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

Google Pixel Fold

store.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 580 posts

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#431

Post by Wildgoose »

manningthegoose wrote: post #9

I just don't understand who wants these foldable phones, especially at the $1799 price point. I guess a use case is wealthy frequent travelers who don't want a separate device with a larger screen to watch movies/videos on the go? Someone help me out here.

I have a Surface Duo phone. Using both screens together is like using a tablet, but it folds up and fits in my pocket. I can have the keyboard on one screen and have a full display on the other. I can look something up on one screen while using something else on the other screen.

By comparison, the standard of "splitting" a single screen results in something that is often too small and awkward to use and with too little screen space for comfortable viewing.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#432

Post by saagarjha »

alpaca128 wrote: post #428
saagarjha wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tablets are great in bed.

Who am I to judge. Jokes aside, I never found the bed to be comfortable for any kind of content consumption, even reading books is annoying. And when I already sit upright I might as well have a keyboard too.

I am a lazy slob

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#433

Post by MikusR »

grumbel wrote: post #369

I'll never understand why "thin" is still a standout feature of a phone when they add a fat ugly camera bump on it anyway. Why not make a thicker phone and the camera flush with the casing?

You are holding it in your hand. Thicker phone means heavier harder to hold device.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#434

Post by usrusr »

tasuki wrote: post #408
pavlov wrote: post #356

These foldables are a great demonstration of why the screen diagonal is an unintuitive metric. This device has a 5.8” screen when folded, and a 7.6” screen when open. Looking at those numbers, it doesn’t sound like a very big difference. Yet anyone can see that the 7.6” screen is twice as big as the 5.8” one! The diagonal only made sense for TVs because the aspect ratio was fixed at 4:3 (and later 16:9). It shouldn’t…

Agreed, phone screen size should be specified in square centimeters!

I'd prefer it to be specified in how well it fits in my pocket.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#435

Post by usrusr »

0x6c6f6c wrote: post #223
ianbutler wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm never going back. I only type and respond to things unfolded, I have big hands and the split keyboard + bigger buttons are great. Outside of that I'm a fairly big reader and I enjoy reading both articles and books unfolded and have no interest in bringing a second device to do so. I also write notes with stylus on it which is practical unfolded. More real estate for video etc. And then I can just fold it and use…

Yeah reading the specs, it's s larger screen than my Nexus 7 tablet, with a smaller overall device size, and fits in my pocket.. it's tempting. But definitely pausing at a $1800 price tag

You have it reversed: it's not "we want to make a foldable phone, how expensive does it need to be?", it's "we want to ask $1800 for phone, what could we offer to find buyers".

The biggest problem in the market of exceptionally expensive phones is that they don't really look all that different from cheaper ones. Foldable phones solve that.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#436

Post by llampx »

kyriakos wrote: post #310
0x6c6f6c wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah reading the specs, it's s larger screen than my Nexus 7 tablet, with a smaller overall device size, and fits in my pocket.. it's tempting. But definitely pausing at a $1800 price tag

If this was around the 1200 price point they'd be selling like crazy. Chewing into the premium android and iPhone share. Google would have been a trend setter with foldables if they offered a lower price.

Exactly. Have a barebones screen on the front or no screen at all, and make it cheaper. I get that they want it to be premium, but it doesn't need an expensive high-refresh OLED screen for both screens!

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#437

Post by User_1 »

grumbel wrote: post #369

I'll never understand why "thin" is still a standout feature of a phone when they add a fat ugly camera bump on it anyway. Why not make a thicker phone and the camera flush with the casing?

I used to think that it didn't matter if the phone was heavier as long as it performed to my standards.

Then I happened on a good deal for a higher tier phone, very light compared to what I was used to. Suddenly I'm never dropping my phone.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#438

Post by leokennis »

manningthegoose wrote: post #9

I just don't understand who wants these foldable phones, especially at the $1799 price point. I guess a use case is wealthy frequent travelers who don't want a separate device with a larger screen to watch movies/videos on the go? Someone help me out here.

I am currently carrying an iPhone and an iPad Mini. The iPad is to read the newspaper, to watch photo/video, and in cases I need to do real multitasking (i.e. make notes about a PDF, so I want both on my screen at once).

If I could have both in one device, that'd be awesome.

So far however (besides the fact that only Android has foldables), the very visible crease is a dealbreaker for me.

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#439

Post by christkv »

kyriakos wrote: post #310
0x6c6f6c wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah reading the specs, it's s larger screen than my Nexus 7 tablet, with a smaller overall device size, and fits in my pocket.. it's tempting. But definitely pausing at a $1800 price tag

If this was around the 1200 price point they'd be selling like crazy. Chewing into the premium android and iPhone share. Google would have been a trend setter with foldables if they offered a lower price.

Just a matter of time really. 24 months ?

Re: Google Pixel Fold

#440

Post by unpopular42 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #155
sidfthec wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you use your phone an average of 5 hours a day for two years and then throw it in a junk drawer the hardware would cost less than 50cents per hour of use. I don't understand this type of justification. My fridge would cost around $65k for a 15 year lifetime at $0.50/hour. It just seems like a completely meaningless way to judge the value of something.

They're hoping to sell to you based on the value it provides rather than the cost to produce the thing. Classic sales reframing tactic for obscene 500%+ margin products: You should buy this thing far above market rate because it's worth a lot to you, not because it's priced at a realistic BOM + labor + reasonable profit margin.

If you sell at BOM + labor + reasonable profit margin, who pays for R&D and who covers the risks? This makes no sense
Post reply on HN