Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but the Pixel is a success and it doesn't make sense to compare a high-end line of products on a per-unit basis to cheapo phones Compare it to high end products then, and you'd still come up short. There's also the reason why I pointed out "in the context of Google, and Google products": it's a tiny product made at great effort and expense that Google clearly doesn't know what to do about (they haven't even support…
compare it to high-end lines and Google is #3 in some markets and #4 in others, which is unmitigated success companies don't get to #3 or #4 in some of the most lucrative sectors in the world and then just decide to close shop because they're not #1 or #2 there are a bunch of profitable companies that ONLY make money in Pixel's sector, are recognised brands and they are already behind the Pixel in market share it's e…
Define: High end
Define: "some markets"
Also: Pixel isn't one phone. It's Pixel 7 Pro (premium) and Pixel 7 (sorta medium) and Pixel 6a (cheap)
Also: We're talking about Google, 80% of whose revenue comes from online advertisement. Spending a lot of effort on a relatively low-volume hardware product that may be some number in some markets is not nearly enough to guarantee long-term viability of the product. I'm surprised Google has stuck by Pixel (given the very spotted history of the phone) at all.