Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 615 posts

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#211

Post by tbassetto »

KayL wrote: post #143
lopespm wrote: post #45

Honest question: for those of you who own a mobile device without a headphone jack, do you find it to be an encuberment? Personally I still find it a bit hostile to not have the jack available, since often times I find myself charging the phone and using the headphones (when watching videos for example), so having an adapter dongle for such a frequent task seems counterintuitive to me. I believe that if a device is c…

I owned iPhone 8+ for a week and didn't notice any differences than iPhone 6 with jack for the sound quality. Only one bad thing, you can't be charging while listening to music.

I am considering switching from an iPhone 6 to an 8 Plus. Do you regret going for a bigger iPhone or not? I tried the 8 Plus in a store and it was much faster! But also much heavier, that's why I haven't made the jump yet.

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#212

Post by KZeillmann »

the_common_man wrote: post #139
noncoml wrote: post #122

Why would anyone pay money to buy a phone from an advertising company?

Yeah, I feel Google should re-invent itself and make some bold decisions to move out of it's ad business. They seem very capable of making excellent products. Will their shareholders be up in arms if they got out slowly from this add business? Google Apps, Android, Pixel etc are really excellent products.

Why on earth would they want to get out of the ad business?

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#213

Post by Matthias247 »

royal_ts wrote: post #153

The € price is ridiculously higher than the $ price. The smaller pixel costs 799€ which includes 19% of taxes (in Germany), the 649$ does not contain taxes. Still that's a difference of 150€ on top of my hat. There's also a fee which manufactures have to pay (GEMA which collects money for artists and so on). Guess they also include that Google Home Mini in this price which is kinda dumb. Not going to buy with such a…

It‘s worse than the iPhone (699$ vs 799€), but unfortunately it’s just the continuation of the trend. Over the last years electronics steadily got more expensive in Europe compared to US. Before that is was often 1$ == 1€, which was not that far off after taxes.

However another thing to consider in pricing ist that android phone prices will fall pretty quickly over the year anyway, up to about 50%. We’ll see how it will be for the Pixel2

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#214

Post by plussed_reader »

CaptSpify wrote: post #202
ropans808 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I really don't get is why we want to move the DAC into the headphone. It just makes sense to have a single DAC in the phone, that anything can plug into. Now every set of headphones needs its own DAC to convert that digital bluetooth/USB signal into something you can actually hear.

My unsubstantiated guess: It's phase 1 for some new DRM scheme

DRM audio(or worse, DAC) authentication over a USB-C connection.

Your storage device has to handshake with the playback device. Maybe HDCP over USB?

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#215

Post by Matthias247 »

dustinmr wrote: post #188
royal_ts wrote: post #153

The € price is ridiculously higher than the $ price. The smaller pixel costs 799€ which includes 19% of taxes (in Germany), the 649$ does not contain taxes. Still that's a difference of 150€ on top of my hat. There's also a fee which manufactures have to pay (GEMA which collects money for artists and so on). Guess they also include that Google Home Mini in this price which is kinda dumb. Not going to buy with such a…

If that includes 19% taxes, than its a €30 or 4% difference on the pretax pricing. Not very big really. Especially, if there's other fees they pay to sell the product in your territory.

How did you calculate that? Without taxes it’s 671€, which is 789$. So the difference is 190$

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#216

Post by jamesrcole »

kuschku wrote: post #135
rmwaite wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't buy this phone. Headphones will soon all be either wireless or use USB C or lighting anyway. And if there are headphones that do not, use an adapter.

I bought headphones from Sennheiser with lifelong guarantee once, and I plan to use them until I die, just like my parents used their Sennheisers for decades. There’s many people exactly like that.

There might be many people like that, but given the cost of such headphones they'd have to be a small percentage of the overall population of phone/headphone users.

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#217

Post by MBCook »

endorphone wrote: post #50
MBCook wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is meaningless. They have declared themselves the standard but that number doesn’t actually measure anything. I mean the fact they sell cameras alone means they’re not unbiased. https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/22/dxo-ratings-are... Wait for real camera reviews.

John Gruber's stance on DXO is utterly meaningless, and it's farcical that you seriously cite it. Measuring the technical capabilities of an imaging device is patently obvious and justifiable. From dynamic range to optical and electronic resolution, noise at different light levels, etc. You can question their methodology, but saying that it "doesn't measure anything" is nonsense, and citing a guy who laughably claims…

> Measuring the technical capabilities of an imaging device is patently obvious and justifiable. From dynamic range to optical and electronic resolution, noise at different light levels, etc.

I agree completely. DPreview and other sites do that.

> but saying that it "doesn't measure anything" is nonsense

Then please tell me what that one final number measures. How do they get to it? It doesn’t seem objective at all.

Other camera review sites give a bunch of objective measurements then a subjective opinion about how the camera related to others.

DXO wants you to think their arbitrary number is scientifically rigorous.

> and citing a guy who laughably claims that you can't measure the "art" is uproarious.

Are you claiming you can measure art? That’s what DXO seems to do. Having a single number final score means that if camera A had a higher score than B then it must take objectively better pictures.

Or we have to admit their score is subjective.

> Gruber has less than zero legitimacy in this discussion

Why?

> and his sole motivating intention is defend Apple in all facets.

He’s complaining that the iPhone had the highest score ever. If you were right he would be writing about how DXO said it was the best camera ever, not that DXO is a sham.

If you can’t look past Gruber’s byline I imagine there are other articles online about DXO and their questionable practices. I’ve seen others before, this was the first Google turned up.

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#219

Post by TsomArp »

I bought a second-hand Pixel on Ebay. The seller sent it complete with boxes, manual, etc. After 6 months it received an OTA and now is a 600 dollars paperweight. They tell me that since the phone, which is not reported stolen, is assigned to another account they cannot do anything about it. I have contacted the seller but she won't respond. Be aware of this.

Re: Google Pixel 2 and 2 XL announced

#220

Post by cookiecaper »

mullingitover wrote: post #201
watbe wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, because I bought the Nexus 6P from the Google Store, they replaced it with a Pixel XL for free. The Google experience is terrible through a third party, but their Google 'direct' experience is pretty darn fantastic.

I can't fathom why the place where the device was purchased would matter if it's a Google phone. Apple manages to support iPhones whether you purchase them from an Apple store or in a back alley for bitcoins.

Apple is the manufacturer that is honoring the manufacturer's warranty (and/or additional warranty options). Google is not the manufacturer of the Nexus 5X/6P, that's Huawei. So if you didn't buy from them, they send you to the manufacturer, like most retailers would after the initial return window, even if you did buy it from them.

I agree that it's bad for Google's image to operate that way, stick their name on a phone and then shrug their shoulders and tell you to talk to the real manufacturer. But that distinction is why Apple supports most iPhones no questions asked, and Google wants to know that you bought it from them. They're a glorified retailer licensing out their brand to Huawei.

Post reply on HN