Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Oct 2016 22:15 UTC
Google

The Google Pixel reviews are coming in, and they are quite positive.

The Verge's Dieter Bohn:

This is Google's first phone, and for a first effort it is remarkably good. By almost every metric I can think of - speed, power, camera, smart assistant, you name it - it matches or exceeds the best phones available on the market today. And though the design is far from groundbreaking, it's certainly approachable. The whole package is pretty incredible, and if you're not put off by the premium price, you'll be very happy with this premium phone. I prefer the XL, which isn't huge and seems to get notably better battery life

Walt Mossberg, also for The Verge:

If you're an Android fan, willing to buy a premium phone, the Pixel is your answer. To repeat: it’s simply the best Android phone I've tested. If you're an iPhone user thinking of switching, the Pixel will seem physically familiar, but you'll have to overcome the sticky links you've developed with fellow iPhone users, things like iMessage (which Google can't match yet) and iCloud Photo Sharing (which Google is trying to copy). You'll also have to do without the comfort of your neighborhood Genius Bar.

But my main message, dear readers, is this: Google has come out of the gate with a top-flight phone and suddenly, there’s no longer an Apple-Samsung duopoly in premium handsets.

Joanna Stern for The Wall Street Journal:

Android people, please step forward. Good news! Your next phone-buying decision just got a heck of a lot easier. The Google Pixel is now the best Android smartphone you can buy. The other leading contender was disqualified due to spontaneous combustion.

iPhone people, it's your turn. Ask yourself: Why do I have an iPhone? Is it because of its software, services and privacy policies? Or is it because it's a very good phone for things like Google Maps, Gmail, Spotify and Facebook Messenger? If you've answered yes to the latter, the Pixel may be for you, too.

Lastly, the Android Central review:

The Google Pixel XL is my new daily driver. As for the smaller Pixel, I know it's going to take a lot to tear Daniel Bader away from this compact Android powerhouse. Both are excellent smartphones which we can wholeheartedly recommend, even with their sky-high price tags. The question of whether a smartphone can be worth $700 to $1,000 in 2016 is a debate altogether. But if any phone is worth that amount of cash, the Pixels are. Just as that same argument can be made for the iPhone 7 or Galaxy S7.

Interesting how all the American reviewers mention iMessage so often as a barrier to switching. Living in a country where WhatsApp has a 100% market share and iMessage is entirely unused, it's just an annoying junk app to me.

Thread beginning with comment 635675
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Whatsapp
by helf on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Whatsapp"
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm on Sprint and I have unlimited data. Actually unlimited. No bizarre throttling or weird restrictions based of what you are streaming, etc. Just unfettered 4G/LTE if its available. I use around 40-50GB/m on average and have passed 100GB on busy months ;)

But my Sprint plan is pushing 16 years old and costs me around $300 for 5 phones. Still, not bad.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Whatsapp
by Drumhellar on Wed 19th Oct 2016 07:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Whatsapp"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Grandfathered-in unlimited plan, I take it?

Sprint does the same thing as T-Mobile now, for new unlimited plans - throttles video to force it to be lower resolution, unless you pay $20 per line.

I've got an older plan from T-Mobile - 10GB a month (I'm usually near wifi, dont' watch much video on my phone either)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[9]: Whatsapp
by Alfman on Wed 19th Oct 2016 14:22 in reply to "RE[8]: Whatsapp"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Drumhellar,

Grandfathered-in unlimited plan, I take it?

Sprint does the same thing as T-Mobile now, for new unlimited plans - throttles video to force it to be lower resolution, unless you pay $20 per line.

I've got an older plan from T-Mobile - 10GB a month (I'm usually near wifi, dont' watch much video on my phone either)


I have t-mobile myself, and while I'm not generally using video on my phone much either. I'm disturbed that tmobile's video "binge on" clearly goes against the spirit, if not the letter, of net neutrality. It's advertised as "optimization" of certain services to end users, but they don't realize that it's literally nothing more than throttling. If this were only applied to the participating low-definition binge-on video partners in exchange for free streaming, then fine. But the fact is tmobile's throttling also gets applied to video services where I'm footing the bill for high speed data, which is lousy and deceitful.


The EFF has a pretty good chart and description:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/eff-confirms-t-mobiles-bingeon...

TLDR; If you are going to charge a transfer against a user's high speed bandwidth quota, then it shouldn't be artificially throttled down to low speeds!


I didn't set out to measure this, but I recently needed to transfer an ISO over encrypted SFTP, and it appeared that tmobile was throttling the encrypted traffic (ie it started extremely quickly and then slowed down drastically even though I hadn't hit the high speed data cap). The same day I transferred many files over plain HTTP with no slowdown. I'm just annoyed that carriers are discriminating against uses of bandwidth even though I pay the same amount per byte; it shouldn't be any of their business how I use the bandwidth I've paid for.

Reply Parent Score: 2