Google Pixel Fold ... I don't even have to say "leaked". Of course it leaked.

[Senzelian]

Summary

 

Jon Prosser leaked once again all the details of an upcoming smartphone release by Google in a video posted on Front Page Tech YouTube channel.

This time it's about the upcoming Google Pixel Fold, which is of course Google's first foldable smartphone.

 

• 256GB $1799
• 512GB $1919

 

April 26th Pixel Fold Teaser

May 10th Pre-Order (Google Store only)

May 30th Pre-Order (Carriers)

June 27th Available

 

When pre-ordering a Fold Google will also send you a Pixel Watch

 

 

Specs

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Fingerprint Sensor integrated into the power button)

 

 

 

Quotes

Quote

As for battery they're calling it a beyond 24 hour battery life and up to 72 hours with an extreme battery saver.

 

 

My thoughts

The Google Pixel Fold "leaked" entirely. Who saw that coming? 

I want one, but it's simply too expensive. Usually I'd be the first one to pre-order this thing, but not at that price, even with the included Pixel Watch. Compared to this my Pixel 7 Pro looks cheap lol

 

Also one thing is weird about this. Why does it apparently only record at 4K 30? The Pixel 7 Pro can do 4K 60.

 

 

Sources

 

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Why does it apparently only record at 4K 30

DLC

[SorryBella]

10 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Who saw that coming? 

Im sick and tired of Google Pixel marketing team being so creatively bankrupt that theyd rather just let their lawyer on euthanasia over leaks and hope the news circulation fishes around every day. Which of course they fucking do.

[Senzelian]

15 minutes ago, SorryClaire said:

Im sick and tired of Google Pixel marketing team being so creatively bankrupt that theyd rather just let their lawyer on euthanasia over leaks and hope the news circulation fishes around every day. Which of course they fucking do.

What's the difference? At this point "leaked" just means "official announcement". Who cares what they call it.

[Doobeedoo]

Price of flagship slab phones is insane already, these foldables go even beyond that, with not always top specs, smaller battery, thicker, just for larger display. Really only beneficial to those that live on a phone be it for job or such.

Slabs for me. Also Google better increase their Android upgrade support.

[dizmo]

That looks perfect for a folder. I'm hoping with the bigger players starting to push into the space, Samsung will be forced to find a way to incorporate the SPen into their Fold to make it stand out more. 

 

Also very curious how this phone will fare; Google doesn't have the best track record with hardware. 

 

When it's time to renew my contract it looks like there will be lots of tasty options! 

[WolframaticAlpha]

3 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

Google better increase their Android upgrade support.

I mean 3 mainline + 5 years of security updates are good enough in my opinion.

[Doobeedoo]

7 minutes ago, WolframaticAlpha said:

I mean 3 mainline + 5 years of security updates are good enough in my opinion.

It's really not. Especially coming from Google that own Android and we have couple of brands offering 4 years of upgrades already for some time. It's embarrassing for them.

For how much phones cost, they should be supported longer. 

[TetraSky]

6 hours ago, Senzelian said:

• 256GB $1799
• 512GB $1919

Jesus...  The pixel 7 Pro 256GB is $849 USD right now.

This is over double the price... They are charging the price of 2 phones, just for a screen that folds.

It's the same price as Samsung's Fold 4 and the rumored price of the Fold 5 as well. 

And here I thought Google Pixel lineup were flagship phones for less than the competition... I guess Google gave up on that.

[Senzelian]

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

It's really not.

Honest question; why?

 

1 hour ago, Doobeedoo said:

It's embarrassing for them.

I don't think they feel embarrassed. They know their market really well and understand that people upgrade their phones within 5 years anyway. Why should they spend additional money to support them for longer? From a purely profit-driven standpoint, it would be embarrassing for Google to support a device for longer than 5 years.

[tim0901]

7 hours ago, Senzelian said:

 

When pre-ordering a Fold Google will also send you a Pixel Watch

I guess I can give up on my hope for a Pixel Watch 2 this year...

[Doobeedoo]

7 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I don't think they feel embarrassed. They know their market really well and understand that people upgrade their phones within 5 years anyway. Why should they spend additional money to support them for longer? From a purely profit-driven standpoint, it would be embarrassing for Google to support a device for longer than 5 years.

They should, because that is straight up not caring, slacking. Especially at this point in time, where Samsung offered more support than Google for years now, even some other brands are offering more. Not going to support such absolute planned obsolescence from a company that owns Android and can easily update longer and faster. I know phone is not useless if it's not on latest version, but still, criteria change and it's about time. Aside from basic clean OS and decent camera, it's still very pricey phone in the end for what it is.

 

And I'm not convinced Google phone users upgrade as often as some other that also buy lower range phones. It's an nonsensical argument saying it's straight up profit driven since it doesn't really hold up, just looking at say Samsung and Apple too, their phones are worth more and even more with longer software support. To add, Google each phone has QC issues and offer still less vs others in same price.

[Senzelian]

42 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

They should, because that is straight up not caring, slacking. Especially at this point in time, where Samsung offered more support than Google for years now, even some other brands are offering more. Not going to support such absolute planned obsolescence from a company that owns Android and can easily update longer and faster. I know phone is not useless if it's not on latest version, but still, criteria change and it's about time. Aside from basic clean OS and decent camera, it's still very pricey phone in the end for what it is.

You're giving me moral reasons, but no relevant reasons. Morals don't matter here. Imagine I'm Google and you now need to sell me the idea of longer software support. How would you do it? I don't think anyone can argue for that.

 

42 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

And I'm not convinced Google phone users upgrade as often as some other that also buy lower range phones. It's an nonsensical argument saying it's straight up profit driven since it doesn't really hold up, just looking at say Samsung and Apple too, their phones are worth more and even more with longer software support. To add, Google each phone has QC issues and offer still less vs others in same price.

Potentially upsetting Samsung by competing with them, is exactly one of the reasons to not increase support. Competition with Samsung and potentially losing a contract with them is exactly the sort of profit-driven argument Google would bring forward to investors. Keep in mind Samsung is Google's largest partner and without Samsung, Pixel wouldn't even be a thing. Google and Samsung probably don't even see each other as competitors. The relatively small number of Pixels sold does not harm Samsung's business. It probably helps them more than it causes damage, as they're the ones developing most of the hardware for Google. Each Pixel sold is profit for Samsung and each Galaxy sold is profit for Google.

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised that the 5 years of OS updates for Samsung Galaxy devices are developed and delivered by Google and that both companies signed a contract for Google to specifically not update their OS on Pixel for more than 3 years. That is exactly the kind of anti-competitive behavior I would expect from these two companies.

[Doobeedoo]

7 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

You're giving me moral reasons, but no relevant reasons. Morals don't matter here. Imagine I'm Google and you now need to sell me the idea of longer software support. How would you do it? I don't think anyone can argue for that.

It's not even morals per say, but straight up that they're Google and they're trying to have an ecosystem here. So yeah, really also just straight up market share of theirs is horrible vs others, straight up facts, there I'm selling you the very obvious one, which other brands realized brings recognition and strengthens the brand and value.

7 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Potentially upsetting Samsung by competing with them, is exactly one of the reasons to not increase support. Competition with Samsung and potentially losing a contract with them is exactly the sort of profit-driven argument Google would bring forward to investors. Keep in mind Samsung is Google's largest partner and without Samsung, Pixel wouldn't even be a thing. Google and Samsung probably don't even see each other as competitors. The relatively small number of Pixels sold does not harm Samsung's business. It probably helps them more than it causes damage, as they're the ones developing most of the hardware for Google. Each Pixel sold is profit for Samsung and each Galaxy sold is profit for Google.

 

I honestly wouldn't be surprised that the 5 years of OS updates for Samsung Galaxy devices are developed and delivered by Google and that both companies signed a contract for Google to specifically not update their OS on Pixel for more than 3 years. That is exactly the kind of anti-competitive behavior I would expect from these two companies.

That's just not true, nor how it really works. Google had longer support way back that was longer than others so... Also extending software support doesn't cost as much, especially for Google of such size. Samsung would kill them selves ditching Google really. Not sure what you mean Pixel wouldn't be a thing without Samsung. Really they were HTC phones.

They're still both selling Android phones, so really more cleaner OS without nonsense is always a win. Google can always opt to use a different chip anyway.

 

Yeah I don't buy that, also Samsung still needs to be the one that works on extra on top and delivers new software too, it's not like Google sends them new version and Samsung just insta ports their skin and done, no. It's really on to Samsung and more so on Qualcomm too how much support can be done for a given generation. Such contract you mentioned would be ridiculous really. Maybe if it was reverse I could even see it...

 

We will see with next phones if they'll change their mind.

[dizmo]

8 hours ago, TetraSky said:

Jesus...  The pixel 7 Pro 256GB is $849 USD right now.

This is over double the price... They are charging the price of 2 phones, just for a screen that folds.

It's the same price as Samsung's Fold 4 and the rumored price of the Fold 5 as well. 

And here I thought Google Pixel lineup were flagship phones for less than the competition... I guess Google gave up on that.

I think it shows just how much it costs to manufacture these phones more than anything. There is WAY more going on with these than a simple slab phone, and it's their first, so a lot of R&D expense gets loaded onto the cost of these devices. On top of that, they're being smart and realizing that they're not going to sell many. Thus, higher cost. 

7 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Honest question; why?

 

I don't think they feel embarrassed. They know their market really well and understand that people upgrade their phones within 5 years anyway. Why should they spend additional money to support them for longer? From a purely profit-driven standpoint, it would be embarrassing for Google to support a device for longer than 5 years.

While I agree, I also think that it's super easy for a company that only puts out two devices a year to offer a bit more support. I'd like to see 5 OS and 7 Security since it's a Google branded OS.

6 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

They should, because that is straight up not caring, slacking. Especially at this point in time, where Samsung offered more support than Google for years now, even some other brands are offering more. Not going to support such absolute planned obsolescence from a company that owns Android and can easily update longer and faster. I know phone is not useless if it's not on latest version, but still, criteria change and it's about time. Aside from basic clean OS and decent camera, it's still very pricey phone in the end for what it is.

 

And I'm not convinced Google phone users upgrade as often as some other that also buy lower range phones. It's an nonsensical argument saying it's straight up profit driven since it doesn't really hold up, just looking at say Samsung and Apple too, their phones are worth more and even more with longer software support. To add, Google each phone has QC issues and offer still less vs others in same price.

Ehhh saying it's profit driven isn't nonsensical at all. You have someone do work it costs you money. That eats into profit, either directly, through lost potential costs, or both. 

[Senzelian]

6 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I also think that it's super easy for a company that only puts out two devices a year to offer a bit more support. I'd like to see 5 OS and 7 Security since it's a Google branded OS.

Yeah I also would like to see more and I agree it's probably incredibly easy. But even "incredibly easy" can be too much when all you really want to do is "nothing".

[williamcll]

Would want to see the performance spec on that new tensor.

[Senzelian]

7 hours ago, williamcll said:

Would want to see the performance spec on that new tensor.

It's not going the be groundbreaking. That's pretty much for sure.

[Doobeedoo]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

Ehhh saying it's profit driven isn't nonsensical at all. You have someone do work it costs you money. That eats into profit, either directly, through lost potential costs, or both. 

There's more to it though, because long-term wise it would be beneficial profit wise. Just simply from that there would be more sales. 

[suicidalfranco]

Why would anyone pick this over a galaxy fold is beyond me. Only time it would make sense is if that one buying it loves playing russian roulette

[AnonymousGuy]

$1800 is dead on arrival.  It could be $900 and probably still wouldn't sell, cause it needs to be priced like a novelty which it is.

[Senzelian]

1 hour ago, suicidalfranco said:

Why would anyone pick this over a galaxy fold is beyond me.

Why not? What does the Galaxy offer that the Pixel doesn't?

[HenrySalayne]

Thank you, Google. Not for this device, but for all the design improvements we will probably see on phone-tablet hybrid applications. This could be a big W just for Android in general.

[suicidalfranco]

54 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

Why not? What does the Galaxy offer that the Pixel doesn't?

Mature platform entering it's 5th iteration.

What does the Pixel lack?

Looking at past pixels up to the 7, QA.

 

[Senzelian]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

Mature platform entering it's 5th iteration.

What does the Pixel lack?

Looking at past pixels up to the 7, QA.

 

Did/Do you own a Galaxy or a Pixel? I had both and QA-wise there is no difference. Both have issues. I hear the same from colleagues and my workplace. We have over 5000 Pixels and Galaxys deployed at work as of right now. Starting from Galaxy S20 and Pixel 5 to S22 Ultra / Fold 3 and Pixel 7 Pro.

 

The hardware is likely made by Samsung themselves and the software and the optimizations that foldables, especially those from Samsung, have recently received come from Google.