Slashdot Asks: How Long Before Google Shuts Down Its Little -- But Expensive -- Pixel Smartphones Project? (radiofreemobile.com) 109
After years of its on and off interest in smartphones, Google today produces some of the best phones on the planet. The Pixel 3 and the 3 XL take better pictures than most smartphones -- certainly any phone that predates them. But the whole idea of Google making handsets -- being also the company that maintains Android and has relationship with hundreds of OEM partners that themselves make and sell Android handsets -- has also been peculiar. Additionally, Google itself has an alarmingly long track record of losing interest in things, including hardware projects -- and especially when they finally appear to have courted a large following.
Richard Windsor, director of research firm Radio Free Mobile, adds: While the wires are already speculating on the form factor of the Google Pixel 4 due to be launched in Q4, I am wondering whether this will be the last smartphone that Google makes. Ever since it wasted $12.5bn of shareholder's money on Motorola Mobility in 2012, Google has had a bad condition of what I refer to as engineering disease (see here and here and here). I diagnose engineering disease as a condition where engineers often get so excited about whether they can develop something that they forget to ask whether they should develop that something. Engineering disease almost always ends in financial disaster and I calculate that Google's hardware business has done nothing but burn cash since the day it was created. Worst of all, I can find no logical rhyme or reason why Google needs to make hardware other than a foolhardy attempt to take on Apple.
This it will never be able to do unless it takes Android fully proprietary so that it can control the experience from end to end and it has been unable and unwilling to do this to date. Furthermore, Samsung has done a much better job at taking on Apple given its scale, brand, distribution and the fact that its core competence is to take the innovations of others and make them smaller, better and cheaper. [...] This is why I have argued that Samsung and Google should stop wasting money on each other's core competence and throw their lot in together. The problem for Google hardware is that the days of under-performing businesses hiding under the skirts of the giant search cash machine are coming to an end. We have already seen this as in March, the Pixel Slate and Pixelbook team was cut back due to the lackluster sales of the product. The three versions of the Google Pixel have sold in paltry volumes with market share never reliably exceeding 0.3% with 4.5m units sold in 2018. Given the low volume, I would estimate the gross margin of this product is around 20% in the best instance which after product development costs and marketing leaves very little if anything left over.
This is not the kind of performance that Google is used to which combined with an apparent inability to really get the hardware right (see here) means that Dr. Ruth Porat (CFO of Alphabet) will be asking some very hard questions of this division this year. Consequently, I think that Google needs to see a significant step up in performance with the Pixel 4, otherwise, it too may fall under the surgeon's knife. [...] The time to pull the stops out is now as failure is likely to result in there being no Pixel 5. How long do you think Google would keep funding the Pixel phones project?
This it will never be able to do unless it takes Android fully proprietary so that it can control the experience from end to end and it has been unable and unwilling to do this to date. Furthermore, Samsung has done a much better job at taking on Apple given its scale, brand, distribution and the fact that its core competence is to take the innovations of others and make them smaller, better and cheaper. [...] This is why I have argued that Samsung and Google should stop wasting money on each other's core competence and throw their lot in together. The problem for Google hardware is that the days of under-performing businesses hiding under the skirts of the giant search cash machine are coming to an end. We have already seen this as in March, the Pixel Slate and Pixelbook team was cut back due to the lackluster sales of the product. The three versions of the Google Pixel have sold in paltry volumes with market share never reliably exceeding 0.3% with 4.5m units sold in 2018. Given the low volume, I would estimate the gross margin of this product is around 20% in the best instance which after product development costs and marketing leaves very little if anything left over.
This is not the kind of performance that Google is used to which combined with an apparent inability to really get the hardware right (see here) means that Dr. Ruth Porat (CFO of Alphabet) will be asking some very hard questions of this division this year. Consequently, I think that Google needs to see a significant step up in performance with the Pixel 4, otherwise, it too may fall under the surgeon's knife. [...] The time to pull the stops out is now as failure is likely to result in there being no Pixel 5. How long do you think Google would keep funding the Pixel phones project?
It's dead, Jim (Score:1)
No further text needed.
Re: It's dead, Jim (Score:1)
What a shame, I've always liked Google phones. I used to have a nexus 6P, it died after exactly 1 year and 51 weeks of its 2 years warranty, Google offered a full refund.
Best bargain I ever had.
Re:It's dead, Jim (Score:5, Insightful)
I would give my thoughts on this subject, but Google has already harvested them according to its data collection practices.
Google uses its phones to shape Android compliance (Score:4, Insightful)
To corral unruly vendors who would produce unrecognizably weird variants of the functionality.
(No vendors whose name begins with S will be called out in this post.)
Google gets to put out a demonstration of what it thinks a "clean" and conformant Android device looks like.
A continuation of what Nexus phones were, in other words.
That's an extra, not directly monetary value to google, but it's an indirect monetary value to google.
Because if the whole ecosystem fragments to hell due to poor design choices, misguided attempts to differentiate, and therefore a kind of Murphy's law maximum divergence tendency, the Android ecosystem value will be decreased significantly and at risk of being overtaken.
In that scenario, Google loses ubiquity of its app pre-installations and loses a lot of mobile-device ad revenue.
Re:Google uses its phones to shape Android complia (Score:5, Funny)
(No vendors whose name begins with S will be called out in this post.)
We all know you're referring to Sanyo, so don't dance around it.
Re: (Score:2)
(No vendors whose name begins with S will be called out in this post.)
We all know you're referring to Sanyo, so don't dance around it.
Well Sony had produced a few good android handsets up until quite recently... so there is somewhat plausible deniability as to who he did mean.
Also: to encourage security updates (Score:3)
[providing an example of a clean distribution, to encourage vendors to stick to a style without imposing Apple-style interface or otherwise blocking innovation with contractual restrictions]
Google could also use it to encourage other Android vendors to apply security updates in a timely manner, by doing so themselves and thus providing a competitive alternative for end users concerned about unpatched holes. Vendors who have a track record of slow or nonexistent software updates, whether through lack of wil
Re:Google uses its phones to shape Android complia (Score:5, Interesting)
To express its vision of what Android phones should be capable of and how they should use the OS. To corral unruly vendors who would produce unrecognizably weird variants of the functionality. (No vendors whose name begins with S will be called out in this post.) Google gets to put out a demonstration of what it thinks a "clean" and conformant Android device looks like. A continuation of what Nexus phones were, in other words. That's an extra, not directly monetary value to google, but it's an indirect monetary value to google. Because if the whole ecosystem fragments to hell due to poor design choices, misguided attempts to differentiate, and therefore a kind of Murphy's law maximum divergence tendency, the Android ecosystem value will be decreased significantly and at risk of being overtaken. In that scenario, Google loses ubiquity of its app pre-installations and loses a lot of mobile-device ad revenue.
There's another reason Google makes its own devices that might not be obvious: Nexus/Pixel are the Android development platform. As an Android engineer whose work often depends on new hardware features, I've explored a few times the idea of developing on another OEM's device when the Nexus/Pixel team didn't want to add the hardware I needed. Every time, even with willing and eager partners, the conclusion is that it would be a royal pain in the ass. On Pixel, I have access to all of the source code and can easily generate my own builds, including of many of the low-level components. I also have easy and direct access to the hardware engineers. I also have a dedicated test team and a pool of a few thousand internal dogfooders who get the device and can (and will) submit bug reports. Integrating my workflow into another OEM's processes for all of this would not be impossible, but it would be a big job and the result would add ongoing overhead. At the end of the day, I've always gotten the Nexus/Pixel team to add what I needed, even if it meant I had to wait a year.
Now scale that up to a couple thousand Android engineers. IMO, it makes sense for Google to build devices merely to have a development and test platform they control, and build on a schedule that is synced to the development of the underlying platform.
This is, of course, on top of all of the other reasons you cited, which I think are all valid, and Undergrounded Lightning's comment about using Pixel as a security showcase (which has been very successful: It's worth noting that the Pixel has been the only unbeaten device in the last three annual Mobile Pwn2Own competitions), though that's just a subset of the larger goal of showing the rest of the Android ecosystem Google's vision of how Android devices should be built and managed.
I, of course, can neither confirm nor deny any plans for a Pixel 4, 5, 6, etc. But I really don't think it would make any sense for Google to stop making devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your insider's perspective, it's very interesting.
If my iPhone 8 died tomorrow, I'd probably replace it with a Pixel 3a. I like the price, the lack of notch, and the clean Android.
My only concern is how long even Pixel devices get security updates. If I bought one tomorrow, do you know how long it would continue to get security updates?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A continuation of what Nexus phones were, in other words.
There was some mutual benefit with Nexus as well. Usually the rest of the OEM's portfolio improved when they partnered with Google for Nexus, and it also had marketing spin-offs as well, as it brought a spotlight to the OEM's brand as well.
Re: It's dead, Jim (Score:1)
I have a number of friends who have been in the Apple ecosystem for a long time. The Pixel was the first phone that convinced them the switch. It would be the only phone that could potentially convince me to switch. The rest of the android ecosystem delivers a handset and then grows tired of providing updates.
I think Google does as much as it needs to do (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
At this point it wouldn't be in Google best interest to directly compete with its own customer base. If Google wanted to be #1 Smart Phone Maker, they may have the resources to do so. But at the expense of its partners who are advertising (often on Google) and doing a lot of heavy legwork of the phone. These partners are not small companies, if Competing against Google and Samsung, Samsung could in theory make their own OS. And having Google Phone vs. Apple Phone is just a bad idea. Because Apple is going
Re:I think Google does as much as it needs to do (Score:5, Interesting)
I bought a Samsung tablet as my first entry into the Android ecosystem. I won't be buying another Android device.
The thing is so infected with Samsung's "We think this is better!!" software that it's annoying as fuck (no, I don't want to deal with rooting it). And I'm already having to worry about lack of OS updates. Meanwhile an iPad from 2013 is still getting updates.
If my first entry into Android had been from Google, it probably wouldn't have the same level of OEM bullshit software. And that would make me far more likely to consider the platform. But they only develop pseudo-laptop tablets, and that's not the kind of tablet I needed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't bet on the Google experience if I were you.
Anecdotal evidence, feel free to take it with a grain of salt:
I got my entry into the Android ecosystem with a Google tablet in 2012, the Nexus 7 1st gen device. Perfect for playing Ingress, which was what I used it for. The device however was shoddily built. The micro USB charging port broke twice in two years. The device was underpowered from day one on with the Tegra3 chip seemingly being an energy hog giving limited battery time. And one could tell t
Re:I think Google does as much as it needs to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Pixel phones are not at all about the baseline. Have you actually used one? They are more expensive than most competing apple phones of their era. Google Pixel phones are premium phones that sets a high bar for what Android phones have to meet to be considered premium. They also strip out OEM bloatware that makes the Pixels shine for what pure android can achieve.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I am still waiting out for a 25pin parallel port, so I can connect my old line printer to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point it wouldn't be in Google best interest to directly compete with its own customer base.
You mean partners, not customers. Google's Android customers are end users (who buy stuff on the Play store), not the other device makers. Still, you're certainly correct that Google needs to avoid competing (too much) with its partners.
if Competing against Google and Samsung, Samsung could in theory make their own OS
Definitely. So could Huawei. And even a consortium of smaller device makers could potentially pool their resources to make their own OS. All of this is made much easier by the fact that Android is open source, so they wouldn't have to build an OS and app ecosystem from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not all about market share. Apple makes more profit from their phones than all the Android phones combined.
For Google, it's all about market share, since Google makes money from Android by means other than selling phones. I'm also not sure your claim is entirely accurate as stated, but it doesn't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
They only put out models now and then to challenge their Android partners to make better phones.
If by "now and then" you mean "every year, like clockwork, since 2010". Or 2009, even, since the Nexus One was really a 2009 device that launched in Jan 2010.
2009: Nexus One
2010: Nexus S
2011: Galaxy Nexus
2012: Nexus 4
2013: Nexus 5
2014: Nexus 6
2015: Nexus 5X and Nexus 6P
2016: Pixel and Pixel XL
2017: Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL
2018: Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL
2019: Pixel 3a and Pixel 3a XL... so far. There are, of course, rumors of a Pixel 4, upon which I cannot comment.
There is also the Android One lin
Re: (Score:2)
They release a new model every October, year after year, which is an odd definition of "now and then".
A while yet (Score:2)
The Pixel phone project is to help develop Android. Not just as a reference platform for it, but to push things like computational photography forwards. Thanks to Google we have a $400 phone with literally the best camera on any mobile device.
So it won't go away any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck is the metric for "best phone ever" the best camera?
Because it's a pretty important differentiating metric. It's not like any of the phones are different from each other when it comes to dropped calls and call quality (that varies far more on the carrier and nearby antennas), and these days people use their cameras far more than they do for voice calls.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't see McDonald's making pacemakers.
Maybe they should. I mean, there's some synergy there. Every burger they sell would expand the future earnings potential of their pacemaker business. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Way to ruin the joke. Bet you're fun at parties. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google will never allow an Android device with an emphasis on privacy.
Would it be technically possible for someone else to provide an Android device with decent privacy? It seems to me that this would be a niche that is large enough for a manufacturer to pick up.
Only Android devices with an unlockable bootloader (Score:2)
Since Pixel phones are the only Android phones with an unlockable bootloader and support for things like LineageOS, hopefully Google won't kill it too soon. Maybe they will just rename it, as they went from Nexus stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
This couldn't be further from the truth. Multiple OEMs allow their phones to be unlocked officially and they don't terminate the warranty if you do so. OnePlus/Xiaomi are among them.
Also, Pixel 2/3 are still not officially supported by LineageOS and the second Pixel was released almost two years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Pixel 2/3 are still not officially supported by LineageOS and the second Pixel was released almost two years ago.
Official Pixel 2/3 support is just around the corner:
https://www.getdroidtips.com/l... [getdroidtips.com]
And aside from that, it's normal for official support to lag a bit, but unofficial support for Pixel 3 has been around since November (a bit more than 1 month after the device was launched):
https://www.cyanogenmods.org/f... [cyanogenmods.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Pixel phones are the only Android phones with an unlockable bootloader and support for things like LineageOS
Who told you that, and why are you repeating it? That's a total falsehood. Lenovo/Motorola provides bootloader unlock. So did Sony, last I looked.
If you want a proper phone you can get an "Android One" phone from a number of suppliers. I have the Lenovorola X4 in the Android One edition.
Re: (Score:2)
Does Android One guarantee an unlockable bootloader?
Re: (Score:2)
Does Android One guarantee an unlockable bootloader?
No, you still have to do your homework. But it does "guarantee" the updates, which is the other thing you get with Pixel.
Subject (Score:2)
As long as they want. Google rakes in advertising money, so they can afford it. Also, the Pixel's photo quality is unparalleled despite it having a single camera.
Also they probably need a real physical smartphone in decent quantities to properly develop Android.
I'm just sorry they replaced the Nexus line with Pixels and kinda overcharged for the latter.
Let's not forget the 3A and 3A-XL (Score:2)
Any phone without vendor included, and non-removable apps (Fuck You Samsung) that costs more, and has about the same life span is worse.
The Pixel phones would be sorely missed, maybe it's a Qpone or Rphone next?
ugh! msmash (Score:3)
msmash why do you care? This is Google's decision and they will shut down the project if/when they want to. They have pulled the plug on projects before, so I am certain that they are capable of doing this.
Seems like the writing is on the wall (Score:3)
With Google dropping out of making tablets, it seems like the progression for Android is Google backing off, in favor of things like Chromebooks.
If you think about it the phone industry is in kind of a precarious position as they are all relying on Google to drive Android progress. But if Google backs off doing that at any kind of reasonable pace, we'll see a massive splintering of the Android phone market - that would probably be a massive pain in the rear for app developers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They probably just don't see much future in the tablet market. If/when folding phones become viable the demand for tablets will be even low than it is now, and at this point most people just use them for media consumption.
Apple went a different way with the iPad Pro, but impressive as it is who really wants to do serious work on a tablet? Do you want to spend all day looking down at your desk or up at a screen, and trying to do everything with a laggy pen? If you do then it's been available on computers for
Re: (Score:2)
With Google dropping out of making tablets, it seems like the progression for Android is Google backing off, in favor of things like Chromebooks.
I think that is just a reflection of the market in general. Tablets were a fad that is now falling out of popularity as tablets struggle to find a use in everyday life, they were really just a stopgap, having all the drawbacks of a phone but the portability of a laptop.
As people's tablets are dying, they aren't replacing them. Phones are now as large as small tablets and laptops are now much more portable. The tablet has lost its niche.
Google's problem isn't killing it (Score:4, Interesting)
Google's problem with Pixel isn't that they are going to kill it, it's that they fail to provide long term support in the range for any given consumer segment.
First we had Nexus. Great phones, low prices. But they went through extensive periods of time where you couldn't buy one. If you wanted to upgrade from one model to another, or your phone died/broke and you wanted another, you might not be able to get the one you want.
Then we had Pixel. Again, there were period when they sold out. And they started getting more expensive, so if you were a Nexus user you were challenged to stay with the Google brand. Then they got more expensive. And more expensive. Suddenly, if you were a first-gen Pixel user you were challenged to stay with the Google brand, too.
Now finally we have the 3a. It's the first sign of a sensible product for long-term Google-brand consumers in a long time. But will Google keep this up as the 3a takes business away from its more expensive flagships?
History suggests Google will do whatever the f*** whoever is in charge of the product group at the time wants, regardless of how it affects users. They don't seem to care about damaging brand affinity. Perhaps they're so big they don't have to.
Re: (Score:1)
It's that consumers don't really care where they spend their money, today. Either their just stretched too thin to have that luxury, or attitudes have shifted, but at the end of the day, Americans buy whatever is biggest and cheapest right now, regardless of who is selling it, how it was made, etc. People would buy a Trump Phone if it was cheap and they could play games and watch TV on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's problem with Pixel isn't that they are going to kill it, it's that they fail to provide long term support in the range for any given consumer segment.
First we had Nexus. Great phones, low prices. But they went through extensive periods of time where you couldn't buy one. If you wanted to upgrade from one model to another, or your phone died/broke and you wanted another, you might not be able to get the one you want.
The Nexus program has been continued in spirit, if not in form by Android One. The only difference is, Google is not providing the hardware to the customer.
Pixel was different. It was meant to be a high end halo phone. This was the main reason I never bought a Pixel, so when my Nexus 5x finally died, I bought an Android One Nokia 7.1.
Android One is how they should have originally done the Nexus program. Let manufacturers build the hardware, then provide Google provides the software and guarantees 2 yr
I think of Xbox (Score:2)
Jurassic Park Syndrome (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This very topic is Management 101 for engineering managers.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple ship day 1 vs Google ship day N. (Score:2)
The article mentions:
This is nothing new and has been discussed before:
iPod Engineer Tony Fadell on the Apple Design Process [slashdot.org]
OP needs to stop reading Richard Windsor (Score:5, Informative)
There's a lot wrong with this posting.
First, the premise - it should be titled: "Let's stir up people about Pixel phones!"
Second, I love how "Google itself has an alarmingly long track record of losing interest in things, including hardware projects -- and especially when they finally appear to have courted a large following" appears to indicate that Google WANTS to kill successful hardware products. Never mind that the product with a large following was a free software service that offered little room for revenue growth.
Third, Richard Windsor doesn't appear to have a particularly solid case for his skills as an analyst. He refers to the acquisition of Motorola Mobility as a waste of shareholder money, but his numbers are wrong and his presentation of the circumstances is woefully lacking. What ACTUALLY happend was that Google purchased a patent portfolio that would keep it from being sued out of the smartphone market for $4.2 billion, but it had to handle a few other transactions to make it happen. (Here's how it worked: Google put up $12.5 billion to purchase MM. It then took all of MM's cash on hand ($3), which offsets the cost by that amount. Google then recouped ~$2.4b by selling off MM's cable modem division (which Mr. Windsor completely forgets about), and then later sold the remaining parts of MM to Lenovo for ~$2.9b.) That leaves ~$4.2b as the cost to Google for MM's fairly extensive patent portfolio.
(If you ever thought that the "free market" was free or a level playing field, please consider that owning thousands of patents is the only way to keep yourself from being sued out of the smartphone market, and possibly existence.)
And finally, my FAVORITE part: Google has "engineering disease"... Please picture my eyes rolling. Google is one of the most wildly successful companies in the history of commerce, and was built around the idea that engineers should run the company. They KNOW that things don't always work out, but they are willing to try things that have a chance of working out. They're willing to play a much longer game than the MBA types who are fixated on shareholder value. For example: Google Fiber was created to scare other Broadband companies into upgrading their infrastructure and expanding their coverage, which makes more customers for Google...
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't seen this point raised yet, so I'll add it to this intelligent post: Google makes a ton of money from the information it gathers as the owner of android
Google doesn't gather any information from Android, the OS. The Google Apps and Play store are where Google gets whatever user information it gets from Android devices. Google also makes a few billion per year from the sales of apps, movies and music on the Play store.
Summary much? (Score:1)
That's not a summary, it's practically an article unto itself. Allow me to summarize because it's most def tl;dr:
Google makes the best Android smartphones on the planet, but at some point they will stop.
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
Quixotic focus (Score:2)
I like my Pixel 2 XL... (Score:1)
I like my Pixel 2 XL because of the pure Google experience without the bloat of the Samsungs and HTCs I had before. However, there is now a very good alternative. I plan to replace my Pixel 2 XL in about a year with whatever the latest and greatest is from OnePlus. I have been very impressed with their handsets and love that they keep the bloat to a minimum. On top of all that, they are much more affordably priced. So, I am glad Google did Pixel but I won't miss them if they go.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time you finally decide to replace your Pixel 2, a OnePlus phone will cost about as much as a Samsung flagship phone. OnePlus phones used to be inexpensive only temporarily in order to create a marketing hype and build a user base. Now that they have a user base, their latest phone MSRP is over 500USD, which is a far cry from what the original OnePlus One cost (350USD for 64GB model). I think Pixel 3a is a better budget model now because it costs 60% of flagship model's price, but in real life one wi
Another death pool for Google projects (Score:1)
Shouldn't this be a Slashdot Poll? It's time to open up a real betting parlor.
They're profitable. Why would they stop? (Score:2)
See this article, for example: https://9to5google.com/2018/12... [9to5google.com]
Google's hardware business is profitable. Incredibly so. According to that analysis, their 2018 profits from Pixel devices were around $1.8 billion on just under $3.5 billion in revenue. That's huge. In fact, it's their most profitable hardware sector according to that article.
The overall money value of their hardware business is relatively small compared to Alphabet's entire business (which was $137 billion in 2018), but Google's higher-u
But Of Course... (Score:1)
The problem is that nobody is REALLY asking the big, real question. Expense. Consumers are being expected to shell out several hundreds of dollars for a smartphone at a price comparable to high to extremely high end computers, with little to none of the benefit of having one. Phones still do not have much in the way of mainstream support of being able to convert to desktop systems without excessive third party dongles, connectors, or other peripherals. Consumers don't have complete end-to-end solutions for
Android development board (Score:2)
A misunderstanding of Google's intent (Score:1)
---------------
I believe that the perceived goal of Google's intentions around the Pixel line is not being correctly interpreted by the author and this leads to a flawed line of reasoning and ultimately an incorrect conclusion.
The flaw, as I see it, is two-fold. First, there is an implicit expectation that the goal of the Pixel project is to make money. The second is that other manufacturers have caught up to Google's hardware/soft
Patents (Score:3)
Ever since it wasted $12.5bn of shareholder's money on Motorola Mobility in 2012
Patents. It's pretty well agreed upon that the acquisition was a strategic success.
https://gigaom.com/2014/01/30/... [gigaom.com]
Strategically important (Score:2)
If a company's health rests on another company, that's bad. It means that other company can control their fate. For example, consider what's going with Huawei and Google. Huawei had their own OS waiting in the wings in case Google pulled Android. You can bet Samsung has as well.
Conversely, Android needs to have a hardware presence. Android it isn't worth anything if no device manufacturer wants to sell it on their device.
Pixel probably isn't making Google money, but it's strategically important to have the
The "analyst" got it all wrong (Score:2)
1. Google's Pixel phone business is profitable.
2. Pixel phones are a reference design for the Android OEMs
3. Pixel phones are the favorite phone for Android developers
4. Pixel phones are the launch platform for the latest Android versions. Every August/September google launches a new version of Android, and it becomes immediately available on Google phones, while you're going to have to wait three-five months to see new OS on other vendor's phones.
Yes, Google abandoned the Android tablets, but that was beca
Iridium (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apps are the big thing. Java even if more expensive, has a pool of developers to make apps for it.