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?
Pixel is lost and pointless to even iKnockoff fans.
The point is to sh*t on this company even more for being such an immoral scum on Earth.
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Heavy skinning appears to be passe' now with "closer to stock" more preferred, but pure Android probably appeals most to, well purists and techies. In general common people wouldn't know the difference. Heck there's some number of people who still think every smartphone is an iPhone, (Kleenex syndrome)
If their mid-priced Android OS phone has Google Assistant and GMail and Maps (they will) and works with their Google Home (it will) and smart-thermostat (almost certainly) they're usually going to be happy, some downright giddy. There's really very few "bad" mid-range sub-$500 phones anymore IMO.
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
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?
Pixel is lost and pointless to even iKnockoff fans.
The point is to sh*t on this company even more for being such an immoral scum on Earth.
It makes us happy.
In other words this “editorial” really is pointless. But just curious, why do you need an “editorial” shitting on Google to make you happy?
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
I'm aware you don't give a lot of thought to the theories you throw out about how failure at Google and Microsoft is maybe really a genius strategy of some sort but have you considered that: HP Dell and Lenovo aren't trying to sell low-end commodity junk and have premium products priced in line with Surface that they'd love to be able to sell?
All while Gartner is pumping out BS PR that suggests that Surface tablets are performing "well" with sales of 600 thousand units (a decade after mocking Apple for selling 1.5M Macs per quarter and refusing to count 10s of millions of iPads as PCs because tablets are not real).
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
You could argue that, but the evidence suggests that Google and MS do in fact want to generate substantial revenues and profit, if that is possible.
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
You could argue that, but the evidence suggests that Google and MS do in fact want to generate substantial revenues and profit, if that is possible.
It’s fair to say that MS and Google have tried every strategy available with their respective offerings and have settled on the old reliable of offering premium hardware for their fan base. Whether they have a self-sustainable business with their existing offerings is currently unknown. Their respective monopolistic positions in other markets means they can keep it going in-perpetuity as long as they break even, or possibly at a little loss. There are branding advantages to do it, so, and that’s enough rationale imo.
For MS, they are currently offering a Surface Go as their entry tablet PC in the neighborhood of $500. A few years ago, it was Surface 3 with Atom CPUs. Before that, it was Surface RT with ARM. They tried to make it a go at cheap and higher volume. And they obviously have been licensing tablet PC OSes for 17 years now. For smartphones, they’ve done licensing models with their mobile OS, partnerships, low cost models, premium models, 1st party hardware with a purchased manufacturer as a subsidiary, and it would be no surprise if a Surface Phone comes. So all of the above.
For Google, it is basically the same: partnerships doing low cost and premium phones, a subsidiary doing both low cost and premium phones, and they are currently doing 1st party hardware for a premium niche. They’ve tried the lost cost route with various Nexus models and have largely abandoned it. Making premium hardware/products for their fan base like the Pixel is the easiest and safest route to go, so not surprising that this is where they are currently at. As long as this model is self-sustainable, at minimum a branding exercise.
Past strategies of selling a phone at zero margin, like a Nexus model for $300 is long gone. Operating a full hardware division like Moto is something they learned they didn’t want to do. A minimalist hardware group is more to their liking. Trying to negotiate with hundreds of carriers and operators worldwide, they just aren’t going to do that. That would require a standing army. That basically leaves them doing Apple-lite, premium hardware without the hard work of maintaining retail, without a lot of retail presence, without a sales and support army, so on and so forth.
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
You could argue that, but the evidence suggests that Google and MS do in fact want to generate substantial revenues and profit, if that is possible.
It’s fair to say that MS and Google have tried every strategy available with their respective offerings and have settled on the old reliable of offering premium hardware for their fan base. Whether they have a self-sustainable business with their existing offerings is currently unknown. Their respective monopolistic positions in other markets means they can keep it going in-perpetuity as long as they break even, or possibly at a little loss. There are branding advantages to do it, so, and that’s enough rationale imo.
For MS, they are currently offering a Surface Go as their entry tablet PC in the neighborhood of $500. A few years ago, it was Surface 3 with Atom CPUs. Before that, it was Surface RT with ARM. They tried to make it a go at cheap and higher volume. And they obviously have been licensing tablet PC OSes for 17 years now. For smartphones, they’ve done licensing models with their mobile OS, partnerships, low cost models, premium models, 1st party hardware with a purchased manufacturer as a subsidiary, and it would be no surprise if a Surface Phone comes. So all of the above.
For Google, it is basically the same: partnerships doing low cost and premium phones, a subsidiary doing both low cost and premium phones, and they are currently doing 1st party hardware for a premium niche. They’ve tried the lost cost route with various Nexus models and have largely abandoned it. Making premium hardware/products for their fan base like the Pixel is the easiest and safest route to go, so not surprising that this is where they are currently at. As long as this model is self-sustainable, at minimum a branding exercise.
Past strategies of selling a phone at zero margin, like a Nexus model for $300 is long gone. Operating a full hardware division like Moto is something they learned they didn’t want to do. A minimalist hardware group is more to their liking. Trying to negotiate with hundreds of carriers and operators worldwide, they just aren’t going to do that. That would require a standing army. That basically leaves them doing Apple-lite, premium hardware without the hard work of maintaining retail, without a lot of retail presence, without a sales and support army, so on and so forth.
I agree.
I would note that there is another article up about Google deprecating Android OS for Chrome OS, for everything but phones I would imagine. That to me would be a better strategy, as Google will have some better controls in place to guarantee a uniform experience, something necessary for education, business, and enterprise.
I doubt that Pixels will ever be able to really compete with Samsung or the Chinese OEM's as a volume business.
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.
I'm not the only one asking why Google is having problems selling Pixels, and there is enough data to indicate that those numbers have been poor;
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
Even before you release a phone, you know exactly how many units you need to shift to avoid incurring loses.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
Couldn’t one argue Google isn’t interested in selling a lot of Pixels because they don’t want to piss off their OEM partners? Just like with Microsoft and Surface. One could argue Surface is priced to compete with Apple but one could also argue its priced so as to not take (much) share from HP, Dell, Lenovo etc.
You could argue that, but the evidence suggests that Google and MS do in fact want to generate substantial revenues and profit, if that is possible.
It’s fair to say that MS and Google have tried every strategy available with their respective offerings and have settled on the old reliable of offering premium hardware for their fan base. Whether they have a self-sustainable business with their existing offerings is currently unknown. Their respective monopolistic positions in other markets means they can keep it going in-perpetuity as long as they break even, or possibly at a little loss. There are branding advantages to do it, so, and that’s enough rationale imo.
For MS, they are currently offering a Surface Go as their entry tablet PC in the neighborhood of $500. A few years ago, it was Surface 3 with Atom CPUs. Before that, it was Surface RT with ARM. They tried to make it a go at cheap and higher volume. And they obviously have been licensing tablet PC OSes for 17 years now. For smartphones, they’ve done licensing models with their mobile OS, partnerships, low cost models, premium models, 1st party hardware with a purchased manufacturer as a subsidiary, and it would be no surprise if a Surface Phone comes. So all of the above.
For Google, it is basically the same: partnerships doing low cost and premium phones, a subsidiary doing both low cost and premium phones, and they are currently doing 1st party hardware for a premium niche. They’ve tried the lost cost route with various Nexus models and have largely abandoned it. Making premium hardware/products for their fan base like the Pixel is the easiest and safest route to go, so not surprising that this is where they are currently at. As long as this model is self-sustainable, at minimum a branding exercise.
Past strategies of selling a phone at zero margin, like a Nexus model for $300 is long gone. Operating a full hardware division like Moto is something they learned they didn’t want to do. A minimalist hardware group is more to their liking. Trying to negotiate with hundreds of carriers and operators worldwide, they just aren’t going to do that. That would require a standing army. That basically leaves them doing Apple-lite, premium hardware without the hard work of maintaining retail, without a lot of retail presence, without a sales and support army, so on and so forth.
I agree.
... Google will have some better controls in place to guarantee a uniform experience, something necessary for education, business, and enterprise.
I doubt that Pixels will ever be able to really compete with Samsung or the Chinese OEM's as a volume business.
I called it boutique, and I'm sticking with that.
Hmmm.... yeah I could generally agree with you on that.
Pixel is lost and pointless to even iKnockoff fans.
The point is to sh*t on this company even more for being such an immoral scum on Earth.
It makes us happy.
I sometimes wonder about the animosity from certain members. Every investor I personnally know who has apple shares also has some Google shares. Even if you tought Google was competing with Apple, the last 8 years clearly showed that Google isn't a threat to apple. It's actually the other way around.
The Pixel 3 is a disappointment; poor design, reduced battery size, same RAM size as Pixel (2016). Yet, priced as same bracket as Samsung Note 9 and iPhone XS. When compared to the innovation of Huawei Mate 20 Pro, we all have to despair!
The Pixel 3 /3XL will be a disaster for Google. Think of Samsung Mobile about 10 years ago when Samsung thought it could sell plastic phones at premium prices, while iPhone was all glass and metal.
What has the HTC design team contributed? Nothing. They should be fired. Why would you build a larger screen and use the same size of battery? That is what HTC did with its HTC Evo 3D about 10 years ago. Unacceptable.
Regarding the 4GB of RAM. Disappointing. Last year's Pixel 2 was lagging and many reported that same issue. Most recent and high-end Android phones are loaded with 6GB and 8GB to avoid lagging. Yet, Google stays with 4 GB of RAM. I view my spreadsheets on the go with my phone and I would hate to see lags.
The design team(s) who made these recommendations should be replaced. That are destroying the reputation of the Pixel phones.
What a complete and utter failure in Google Mobile's hardware division in the design of Pixel 3 XL. With the same body size, look with despair when compared to what Samsung was able to do with the Galaxy Note 9 and the innovation of Huawei Mate 20 Pro.
Quick look at Google Pixel 3 compared with Samsung Note 9..
- 8 GB of RAM compared with 4GB for Google Pixel 3 XL.
- 4,000 mAh as compared with 3,400 for Google.
- thin bazels top and bottom, half that of Google hateful notch.
Comments
Great job Google!
#UglyGate
#UglyGate
The point is to sh*t on this company even more for being such an immoral scum on Earth.
It makes us happy.
https://bgr.com/2018/10/11/pixel-3-sales-vs-android-googles-pixel-sales-arent-great/
The Pixel 3 is about as "meh" as any phone can be. Is this all just another marketing practice run for next year's release of a fully designed by Google Pixel 4?
Is it possible that few Android OS devices users even care about the pure Google experience?
If their mid-priced Android OS phone has Google Assistant and GMail and Maps (they will) and works with their Google Home (it will) and smart-thermostat (almost certainly) they're usually going to be happy, some downright giddy. There's really very few "bad" mid-range sub-$500 phones anymore IMO.
You factor a minimum production capacity into the life of the phone to reach your objective of not incurring loses.
From your link:
"But Google, after more than seven years of selling Nexus and Pixel phones, still wasn’t able to make enough units to meet demand".
Now, for a company making phones (that don't even marginally represent its bread and butter revenues), producing a phone that isn't the 'most exciting' and limiting availability worldwide), not being able to make enough units to meet demand is a massive achievement.
As for 'meh' upgrades, while I consider the iPhone refresh to be solid, it very much falls into the 'meh' upgrade category too.
You may argue that an 's' cycle warrants little change but even with the A12, there was little real meat on offer.
Taking HTC engineering onboard clearly points to a Pixel 4 with increased effort on hardware, combined with more refinements in software and very probably wider distribution objectives.
Whichever way you look at it, the Pixel 4 should be a coming-of-age phone for Google on many levels.
All while Gartner is pumping out BS PR that suggests that Surface tablets are performing "well" with sales of 600 thousand units (a decade after mocking Apple for selling 1.5M Macs per quarter and refusing to count 10s of millions of iPads as PCs because tablets are not real).
For MS, they are currently offering a Surface Go as their entry tablet PC in the neighborhood of $500. A few years ago, it was Surface 3 with Atom CPUs. Before that, it was Surface RT with ARM. They tried to make it a go at cheap and higher volume. And they obviously have been licensing tablet PC OSes for 17 years now. For smartphones, they’ve done licensing models with their mobile OS, partnerships, low cost models, premium models, 1st party hardware with a purchased manufacturer as a subsidiary, and it would be no surprise if a Surface Phone comes. So all of the above.
For Google, it is basically the same: partnerships doing low cost and premium phones, a subsidiary doing both low cost and premium phones, and they are currently doing 1st party hardware for a premium niche. They’ve tried the lost cost route with various Nexus models and have largely abandoned it. Making premium hardware/products for their fan base like the Pixel is the easiest and safest route to go, so not surprising that this is where they are currently at. As long as this model is self-sustainable, at minimum a branding exercise.
Past strategies of selling a phone at zero margin, like a Nexus model for $300 is long gone. Operating a full hardware division like Moto is something they learned they didn’t want to do. A minimalist hardware group is more to their liking. Trying to negotiate with hundreds of carriers and operators worldwide, they just aren’t going to do that. That would require a standing army. That basically leaves them doing Apple-lite, premium hardware without the hard work of maintaining retail, without a lot of retail presence, without a sales and support army, so on and so forth.
I would note that there is another article up about Google deprecating Android OS for Chrome OS, for everything but phones I would imagine. That to me would be a better strategy, as Google will have some better controls in place to guarantee a uniform experience, something necessary for education, business, and enterprise.
I doubt that Pixels will ever be able to really compete with Samsung or the Chinese OEM's as a volume business.
I called it boutique, and I'm sticking with that.