its apps tailored to specific local uses. All your data will reside in the cloud (encrypted) -- with portions, accessed, as needed on your devices. Specialized apps and services will reside in the cloud. Upon requests from your devices, these specialized cloud apps and services will access your cloud data, process it, and store the results in the cloud.
I think that, currently:
• Apple has the lead in local hardware devices and their OS and local apps -- as well as local intercommunication among these devices.
• Arguably, Apple and Google are tied in cloud services to support the local hardware using their systems
• Cloud data storage -- big advantage Google
• Integration of device capabilities through cloud services and cloud data storage -- advantage Apple
So, to my mind, the challenge is:
Apple getting its cloud data storage kit together vs Google getting its local device kit and cloud integration kit together.
Some additional thoughts...
Apple has pioneered iPhone as a Service, by providing the iPhone Upgrade program -- no reason a similar program couldn't be offered for other Apple Devices.
With the open-sourcing of Swift and the IBM efforts to use Swift on the cloud servers/services there could be rapid growth implementing new cloud services. BTW, the big 4 providers of cloud storage/services are: Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and Google.
Apple's A10 chip, easily, has the compute power to satisfy the needs of many Cloud servers that mainly do I/O and little compute (web pages, email, upload, download, backup, streaming, etc.). If Apple were to make an A10 variant with more robust I/O, say TB 3, it could easily handle I/O-bound server duties.
There are certainly opportunities for Apple to level the playing field with Google vis-a-vis cloud data storage!
Perhaps HTC doesn't care if their brand is diluted. Still, they aren't the most capable Android hardware manufacturer. Samsung still is followed by LG.
Perhaps if Apple hadn't tried denying profits to the Android OEMs, we'd be seeing more fragmentation as those manufacturers attempt to implement their own services instead of Google's. They would certainly put some those profits to work in doing that. They are all trying to put everything they can into hardware to compete with Apple in hardware while Google gets to take the software driven profits and continue development of their own services.
Google obviously senses very real threats. Both Amazon and Facebook are moving in on Google's ad driven revenues. Both companies could easily move the market off of Google services.
They need to control their own platform. Just like MSFT realized it needed to. Almost too late in the case of MSFT. The commodity hardware model isn't working. LG and Samsung are going to become the dominant cell phone players outside of Apple and it isn't inconceivable to see Samsung achieve dominance even over LG. If 90% of Android software runs on Samsung and the Korean Chaebol decides to drop Android, Goolge would be in trouble.
I fail to see how using HTC as a contract manufacturer for Google is going to change the situation. Samsung makes its own cameras, sensors, memory, modems and CPUs. They are still on the road to dominance unless LG can remain competitive. Google will be alright for a little longer if LG stays in the game as the two Korean chaebol are more competitive with each other than even with Apple, much less Google.
It is in Google's best interests to strengthen LG. Why they aren't doing so is puzzling. HTC absolutely has no chance remaining competitive with Samsung over the long term.
They built a decent, but not stellar phone that is overpriced. And likely heavily subsidized by Google. I am assuming that Google will take the losses when the phone doesn't sell and not HTC. Because the phone won't sell well. And if HTC has to bear the losses, it's doubtful that they build phones for Google down the road.
HTC doesn't have any technology that would allow them to remain competitive over the long term. Samsung's economies of scale and state of the technologies are going to overwhelm HTC. They already are. And Google is hoping for them to achieve major sales just with the Google name? Not going to happen.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-05/htc-you-loser
"Google, of Android operating system fame, released its first Pixel smartphones Tuesday to replace its Nexus lineup. HTC has been selected to assemble the device, becoming for Google what Foxconn is to Apple. "Google has done the design work and a lot of the engineering," the Mountain View-based company's hardware chief Rick Osterloh told Bloomberg News.
Ouch! That's gotta hurt. After spending years building its design and engineering chops, HTC has been demoted to water boy. Supplying Google with smartphones isn't a victory -- it's an embarrassing end to HTC's decade-long campaign to break out of that contract-manufacturing business and stand on its own two feet."
http://www.androidpolice.com/2016/10/03/source-huawei-passed-on-chance-to-produce-pixel-phones-us-division-badly-struggling/
Maybe data centers or server farms are new for Apple, and you look excited for it. MS, Google, Facebook and Amazon have been doing it for years. And some of them are running with customized CPU/GPU's.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/3072256/google-io/googles-tensor-processing-unit-said-to-advance-moores-law-seven-years-into-the-future.html
https://www.top500.org/news/microsoft-goes-all-in-for-fpgas-to-build-out-cloud-based-ai/
From what I have seen, most of iOS users have their data in non-Apple services from Google and MS. So Apple don't have the data, even though people use their devices.
Looks like Pixel may have a better camera than the iPhone 7+. And when you add Google Assistant to it, it become a very interesting alternatives to iPhones.
In mobile devices, yes. In cloud + AI, no.
What DED may not want to accept is that the Pixel camera may be better because of the pixel size on the camera sensor. For years when Android phone offered 16-20 MP cameras we were told that its not the number of pixels but the size of each pixel that makes the difference. From what I remember when Apple went to the 12 MP camera in the iPhone 6S they kept the sensor size the same decreasing the size of individual pixels. I don't feel like its much better than the camera in my iPhone SE. The fact they fit a bigger sensor into the phone without a hump is a design plus. That said Google has a long, long, way to go to establish themselves a a brand that competes with Apple. The XL seems overpriced compared to the dual camera set up of the 7Plus; The 2X camera is a great feature, but maybe they should have put it on the iPhone7 too.
Design wise I still like the look of the HTC ONE10. Unfortunately they probably won't be able to capitalize on the problems of the Note7.
The whole "first Google phone ever" statement almost hurts my feelings--these Nexus phones I purchased were through Google (or Play) stores, some were available ONLY through Google and not through any carrier, and were the fruit of the specs dictated by Google engineers. The wife's Nexus 6, in theory, best qualifies as the original Google phone, since Moto made it while Google owned the company (the Lenovo sale didn't finalize until a few weeks after N6 was announced), which means Google owned the manufacturing as well as the engineering for that phone--a claim not even Apple can make. But apparently now, Google was only kidding with those phones, and the Pixel phones are said by lapdog tech "journalists" with horrible memories to be truly the only phones Google has ever made or sold.
The acolytes for Android keep pointing to Google Assistant as the game-changer for Pixel (that, and the VR capabilities), but I suspect most folks with Siri and OK Google on their phones use that feature rarely, if at all. I use Siri for messages while driving, wife has tried OK Google on her Nexus and had hilariously frustrating results. Our kids, who are late 20s to mid-30s don't use the assistants at all. Never. Kind of amazes me, since I would think a younger demo would be the kind which would adapt to these new technologies the fastest.
The VR component is important to the incredibly small subset of supporters who mention it in threads as a reason why Pixel will be a serious threat to iPhone, but the truth is Samsung (which is vulnerable right now if the recent story of the "fixed" Note7 catching fire on the plane turns out to be accurate) is the only brand which needs to be concerned about Pixel, and I doubt there is much sleep lost. Pixel sales--which will be small by the standards set by iPhone and Galaxy products in the past few years--won't cause a ripple in iPhone sales. Pixel simply won't matter. The only reason why stories appear on the internet comparing the two products is that it causes people to stop and read. Google has shown it has no talent for selling hardware in a retail environment (as opposed to selling/giving services), and there is little reason to believe that the company is suddenly gifted with ability in this arena. The Nexus 5 apparently represented Google's high water mark in sales at just under 1M units per month, which is a fraction of the volume of iPhone or Galaxy sales in a *week*. Worth noting N5 was sold on price, with a 32gb version sold for $400, when iPhones and Galaxies were $700 and up. Volumes were worse for N6, N5X and N6P, so a downward trend in sales needs to be reversed before Google can start dreaming of playing with the big kids.
For those who are completely amped over the release of Pixel--vaya con dios. Hope it is the best phone you ever owned. For our house, there is nothing in the specs and hype which justifies the price Google is asking for the phone. If they had priced it aggressively like the N5, then this would be a completely different conversation. But Google clearly feels its product is capable of the same respect as iPhone and Galaxy, not understanding that respect is earned, not demanded. The Nexus history hasn't earned it that level of respect.
As a developer, it make sense you might not keep a phone longer than 12-18 months, but if a phone sold new by Google through Summer 2014 is now considered incapable of running the newest OS version, doesn't that impede the developer's ability to embrace both the newest software features with the broadest customer base possible? Average folks do keep their phones longer than 2 years.
anyway, i'm struggling to understand how you can argue having OS encryption off by default is every bit as secure as having it on and built in as on iOS.
the only thing obvious is what a blatant copy the one on the left is, down to the ocean wallpaper. it's despicable.