Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The goal post moving and excuses for the ONLY pure android phone by the king of android is hilarious! I though android was better? LOL!!
Pixel is the only pure android phone and is SUPPOSED to be the iPhone of knockoffs! Suddenly Pixel "doesn't matter". lol
Yet had this article been about critisizing iPhone.......
The article was about silicon chip development. The Galaxy line would be the better comparison. Example: Writing an article about "Google drives the future of cloud computing silicon and Apple doesn't" would be a silly premise for an editorial wouldn't it?
As far as "Android better" there's lots of disagreement on what devices are better matches for specific purposes, and some of those devices will have different operating systems which can be either a disadvantage or a big plus or a complete non-issue depending.
A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious:
silent farts are the deadliest farts.
Carolina Reaper peppers may cause a slight sensation going in... and coming out.
posting vacation photos on Instagram of your new secret young girlfriend may upset your wife... and your other girlfriend
Could have saved a lot of keystrokes by typing: "Future of mobile silicon: ARM based chips"
This editorial reminds me of the age old adage, Why write 7 words when 3000 will do.
We get it. Android and Google suck.
The problem is, these iKnockoff idiots will claim Android is better than the real thing over and over again. When a PURE 100% Android phone is announced that will actually get Android updates, they claim it's godly and better than anything stupid Apple would have done.
When the pure android(which is better than stupid Apple remember?) phone FAILS, suddenly the narrative changes and it was never important to begin with!
The hypocrisy is so blatant and hilarious when they try to ignore the facts.
"A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious: "
Yeah, it's obvious NOW. Just like marrying your ex-wife was obviously a mistake but you couldn't see it when you were in the love stage.
This article is just kicking dirt into the faces of these people who claimed Pixel/Android was so great. Of course hindsight is 20/20*. It's like calling stock investors or people who made mistakes idiots 10 years after the fact. Just like that everyone in this comment section sees how obvious Pixels failure is, but this is in retrospect.
*Hindsight is 20/20: Phrase used to describe the fact that it is easy for one to be knowledgable about an event after it has happened.
A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious:
silent farts are the deadliest farts.
Carolina Reaper peppers may cause a slight sensation going in... and coming out.
posting vacation photos on Instagram of your new secret young girlfriend may upset your wife... and your other girlfriend
Could have saved a lot of keystrokes by typing: "Future of mobile silicon: ARM based chips"
This editorial reminds me of the age old adage, Why write 7 words when 3000 will do.
We get it. Android and Google suck.
The problem is, these iKnockoff idiots will claim Android is better than the real thing over and over again. When a PURE 100% Android phone is announced that will actually get Android updates, they claim it's godly and better than anything stupid Apple would have done.
When the pure android(which is better than stupid Apple remember?) phone FAILS, suddenly the narrative changes and it was never important to begin with!
The hypocrisy is so blatant and hilarious when they try to ignore the facts.
"A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious: "
Yeah, it's obvious NOW. Just like marrying your ex-wife was obviously a mistake but you couldn't see it when you were in the love stage.
This article is just kicking dirt into the faces of these people who claimed Pixel/Android was so great. Of course hindsight is 20/20*. It's like calling stock investors or people who made mistakes idiots 10 years after the fact. Just like that everyone in this comment section sees how obvious Pixels failure is, but this is in retrospect.
*Hindsight is 20/20: Phrase used to describe the fact that it is easy for one to be knowledgable about an event after it has happened.
Also, let's not forget that the real lead in mobile silicon is Samsung. You know.....with them being the worlds 2nd largest chip maker after Intel, providing a majority of Apples Silicon after TI, silicon for their own phones, and silicon for everyone else's phones, and silicon for about 1 in 6 household products that you touch before leaving for work......so yeah....yay apple
There's a difference between producing under contract and designing. I haven't read much coverage of Samsung pushing the envelope in chip design. Links we can read?
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Also, let's not forget that the real lead in mobile silicon is Samsung. You know.....with them being the worlds 2nd largest chip maker after Intel, providing a majority of Apples Silicon after TI, silicon for their own phones, and silicon for everyone else's phones, and silicon for about 1 in 6 household products that you touch before leaving for work......so yeah....yay apple
There's a difference between producing under contract and designing. I haven't read much coverage of Samsung pushing the envelope in chip design. Links we can read?
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete in some areas but are far apart on other custom silicon the two companies develop. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
How wonderful for Google, that, and tracking...
Very insightful... Amazed you bothered to make an off-topic comment. You're usually better than that. Perhaps try again?
That’s just weird to talk about something completely off topic.
At least he came back to add something of interest to his original one-sentence reply. It's not a horrible read, tho a bit too bashy to be taken at face value. I actually agree with some parts of it. And yeah really off-topic but I guess TMay had nothing to say on-topic but the driving urge to post anyway.
Face value is that Webkit and Mozzilla are behind blocking tracking, and Google has resisted it to date for Chrome. As it relates to this story, pure tech is only as good as applied.
Yup I agree. Now have you waylaid the thread enough to be satisfied? Got your fix for a bit?
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
The Pixels are definitely intended to eventually get to mass appeal status. Obviously not there yet but sales have reportedly doubled this year which is an encouraging sign.
That's unlike the former Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Also, let's not forget that the real lead in mobile silicon is Samsung. You know.....with them being the worlds 2nd largest chip maker after Intel, providing a majority of Apples Silicon after TI, silicon for their own phones, and silicon for everyone else's phones, and silicon for about 1 in 6 household products that you touch before leaving for work......so yeah....yay apple
There's a difference between producing under contract and designing. I haven't read much coverage of Samsung pushing the envelope in chip design. Links we can read?
Announcements and plans to do things by 2030. Again, that does not back the assertion that they are "the real lead in mobile silicon" as claimed by timtryhard. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. But the claim today is bogus.
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete in some areas but are far apart on other custom silicon the two companies develop. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
How wonderful for Google, that, and tracking...
Very insightful... Amazed you bothered to make an off-topic comment. You're usually better than that. Perhaps try again?
That’s just weird to talk about something completely off topic.
At least he came back to add something of interest to his original one-sentence reply. It's not a horrible read, tho a bit too bashy to be taken at face value. I actually agree with some parts of it. And yeah really off-topic but I guess TMay had nothing to say on-topic but the driving urge to post anyway.
Face value is that Webkit and Mozzilla are behind blocking tracking, and Google has resisted it to date for Chrome. As it relates to this story, pure tech is only as good as applied.
Yup I agree. Now have you waylaid the thread enough to be satisfied? Got your fix for a bit?
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generating profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious:
silent farts are the deadliest farts.
Carolina Reaper peppers may cause a slight sensation going in... and coming out.
posting vacation photos on Instagram of your new secret young girlfriend may upset your wife... and your other girlfriend
Could have saved a lot of keystrokes by typing: "Future of mobile silicon: ARM based chips"
This editorial reminds me of the age old adage, Why write 7 words when 3000 will do.
{snipped for clarity and peace of mind}
See post 22...
Dude. Why would you engage any of that silliness? You're only encouraging further posting.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
Pixel? PIXEL? Of course it doesn't drive "the future of mobile silicon"
That's not what Android fan sites and Google's blog were saying. In fact, they parroted off the same ideas you did: that Tensor acceleration gave Google some lead, that Pixel photography was better than an iPhone (that is not true, and continues to be false).
I don't know that you understand what Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPU) are and I think you're using terms you don't know much about but making it sound as tho you do. Tensor processors aren't made for smartphones.
Apple and Google may compete in some areas but are far apart on other custom silicon the two companies develop. Apple does it primarily for consumer uses, a great source of income obviously, while Google does it for science, industry, and enterprise. Different needs and different reasons for developing their own special silicon.
How wonderful for Google, that, and tracking...
Very insightful... Amazed you bothered to make an off-topic comment. You're usually better than that. Perhaps try again?
That’s just weird to talk about something completely off topic.
At least he came back to add something of interest to his original one-sentence reply. It's not a horrible read, tho a bit too bashy to be taken at face value. I actually agree with some parts of it. And yeah really off-topic but I guess TMay had nothing to say on-topic but the driving urge to post anyway.
Face value is that Webkit and Mozzilla are behind blocking tracking, and Google has resisted it to date for Chrome. As it relates to this story, pure tech is only as good as applied.
Yup I agree. Now have you waylaid the thread enough to be satisfied? Got your fix for a bit?
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
Don't you have some Wiki page to change?
Again - my change was 100% accurate, and limited only to the fact that AirPods were released in December 2016, not months later as the wiki claimed. Your little friend changed the IconX date after my change. If you were the least bit technical and not some middle manager with little actual tech skill, you'd have been able to review the change history and review, but I'll do it for you once more:
I gather from your pathetic jab that you're about tapped out on the subject.
A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay. Other things that are blatantly obvious:
silent farts are the deadliest farts.
Carolina Reaper peppers may cause a slight sensation going in... and coming out.
posting vacation photos on Instagram of your new secret young girlfriend may upset your wife... and your other girlfriend
Could have saved a lot of keystrokes by typing: "Future of mobile silicon: ARM based chips"
This editorial reminds me of the age old adage, Why write 7 words when 3000 will do.
{snipped for clarity and peace of mind}
See post 22...
Dude. Why would you engage any of that silliness? You're only encouraging further posting.
StrangeDays said: Yup I agree. Now have you waylaid the thread enough to be satisfied? Got your fix for a bit?
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
Don't you have some Wiki page to change?
This made me physically lol.
Another guy who doesn't understand how wikipedia works. See above, my change pertained only to the month AirPods were released, and had zilch to do with with IconX, which someone after me changed from "DECEMBER 2016" to "July".
Good to know where the end of the technical ability is for you boys lies. Pretty weak.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
Why should I know any more about your knockoffs? They're crummier ripoffs of iOS, end of story. When they fail, first you fandroids say "Just wait for the PURE experience from Google!" When that fails too, then you fandroids say "But it was only a reference design! It wasn't mean to sell well!" Blah blah... Typical goal post maneuvers by the kings of moving goalposts -- our google guy and the other Chinese knockoff guy.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
I didn't say it would sell well or less well. I said it wasn't designed to compete in terms of sales 'with the big three' but you omitted 'with the big three'. I wonder why? I didn't say it was a reference design either.
And Apple actually kicked off a massive product line project with the hope of reaching 1% market share, eventually selling around 2 million devices in 2007. Everyone needs to start somewhere and Google claims that Q2-19 Pixel shipments actually doubled YoY. Not too shabby.
If Google had planned to squeeze all it could out of the Pixel line, it wouldn't have limited its availability on release. Clearly that wasn't the goal.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
LOL, your failsafe dropback put in play.
Did anyone anywhere EVER say "Nexus phones were intended to fail", here or anyplace else? Other than yourself of course. If they did what Google intended of course they didn't fail. I am not surprised you might claim total ignorance of the entire Nexus program and why. It's been explained but you just don't like to accept it.
But you (along with a couple of others) are still focusing on Pixels as essential to proving the editorial writer correct and that's why he had to write a couple of lead-in paragraphs and make them the headline. They aren't for the same reason as using Apple to prove Google's superiority in server chip development. They are the wrong ones to compare if trying to prove a point.
Why is Pixel in the title and largely irrelevant in the text?
Why even mention Google Pixel when they are not primarily a consumer hardware company?
This article lost itself and is so full of holes, it sinks fast.
Three months ago you came around to comment on my Pixel 3a article that "There is a huge potential market for them" and stated "They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects."
Now suddenly Pixel is "not primarily a consumer hardware company"?
And the point is that Google's claim that its custom silicon would be put to use at Google and by third parties simply didn't work out. This is why.
Calling the Pixel line a failure when you know perfectly well it wasn't even designed to compete in terms of sales?
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Again, the "But it wasn't intended to sell well!" fallacy. New products are expensive to kickoff and ramp up with the hope of selling well, recouping costs, and generate profit. No consumer goods that I know of undergo this expensive product lifecycle with the intention of failing.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
LOL, you're a funny guy, "intention for the Nexus to fail".
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
LOL, your failsafe put in play. Did anyone anywhere EVER say "Nexus phones were intended to fail", here or anyplace else. Other than yourself of course. If they did what Google intended of course they didn't fail, and the intent was needing to contract thousands of hardware specific handsets to be used for testing new OS features that often needed certain hardware components, and testbedding a small scale warehousing, order, and distribution model for a future where they would create a for-profit smartphone brand of their own. Taht would be the Pixels. I am not surprised you might claim total ignorance.
Allll a fancy way of saying "But they intended it to fail!"
Not selling well = fail. Nexus = fail. Pixel = fail.
Sorry your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to accept this.
Comments
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The goal post moving and excuses for the ONLY pure android phone by the king of android is hilarious! I though android was better? LOL!!
Pixel is the only pure android phone and is SUPPOSED to be the iPhone of knockoffs! Suddenly Pixel "doesn't matter". lol
Yet had this article been about critisizing iPhone.......
Example: Writing an article about "Google drives the future of cloud computing silicon and Apple doesn't" would be a silly premise for an editorial wouldn't it?
As far as "Android better" there's lots of disagreement on what devices are better matches for specific purposes, and some of those devices will have different operating systems which can be either a disadvantage or a big plus or a complete non-issue depending.
We get it. Android and Google suck.
The problem is, these iKnockoff idiots will claim Android is better than the real thing over and over again. When a PURE 100% Android phone is announced that will actually get Android updates, they claim it's godly and better than anything stupid Apple would have done.
When the pure android(which is better than stupid Apple remember?) phone FAILS, suddenly the narrative changes and it was never important to begin with!
The hypocrisy is so blatant and hilarious when they try to ignore the facts.
"A phone that doesn't even register on research analyst's quarterly reporting isn't the phone that drives the future of mobile silicon? Uh, okay.
Other things that are blatantly obvious: "
Yeah, it's obvious NOW. Just like marrying your ex-wife was obviously a mistake but you couldn't see it when you were in the love stage.
This article is just kicking dirt into the faces of these people who claimed Pixel/Android was so great. Of course hindsight is 20/20*. It's like calling stock investors or people who made mistakes idiots 10 years after the fact. Just like that everyone in this comment section sees how obvious Pixels failure is, but this is in retrospect.
*Hindsight is 20/20:
Phrase used to describe the fact that it is easy for one to be knowledgable about an event after it has happened.
from urbandictionary.com
Ah yes, the "But Google didn't intend it to sell well!" fallacy (also presented as "But it was just a reference design!"). It's so painfully obvious some of you have never been in business before. Nobody, not even Google, kicks of massive product line projects in order for them to not sell well.
https://wccftech.com/samsung-115-billion-mobile-chip-development/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/samsung-exynos-9825-news/
LOL, the king of detours to google topics is here to tell Apple forum regulars to stay on topic? Hilarious.
That's unlike the former Nexus models which were simply an outgrowth of Google needing thousands of reference devices for OS testing and not intended to be highly profitable market successes in their own right.
Do you have some published interviews from Google management where they explain their intention for the Nexus to fail? Otherwise this just sounds like more of the same bullshit.
This made me physically lol.
On the contrary they served their purpose.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-google-makes-nexus-phones-2015-10
https://lifehacker.com/nexus-phones-were-for-android-enthusiasts-but-the-pixe-1787978591
You've already announced you don't really know anything about Android devices.
I gather from your pathetic jab that you're about tapped out on the subject.
Another guy who doesn't understand how wikipedia works. See above, my change pertained only to the month AirPods were released, and had zilch to do with with IconX, which someone after me changed from "DECEMBER 2016" to "July".
Good to know where the end of the technical ability is for you boys lies. Pretty weak.
Where's the part where Google says they intended for them to fail?
Why should I know any more about your knockoffs? They're crummier ripoffs of iOS, end of story. When they fail, first you fandroids say "Just wait for the PURE experience from Google!" When that fails too, then you fandroids say "But it was only a reference design! It wasn't mean to sell well!" Blah blah... Typical goal post maneuvers by the kings of moving goalposts -- our google guy and the other Chinese knockoff guy.
And Apple actually kicked off a massive product line project with the hope of reaching 1% market share, eventually selling around 2 million devices in 2007. Everyone needs to start somewhere and Google claims that Q2-19 Pixel shipments actually doubled YoY. Not too shabby.
If Google had planned to squeeze all it could out of the Pixel line, it wouldn't have limited its availability on release. Clearly that wasn't the goal.
Did anyone anywhere EVER say "Nexus phones were intended to fail", here or anyplace else? Other than yourself of course. If they did what Google intended of course they didn't fail. I am not surprised you might claim total ignorance of the entire Nexus program and why. It's been explained but you just don't like to accept it.
But you (along with a couple of others) are still focusing on Pixels as essential to proving the editorial writer correct and that's why he had to write a couple of lead-in paragraphs and make them the headline. They aren't for the same reason as using Apple to prove Google's superiority in server chip development. They are the wrong ones to compare if trying to prove a point.
Not selling well = fail. Nexus = fail. Pixel = fail.
Sorry your cognitive dissonance won't allow you to accept this.