Google is announcing the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro today, though it might be better to call it a preview or a tease. Rather than releasing all the details on its new Android phones, Google is instead putting the focus on the new system on a chip (SoC) that will be inside the new Pixels. It’s called the Tensor SoC, named after the Tensor Processing Units (TPU) Google uses in its data centers.
Tensor is an SoC, not a single processor. And so while it’s fair to call it Google-designed, it’s also still unclear which components are Google-made and which are licensed from others. Two things are definitely coming from Google: a mobile TPU for AI operations and a new Titan M2 chip for security. The rest, including the CPU, GPU, and 5G modem, are all still a mystery.
Less mysterious: the phones themselves. I spent about an hour at Google’s Mountain View campus last week looking at the phone hardware and talking with Google’s hardware chief Rick Osterloh about Tensor. After all that, my main takeaway about the new Pixel 6 phones is simple.
Google is actually, finally trying to make a competitive flagship phone.
This looks like a really premium product, and it will most definitely have a price to match. Google finally switching over to its own SoC, after years of relying on Qualcomm, which is technically great for competition, but much as with Apple’s chips, it’s not like anyone else is really going to benefit from this. Assuming Google plans on selling this new Pixel in more than three countries, and assuming the claims about the cameras are backed up my real-world reviews, this will definitely be my next phone, since my current smartphone is ready for replacement.
And what a surprise – smartphone camera quality suddenly matters now that I have a kid.
A pocket camera especially a waterproof camera can be carried with you all the time. No fumbling as it only does one thing. It’s also not going to go out of date next year. You can even get one which does 1080p 60fps video for £130.
https://store.canon.co.uk/canon-ivy-rec-outdoor-activity-camera-blue/4291C013/
That would require you to carry it around in addition to your phone. There’s a reason standalone cameras are mostly obsolete at this point for everybody except professionals.
I would not say that. Please note the canon ivy there its not good enough camera for professionals. But there is something particular a shock rating. Something like the pixel 6 does not have a high shock rating. Making the screen bezel small does result in have a poor shock rating because the edge of screen is not protected.
Making a phone with a shock-rating generally end up thicker also you max out at a 90% of screen with a 10% of front face being bezel.
The reality here is a lot of people end up with a broken phone even using a so call rugged because they hold it up to take a photo and drop it. Like I am 6 foot 4 or about 1.9m not small. Lot of rugged phones are only rated to be dropped from 1.5 meters. That right I have the camera up to take a photo someone bumps me and and I drop and I paid extra for a rugged phone I have still dropped it to the ground from too high up.
Your standard phones are only rated to take a drop less than 1.2 meters sometimes less than 30 cms. So basically if you are lucky you phone is rated to fall from you pants pocket.
A low end camera on the other hand is rare for them to have a drop rating less than 2 meters. Some of high end pro cameras have drop ratings of 10+ meters on the body. Yes the connect less is going to be screwed but the core of the camera will be fine.
People thinking that standalone camera is obsolete and are people who fumble their phones when taking phones end up costing themselves lots of phones. There are people where it cheaper to buy a phone and buy a proper camera. Why the problem camera when they drop it does not die as easily. Yes time when you are most likely holding you phone the worst is when you are attempting to take a photo with the camera. Remember most cameras were designed to be held while taking photos. Most phones are designed to be used as tablets or held to ear for a call without any consideration of providing a grip to hold the phone in position to take photo.
Yes you could say carry something like a self stick but that end up bigger than having a small camera and and phone. Remember the small camera can have a better grip on it.
This is the drop fact basically. Not everyone clumsiness level is the same. Depending on your natural clumsiness level depends alters if you should use the camera in your phone or if you should have phone and a camera. Yes the worse you natural clumsiness is the more you need item taken to eye height to have good grips and a decent shock rating.
This is more like we don’t make 1 size of shoes to fit everyone. There will always be a market for the decanted camera with decanted and case designed with for taking photos with grip not just for the professionals but for people with natural clumsiness problems. Please not about 60% of the population should not by their clumsiness level be taking a normal smart phone up to their eye level to take photos. Yes common cause of broken screens in mobile phones is people who are not aware they that are too clumsy to be taking photos with phone doing so. Yes they get away with it for so long until one day that drop it and the phone breaks. Of course the makers of mobile phones don’t care as this breakage equals extra sales.
I never said anything about technical merits, and wouldn’t disagree at all there. But the simple fact is, most people don’t want to carry multiple devices around. This is trivially verified by looking at sales numbers of digital cameras ever since smartphones became “good enough” from a picture quality point of view. Add to that automatic backups, etc., and there’s very little incentive for most people to get a separate camera, regardless of the merits.
This isn’t an either/or argument. Cameras versus smartphones are like sports cars versus a family car. One does one thing very well while the other is more general and does more things okay enough.
What I object to is people wading in like it’s a debate with winner takes all which isnt’ how reality operates but the thing which really makes me cross is how people are closing minds to alternatives.
I’ve listed a number of practical benefits to cameras versus smartphones and not doubting the utility of smartphones to most people who accept the compromise best suits them. It shouldn’t be down to me to list them all because people are too lazy or too polarised. I could list more or even the advantages of film but as nobody is particularly interested I can’t be bothered.
Sales numbers are deceptive on this topic. Lot of the digital cameras I still have in use are over 10 years old. These are cameras I bought new. This is not a odd lifespan for a camera in light usage to be 10 to 15 years without needing any service. A digital camera in heavy usage last about 5 years without repair. Digital camera in pro usage abusive is expected to last 3 years(that you guys flying on the time to sports events and the like so serous collected abuse in handling). They can be repaired to go longer. Compare this to you mobile phone with a 2.5 year life span.
The long camera lifespan is starting to have effect on the market. Please note the major camera makers make more money out of spare parts for older models at the moment than new cameras they are selling.
So its not just that smartphones came good enough. Its the fact that person bought 1 compact sports or equal digital camera and the bugger has not broken. The digital cameras don’t have the same repeat sales. Also due to the fact a fixed up camera can have about as much life after a full service and new one for quite decent price this causes other issues. We had see the same problem hit of market saturation with cameras before the digital camera appeared with film based cameras. Smartphones basically got good enough at the same time digital camera market saturation was going to hit.
Digital camera peaked around 2011. Please note that is 2 years before smart phones get a decent sensor. 2011 is when we started seeing the digital camera hit the market saturation point. Remember I am still using cameras from 2011 and before and this is not a uncommon usage. Its really hard to sell a person like me a new camera when the new camera is not really going to give me much better final results.
anevilyak lot of people think the digital camera down turn is smartphone linked but. really its not instead it a simple market saturation problem caused by how long cameras do last doing what they need todo. Automatic backups https://nerdtechy.com/best-wifi-sd-card any camera that does not have a radio shield SD card you can add that functionality to.
The reality here smart phones sales would have dropped off if they had a longer functional life span as well.
So? You can always use a smaller feature phone not a smartphone. I don’t do much with my smartphones. I normally don’t carry one. Most of what people meddle with on smartphones I reserve for my laptop. I also don’t buy a new smartphone every time the wind changes.
A single use device is uncomplicated and has advantages. I’m not denying smartphones are good and have their uses but there are many ways to skin a cat.
You can leave a camera lying about for shared use. You can lend it to someone even a young child and not have to panic you’re going to lose your phone. You pick a camera upand flick “on” and you’re good go instantly. No typing in passwords while time ticks by and the moment is lost. No distractions. No constant updating. Batteries typically replaceable lasting longer in real use.
You don’t have to be a professional to appreciate the benefits and it is another way of working some people may be happier with. If you said “only for professionals” for everything then we would be back to the days of trade guilds and serfs.
I don’t fumble with my phone camera, there is a dedicated button on the lock screen that instantly brings up the camera. Updating my phone every 2-3 years means the camera also gets better every time. I love stand alone cameras for their versatility, image quality and just fun they provide, but for kids especially, you want something high quality and quick that you always have on you.
This isn’t an either or argument. It’s just that a single use device does one thing and does it well. The design goals and usability are different from a general purpose designed to look sleek device which has different design goals and usability. As an example smartphones have not put compass manufacturers and paper map publishers out of business.
I have a semi-pro camera sitting less than two feet away in my desk drawer and I will admit I use my smartphone more than my camera. The reason is the kind of camera I want has a larger sensor and larger video format and costs a stupid amount of money. I can do more with my smartphone but I need better lights and lose the flexibility of different focal lengths. The other thing is when I pull my camera out in public people stare. Nobody cares if you wave a smartphone around. For other kinds of photos I need to plan days, weeks, and sometimes months ahead. I will need a tripod or reflectors or screens if for no other reason I want to achieve a certain kind of look and not be constrained by a generic smartphone. Now some of this can be faked with the latest software but that is another hurdle with more expense and more learning of yet another application and most likely being tied to Adobe like a dog on a lead.
It’s the same with laptop webcams versus a dedicated webcam. I use both but I also pay attention to staging and lighting. If I’m being really picky I will use OBS to tune the colour profile and exposure and lightcurve. In fact I use my laptop and webcam and tripod instead of a smartphone or camera for some pictures. It’s cheaper than a tethered camera and I like the look obtained from the lens.
I have a small cheap travel tripod and a selfie stick I can screw on top. This is small enough to go in an over the shoulder bag instead of lugging a six foot tripod about. I usually use this combo with my smartphone. If I put my camera on top the weight of the magnesium body would tip it over.
Last but not least flick the cover and pop out the SD card and I can easily store the pictures securely. Not every phone has an SD card slot. Also if my camera gets stolen that’s not my phone and whole life disappearing off in a cloud of dust and leaving me stranded.
So really they’re all different things with some shared goals and a lot of overlap and different strengths and weaknesses.
Or you can carry a better camera, that is also waterproof, and can do photo editing, upload your pictures on to your social media, and use it as a communication device.
Gee wiz, I wonder why people don’t opt for the more inconvenient alternative…
Looks like Google wants to become an Apple.
I’m not really excited because I’m almost sure this Google’s SoC will have propritary features only available for closed source Google applications.
I’m excited in the sense that Google SOC may mean more performant, lower cost chromebooks in the future. I wouldn’t mind having a M1 class processor in a chromebook for $500. If for no other reason to avoid the Apple BS that is likely present in the M1 Macs.
I’d be interested to see if they release something like the RPi or Hardkernel dev boards.
I’d trust Apple more then Google. Chrome is also cross-plarform, so people can let Google surveil them regardless of platform. Equal opportunity. 🙂 At least of other platforms, Chrome can be uninstalled.
It’s as if Google has to compete with the Samsungs and Nokias out there now that they have their own smartphone division, otherwise their smartphone division will become a permanent money hole.
This dilemma has been backed into Android since day 1: Let the OEMs have complete control over Android or compete with them?
Depends if the Pixel is on a market segment the OEM aren’t. Google is free to fidget with smartphones, at least as a real life experimentation to anticipate the needs of OEM/consumers.
I thought that pixel and nexus before it were to provide leadership where Google thought it was lacking. I’m not sure if that’s really true, and there are so few big mainstream OEMs left, with just Samsung, Sony, and Motorola? LG ‘s gone as is HTC. I think they need enough marketshare to demonstrate the viability of their plans for Android, but probably don’t care too much if its a loss leader. They’ll need it if they try the fusia switchover they seem to be eying.
They were mostly sane devices for app development. They were also pretty good for ROM development, but I’m not sure if that was intended or not.
They don’t want to become Apple, but they should have become vertically integrated. That was obvious very early on, and they even admitted as much with the Nexus line. They want to be Microsoft, but they can’t because all of their partners dropped out, not that they brought much value to begin with.
The Android market is Samsung and Chinese brands.
For all intents and purposes, Samsung is Android. People in the US buy Samsung devices, which coincidentally run Android. The Android brand is secondary, and that’s not good for Google’s brand. It’s dangerous in fact. If Samsung hardware is the only thing which Android runs on, Samsung effectively owns Android, and they drive the boat rather then Google.
Google can’t let the the Chinese companies become the dominant hardware manufactures. One, geopolitics. US and US allies are intent on making China the next great boogy monster, which means all sorts of supply disruptions whenever some politician needs a ratings boost. As we saw with Trump.
The Chinese also have the will and skill to fork Android and its ecosystem cutting Google out. They make nice ROMs. Really nice ROMs. When I was into Android, I tried Cyanogen and a others. MIUI was the best. The US based ROMs were pretty rough, but MIUI was really polished and complete. Add in Alibaba and Tencent who can provide compute resources and the Chinese desire to become independent of western chips, and they have a complete stack which can replace Google, Qualcomm, et al.
Between Samsung and Chinese OEMs, Google doesn’t have much of a choice but to vertically integrate.
Plus, Google can now extract more value out of the SoC the way Apple does. I also don’t see Qualcomm having the necessary expertise to develop modern phone, desktop, or server SoCs.
I think they missed an opportunity when they didn’t use the Nexus brand for their SoC.