Based on materials from android-softwares.com
Recently, Google has been often compared to Apple. The company now produces two direct competitors of the most significant devices from Apple. These are Pixel 2 and Pixelbook (aiming, respectively, to compete with iPhone and iPad). Of course, Samsung still spoils Apple much more blood, but Google's business model is in many respects closer to the model Apple, since the company also produces hardware and software components for its flagships. But, unlike Apple, it is primarily a software manufacturer and has just begun to seriously 'forge iron'.
For this reason, comparison with Microsoft would be logical. Microsoft is also primarily a software company, and Windows is its main achievement. However, there is also a line of Surface – developed by the company reference devices that were supposed to help her in conquering the market. After all, an increase in productivity is possible only when there is a close integration of the OS and the device that runs on it.
Now the Surface line has gained a certain popularity, but you can't call its story a confident take-off. Importantly, though, this was a challenge to OEMs who were faithful for many years Windows. Does this remind you of something? That's right, Google is currently experiencing the same growing pains. Only time will tell how it all ends.
The Pixel 2 and Pixelbook theoretically demonstrate the very best that Google can do. They should show how good a smartphone with Android or a Chromebook can be, and the company hasn't lost its face by taking on the hardware. But what happens if we compare its products with those of other manufacturers? What needs to be improved?
Ahead of the whole planet
Let's be optimistic and start with the positives. Let's look at the moments in which Google justifiably claims to be the leader. The obvious advantage that sets the Pixel 2 apart, like the Pixel before it, is the camera. It was claimed that the first Pixel received the best DXOMark scores, making it the best smartphone available in terms of camera (let's skip the speculation about how true this rating is). Pixel 2 managed to outperform its predecessor. He even manages artificial bokeh using one lens – thanks to a special software magic. Although DXOMark says the new ones iPhone still do it better).
What's more, the camera technology behind the Pixel 2 may surprise us in the future. Both the Pixel 2 and 2 XL have a hidden chip called the Pixel Visual Core. It is needed in order to compile images in HDR + five times faster, using only a tenth of the processor power thanks to machine learning algorithms. Once activated, the already incredible camera performance can be boosted.
The chip itself can also execute other machine learning algorithms that can enhance AI-powered tools like Google Lens. So it's no surprise that Google has been developing AI chips for its servers for a while. It looks like AI is what Google is focusing on in the first place. And this requires well-coordinated hardware and software work. Google is obviously doing great here.
To put it bluntly, Google and its Pixel 2 XL with Qualcomm's Snapdragon 835 chipset and 4GB of RAM are the leaders in the performance race. Some other flagships like the Razer Phone or Galaxy Note 8 have more RAM and the newer ones iPhone have faster processors, but that doesn't change much.
Even the Pixelbook has 16GB of RAM and an i5 or i7 Kaby Lake processor from Intel. Perhaps for a Chromebook, such characteristics are overkill, but this was done to compete with the Surface Pro from Microsoft.
There is room to grow
And what about the design? The Pixel brand is controversial in this regard. The visual and tactile impression of the device is subjective, but none of the 'pixels' are missing stars from the sky in this arena. At best, it evokes a neutral 'OK', and at worst – also some letter combination, for example, 'fuuu'. The two-tone effect is at least some kind of distinctive feature (it also passed on to the Pixelbook), but it does not give the device an unconditional premium. The frames look a little out of place for 2017. And if we try to compare the 'pixel' with some space device like the Galaxy S8, it will be a beating of babies altogether.
The lack of outer cohesion between the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL also makes for a strange feeling. No single design language and no visual match. For the most part, this is due to the fact that the devices were developed by different companies: Pixel 2 XL is a brainchild LG, and Pixel 2 is conscientious HTC. Google hired 2,000 engineers HTC to work on its projects. And it is unclear why this team did not work on both devices.
Whatever it is, it is very unusual to see such discrepancies between two versions of the same device. The first Pixel, according to rumors, was not made water resistant due to the fact that there was not enough time. Maybe something similar happened here, given that very little time passed between the hiring of the team and the release of the Pixel 2. 2 000 инженеров выглядят солидной цифрой, но это всего лишь половина отдела HTC, отвечающего за R&D.
All of the above does not mean that Google is an outsider in the field of device design. Build quality is excellent overall, and even if the devices fall short of the standards set by Apple and Samsung, they look great when compared to what fellows like Sony or Nokia / HMD have to offer. There are a number of subtleties in which Google's approach deserves all approval – for example, the lack of a camera protrusion and front speakers.
Google has demonstrated its ability to create a premium device in the Pixelbook. The general consensus among those who have seen it is that the build quality and aesthetics are quite comparable to those of your MacBooks and the XPS 15. And in light of this, it's a shame that Chrome OS is not yet ready to compete with Windows and macOS.
Catch-up game
There are also areas where Google is obviously not doing so well. For example, this is the controversial Pixel 2 XL screen. The range of problems is impressive: from poor color rendering (which, however, can be corrected at the software level) to burnout and limited viewing angles. Displays are clearly not Google's strong point.
Of course, any company can face such problems. Let's remember the same 'explosive' Note 7. And in itself this is not a reason to write the company down as an outsider. But in Samsung's case, the company ended up introducing 8 levels of battery verification. The screens in the Pixel 2 XL were designed LG, so how Google itself could have prevented this problem and how to proceed after its detection is difficult to say. The smaller Pixel 2, on the other hand, is equipped with a OLED display from Samsung (like many other devices from other brands, including iPhone), and is spared such troubles.
Another Google problem is the distribution of its devices. 'Pixels' are missing from most operator's store shelves, and support for them is reportedly not very active, so there is no way for users to walk into stores and fiddle with the device. Google has a team of engineers and a former head of device development Amazon to make its entry into the 'iron' arena smoother, but it won't help in the implementation of devices. However, the situation described is quite normal for a company that is still looking for itself as a manufacturer of devices, and over time, everything can change for the better.
Overall, when it comes to hardware, Google is clearly not looking to embark on a path of experimentation and innovation. Ok Google, the camera is awesome. Okay, 'pixels' can be compressed. Great, the Pixelbook has the ability to fold out in the spirit of Yoga. But we've already seen all this in other devices, and the company must try hard to surprise us. Probably many of us have been waiting for this from the first Pixel, right? However, the company prefers not to risk it.
Again, Google is just getting used to its new role. She has a new and relatively small team of people working on devices, and without the help of third-party manufacturers, nothing can happen so far. The company has experience and clear advantages, but quality control and distribution are not yet its greatest strengths. She has released many devices in a relatively short period of time, while having a bunch of other ongoing projects.
And all this is also completely normal. When compared to Microsoft again, the Surface Pro and Surface Pro 2 weren't hugely successful. They were literally crammed with problems, which included serious flaws in the design (for Surface Pro they even came up with the expression lapability – the ability to use the device while holding it on your lap).
Devices from most OEMs have gone through several iterations before they pose any threat to competitors. And perhaps Google is just a predator preparing to jump. Hopefully, by the time the Pixel 3 launches, she’s drawn to the conclusions, the connections she needs, and the real race. And this will become a real test of her strength. Let's just give her time. Devices from Google already demonstrate serious potential and superiority in a number of areas.
Your own director
Another area where Google is likely to be catching up is assortment. Nobody offers us Google Watch, and there is no reason to think that anyone is going to do it. Pixel Core is impressive, but not a neural processor (AI accelerator). The company could be expected to be the first to offer full AI integrated into its devices (similar to what Huawei has already done in its Kirin 970 devices). Even the Pixel is technically late. Look even at the numbers: Note 8, iPhone X, Pixel 2. Google is just catching up in the 'iron' field and that is why it removed the headphone jack?
In fact, Google is a truly innovative company. Maybe it's too late for her to get involved directly in the smartphone race. But she does what other manufacturers could not even imagine. None of the OEMs now have analogues of Google Clips. This device could only appear from Google. Google Home competes with Amazon Echo, but there is no such gadget in the portfolio Apple or Samsung. Apple never got their own VR headset. Who else could make headphones that would translate for you from foreign languages? Google Glass wasn’t unequivocally successful, but you wouldn’t say for sure that “the company was just following a trend.”
Perhaps it's because Google has its own priorities. And they can be different from what other market participants put at the forefront. The company is certainly capable of just taking and making a nice and premium looking device, but it doesn't have to strive to sell phones in huge volumes or amaze us with super displays. Google is primarily about artificial intelligence. And in this area, too, there are difficulties, but who dares to say that the company is just teasing competitors?
Let's just remember that Google is not an ordinary OEM. She has her own advantages and her own personal difficulties. And, frankly, I just can't wait to find out what the future holds for her.