Oh look! Another "Apple good, everyone else bad" editorial. Ridiculous. No objectivity whatsoever.
Oh look, another “I don’t understand what an opinion column is because I’ve never read my local newspaper” commenter. Ridiculous. No clue whatsoever.
You can have an opinion and still be objective. But the theme is the same with all DED editorials...Trash everyone and defend Apple.
This is an editorial, which is always subjective. But DED does use researched material to base his opinions on.
Are you saying, in this context, being objective is claiming that Pixel phones are selling well? Claiming that Pixel phones are not selling well is subjective?
Are you saying that it's not correct, from "A certain point of view", like crap that Lucas pulled off in Return of the Jedi?
We are in complete agreement on that point. I don't think they do either. Probably why they've begun assembling a unified and experienced product design team for their hardware line. Up to now their teams have not been operating in sync and all over the place with design. There's always that chance they've figured out it's not ever going to work the way they've been attacking it. Engineering is fine, software is fine. Neither of those can reach their full product potential without an attractive outfit to put it in and a little beauty makeup on the face IMO.
Except for those times they've somewhat mimicked Apple (the Pixelbook and OG Pixel) their hardware has not looked visually impressive, with the possible exception of the original Google Home speaker which I think was one of their better efforts.
Pixel phone design is terrible, but the larger problem is that Google apparently thinks it can sell an expensive Android and compete against iPhones.
Even Samsung can’t do that. Moreover, Samsung is getting gutted by cheap Chinese phones. So how is Google going to do well selling Android commodity at iPhone pricing when cheaper Androids are doing a better job than Google while copying every camera feature Google invents?
Apple is supposed to be worried about Huawei, but Google isn’t? Hilarious!
So wait, is Google worrying about Huawei or is Google worrying about Apple the driving force behind Pixel phones? Is it possible that Google intent isn't to outsell the iPhone to begin with, rather to expand their business base beyond ad placement services? That's something I think you yourself would suggest as a wise move for them, right?
Both Google and Apple are diversifying their businesses.
Except Apple is and has been successfully diversifying its business by growing services revenue, but Google has been a repeated failure with its poor hardware sales. They don’t understand good hardware (or software IMO) and keep putting out failures. You’re trying to pretend they haven’t been failing over and over.
You have a very odd definition of failing.
Don't you wish you could fail with over a $100B in the bank, a top three ranking in the tech world, and an international brand image that is either #1 or 2? I think what you actually mean is "Google isn't as rich as Apple". Well you got me there. They aren't. Nor are they failing.
You have a very narrow definition of failing.... While you can try and argue that the purpose of Pixel/Nexus is as a hardware reference and not intended for sales that is beyond ridiculous. Even if Google is happy to wast billions of dollars just to show other Android vendors how to design their phones (shareholders should really be up in arms about that) it's not succeeding at this either. Samsung, Huwai etc... have not changed the design of their phones to bring them in line with the Pixel.
I've never once suggested the Pixel line was intended as reference phones. They aren't, unlike the Nexus models that preceded them that were originally intended as just that.
Since they only committed to building a profitable respected smartphone brand three years ago it's more than a little early to call the effort a failure. LOL. In fact the 3a's are the first Pixel phones to come out of the purchase of the engineering teams from HTC who are now under Google's umbrella.
I'm sure you crawled before you were ever able to run but you eventually learned to (I assume), so crawling was no indication you were going to be a failure. In that same vein three years of brand-building is too soon to call the effort a failure too.
Give it another three and revisit this conversation. Sure, it could be a wasteful effort, it could end up as a very successful lineup of hardware, or it could be somewhere in between the two. DED is spinning the former as is his wont with Google, but TBH is guessing at this point just as everyone else is.
Well Google hasn't pulled the plug on it yet so I agree that it's too early to say it's a complete failure. But that doesn't mean it's not failing so far... None of us can predict the future but to deny they haven't been performing well just because they still have billions of dollars to continue trying is denying the obvious.
I actually agree with you that it appears the Pixel line has not been selling as it was expected to, and probably not as Google expected it to either. IMHO one of the initial problems was making it a Verizon exclusive and artificially limiting their potential customer base.They depended too heavily on Verizon doing the marketing for them. That's now been dealt with.
Second was only selling a premium-priced lineup coming in on the heels of a market wide slowdown. Bad timing to add more high-priced smartphones. Now that limitation is being addressed as well.
Third was relying on partners to engineer and manufacture the Pixels while Google supplied the software to drive them. The two versions could not have been more different in years one and two. That is no longer the case either with Google acqui-hiring an experienced and ready to work HTC engineering department, and working directly with Foxconn for the contract builds beginning with last fall's Pixel 3's.
...and fourth was putting a big emphasis on features and software and impressive camera tech and not putting the same effort into design. Google may be addressing that too now with new experienced designers on staff and a long overdue unification of all the hardware and software teams involved so that everyone is on the same page from the beginning. While all that does not mean that the success that has seemingly eluded them so far will suddenly blossom, the chances have been greatly improved now IMO.
Personally I would not expect the next three years of Pixel brand-building to continue as the first three did.
A fair assessment.
The problem I have with this, is that the Android OS device market is still, for the most part, driven by price, and unless Google can carve out some Android OS functionality that it can retain as a market advantage for more than a product cycle, Google will continue being undercut on price by "good enough" competition, no matter the price point.
There is a niche for the "pure" Android OS experience, but apparently not large, so I don't hold much stock in multiple carriers driving large sales increases. Carriers ultimately don't care what devices they shift to customers. It would be easy to argue that Google squandered about a decade figuring out its smartphone product path, and that it is too little, too late, but in a mature market, it is certainly a development base for the next big thing. Maybe that is enough.
It's interesting that Google has doubled down on computational imaging as its "halo" feature, but this too will ultimately be a diminishing advantage in the Android OS device marketplace.
I can't see any reason why they shouldn't enter this price band. There is a huge potential market for them. With that in mind:
1. There is no good reason not to operate in those bands from a business perspective. Apple operates there for a reason, too. The same reason in fact.
2. Apple puts old hardware in this price band. Competitors largely have both old and new models swimming in the same pool. Sellling off old gear is good for Apple but not so good for consumers when their is no choice but old Apple phones. Putting new hardware into the pool also allows manufacturers to react to design and usage trends quickly. Android consumers get to choose from the old or new options. Apple gets just one window a year to meet expectations with just three phones. 'Selling' old hardware is of course also harder for marketing.
3. New means new and brings with it fresh marketing options. The 'sell' becomes easier. Walking into a carrier store you don't expect to see two year old hardware front and centre. The 2018 iPhone refresh fizzled out pretty quickly. Almost from launch. The Apple Watch 4 seemed to pick up more interest.
4. Staggering product roll outs has obvious advantages. Once again, marketing has something to chew on. Support is easier. Logistics are easier. Manufacturing is easier.
5. You don't have to be successful to hurt competitors. If you can take sales away from a competitor you can do damage without necessarily being successful. Widespread distribution in the US market currently dominated by Apple and Samsung can have a knock on effect by potentially breaking the duopoly. Carrier distribution will get the handsets in front of potential customers and into their hands. Pixels have had limited distribution. If that changes, obviously the threat to competitors will be greater.
6. The HTC engineering hire will inject a lot of knowhow into Google's phone lines which should have a relatively quick time to market.
Calling Pixels a failure because they have dipped in sales is premature. They have never had true worldwide distribution. They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects.
given it’s wording, it’s likely that pixel units and revenues were both in the toilet. didn't meet investors expectations.
The statements by Porat need to put in context with the venue IMO. For instance when Apple addressed disappointing iPhone sales it did not mean sales were relatively speaking "in the toilet" even if investors might be displeased with a double-digit decrease. They both needed to address the decreases with their concerned investors, but internally might have been OK with it considering the overall market circumstances.
Pixel isn’t selling 100k units in a month.
Pixel is an extremely expensive project. Thousands of employees, +$1b acquihire, very expensive custom silicon efforts. Not selling 5M units is a huge problem.
Apple would also like to sell another 10M iPhones above the +40M units it sold in Q1, but Apple is making tons of money and yet still paid for the A12 and all of the labor and R&D it’s invested, with tons of free cash flow funding the next years projects.
Google is losing tons of money in hardware and is achieving nothing. There isn’t an installed base of Pixels worth anything. It has no way to corral the herd of cats making androids to sell them any real services. It has to pay Apple billions to have access to affluent customers.
Equating 3 years of Pixel failure + 7 years of Nexus failure with Apple's 12 years of blockbuster iPhone profits that have temporarily dipped by 15% for a couple quarters of a trade war is absolutely stupid beyond words.
Apple earned a trillion dollars while google dicked about squandering the opportunity of this generation, one that might never repeat.
Google makes money off every single search it processes. It doesn't matter if there are Android or iOS users doing the searches.
There are affluent users on both platforms. There are not so affluent people on both platforms too. Google would still make billions without iOS. In fact the last time I read something on the subject, combined Android store revenues were on track to bring in more revenue than the iOS store. Affluence has little to do with anything. What companies want is revenue. The split of how that revenue is made up is far less important in this case.
Google's interest is in users and if it chooses to pay for the privilege of having Google Search as the default search engine on iOS, they clearly think it is a profitable business. 'Choosing' to pay is not 'having' to pay.
'iPhone profits have temporarily dipped'. Please define temporary. Were three years of flat sales temporary too?
Google didn't 'squander' anything. It is not a hardware company. Google has toyed with many hardware ideas and is beginning to take some of them more seriously. Software and services are where Google has traditionally shined.
It Created a top brand. We'll see how far that brand can translate into hardware sales.
OMG! It's about time, Google is plainly doomed now.
Desperation has set in, so much so that they're now deciding to offer smartphones at multiple price points with minor differences in capabilities and a mid-cycle release. What's wrong with just a couple of flagships, same time every year? Who does this, offering cheaper devices alongside "expensive", unless they're failing?
DED is obviously worried this device could cut into iPhone sales. It’s getting decent reviews (a good phone at a very good price) and will be on more carriers. There would be no reason to give it attention otherwise.
I tend to agree with you that DED seems to publish these articles when Apple has had bad news or Google positive news. I would have some respect for him if he actually used a review unit for a week or two and then wrote a hard hitting, but fair review of the device. Some smart phone reviewers I don't trust like Deiter Bohn for theVerge while I really appreciate the reviews by Nilay Patel and Vlad Savov. In fact Victor Marks had a great podcast a month ago with Vlad. I would say one of AI's best since the other AI journalists never sound to interested in being there.
That said I take it as fact that Apple has better build quality than Samsung and Samsung's better build quality is better than the Google Pixel build quality. I base than upon 1. hearing android fans Patel and Bohn basically admit that on their podcast and 2. Android central published a long list of hardware/software issues after the Pixel 2/2XL came out and then this past year the Pixel 3 was considered worse. Build quality is one reason why I hold on to my iPhone 7Plus and 8Plus (despite its poor Intel modem) and I will look forward to getting an iPhone in 2019 or 2020 when they finally return to having QualComm modems.
The cheaper Pixel may be smart move for Google because android users generally buy cheaper phones. but they still need to raise their QA standards.
Oh look! Another "Apple good, everyone else bad" editorial. Ridiculous. No objectivity whatsoever.
Oh look, another “I don’t understand what an opinion column is because I’ve never read my local newspaper” commenter. Ridiculous. No clue whatsoever.
You can have an opinion and still be objective. But the theme is the same with all DED editorials...Trash everyone and defend Apple.
Nope. The very point of an opinion column is to present an *opinion*, and it's not unbiased. "Objective" is what we expect of news reporting and general coverage, not opinion columns.
Again, pick up your local paper and figure out what an opinion section/column is. If you don't like the writer's topic du jour, you'll never be happy with it.
(ignoring for the moment the fact that DED does great research and uses evidence and reason to back up his opinions....all of which are lost on you, apparently)
We are in complete agreement on that point. I don't think they do either. Probably why they've begun assembling a unified and experienced product design team for their hardware line. Up to now their teams have not been operating in sync and all over the place with design. There's always that chance they've figured out it's not ever going to work the way they've been attacking it. Engineering is fine, software is fine. Neither of those can reach their full product potential without an attractive outfit to put it in and a little beauty makeup on the face IMO.
Except for those times they've somewhat mimicked Apple (the Pixelbook and OG Pixel) their hardware has not looked visually impressive, with the possible exception of the original Google Home speaker which I think was one of their better efforts.
Pixel phone design is terrible, but the larger problem is that Google apparently thinks it can sell an expensive Android and compete against iPhones.
Even Samsung can’t do that. Moreover, Samsung is getting gutted by cheap Chinese phones. So how is Google going to do well selling Android commodity at iPhone pricing when cheaper Androids are doing a better job than Google while copying every camera feature Google invents?
Apple is supposed to be worried about Huawei, but Google isn’t? Hilarious!
So wait, is Google worrying about Huawei or is Google worrying about Apple the driving force behind Pixel phones? Is it possible that Google intent isn't to outsell the iPhone to begin with, rather to expand their business base beyond ad placement services? That's something I think you yourself would suggest as a wise move for them, right?
Both Google and Apple are diversifying their businesses.
Except Apple is and has been successfully diversifying its business by growing services revenue, but Google has been a repeated failure with its poor hardware sales. They don’t understand good hardware (or software IMO) and keep putting out failures. You’re trying to pretend they haven’t been failing over and over.
You have a very odd definition of failing.
Don't you wish you could fail with over a $100B in the bank, a top three ranking in the tech world, and an international brand image that is either #1 or 2? I think what you actually mean is "Google isn't as rich as Apple". Well you got me there. They aren't. Nor are they failing.
Now you're moving the goalposts, another beloved troll tactic -- we aren't talking about Google as a corporate failure (they aren't - they sell ads very well), we're talking about the failure of their own hardware/smartphones. That's the context here, and its absolutely disingenuous for you to pretend otherwise. Get fucking real, guy.
We are in complete agreement on that point. I don't think they do either. Probably why they've begun assembling a unified and experienced product design team for their hardware line. Up to now their teams have not been operating in sync and all over the place with design. There's always that chance they've figured out it's not ever going to work the way they've been attacking it. Engineering is fine, software is fine. Neither of those can reach their full product potential without an attractive outfit to put it in and a little beauty makeup on the face IMO.
Except for those times they've somewhat mimicked Apple (the Pixelbook and OG Pixel) their hardware has not looked visually impressive, with the possible exception of the original Google Home speaker which I think was one of their better efforts.
Pixel phone design is terrible, but the larger problem is that Google apparently thinks it can sell an expensive Android and compete against iPhones.
Even Samsung can’t do that. Moreover, Samsung is getting gutted by cheap Chinese phones. So how is Google going to do well selling Android commodity at iPhone pricing when cheaper Androids are doing a better job than Google while copying every camera feature Google invents?
Apple is supposed to be worried about Huawei, but Google isn’t? Hilarious!
So wait, is Google worrying about Huawei or is Google worrying about Apple the driving force behind Pixel phones? Is it possible that Google intent isn't to outsell the iPhone to begin with, rather to expand their business base beyond ad placement services? That's something I think you yourself would suggest as a wise move for them, right?
Both Google and Apple are diversifying their businesses.
Except Apple is and has been successfully diversifying its business by growing services revenue, but Google has been a repeated failure with its poor hardware sales. They don’t understand good hardware (or software IMO) and keep putting out failures. You’re trying to pretend they haven’t been failing over and over.
You have a very odd definition of failing.
Don't you wish you could fail with over a $100B in the bank, a top three ranking in the tech world, and an international brand image that is either #1 or 2? I think what you actually mean is "Google isn't as rich as Apple". Well you got me there. They aren't. Nor are they failing.
You have a very narrow definition of failing.... While you can try and argue that the purpose of Pixel/Nexus is as a hardware reference and not intended for sales that is beyond ridiculous. Even if Google is happy to wast billions of dollars just to show other Android vendors how to design their phones (shareholders should really be up in arms about that) it's not succeeding at this either. Samsung, Huwai etc... have not changed the design of their phones to bring them in line with the Pixel.
I've never once suggested the Pixel line was intended as reference phones. They aren't, unlike the Nexus models that preceded them that were originally intended as just that.
Since they only committed to building a profitable respected smartphone brand three years ago it's more than a little early to call the effort a failure. LOL. In fact the 3a's are the first Pixel phones to come out of the purchase of the engineering teams from HTC who are now under Google's umbrella.
I'm sure you crawled before you were ever able to run but you eventually learned to (I assume), so crawling was no indication you were going to be a failure. In that same vein three years of brand-building is too soon to call the effort a failure too.
Give it another three and revisit this conversation. Sure, it could be a wasteful effort, it could end up as a very successful lineup of hardware, or it could be somewhere in between the two. DED is spinning the former as is his wont with Google, but TBH is guessing at this point just as everyone else is.
Well Google hasn't pulled the plug on it yet so I agree that it's too early to say it's a complete failure. But that doesn't mean it's not failing so far... None of us can predict the future but to deny they haven't been performing well just because they still have billions of dollars to continue trying is denying the obvious.
I actually agree with you that it appears the Pixel line has not been selling as it was expected to, and probably not as Google expected it to either. IMHO one of the initial problems was making it a Verizon exclusive and artificially limiting their potential customer base.They depended too heavily on Verizon doing the marketing for them. That's now been dealt with.
Second was only selling a premium-priced lineup coming in on the heels of a market wide slowdown. Bad timing to add more high-priced smartphones. Now that limitation is being addressed as well.
Third was relying on partners to engineer and manufacture the Pixels while Google supplied the software to drive them. The two versions could not have been more different in years one and two. That is no longer the case either with Google acqui-hiring an experienced and ready to work HTC engineering department, and working directly with Foxconn for the contract builds beginning with last fall's Pixel 3's.
...and fourth was putting a big emphasis on features and software and impressive camera tech and not putting the same effort into design. Google may be addressing that too now with new experienced designers on staff and a long overdue unification of all the hardware and software teams involved so that everyone is on the same page from the beginning. While all that does not mean that the success that has seemingly eluded them so far will suddenly blossom, the chances have been greatly improved now IMO.
Personally I would not expect the next three years of Pixel brand-building to continue as the first three did.
A fair assessment.
The problem I have with this, is that the Android OS device market is still, for the most part, driven by price, and unless Google can carve out some Android OS functionality that it can retain as a market advantage for more than a product cycle, Google will continue being undercut on price by "good enough" competition, no matter the price point.
There is a niche for the "pure" Android OS experience, but apparently not large, so I don't hold much stock in multiple carriers driving large sales increases. Carriers ultimately don't care what devices they shift to customers. It would be easy to argue that Google squandered about a decade figuring out its smartphone product path, and that it is too little, too late, but in a mature market, it is certainly a development base for the next big thing. Maybe that is enough.
It's interesting that Google has doubled down on computational imaging as its "halo" feature, but this too will ultimately be a diminishing advantage in the Android OS device marketplace.
I found this a bit surprising for a mention today: Amazon will be directly selling both the 3a and 3aXL, a first for them in the Pixel line. None of the previous models were marketed directly by Amazon. That should help a little.
Amazon now shows the Pixel 3a as their top selling unlocked phone. My mention of Amazon in the post before yours is even more appropriate in hindsight.
Comments
This is an editorial, which is always subjective. But DED does use researched material to base his opinions on.
Are you saying, in this context, being objective is claiming that Pixel phones are selling well? Claiming that Pixel phones are not selling well is subjective?
Are you saying that it's not correct, from "A certain point of view", like crap that Lucas pulled off in Return of the Jedi?
The problem I have with this, is that the Android OS device market is still, for the most part, driven by price, and unless Google can carve out some Android OS functionality that it can retain as a market advantage for more than a product cycle, Google will continue being undercut on price by "good enough" competition, no matter the price point.
There is a niche for the "pure" Android OS experience, but apparently not large, so I don't hold much stock in multiple carriers driving large sales increases. Carriers ultimately don't care what devices they shift to customers. It would be easy to argue that Google squandered about a decade figuring out its smartphone product path, and that it is too little, too late, but in a mature market, it is certainly a development base for the next big thing. Maybe that is enough.
It's interesting that Google has doubled down on computational imaging as its "halo" feature, but this too will ultimately be a diminishing advantage in the Android OS device marketplace.
1. There is no good reason not to operate in those bands from a business perspective. Apple operates there for a reason, too. The same reason in fact.
2. Apple puts old hardware in this price band. Competitors largely have both old and new models swimming in the same pool. Sellling off old gear is good for Apple but not so good for consumers when their is no choice but old Apple phones. Putting new hardware into the pool also allows manufacturers to react to design and usage trends quickly. Android consumers get to choose from the old or new options. Apple gets just one window a year to meet expectations with just three phones. 'Selling' old hardware is of course also harder for marketing.
3. New means new and brings with it fresh marketing options. The 'sell' becomes easier. Walking into a carrier store you don't expect to see two year old hardware front and centre. The 2018 iPhone refresh fizzled out pretty quickly. Almost from launch. The Apple Watch 4 seemed to pick up more interest.
4. Staggering product roll outs has obvious advantages. Once again, marketing has something to chew on. Support is easier. Logistics are easier. Manufacturing is easier.
5. You don't have to be successful to hurt competitors. If you can take sales away from a competitor you can do damage without necessarily being successful. Widespread distribution in the US market currently dominated by Apple and Samsung can have a knock on effect by potentially breaking the duopoly. Carrier distribution will get the handsets in front of potential customers and into their hands. Pixels have had limited distribution. If that changes, obviously the threat to competitors will be greater.
6. The HTC engineering hire will inject a lot of knowhow into Google's phone lines which should have a relatively quick time to market.
Calling Pixels a failure because they have dipped in sales is premature. They have never had true worldwide distribution. They now have better carrier support, a cheaper (lower risk for consumers) phone and over a thousand HTC engineering workers onboard for future projects.
Reason enough to not call failure at this point.
Google makes money off every single search it processes. It doesn't matter if there are Android or iOS users doing the searches.
There are affluent users on both platforms. There are not so affluent people on both platforms too. Google would still make billions without iOS. In fact the last time I read something on the subject, combined Android store revenues were on track to bring in more revenue than the iOS store. Affluence has little to do with anything. What companies want is revenue. The split of how that revenue is made up is far less important in this case.
Google's interest is in users and if it chooses to pay for the privilege of having Google Search as the default search engine on iOS, they clearly think it is a profitable business. 'Choosing' to pay is not 'having' to pay.
'iPhone profits have temporarily dipped'. Please define temporary. Were three years of flat sales temporary too?
Google didn't 'squander' anything. It is not a hardware company. Google has toyed with many hardware ideas and is beginning to take some of them more seriously. Software and services are where Google has traditionally shined.
It Created a top brand. We'll see how far that brand can translate into hardware sales.
That said I take it as fact that Apple has better build quality than Samsung and Samsung's better build quality is better than the Google Pixel build quality. I base than upon 1. hearing android fans Patel and Bohn basically admit that on their podcast and 2. Android central published a long list of hardware/software issues after the Pixel 2/2XL came out and then this past year the Pixel 3 was considered worse. Build quality is one reason why I hold on to my iPhone 7Plus and 8Plus (despite its poor Intel modem) and I will look forward to getting an iPhone in 2019 or 2020 when they finally return to having QualComm modems.
The cheaper Pixel may be smart move for Google because android users generally buy cheaper phones. but they still need to raise their QA standards.
Again, pick up your local paper and figure out what an opinion section/column is. If you don't like the writer's topic du jour, you'll never be happy with it.
(ignoring for the moment the fact that DED does great research and uses evidence and reason to back up his opinions....all of which are lost on you, apparently)