[chiefalchemist]

In terms of revenue relative to their search / ads biz, how big of a deal is this? I understand there's name recognition for Chrome and Android, but the Pixel product line is nothing when compared to the iPhone or even Samsung.

Is this more of just Google being Google, as the ads side of the house continues to print more money than God?

[usrusr]

I read it as an erosion of the implicit assumption that ads bring in the money, and projects like Android and Chrome spend it, indirectly empowering the ads division. "Why can't we just focus on eating the cake? Those guys in the bakery with their funny hats and food-grade tooling should grow up and learn to stand on their own feet without our handouts." Pixel hardware is the closest thing Google has to a division that could sustain itself from revenue streams unrelated to ads.

Probably makes a good impression on shareholders who'd prefer to see all divisions disinvested but the money counting one.

[londons_explore]

Pixel hardware fails because they don't have good distribution channels. No mobile contracts include a pixel phone. Many mobile contracts have iphones or samsungs attached.

[vetinari]

They are failing in being present in markets; Google won't sell in more than half of EU countries at all; never mind the countries outside EU, Google sells only in a handful.

Meanwhile, Samsung products are widely available and marketed everywhere.

[brookst]

Consumer products are demand-driven. This is like saying my shrimp-flavored cola is failing because I don’t have distribution deals.

Pixel is great hardware, but Google has failed to generate enough demand for consumers to be going into stores and the n leaving because Pixel isn’t sold there. That’s what gets distribution in the long run.

[jeltz]

They are not even sold in a lot of the EU and they barely market the phones. Kinda hard for there to be consumer demand if you cannot even buy it.

[brookst]

This isn’t true at all. Many products have very high demand in markets they’re not available.

[londons_explore]

Pixel phones have lots of geoblocked features. For example, they lose most of their 5G/VoLTE/VoWifi abilities if you use a sim from a phone network in an unsupported country, even though other models of phone don't have that issue.

A bunch of other features are geoblocked in the EU, or geoblocked to the US and Canada only.

[brookst]

Sure, but my point is that 1) Pixel has low market share in markets it is available, and 2) there does not appear to be any clamoring for availability from the masses in other markets.

Pixel is a great product for tech enthusiasts. It may even be a good product for the mass market. But bemoaning the lack of sufficient distribution is totally missing the point.

[rchaud]

Because those are phones people want. Their ads are splashed everywhere. Pixel phones are not enough to get people to sign up with a carrier.

[gruez]

>No mobile contracts include a pixel phone.

What country is this? In the US at least you can get pixel phones through the major carriers.

[Rinzler89]

>Pixel hardware fails because they don't have good distribution channels.

No, Pixel HW fails because it's shit: weak call signal reception and 5G performance due to poor Samsung modem, low performance compared to Apple and Qualcomm, high battery drain, overheating, software bugs that get in the way of you dialing calls, dimples in OLED display, poor design with ultra thick visor, questionable warranty support, AI features only exclusive to the US market but not EU making them useless, etc. Much of the issues that do not exist on Apple and Samsung phones.

Carriers go with Apple and Samsung because those brands are a slam dunk with consumers, are well known and mostly reliable by this point with fewer lemons, and when they do fail, there's service centers for them everywhere. Pixels are mostly bought by enthusiasts who will forgive the rough edges for the chance of being Google's software beta testers.

[rchaud]

Not to mention that Pixel doesn't provide anything that you couldn't already get on a Samsung.

[Rinzler89]

Pixels can still have better photo/video quality and less shutter lag than Samsungs and a cleaner, more unified SW ecosystem with only the Google Apps, versus Samsung who duplicates those apps with their own: Samsung Pay, Samsung Browser, Samsung Notes, etc. Some people prefer Samsung's own apps to Google's(their browser is really nice), others find it bloatware.

The main problem is that due to their pricing, bugs and issues, Google's recent Pixels are no longer a slam dunk reccomendation like they used to be in the old days when they rocked Qualcomm chips and were compact, well built, dirt cheap phones.