This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
It's so obvious that this writer is an all-out Apple fan. I understand that. However, after using the Nexus 6, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 10 and Pixel 2 XL, I have to say that my personal preference has shifted away from Apple. My 2014 Nexus 6 still works fast and is a great phone. My iPhone 7 Plus was great for the Portrait mode, although the upgrade to the iPhone 10 was a mistake. 2 OLED display failures made me switch to the Pixel 2 XL - mainly for photography. The quality and feel of the device, in my opinion, was superior to the iPhone. It was fast, no lag, took great photos (even with only 1 camera), and wasn't full of useless bloatware. Plus, the actual phone call quality was superior. I understand that Apple fans hate everything Google, and that's unlikely to change - but Google has their hands, feet (and most importantly - brains) in the game. They're moving in the right direction. Plus, the Nest reference in this article is BS -- Nest has high-quality products that just work. Apple has Siri.
Nest sucks, as an original customer. The lack of HomeKit support is pathetic.
Siri is fine. None of these assistants do anything much of worth beyond the basics.
Apple has an entire portfolio of industry-leading products that just work (that phrase was coined for Apple stuff) that the rest of the industry routinely clone, copy, and knockoff. This Pixel is just another example:
I think this article misses the larger point. Google doesn't build Pixel phones to enrich the manufacturer. If anything, I'd say they are taking advantage of the manufacturers in order to promote the Android brand. In fact, the Pixel devices are positioned as a flagship phone within the Android line-up that is directly controlled by Google, thus getting faster updates and a more vanilla version of Android (plus the extra software features you mentioned). Overall, this helps elevate Android as a world-class, high-end mobile platform that goes toe-to-toe with Apple. All of this at a better price than the comparable Apple hardware.
It's important to keep in mind that Google still owns the majority of the smartphone market worldwide, with recent conservative estimates putting Google at 85% to Apple's 13%. Regardless of whether Google sells more devices than Apple, or make more money doing it, this should mean more revenue in apps, services, and ads.
It's also worth pointing out that even Apple has seen declines in sales of phones in the last couple of years. Consumers aren't as quick to update their phones every year these days, especially when the prices of flagship devices have shot right past the $1k mark. In fact, most sources called the iPhone X a failure due to poor sales as compared to the iPhone 8 and older models. It's also the first time in a while that Apple completely discontinued a flagship phone within a year. That is definitely telling.
Also, despite what this article implies, the Pixel devices *have* offered hardware advances that surpassed Apples. The Pixel 2/XL camera was much better than anything offered by Apple last generation. In fact, Apple only just brought their own cameras up to the Pixel 2 level with the release of the XS/Max. And, although this article shows a clear hardware bias, Google's AI has been far superior to Apple's offerings for years. In fact, Google's entire software portfolio, including Photos, Gmail, Assistant, and Maps has always been extremely popular with consumers, even on Apple hardware, with many of Google's apps in the top lists on Apple's own App Store.
It's so obvious that this writer is an all-out Apple fan. I understand that. However, after using the Nexus 6, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 10 and Pixel 2 XL, I have to say that my personal preference has shifted away from Apple. My 2014 Nexus 6 still works fast and is a great phone. My iPhone 7 Plus was great for the Portrait mode, although the upgrade to the iPhone 10 was a mistake. 2 OLED display failures made me switch to the Pixel 2 XL - mainly for photography. The quality and feel of the device, in my opinion, was superior to the iPhone. It was fast, no lag, took great photos (even with only 1 camera), and wasn't full of useless bloatware. Plus, the actual phone call quality was superior. I understand that Apple fans hate everything Google, and that's unlikely to change - but Google has their hands, feet (and most importantly - brains) in the game. They're moving in the right direction. Plus, the Nest reference in this article is BS -- Nest has high-quality products that just work. Apple has Siri.
I think the writer's main story premise may be wrong, making the entire article suspect.
Neither LG nor HTC built the Pixel 3/3XL AFAICT. Google used Foxconn according to industry sources, as consistently reported since back in May, so all the talk around LG and HTC's smartphone business is nice and all but really has little to nothing to do with this years Pixel 3's.
HTC may have still have had some early engineering work invested, and probably did, since Google didn't take control of the team behind it until early this year, perhaps in January? I'd have to check the news. By generation 4 next year Google will be out of excuses, it's all on them whether they can demonstrate any design prowess or not. But HTC and LG building this year's Pixels as assumed in the article? I don't think so. The two designs being so very similar should have been an obvious red flag that two different manufacturers hadn't designed and built them. Just looks at last year's models compared to this year.
IMO Alphabet has picked a bad time to jump into the business with both feet, but whatever. Smartphones have become a bit boring to be honest, not much flashiness and oooh features being seen the past year or so from anyone. What there is seems more related to AI/computational enhancements for things like phone calls, photos, and smart device control. If Alphabet can actually pull an oooh-and-aahh phone out of its hat next year it will come as a stunner, but I'm not holding my breath. IMO smartphones are stagnating more than stunning us.
In June, it was consistently reported LG was the manufacturer Basically, there are two different rumors claiming (consistently) who got the contract to build the phone: A May rumor of a Foxxcon subsidiary and a late June one of LG. I doubt there will be a Pixel 4 and we will see a new rebranding using the HTC acquired talent.
Where did you see that LG built them? Proof to the contrary was news that Google was in contact with Foxconn and not LG about Pixel phones that had made their way to a Russian seller/blogger.
I think you've confused LG being the display provider with LG building the phones. I don't find a single report in June or anytime since about LG building the Pixel 3's. Do you have a link?
The LG rumor was carried by Android Central (with "proof on contract" for final assembly) and picked up by BI and DigiTimes. Basically, they are RUMORS. We will need a full tear down to probably see the metaphorical fingerprints of the actual manufacturer.
In short, as always, you seem to conflate "truth", "fact", "rumor" and "opinion" as being interchangeable.
Save your oxygen, when you’re talking to this guy you have to paraphrase this line from Chinatown: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Google-town.”
What purpose was there in writing that other than serving a helping of day-old ad-hom. You obviously aren't disputing anything I wrote or you would have done so. Were your fingers so itchy that you felt you just had to type something, but to paraphrase "all you got me was a lousy insult"?
So basically just another Google bashing article here then.
Amazing how things that are supposedly so unimportant get so much ink here. Sure tech sites cover Google hardware. I have yet to see these new phones get much outside of tech press though. Interesting too how market share doesn’t matter except when it’s someone not named Apple. Then low market share is equated to failure.
" Interesting too how market share doesn’t matter except when it’s someone not named Apple."
This is a red hearing at best. Of course market share matters but it is foolish all market share is created equally. There is little value (as a business) if you sell consistently 1,000,000,000 widgets but loose $0.10 on each widget when you competition is selling 100,000,000 widgets and making $1.00/widget. This is lost on the "Market Share is God" group.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspective
It's absolutely the right lens to view the Pixel line through given Google's continual failure in trying to understand hardware. If it was only about "traffic", they would concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspective
...concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
Opinion or fact? And where's that Android Central link you were getting on LG building the Pixel 3?
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Based on being a good allocation of Google's resources. After R/D, tooling, verification, testing... Google will be lucky to make ($200) -> ($100) on each Pixel phone sold. BTW: The () indicate Google LOOSING money.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspective
...concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
Opinion or fact? And where's that Android Central link you were getting on LG building the Pixel 3?
/s
Fact. Given the amount of hardware I have gotten from Google at past Google I/O because it ws the only way to unload it. Unless your name is Samsung (and perhaps Huawei), there is little to no profit in partnering with Google. And Google is doing worse than most of their partners. Profit wise on hardware. Lots and lots and lots of financial analysis out there and it is hard to find a positive one.
I am guessing you know how to use a search engine. Use it to do your own research.
I think this article misses the larger point. Google doesn't build Pixel phones to enrich the manufacturer. If anything, I'd say they are taking advantage of the manufacturers in order to promote the Android brand. In fact, the Pixel devices are positioned as a flagship phone within the Android line-up that is directly controlled by Google, thus getting faster updates and a more vanilla version of Android (plus the extra software features you mentioned). Overall, this helps elevate Android as a world-class, high-end mobile platform that goes toe-to-toe with Apple. All of this at a better price than the comparable Apple hardware.
It's important to keep in mind that Google still owns the majority of the smartphone market worldwide, with recent conservative estimates putting Google at 85% to Apple's 13%. Regardless of whether Google sells more devices than Apple, or make more money doing it, this should mean more revenue in apps, services, and ads.
It's also worth pointing out that even Apple has seen declines in sales of phones in the last couple of years. Consumers aren't as quick to update their phones every year these days, especially when the prices of flagship devices have shot right past the $1k mark. In fact, most sources called the iPhone X a failure due to poor sales as compared to the iPhone 8 and older models. It's also the first time in a while that Apple completely discontinued a flagship phone within a year. That is definitely telling.
Also, despite what this article implies, the Pixel devices *have* offered hardware advances that surpassed Apples. The Pixel 2/XL camera was much better than anything offered by Apple last generation. In fact, Apple only just brought their own cameras up to the Pixel 2 level with the release of the XS/Max. And, although this article shows a clear hardware bias, Google's AI has been far superior to Apple's offerings for years. In fact, Google's entire software portfolio, including Photos, Gmail, Assistant, and Maps has always been extremely popular with consumers, even on Apple hardware, with many of Google's apps in the top lists on Apple's own App Store.
Your screed about Apple sales if both inaccurate and misplaced.
It's true; Apple is in a mature market, and is in fact seeing stable sales, but at a higher ASP. It's also true that customers keep their devices longer, but notably, with many more years of support than Android OS devices get.
It's also true that Android OS devices are also in a mature market, and are as well seeing stable sales, albeit at a fraction of the ASP that Apple sees.
I would also note that those "sources" stating that iPhone X was a failure, ended up not only being wrong, but looking down a quarter where Apple might sell 80 to 85 million iPhones, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent of those being X models. That's not a sign of failure.
That leaves the Android OS device market as essentially zero sum; gains of one company come as losses from the others. That drives prices down, and customer acquisition costs up.
More to the point, if the Google experience with the Pixel is better than that of these other Android OS device makers, one would expect that Google would be doing a bit better in sales, but maybe they will, given enough time.
As for the rest of your opining of Google's superiority, I'm just not seeing it in any broad aspect.
Note that the only Google product that I use knowingly is search, and thanks so much to Google for paying for that privilege. I've read that the bulk of Google's advertising profits is via Apple users, but, who knows.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspective
It's absolutely the right lens to view the Pixel line through given Google's continual failure in trying to understand hardware. If it was only about "traffic", they would concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
I don’t own any Google hardware nor use Google services so I have no dog in this fight but what exactly do you mean by failure to understand hardware?
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
There are people in the world that analyze such things, even without financial data. Given that Google has actually shipped some 5 to 10 million Pixels total, maybe even more, it would be straightforward to assume that overhead costs per unit are pretty high.
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
There are people in the world that analyze such things, even without financial data. Given that Google has actually shipped some 5 to 10 million Pixels total, maybe even more, it would be straightforward to assume that overhead costs per unit are pretty high.
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
Per unit? I agree with you that Apple would likely be seeing much more in the bank account from a new iPhone than Google does from a new Pixel. Volume matters. That's not the same as Google losing money on them as has been claimed by some. They may, but there's not much evidence so far to show that.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Based on being a good allocation of Google's resources. After R/D, tooling, verification, testing... Google will be lucky to make ($200) -> ($100) on each Pixel phone sold. BTW: The () indicate Google LOOSING money.
If Google had money as a prime objective, they wouldn't have restricted Pixel availability to so few countries. Clearly, money hasn't been the prime objective so far.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
And that is the wrong lens to use because Pixel is not just a standalone line of business from Google's perspective
...concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
Opinion or fact? And where's that Android Central link you were getting on LG building the Pixel 3?
/s
Fact. Given the amount of hardware I have gotten from Google at past Google I/O because it ws the only way to unload it. Unless your name is Samsung (and perhaps Huawei), there is little to no profit in partnering with Google. And Google is doing worse than most of their partners. Profit wise on hardware. Lots and lots and lots of financial analysis out there and it is hard to find a positive one.
I am guessing you know how to use a search engine. Use it to do your own research.
You too know how to use a search engine. Is that really that hard to say you made a mistake and there's no sign of the Android Central claim from June you seem to remember that LG built the Pixel3?
I wouldn't normally pursue it but you were the one initiating the insults towards me and making claims about my honesty. Finish what you started seems proper: Admit you were probably mistaken or post a link. It's pretty simple and straightforward.
I'd suggest to you that the best move going forward is don't belittle or insult other posters here, if for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment if it backfires.
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
There are people in the world that analyze such things, even without financial data. Given that Google has actually shipped some 5 to 10 million Pixels total, maybe even more, it would be straightforward to assume that overhead costs per unit are pretty high.
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
Why does it matter how many phones Google sells and how much money they make off them? I don’t get the point of these articles that are basically pissing contests but only using metrics where Apple is surely to come out the winner. If the Pixel really is meaningless why is AI wasting any space talking about it?
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
There are people in the world that analyze such things, even without financial data. Given that Google has actually shipped some 5 to 10 million Pixels total, maybe even more, it would be straightforward to assume that overhead costs per unit are pretty high.
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
Why does it matter how many phones Google sells and how much money they make off them? I don’t get the point of these articles that are basically pissing contests but only using metrics where Apple is surely to come out the winner. If the Pixel really is meaningless why is AI wasting any space talking about it?
You were the one that stated that "Google doesn't provide sales or financial data", yet there is in fact data available on total sales from other sources, a qualified estimate, and we know the price and build cost.
If you post something that isn't true, why shouldn't I or someone else respond?
For future reference, don't post in these if you don't want to be part of the "pissing contests".
This article is looking at Google through an Apple lens rather than a Google one. Pixel is just one element in Google's mobile strategy. They make more money by getting their services into the hands of more people - whether they are using a Pixel, a Galaxy, an iPhone, a desktop or a home device. The Pixel phones are ugly as anything on the market but they focus on bringing the standard of camera right up and providing a platform to showcase their services. If this drives all of their Android partners to work harder then Google wins. Apple makes money from hardware sales, Google makes it from eyeballs and ears.
Also, I don't think you can say that Google has failed in hardware. Chromecasts, Nest, and Home devices are all incredibly successful. Google's business model doesn't require it to make a profit on the hardware, it's a channel for its services and advertising.
No, the article is looking at the Pixel line from a business lens and NOT just an Apple lens. Through this lens, the Pixel line of phones is an abject failure.
Failure based on what? Everyone here says that market share isn’t an important metric. Based on how a Google is pricing these phones I have to imagine they’re making decent margins on them. Same with Microsoft and Surface.
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Since Google doesn’t provide sales or financial data how would you know? And don’t say that’s the tell because then that means Apple Watch, Apple TV and HomePod are all failures.
There are people in the world that analyze such things, even without financial data. Given that Google has actually shipped some 5 to 10 million Pixels total, maybe even more, it would be straightforward to assume that overhead costs per unit are pretty high.
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
Why does it matter how many phones Google sells and how much money they make off them? I don’t get the point of these articles that are basically pissing contests but only using metrics where Apple is surely to come out the winner. If the Pixel really is meaningless why is AI wasting any space talking about it?
You were the one that stated that "Google doesn't provide sales or financial data", yet there is in fact data available on total sales from other sources, a qualified estimate, and we know the price and build cost.
If you post something that isn't true, why shouldn't I or someone else respond?
For future reference, don't post in these if you don't want to be part of the "pissing contests".
I said Google doesn’t provide financial or sales data. Google is not “other sources”. If you can show me where in Google’s 10-Q or 10-K they provide Pixel sales and revenue I’ll gladly admit I was wrong.
Comments
Nope because they don’t sell any either. Apple isn’t majority of market share, but it doesn’t matter because they’re boss of profit share. Pixel is neither. It’s just another knockoff, one which the hypocrite haters and rags like Verge give a pass to on all the things they screamed about when it’s iPhone.
That’s the point. Failures don’t matter when it’s not Apple.
Nest sucks, as an original customer. The lack of HomeKit support is pathetic.
Siri is fine. None of these assistants do anything much of worth beyond the basics.
Apple has an entire portfolio of industry-leading products that just work (that phrase was coined for Apple stuff) that the rest of the industry routinely clone, copy, and knockoff. This Pixel is just another example:
Buh Bye!
Enjoy your chosen device!
Were your fingers so itchy that you felt you just had to type something, but to paraphrase "all you got me was a lousy insult"?
This is a red hearing at best. Of course market share matters but it is foolish all market share is created equally. There is little value (as a business) if you sell consistently 1,000,000,000 widgets but loose $0.10 on each widget when you competition is selling 100,000,000 widgets and making $1.00/widget. This is lost on the "Market Share is God" group.
It's absolutely the right lens to view the Pixel line through given Google's continual failure in trying to understand hardware. If it was only about "traffic", they would concentrate on services and software and leave hardware to companies that understand a little bit about it instead of loosing $$$$$ on inventory over and over and over and over and over again.
/s
Based on being a good allocation of Google's resources. After R/D, tooling, verification, testing... Google will be lucky to make ($200) -> ($100) on each Pixel phone sold. BTW: The () indicate Google LOOSING money.
I am guessing you know how to use a search engine. Use it to do your own research.
It's true; Apple is in a mature market, and is in fact seeing stable sales, but at a higher ASP. It's also true that customers keep their devices longer, but notably, with many more years of support than Android OS devices get.
It's also true that Android OS devices are also in a mature market, and are as well seeing stable sales, albeit at a fraction of the ASP that Apple sees.
I would also note that those "sources" stating that iPhone X was a failure, ended up not only being wrong, but looking down a quarter where Apple might sell 80 to 85 million iPhones, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 percent of those being X models. That's not a sign of failure.
That leaves the Android OS device market as essentially zero sum; gains of one company come as losses from the others. That drives prices down, and customer acquisition costs up.
More to the point, if the Google experience with the Pixel is better than that of these other Android OS device makers, one would expect that Google would be doing a bit better in sales, but maybe they will, given enough time.
As for the rest of your opining of Google's superiority, I'm just not seeing it in any broad aspect.
Note that the only Google product that I use knowingly is search, and thanks so much to Google for paying for that privilege. I've read that the bulk of Google's advertising profits is via Apple users, but, who knows.
Better trolls, please.
Buh Bye!
This year, Apple will ship three new models, I'm going to say 150 million X models, split between three sibling models, so Apple's overhead, while high for iPhone development, is split amongst those 150 million units.
Which scenario looks to be more profitable per unit?
Per unit? I agree with you that Apple would likely be seeing much more in the bank account from a new iPhone than Google does from a new Pixel. Volume matters. That's not the same as Google losing money on them as has been claimed by some. They may, but there's not much evidence so far to show that.
I wouldn't normally pursue it but you were the one initiating the insults towards me and making claims about my honesty. Finish what you started seems proper: Admit you were probably mistaken or post a link. It's pretty simple and straightforward.
I'd suggest to you that the best move going forward is don't belittle or insult other posters here, if for no other reason than to avoid embarrassment if it backfires.
If you post something that isn't true, why shouldn't I or someone else respond?
For future reference, don't post in these if you don't want to be part of the "pissing contests".