4 ms·

> Ultimately, the company that won this argument was Apple. We know this because Google has finally adopted this truth that Apple knew all along with the Pixel

> Ultimately, the company that won this argument was Apple. We know this because Google has finally adopted this truth that Apple knew all along with the Pixel hardware lineup. I'm not convinced that Pixel hardware is anything other than reference designs: each device is developed from a clean slate and none sell in appreciable numbers > Samsung phones are about the Samsung ecosystem. What Samsung ecosystem? Samsung makes fantastic stand-alone hardware, but it's no ecosystem. No one buys Samsung earbuds because they work particularly well with the Galaxy 22, or their calendar and music are already integrated with Bixby

akiselev 4y ago
Does Google make the design files for the Pixel phones available to Android partners under NDA? The value of a reference design is basically zero without the schematics/layout and BSP. Or do you just mean upstreaming BSP drivers?
- nine_k 4y ago
  Schematics can be reverse-engineered in a few days, I suspect; there's no point to hide it. The interesting part is the choice of components, the rationale behind that choice, and the software support. I suppose that Google makes available the Android OS with support for all the new capabilities as they emerge (OLED, NFC, fingerprint scanners, etc) which OEMs can leverage with their hardware and closed-source software (both apps and drivers). The Pixel line is the Google's vision of the platform, with Google's control over hardware implementation and a commitment to support it (longer than many OEMs but not nearly as great as iPhones).
  - akiselev 4y ago
    “Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing. Reverse engineering 10-20 layer mixed signal PCBs with buried microvias is nontrivial and is the exact opposite of what reference designs are supposed to be.
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > “Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing. Root comment author here: I used the term mostly in mockery of the hobby-level effort Google has put into Pixel in the past. However, when it cones to Android devices the lines are blurred between "reference design" and "competitor flagship". Consider: * Android's roadmap is controlled by Google, which decides which features go into the next release. Once those features are in the codebase, they can be used by any OEM * OHA OEMs get early access to upcoming Android versions and work with Google * Android devices share the same set of suppliers for sensors/chips/SoC/modems: this is highly commoditized. Once the API & drivers for a feature are there, any OEM will have an easier time implementing it; perhaps choosing a different part number in the same product line. So Google in not sharing its circuit diagrams & CAD files, but the OEMs don't have to reverse-engineer anything post-release either. The reality is someplace inbetween: cooperative development
enos_feedler 4y ago
I assume people who own samsung phones and want a smartwatch buy a galaxy watch and not an apple watch. Or am I wrong about this?
- sangnoir 4y ago
  A person who owns a Samsung phone gets the same functionality from any Wear OS watch, of which the Galaxy watch is one of many (the Pixel watch is just as compatible with their phone as a Galaxy watch). Google owns the ecosystem, Samsung has to rely on brand loyalty - not an ecosystem, because it doesn't have one, despite its years-long efforts (Samsung app Store, Bixby, and other duplicates to Google's services)
  - enos_feedler 4y ago
    I think Samsung has a lot more power than you are suggesting here. Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV. As for wearOS I see your point with Google owning this compatibility layer, but it doesn’t carry much weight when there are a mere handful of devices to mix and match with. There is just not much leverage created out of spending the time and effort to make the ecosystem. How many combinations of Android TV products pair up with Android phones?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      > Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV. This is mostly hypothetical - does Samsung actually do that in practice? I haven't heard of anyone using -, nor am I aware of Samsung publicizing any such unifying services. I own several Samsung devices, and have a Samsung account, and it is something of an annoyance to use. The power/potential is there no doubt, but services aren't a Samsung core competency.
enos_feedler 4y ago
Pixel is not reference design. If you go any major city with mass transit, you’ll notice that Google has absolutely taken over physical advertising space with Pixel 7 spots. Watch any NBA game and you’ll see the same thing. I understand why one would bucket Pixel hardware into that old played out “reference hardware”. That has been Google’s approach over the years. But herein lies my point: Google has changed their tune. The top brass have now bought into the integration of hw, sw and services ecosystem that Apple had set out with from the get go. This isn’t some Googler asking Sundar for budget so they can make some vanilla smartphone. This is Sundar putting a stake in the ground with real long term budget to saying: 10 years from now, if we continue to execute on pixel, the US market and perhaps more will be a healthier mix of Apple and Google phones. And I think a reasonable target is like 2:1 iphone to Pixel. Given the importance of the phone as the primary computing device in peoples lives and the amount of profit Google draws in from consumer computing activity, and the lack of leverage Google really has over other OEMs phones, it is super important for Google to eventually hit something like 2 iphones to 1 pixel in sales. Its no a long shot either. With enough money and time this will happen.

akiselev 4y ago

Does Google make the design files for the Pixel phones available to Android partners under NDA? The value of a reference design is basically zero without the schematics/layout and BSP. Or do you just mean upstreaming BSP drivers?

nine_k 4y ago
Schematics can be reverse-engineered in a few days, I suspect; there's no point to hide it. The interesting part is the choice of components, the rationale behind that choice, and the software support. I suppose that Google makes available the Android OS with support for all the new capabilities as they emerge (OLED, NFC, fingerprint scanners, etc) which OEMs can leverage with their hardware and closed-source software (both apps and drivers). The Pixel line is the Google's vision of the platform, with Google's control over hardware implementation and a commitment to support it (longer than many OEMs but not nearly as great as iPhones).
- akiselev 4y ago
  “Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing. Reverse engineering 10-20 layer mixed signal PCBs with buried microvias is nontrivial and is the exact opposite of what reference designs are supposed to be.
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > “Reference design” is a term of art in electrical engineering, not aspirational product marketing. Root comment author here: I used the term mostly in mockery of the hobby-level effort Google has put into Pixel in the past. However, when it cones to Android devices the lines are blurred between "reference design" and "competitor flagship". Consider: * Android's roadmap is controlled by Google, which decides which features go into the next release. Once those features are in the codebase, they can be used by any OEM * OHA OEMs get early access to upcoming Android versions and work with Google * Android devices share the same set of suppliers for sensors/chips/SoC/modems: this is highly commoditized. Once the API & drivers for a feature are there, any OEM will have an easier time implementing it; perhaps choosing a different part number in the same product line. So Google in not sharing its circuit diagrams & CAD files, but the OEMs don't have to reverse-engineer anything post-release either. The reality is someplace inbetween: cooperative development

enos_feedler 4y ago

I assume people who own samsung phones and want a smartwatch buy a galaxy watch and not an apple watch. Or am I wrong about this?

sangnoir 4y ago
A person who owns a Samsung phone gets the same functionality from any Wear OS watch, of which the Galaxy watch is one of many (the Pixel watch is just as compatible with their phone as a Galaxy watch). Google owns the ecosystem, Samsung has to rely on brand loyalty - not an ecosystem, because it doesn't have one, despite its years-long efforts (Samsung app Store, Bixby, and other duplicates to Google's services)
- enos_feedler 4y ago
  I think Samsung has a lot more power than you are suggesting here. Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV. As for wearOS I see your point with Google owning this compatibility layer, but it doesn’t carry much weight when there are a mere handful of devices to mix and match with. There is just not much leverage created out of spending the time and effort to make the ecosystem. How many combinations of Android TV products pair up with Android phones?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    > Samsung is what ties together a Windows Laptop, an Android phone and a Tizen TV. This is mostly hypothetical - does Samsung actually do that in practice? I haven't heard of anyone using -, nor am I aware of Samsung publicizing any such unifying services. I own several Samsung devices, and have a Samsung account, and it is something of an annoyance to use. The power/potential is there no doubt, but services aren't a Samsung core competency.

enos_feedler 4y ago

Pixel is not reference design. If you go any major city with mass transit, you’ll notice that Google has absolutely taken over physical advertising space with Pixel 7 spots. Watch any NBA game and you’ll see the same thing. I understand why one would bucket Pixel hardware into that old played out “reference hardware”. That has been Google’s approach over the years. But herein lies my point: Google has changed their tune. The top brass have now bought into the integration of hw, sw and services ecosystem that Apple had set out with from the get go. This isn’t some Googler asking Sundar for budget so they can make some vanilla smartphone. This is Sundar putting a stake in the ground with real long term budget to saying: 10 years from now, if we continue to execute on pixel, the US market and perhaps more will be a healthier mix of Apple and Google phones. And I think a reasonable target is like 2:1 iphone to Pixel. Given the importance of the phone as the primary computing device in peoples lives and the amount of profit Google draws in from consumer computing activity, and the lack of leverage Google really has over other OEMs phones, it is super important for Google to eventually hit something like 2 iphones to 1 pixel in sales. Its no a long shot either. With enough money and time this will happen.