6 ms·

They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive. So basically they say don't buy it, wait fo

They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive. So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.

grapheneos 1mo ago
Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.
- yaro330 1mo ago
  > Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU You keep repeating this everywhere but this is just plainly wrong. They went from an old big.Little (with middle cores) arrangement that everyone abandoned for flagship chips generations ago, with core arches that were 2-3 generations behind competition, to a modern, up to date arrangement. There's literally nothing newer that they could've gotten from Arm, and other CPUs are releasing with C1 generation. And I don't get your angle on the GPU. GOS is not gaming oriented, Pixels are not gaming oriented, and never were. They have a decent NPU to handle AI, a decent ISP to handle cameras, what more do you need the GPU for? Why would they put in a PC grade monster like Qualcomm? Same for the modem, it's well known that Qualcomm are way ahead of the game, but they also charge like crazy for their SOCs and are a horrific partner to work with. They treat clients like shit, I get why Google ditched them when they were able to. And you keep recommending P10 when it's genuinely a non improvement over P9, with worse battery life and running hotter, and the same modem. What the f is your angle? Is Micay back to GOS?
  - kqp 1mo ago
    The CPU is 10-15% faster, that’s incremental in use even if it’s technically interesting. Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. You can play the “they’re dumb and I just won’t use them” game, but not everybody has your priorities, and it’s a relevant factor either way. The modem comment, likewise, is simply correct, and evaluating performance is good even when shortcomings are understandable. They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”.
    - yaro330 1mo ago
      > Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. GPU is barely used in non-3D applications. My OP15 runs normal apps and websites just as well as my Pixel 10 Pro did. Speedometer 3.1 returns 10% higher scores in favour of the OP, even though it has the latest and greatest qcom chip. UI experience is all about scheduler tuning, drawing pipeline optimizations and (to a much lesser degree) single core performance. Anything above Cortex X1 can have perfect 120 fps anywhere, without a major energy penalty, if the software is well optimized. I know because we did experiments like that when I was still doing custom Android kernels. Not a single time did we need to do anything to the GPU, most of the time it's in 2D clocks and never wakes up. > They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”. Not my question. I get why P10 was supported, I don't get why it's recommended by the person running the account, when it's objectively just a more expensive P9 with worse battery life and running warmer.
      - grapheneos 1mo ago
        Pixel 10a is the most recently released recommended device. It has the same SoC as the 9th generation Pixels with a far better cellular radio than the Pixel 9a. Pixel 9 to Pixel 10 had a bigger incremental CPU upgrade than the Pixel 10 to Pixel 11. GPU was initially a downgrade due to poor drivers but that was resolved already. Pixel 10 has various small but significant security advantages over the Pixel 9. Pixel 11 would similarly have small security advantages if they hadn't ruined the overall security by removing MTE. We definitely do want better CPU, GPU and radio performance for flagship devices and haven't been happy with those on Pixels. It doesn't outweigh security updates and security features but it matters to us. We're going to be a lot happier with a next gen flagship Snapdragon SoC for many reasons.
Limit5332 1mo ago
They have their reasons. Pixels are only getting worse and worse after the 9
- hypercube33 1mo ago
  IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6. They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
  - grapheneos 1mo ago
    They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple and then sold it to Lenovo. They're doing quite well internationally but haven't been a big brand in the US for a while. Their flagship phones are going to have GrapheneOS as a selling point soon and we'll hopefully be able to expand beyond the high end over the next couple years.
    - GeekyBear 1mo ago
      > They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple By Apple, you mean Microsoft. The early Android device makers had to pay a per device patent licensing fee to Microsoft. Google sued Microsoft for massive amounts of money using video standards essential patents they purchased from Motorola, but it didn't work out well for them in court. https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feabdc0?syn-25a6b1a6=1 https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feab...
      - grapheneos 1mo ago
        Apple was actively going after Android OEMs including Samsung too. We did mean Apple but Microsoft was also relevant. The point was that they primarily bought Motorola Mobility to strip mine it for patents.

They also say that the Pixel 11 is a very very tiny improvement wrt the Pixel 10, with less RAM and more expensive. So basically they say don't buy it, wait for the Motorola phones.

grapheneos 1mo ago

Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU, the same underpowered GPU and less RAM for the base Pro models. It has a new major version of the secure element (Titan M3) which likely greatly improves Before First Unlock state security for users without a strong passphrase. It has a better radio from a performance and efficiency perspective but it's still a more than yearly generation behind Qualcomm. The cellular radio firmware is also likely a security downgrade but the userspace code is more secure due to moving to AOSP IMS code. If these devices hadn't removed MTE, then they would have been a sidegrade with marginally better security. Removing MTE ruins these devices for GrapheneOS. We could still support the Pixel 11 series but it would be greatly rolling back overall security to before the Pixel 8. It does at least have PAC and BTI but MTE was the main improvement with the Pixel 8 rather than those.

yaro330 1mo ago
> Pixel 11 has an incremental upgrade to the CPU You keep repeating this everywhere but this is just plainly wrong. They went from an old big.Little (with middle cores) arrangement that everyone abandoned for flagship chips generations ago, with core arches that were 2-3 generations behind competition, to a modern, up to date arrangement. There's literally nothing newer that they could've gotten from Arm, and other CPUs are releasing with C1 generation. And I don't get your angle on the GPU. GOS is not gaming oriented, Pixels are not gaming oriented, and never were. They have a decent NPU to handle AI, a decent ISP to handle cameras, what more do you need the GPU for? Why would they put in a PC grade monster like Qualcomm? Same for the modem, it's well known that Qualcomm are way ahead of the game, but they also charge like crazy for their SOCs and are a horrific partner to work with. They treat clients like shit, I get why Google ditched them when they were able to. And you keep recommending P10 when it's genuinely a non improvement over P9, with worse battery life and running hotter, and the same modem. What the f is your angle? Is Micay back to GOS?
- kqp 1mo ago
  The CPU is 10-15% faster, that’s incremental in use even if it’s technically interesting. Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. You can play the “they’re dumb and I just won’t use them” game, but not everybody has your priorities, and it’s a relevant factor either way. The modem comment, likewise, is simply correct, and evaluating performance is good even when shortcomings are understandable. They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”.
  - yaro330 1mo ago
    > Lots of apps and websites only run smoothly on newer GPUs, too. GPU is barely used in non-3D applications. My OP15 runs normal apps and websites just as well as my Pixel 10 Pro did. Speedometer 3.1 returns 10% higher scores in favour of the OP, even though it has the latest and greatest qcom chip. UI experience is all about scheduler tuning, drawing pipeline optimizations and (to a much lesser degree) single core performance. Anything above Cortex X1 can have perfect 120 fps anywhere, without a major energy penalty, if the software is well optimized. I know because we did experiments like that when I was still doing custom Android kernels. Not a single time did we need to do anything to the GPU, most of the time it's in 2D clocks and never wakes up. > They supported Pixel 10 because they supported every new Pixel that wasn’t a security downgrade and shortly preceding a better alternative. The logic isn’t “performance bad therefore no upgrade”, it’s “no upgrade for a bunch of other reasons, and it’s not like we’re missing out on a 3x performance improvement”. Not my question. I get why P10 was supported, I don't get why it's recommended by the person running the account, when it's objectively just a more expensive P9 with worse battery life and running warmer.
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      Pixel 10a is the most recently released recommended device. It has the same SoC as the 9th generation Pixels with a far better cellular radio than the Pixel 9a. Pixel 9 to Pixel 10 had a bigger incremental CPU upgrade than the Pixel 10 to Pixel 11. GPU was initially a downgrade due to poor drivers but that was resolved already. Pixel 10 has various small but significant security advantages over the Pixel 9. Pixel 11 would similarly have small security advantages if they hadn't ruined the overall security by removing MTE. We definitely do want better CPU, GPU and radio performance for flagship devices and haven't been happy with those on Pixels. It doesn't outweigh security updates and security features but it matters to us. We're going to be a lot happier with a next gen flagship Snapdragon SoC for many reasons.

Limit5332 1mo ago

They have their reasons. Pixels are only getting worse and worse after the 9

hypercube33 1mo ago
IMO they peaked with the Nexus 6 - camera has gotten worse and they make up with it in software or try to. You could and can see this at night or stacked shots in N6 vs pixel 4,5,6. They bought the best phone hardware and software companies (Motorola and Android) and gutted them both.
- grapheneos 1mo ago
  They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple and then sold it to Lenovo. They're doing quite well internationally but haven't been a big brand in the US for a while. Their flagship phones are going to have GrapheneOS as a selling point soon and we'll hopefully be able to expand beyond the high end over the next couple years.
  - GeekyBear 1mo ago
    > They purchased Motorola Mobility for the patent portfolio as essentially a nuclear deterrent against Apple By Apple, you mean Microsoft. The early Android device makers had to pay a per device patent licensing fee to Microsoft. Google sued Microsoft for massive amounts of money using video standards essential patents they purchased from Motorola, but it didn't work out well for them in court. https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feabdc0?syn-25a6b1a6=1 https://www.ft.com/content/46d36fce-15c6-11e3-950a-00144feab...
    - grapheneos 1mo ago
      Apple was actively going after Android OEMs including Samsung too. We did mean Apple but Microsoft was also relevant. The point was that they primarily bought Motorola Mobility to strip mine it for patents.