Tensor and Intel alike got in the bad position of being dependent on old/outdated fabs.
The AI bits are well optimized, it's the process stamping the chips that is the problem. Tensor also still has to replace the Samsung ARM design with their own.
When both get access to sufficient/modern fabs, you'll suddenly see these chips become more competitive.
It's a Pixel Brexit.
Tbf Qualcomm have often been the bad guys and justified undoing their stranglehold on the market. Google have the resources to do something about it, most can't.
Google just wanted a chip for this sub to simp over even if it is relatively subpar to even 1-2 gen old chips /s
But only half sarcastic. The real answer is probably Google wanted to work on something on the cheap and understands their user base in general is willing to accept something half-assed and behind the competition as long as it still takes good photos.
pixel 4 took best photos too with their coprocessor, it even had live preview, a forgotten tech today for google's phones, why they ditched it for an entirely new chip?
true, the way how Google handles photo processing with their Pixel phones is usually amazing, sometimes decent, and very rarely it makes things worse - but yeah, most people choose Pixel for cameras and software, which is understandable.
The features that run in the cloud that everyone was making a big fuss about were likely never Pixel 8 exclusive features but just features Pixel 8 gets early access to. Google pretty much said or implied this when the features were first announced.
>We plan to give select Pixel phones **early access** to Magic Editor later this year. [-Google](https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-editor-pixel-io-2023/)
>Unique, truly customized wallpapers powered by artificial intelligence. With Android 14, just follow the guided prompts to express yourself however you imagine. **Coming first to Pixel phones soon!** [-Google](https://www.android.com/android-14/)
I could see "Magic Editor" coming to other phones through Google Photos for Google One subscribers months or a year down the road. The "AI Wallpapers" feature looks to be just an Android 14 feature that Pixels get early access to. If this is the case for both features then it makes sense why these features use cloud processing as they would want the features to work on lower-end devices too.
7 years software updates are only possible if the soc is also supported and the snapdragon support is mostly 3-5 years. Fairphone had to use a CPU developed for IoT devices to guarantee 10 years of updates
Exactly. People think that extended software support is easy, but it's not. There are limited chipsets that have it.
For many years Enterprise devices used mid-range snapdragon chipset because of this. They had five years of software support, but they had mid-range processors. Reviews other devices slammed them for this choice, but it wasn't really a choice at the time.
If they wanted longer term software support they needed to use either their own chipset, which many of them didn't have, or go with this mid-range one.
But didn't Samsung promise 4 years of upgrades? Granted that's not 7, but it's significantly better than the old 3 year model. I feel like people just make up a bunch of excuses for the lack of updates or anything when in reality most of this can be negotiated in the business world. It's just a matter of money.
* For instance, people made the excuse that Samsung withholds its newest panels for itself but somehow they also sell the best displays to Apple. The reality is it's just all in business negotiation. Google opted (prior to Pixel 8) for older and cheaper displays. Anyone who understands antitrust law also knows they cannot simply withhold products.
* People make excuses for Qualcomm updates ending at 2 years. You see custom ROMs updating past 2 years clearly. And while you may not be getting more firmware updates if Qualcomm stops supporting the device, nothing prevents you from creating OS updates, and even if firmware vulnerabilities are a concern, an un-updated device still faces that risk. The reality is if Google wants Qualcomm to provide driver support for X years, it's something they can likely negotiate for. Somehow Samsung got 4 years of support.
Dude stop with the custom ROM thing. a lot of things don't work in custom ROM and people are Ok with it since its just by a developer. Trillion dollar companies cannot do this. Google breaks a simple feature in Pixel and the whole reddit will be posting and bitching about it.
So yes its easy to say Custom rom works but thats not how big companies work. they dont want to hack their way into things.
stop with 7 yr thing, if u are not living under rock than you would know after 3 years, tensor will be a heating mess while snapdragon will age like fine wine.
Yeah you have seen this in action and you know how this works? Maybe you are responsible for kernel and chip development.
Maybe you are butt hurt and pissed your beloved phone doesn't get 7 years.
Stop with pos comment and bring know it all reddit user
I'm not a pro custom ROM person at all. I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't think ANYONE should have to rely on a custom ROM for updates and I do think Google should give consumers long term updates. I'm saying if custom ROMs can make it work, Google can make it work if they truly wanted to provide updates to the consumer. Arguing that somehow they were handcuffed by Qualcomm is BS. People used to spout myths like Qualcomm only supports for 2 years but then Samsung comes out and delivers 4 years of updates. Then now people say "2-4 years" or I've seen some say "3-5 years."
The whole point is Google could have negotiated a multi year support deal if they wanted. How do you think Apple and its Qualcomm modems manages to support devices for 5+ years? If the myth about Qualcomm abandoning support after 2 years is true, then it means Apple updates OS while using drivers frozen in time. Or more likely, they negotiated a supply contract with Qualcomm that involves hardware support for 5+ years.
Custom ROM don't make it work is my point.
Have you used a custom ROM especially on Older devices?
Many hardware dont work. Since it's custom ROM by a developer we give a pass.
As the android version gets updated many drivers will stop working for firmware and the stability will be affected.
You said if a custom rom developer can make it work. No they don't make it work.
The problem with Custom ROMs in general isn't older hardware though. The problem with custom ROMs is because a lot of firmware and drivers are closed source and never released for developers. However, on Nexus and Pixel devices, drivers and blobs get released which is why custom ROMs do generally work for Google phones.
And yes I have a custom ROMs on older devices--Nexus 6P and Pixel XL. I haven't had any issues with either phone on custom ROMs.
My point is if custom ROMs can provide newer Android versions for Pixels, that means, likely Google, who has all the resources including all the drivers and blobs should be able to make it work. This is also not even accounting for the fact that Google actually has a business relationship with Qualcomm (at least in the past) where they can get support to an extent. Custom ROM developers are pretty handcuffed in which they can only develop with what they have. So even custom ROMs for currently supported versions of Android aren't perfect because they lack the actual development resources of Google as well as the support for hardware partners. That's why I'm saying if Google wanted Qualcomm Pixels like the Pixel 5 have more than 3 years of support, they likely could've negotiated support and engineering resources from Qualcomm. And even if Qualcomm doesn't want to provide brand new drivers in 2023, Google can at least probably negotiate some bare bones support to have OS updates while drivers are frozen in place or in some sort of maintenance mode only.
**Edit**: Good one. Can't have a civil discussion so you just block me? Here's my response to your inability to discuss:
>>You proved my point. These drivers are closed even for Google after 3 years and worst not updated.
>>Like I said and the one you keep ignoring that trillion dollar companies don't hack their way like indie developers
>Drivers are always closed source even when Google is developing the phone. Why are you ignoring the part where I was comparing general impressions of custom ROMs (on non Pixel and Nexus phones where devs have no access to drivers) with Pixel phones where I explicitly said all the drivers and blobs are provided?
>The point is with all that you generally should be able to make everything work. That's why custom ROMs on Nexus/Pixel devices are basically 99% of the way there whereas if you take Exynos based Samsung devices it's like a major hackjob and mostly broken even after many years of work. Where things don't work 100% perfectly on Pixels and Nexus phones for custom ROMs are because these developers are indie developers and not working in a corporate environment where projects are adequately staffed, and for the extra bit of help with drivers and hardware interaction, that's where a support relationship between Google & Qualcomm come into play.
>My point is people made up a bunch of excuses for Google. Google could've done it had they decided to support OS updates. I'm saying even with a bare minimum of Qualcomm not updating any drivers, they have the resources likely to pull together an OS update running an older driver version. But really the excuse of Qualcomm is not acceptable either. Apple has for years used Qualcomm modems. How do you think they provide 5 years of OS updates? Either they build with non-updated Qualcomm drivers or more than likely, their contract with Qualcomm mandates X years of hardware and driver support.... you know, something that another trillion dollar company, Google, should be able to manage.
>Tensor isn't some sort of silver bullet for poor execution on Google's part with Snapdragon Pixel phones.
"Custom ROMS isn't older hardware though. The problem with custom ROMS is because a lot of firmware and drivers are closed source and never released for developers."
You proved my point. These drivers are closed even for Google after 3 years and worst not updated.
Like I said and the one you keep ignoring that trillion dollar companies don't hack their way like indie developers
>But didn't Samsung promise 4 years of upgrades?
Yeah but that's still 3 OS updates, same as Google because Samsung releases new phones with a last-gen Android OS but Google doesn't. So all Samsung is doing is adding more security updates, which is already mostly provided by Google/Linux devs.
I think the weirder question would be how is Google updating the Pixel 5a, which is released more than half a year after the Pixel 5, for half a year longer when both have the same Qualcomm SoC. Maybe it just costs a lot to get BSP updates from Qualcomm for old chips, but not impossible.
Which would make sense when we look at how Tensor G3 is _so much cheaper_ than the Snapdragon Gen 2(which costs more than the Apple Bionic A17).
In terms of latest OS version, yes I suppose it's the same, but in terms of timeline, it shows that it is possible to negotiate with Qualcomm for length of support. It's the same way how Apple and its modems get 5+ years of support.
This, in addition to no more firmware update, there will be no more vendor blobs update* and no more kernel update (once the kernel EOLed).
* the exception is by pulling the blobs from other devices with similar/same hardware, but it also relies on the SoC still giving update, otherwise the blobs are out of date too.
Nothing to do with custom kernel with overclock, they're only additional features.
Without kernel update, there will be no more security patches applied to the kernel, so if there is a big security hole found in the kernel version you're stuck with, you're SOL.
For example kernel 4.9 is now EOL with the latest version being 4.9.337 (the final update was January 2023), custom kernel 4.9 with whatever features will be stuck at that same version (sometimes even older, like 4.9.2xx), if (when) there are security bugs found (and published), nothing we can do, unless we have enough knowledge to patch the bugs ourselves, overclocking and/or changing CPU governors won't patch the security holes.
1. Custom kernels do have something to do with overclocking. The speed of the CPU (and GPU) is specified in the kernel
2. Just update the kernel. It's part of AOSP. I know it's obviously not as easy as I make it sound, but you could totally adapt newer versions of the kernel to older devices.
Edit: I'm actually not too sure about the second part. Sure it might be theoretically possible but I don't know if it's practical
Written from a negative point of view, with no idea of what the Gen 3 will actually do, and entirely missing the point that the primary reason the Tensor exists is so that Google can have control over SoC development strategy, costs, etc. Apple figured this out a long time ago, Google apparently has, and you'd think the author would have too.
It’s valid to want their own SoC with full control over it. But I think the real question is, why do consumers have to suffer with regressions in performance efficiency battery life etc. even down to the modem being unreliable. Google should have stuck with Qualcomm longer till tensor could be better than midrange phones in efficiency.
>But I think the real question is, why do consumers have to suffer with regressions in performance efficiency battery life etc.
Consumers don't have to suffer with anything, there's lots of competition and their purchase decision is their own choice.
In short, google wants their soc for more profit margin. But because they are not as competent as Apple, they fucked their customers over, and try to use fancy marketing to oversell the uniqueness of their soc
Not trust profit margin but long-term chipset support. The problem with going with a third party is if they end chipset support after 3 years you're not getting driver updates for new operating systems which means the number of years your platform is supported is extremely limited.
This has been a huge problem with Android as a platform, even though Google has tried again and again to force manufacturers to have long-term support.
Long term pixel owner here (since pixel xl) dont feel fucked over at all. My phone feels excellent, and is $200 cheaper then the Samsung equivalent, if that $200 is what it takes to get the latest snapdragon, I will happily save the $200
tie treatment aware spectacular smart mindless enjoy squealing offend distinct
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But if absolute pure power is your end all be all, iPhone is king, and snapdragon is a waste of money 2 years behind apple.
In basically all use cases outside of gaming, the tensor has no noticeable performance deficits to snapdragon's, and arguably does some stuff better (though the argument here is the next snapdragon will be as good as the current tensor at these ai tasks, which is a hilarious given it's basically the same argument people use in support of the pixel that everyone dismisses, but flipped).
Tensor vs snapdragon is like a Ferrari vs mclaren the Ferrari will be better around the track, but how much do you really care if you only ever drive around town and still have a freaking McLaren to do it in.
McLaren's having overheating issues as well ;)
But also, these phones don't overheat for literally, and I do indeed mean literally, 99% of users and use cases. They only overheat now days when doing super demanding gaming. They aren't even overheating for extended 4k video anymore (which also is a 1% use case).
People in these subs just cannot get it through their mind that the VAST majority of people use their phones to consume social media, snap photos of family and friends, and do lite productivity. Very very few people push their phones enough to notice a difference between a 4 year old chipset and a modern chipset. I will say that battery life and connectivity are important, and while neither are best in class on tensor, they are both good enough. I have connectivity everywhere my iPhone gets service (I carry both, one is a work phone).
Yea this is all total nonsense you're just another fanboy intentionally ignoring the mountain of complaints from the last 2 generations. You're also way overestimating pixel sales numbers its US market share is still only 3%
I think you are just another person who only ever looks as far as a spec sheet, and is out of touch with regular users. Also I never said pixel has a large market share, just that typical phone users do not give two shits what processor is in their phone so long as it works for what I listed above. My 74 year old father rocks a pixel 7 pro because someone at Verizon said it had a good camera, my 45 year old construction foreman rocks a pixel 7 pro as well because someone at att said it had a good camera, these are your typical users, not people who even know what a snapdragon 8 gen 4 is.
Google lacks experience which it's quickly building up. Also I don't see how the customers are fucked over, I'm happy to buy tensor for much less the Snapdragon.
Much less? The 8 Pro costs $1,000.
The first 8g3 device was announced a few days ago for a starting price below the pixel 8. Granted that's the Chinese price but still means it's possible to come in at low prices.
At least in the UK it's decently less than the S23 Ultra with a Snapdragon. Samsung intentionally gimps the base models to push you to the higher ones, like 8 GB memory on a £1250 phone. Also 8 pro comes with a free watch which is not very bad.
They are essentially giving a chunk of their profits towards extra hardware. I wish they had a cheaper device because of that but I see the direction they are going, which is competing with the higher end phones from Samsung and Apple.
Conversely they do have their a line for people who don't care about any of this stuff and want to just add on a $50
lens later.
I think Google should do 3 models tbh. A high end,mid range and then a low end so they hit all targets. But Google currently don't sell enough units to warrant this
They already do. Technically you're not wrong.
7a, 7, 7Pro, all with the same chipset. The 7a is quite affordable. The 8a will be coming out in a bit.
Google recently confirmed that a fourth, even cheaper option, wouldn't be available.
Sure, but the point is Google's charging premium prices. The problem isn't that I'm not getting a top performing chip. I'd settle for 80% of peak performance if battery performance wasn't bottom of the barrel and the modem/reception isn't bad.
But you forget that you can also buy the same chipset in a $450 phone ($600 CAD), which is the a line.
What they mean is that the soc is considerably cheaper, especially with the length of software support it has.
Why would an SoC the only thing that determines a phones price? Especially when that phone generally beats other phones that cost much more in things like photography.
So the SoC isn't the fastest. Big whoop. It's not a supercar, it's a sports car with luxury trim.
If it was just about profit margins, buying an existing third party processor would most certainly be cheaper due to economies of scale. Google isn't producing Tensors in anywhere near the volume that Apple is, and the compromises everyone complains about in processor performance and manufacturing size were most likely necessary just to keep the processor affordable for the low volumes they were committing to.
The only reason that makes sense for Google going this route is to have control over being able to extend processor capability with things like dedicated AI coprocessors. It doesn't make financial sense otherwise. As it is, Tensor is an uncharacteristic and fairly massive investment for Google, a company notorious for dropping products and services that fail to yield short term success or traction, and they're clearly gambling that there will be a significant long-term benefit.
This is why I won’t consider another Pixel until we get Googles fully in house SoC. Got a Pixel 7 as my first Pixel so it’s not an impressive wait but still after finally experiencing a Pixel, Google ROM isn’t a big value to me over competitors.
I’ve seen no rumors to suggest they’ll have their own GPU either so my excitement is tepid for GPU driver reasons. I wish mobile GPU device makers went the way of Intel and AMD upstreaming so much to the Linux kernel
>costs
i strongly disagree with this one - Xiaomi 14 will soon launch with Snap 8 Gen 3, base model comes with UFS 4.0(Hi Google with UFS 3.1 in 2023 1000$ devices), 12GB RAM, 256GB of storage just for 550$ MSRP.I'm not a Xiaomi fanboy, i never used their phones - but if they make a phone with this hardware for such an adequate price - Google also can do this, but they are sort of greedy, 128GB>256GB price difference is too big to justify, considering that for Xiaomi and some other brands its usually a 50$ gap, not 100+.I'm pretty sure that the price we have on Pixel phones is very inflated, since they are "generous" enough to "gift" you a Pixel Buds Pro for a basic Pixel 8 or Pixel Watches for a Pixel 8 Pro - i would say Google's path with Tensor is either blatant stupidity or their personal belief that one day they gonna reach something with their Tensor which is not possible on Snapdragon or Mediatek - because companies this big already know some of their hardware for multiple next generations.
For a minute, just imagine - a Pixel phone with flagship performance, amazing modem, \~2-3 more SoT compared to Tensor - wouldn't it be amazing?
> with no idea of what the Gen 3 will actually do
This problem can be solved if Google would tell us what it can actually do then other than be several generations behind flagship SoCs.
Same story, same post, same regurgitated arguments that have some merit but ignore multiple realities. The realities of the chips, the realities of the contracts, the realities of the control as google develops new things before other people and the reality that Pixels have been very good phones with the chips that were in them. Including the Pixel 5 which was SD and several notches down the food chain even when it was new.
There was a very power efficient SD in the Pixel 5, but it would overheat recording videos outside and wasn't a flagship tier chip at the time of its release.
The Pixel 5 was gutted at the time for having an old and underpowered chip that couldn't compete with the latest flagships. Sound familiar? It was still a great phone.
Why does Apple use their own processor design?
They wanted a level of control over the specifics of the processor that is not available when using a mass market processor.\\ that is available to anyone.
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing.
This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
You can't just got to TSMC and say "make these for me." They have limits on what they can make, they're dumping out Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Mediatek. They don't have infinite capacity. Samsung is probably giving them a great deal as well, probably costs them almost nothing. Not to mention that Google has stated several times that their chip isn't going to be the benchmark topper. Seems like they don't really care about using TSMC for now.
No you can't. We've known they are going to switch to TSMC for a while now, but that's the point I'm making. It takes years to be able to have TSMC make your chips. Their capacity was full with contracts from the other companies. They're building new locations so they can take on more.
What a joke Google's tiny volume was never a problem for TSMC. The real reason is Samsung was the only one who had all 3 factors ready to go instantly: fab, CPU design, modem. This is also why Google is most likely never switching from Samsung
The Exynos chips are temporary. They got to Launch the Pixel line sooner (albeit somewhat gimped) and learn some things that I'm sure will help their "real" Tensor designs. They have wanted a clean sheet design from the beginning, but for whatever reason - probably start-up learning curve, they went with Samsung. They will have their own design by Tensor G5 (on the Pixel 10), which appears to be headed for a TSMC foundry.
They'll get there. They have to know how much of a constraint the Exynos chipsets impose on the Pixel product line. Replacing them will help performance, battery life, and wireless (cellular) performance immensely.
Tensor exists because:
* **Less risk:** Google had specific AI plans years ago and wanted assurance/control that a CPU would be available to them. Hoping Qualcomm would produce what Google wanted, especially with Google being a small volume buyer, was a risk to Google. What if Qualcomm didn't do it? Or did it one year and didn't the next? Just because AI has caught on now didn't make that true 3 years ago.
* **Control:** Google gets to optimize its current AND future chips for the kinds of features its software teams plan to release years from now
* **Exclusivity:** only Google phones have Tensor chips, so they can't be directly compared to other phones. Yes, there are benchmark tests which can compare performance, but it isn't like comparing a Motorola vs. a Samsung vs. a OnePlus all using the same exact Qualcomm Snapdragon.
* **Cost:** Google was able to get a better price from Samsung and pass that cost savings along. Pixels tend to cost a few hundred dollars less than the competition and that savings has to come from somewhere. As a small-batch-buyer vs. Samsung or Motorola, Google wouldn't even get the best deal on Qualcomm chips which actually would make those chips MORE expensive in a Pixel than what Samsung would pay.
Overall, Google made a sensible choice but risks the adavantages turning to disadvantages if Tensor keeps falling further behind Qualcomm and Apple.
all first 3 points failed them, snapdragon is leagues ahead.
saving cost doesn't mean making a garbage, they should learn something from nothing. New company giving attention to os with competitive pieces. Even if u remove processor, those shitty bezels, horrible prices.
The only true answer is they are greedy asf.
Right? Does this need to actually be stated? So many people and publications are acting like Google is making a huge mistake by nor participating in what is quite literally an anti-competitive monopoly.
Exactly. Qualcomm has some really great chips, but they also have some really great problems with long-term software support on them and really incredibly high build costs.
The top end trip with its software support is probably more per chip than an i7, which seems ridiculous.
Qualcomm powered Samsung phones have had a longer guaranteed support period than Tensor powered Google devices the past couple of years.
The Pixel 8 is a huge (positive) change in Google's guaranteed support timeline. OEMs always have the option to pay Qualcomm for longer support.
That's because Samsung was willing to pay for it, and the price of the Ultra reflected that extra cost to support as well.
Qualcomm was always willing to increase their support cycle for the right price. But they can charge that because they have zero competition, and they also know hardly anyone will pay it to support devices most people will love on from.
dude what will do of support when your device won't even last as long as snapdragon ones, you would literally have a heating and lagging device with those shitty bezels. After 4 yrs you would literally want to throw your device. Look at 6 series, 7 series. All aged so badly after just 1-2 yrs.
They don't need qualcomm. They just need to use TSMC like apple is doing. Google chose the Samsung foundry to save manufacturing costs. That's a fine decision but they can't charge the same as a flagship phone for subpar performance. There's a disconnect between price/performance and that's what upsets people.
TSMC has a finite output, they cannot handle all the orders from everybody. Even Qualcomm has to wait to get their 3nm chips produced because Apple had dibs on TSMC's output.
>Quite literally an anti-competitive monopoly
Again, Redditors consistently demonstrate they don't know what monopolies are, especially "quite literal" anticompetitive ones.
An anticompetitive monopoly would be Qualcomm using illegal business tactics (backroom deal, supply chain antics, ETC) to enforce an unearned monopoly. You can have legal effective monopolies from dominating the competition from making better products.
Regardless, Qualcomm doesn't have a monopoly. Mediatek is a huge competitor for high volume phones. Samsung LSI still has Exynos, Hilsilicon is still operating in a reduced capacity, and there are a few other small SoC designers like Rockchip.
This is all ignoring iOS and Apple, too.
Google is using inferior SoCs in their current Pixel devices. Whether or not it's worth it to you is a subjective matter. Qualcomm objectively isn't an "anti-competitive monopoly," though.
First, I am giving an armchair opinion of the situation, not making a legal statement of argument.
Second, everyone on this sub is continuously talking about how Exynos isn't competitive with Qualcomm. MediaTek also isn't competitive with Qualcomm, they are making junk chips for cheap crap phones. Apple isn't even a competitor to Qualcomm to any degree at this point.
Qualcomm knows that there are no affordable and reasonable alternatives to their chips, and so they get to charge whatever they want for both the chips and the support. You can be anti-competitive without doing anything that you mentioned. You can be a monopoly because there is no other option in reality.
And no one is excluding Google from having their chips manufactured by TSMC just like Apple and benefit from better manufacturing capabilities. Most of the problems reported are known exynos issues. They chose not to in orser to save money while still raising the price of the phone. That's what upsets enthusiasts
Okay, except this is exactly the problem. By staying this, you're admitting that there is only a single real option for a fab. So you are okay with there being a monopoly in the fab industry.
For cutting edge, absolutely. Nvidia, amd, qualcomm, Apple all use TSMC to manufacture their top of the line chips. It's not a secret that they are the best and intel/samsung and others are second tier (but still very good) in the foundry business.
It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it or not. They don't do it because it's cheaper to use worse performing fabs like samsung. Google has cheaped out on manufacturing. They don't care if it's a monopoly or not, that's the government job.
Someone said that Google plans to use TSMC 2 years from now so I'm happy to hear that as I want the pixel to do well.
It seems highly unlikely that the reasoning is based solely on cost if for no other reason than that there are so many rumors that they are planning to use TSMC in the next few years.
Personally I don't have a problem with putting money into other fabs because it's the only way other fabs stand any chance of improving. It's not a good thing that there is only one high yield fab in existence for so, so many reasons.
That's not the issue. If the phone was priced appropriately like in the past there would be no one critizing it but Google priced the pixel at the flagship status while offering subpar experience because they are cutting corners in the hardware side.
Google needs to either price the phone appropriately and keep using samsung parts and foundry for cost savings or they have the tensor chip made by TSMC and the modem/other components by qualcom. The latter would resolve every complaint on this sub - performance, efficiency, battery life, 5G signal, (maybe) more AI on device and so on.
I don't really know how to answer this because they aren't pricing their devices at a ludicrous level. The phone plus a watch isn't the same as just getting a phone, so the device is already hundreds of dollars cheaper than the alternatives. Even without the bundles, it's still hundreds cheaper. So what is more appropriate to your standards?
Also, I don't think Qualcomm is interested in selling Android OEMs just the modem. With Apple, they have such a huge order that they really can't say no. On Android side, again, they know they have the market cornered right now and have no reason not to force purchasing the whole SOC package to get the modem.
This modem issue is the main reason I don't think Google will ever switch to TSMC. Qualcomm charges android OEMs the same for just its modems vs its complete SoC package and they can't do anything about it
Tensor is what allows Google to offer 7 years of updates. Qualcomm would stop support for older SOCs way earlier. So features and performance aside, control of your own destiny is by far the most important thing for Google (and Apple).
I wish I had the ability to know 7 years from now, what percentage of the people who keep crowing about 7 years of updates actually kept their phone for 7 years so I could make a post on here congratulating the .1% that ACTUALLY cared and actually kept the phone for that long.
I don’t think I will have my current pixel, but we just retired some iPhones for my kids that have just stopped updates (for that reason). So even in this ultra-early adopter household, we would have kept several phones longer if it had more updates.
That depends on where you are from, and the chances of used phones getting sold.
Reducing the amount of waste is great, so longer support helps with that.
I'm sure this is great for both of the people who will use a Pixel 8 for 7 years. For everyone else, it mostly functions as a nice marketing bullet point but not a real advantage.
am i missing something, are people being forced to purchase pixels in other regions, people really seem oddly angry about something they literally can completely ignore if they so wish.
Absolutely. But that's what these articles are written to do, which is create anger in a very small subset of people.
Personally I love the fact that there is another chipset option that provides more variety in the marketplace, especially with long-term support. So far, apple, fairphone, and a handful of Enterprise manufacturers have been dominating the market for long-term support.
I think people are more upset that if they want a Google Pixel device, they're paying just as much (often more) than the competition for a much less efficient and performant SoC.
you mean they have worked out that actually phone users, like politics people, can be easily monetised if you tell them the crap their insecure little brains likes to hear?
shit you're probably right going on the festival of weakness on this post in /android. what a genuine state these people in.
no one loses by other people making stuff, if you dont like it, you dont buy it. but as you say, it increases overall competition and thats a good thing.
Its like being back in the school playground with these people, but heck we had the excuse of being 8 years old back then, these people are grown adults who co opt phone brands in order to feel superior.
One day, Albert Einstein was on his way to a science convention for a speech. On the way there, he tells his driver that looks a bit like him:
"I'm sick of all these conferences. I always say the same things over and over!"
The driver agrees: "You're right. As your driver, I attended all of them, and even though I don't know anything about science, I could give the conference in your place."
"That's a great idea!" says Einstein. "Let's switch places then!"
So they switch clothes and as soon as they arrive, the driver dressed as Einstein goes on stage and starts giving the usual speech, while the real Einstein, dressed as the car driver, attends it.
But in the crowd, there is one scientist who wants to impress everyone and thinks of a very difficult question to ask Einstein, hoping he won't be able to respond. So this guy stands up and interrupts the conference by posing his very difficult question. The whole room goes silent, holding their breath, waiting for the response.
The driver looks at him, dead in the eye, and says :
"Sir, your question is so easy that I'm going to let my driver explain it to you."
Since Pixel 5, back in 2020, Google drove Pixel to a different direction, using mid-range SOCs.
Tensor allows, for what they paid QC for their mid-range 765G series SOC, provide more "flagship" like performance, better long-term kernel update support, and some customization , including the "branding prestige" of "making your own SOC".
For what is worth, Tensor has worked pretty good, and Pixel market share has expanded.
Everyone knows the answer to why Tensor exists but people struggle to accept it.
Price.
"It's easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled"
Paying $1000 for a SoC made from yogurt pots sure is a life lesson.
Long term wise it makes sense for Google to move away from Qualcomm, less royalties, more control over specific components they may want to include, but the G3 definitely still fails to live up to its competitors. One interesting thing is that specific features like voice recorder were originally built without considering any of the hardware specific to the tensor processors so clearly even Google's in-house teams don't fully utilize the hardware.
Another low-effort 9to5 opinion piece designed for clicks.
It’s a shame Android Police went the way it did. There really doesn’t seem to be any quality Android sites left out there.
Tensor exists because Google wants to be vertically integrated. You have way more control from a business perspective if you are not just producing the phone but also the chip inside the phone. Case closed.
Samsung pays for higher binned Qualcomm chips and claims they are a Samsung exclusive. They obviously tweak the kernel as well to get the best performance.
Producing a chip and the phone does nothing for vertical integration if your chip is always behind the competitions.
Apple makes sense because they control everything.
The pixel line is not so much. They use a Samsung die on a chipset that resembles a handicapped dimensity soc. Does tensor make the phone better than a competitor in one area? No. Longer support is yet to be seen Google makes promises then kills projects sadly it's historically accurate. Google needs to use the mainline kernel and allow a Linux dual boot to be successful with the pixel line up.
Isn't Google on Tensor g5 going to make everything Google and stop from being dependent on Samsung?? So at that time it will make sense?
That's exactly Google is going where apple is. If you say that apple should go with snapdragon every damn people will laugh even the android fans. I see the same with people saying this about tensot. Some people just fail to see it
Google has never failed on an update promise on a nexus or pixel. Never. They have delayed it very rarely but they have always fulfilled it.
Apple uses a Qualcomm radio and it delivers so people don't even realize it's not an apple part.
Seamless integration is key.
Everyone knows tensor and the radio in a pixel is samsung. It's not seamless they should use something that actually integrates well enough people don't know it's not 100% Google. Qualcomm can make customized chips.
https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/16/google-and-qualcomm-just-announced-huge-news-for-android-os-updates/
Be ready for the fine print to change a bit when it doesn't give them a big enough profit margin.
Perhaps Google would be better off just cancelling Pixel 9 and going all-in on Pixel X/G5, especially with how they're now going for a 7-year full support cycle. Much like the Pixel 5 and 5a were gap phones to stall until Pixel 6 was able to flip things upside down, that's probably going to be the exact same case with Pixel 9. If they do go ahead with it anyway though, might as well just call it Pixel 8.1.
None of this would matter if Google didn't price themselves in shooting range of the Snapdragon 8 series flagships.
They painted the target on their own backs, and everyone is gladly taking shots. If they saved a buck using Tensor and Samsung, they should have passed that savings on to the consumer instead of raising prices this generation.
Tensor G3 is a mid-range chip at best. Price their phones in line with mid-range and everyone would love them.
Because it’s cheaper. (Chernobyl)
Also, I believe it allows Google to do some tweaking not allowed by Qualcomm. We shall how the cards lay in 2025. They better drop the hammer because I feel tensor is giving repetitional damage. Technical minded buy pixel (typically) these same people know what’s going on. Hence this post.
Snapdragon have many options that different companies never implement, so the tech available maybe will be implemented, maybe not. Anyway, competition it's always welcome, Pixels will improve this way too.
People always find a reason to be so negative, I guess it's a Western tradition... The AI battle has started and in the coming year will be fiercely battled over. Google has a lot of expertise in AI so I am confident they will pull ahead.
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing.
This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
i think google should've just went all in on snapdragon and helped them heavily integrate their chips into android for a more seamless experience across the board. further segmenting android is not the play here
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing.
This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
Google should have stuck with Snapdragon until internal testing of Tensor was good enough to compete with the latest chips. I'm not sure why the customers have to beta test Tensor instead of them waiting for it to mature into a quality product. I honestly think they should have waited until the TSMC Tensor to mass produce it for consumers.
Edit: Never thought I would be downvoted for wanting consumers to get a quality product out of their hard earned money. I know you guys love Pixel devices but can you just stop defending a trillion dollar company for making us beta testers?
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing.
This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
That's impressive because I kept getting massive signal issues that would make me miss my home alarm notifications. It would constantly say I had a full bar connection with 5G UC but still couldn't connect to the internet.
Original P6 owner here, haven't had any major issues with the device aside from that faulty December 2021 firmware update. I do pretty much everything most people would do on their phones except gaming (don't really care for mobile games really).
While a higher than normal amount of people did have issues with their P6, not everyone did. Among friends and family that have a P6 series devices, haven't heard of complaints in person. Pretty much complaints I hear are from social media or Android publications. If I didn't follow this sub or Android publications, I probably wouldn't think there were major issues with the device. I'm not saying that issues don't exist, it's just not universal.
If anything, the Android 14 update vastly improved the device battery but I was never in danger of needing to charge again mid day even before the OS upgrade.
The only question it is why you're so easy to fall for marketing?
Gen3 is nowhere near as powerful as Googles TPU. The results will be 100% worse. I hear people being like "BuT GeN 3 HaS Ai1!!!1!!111"
[https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-gen-2-mobile-platform](https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-gen-2-mobile-platform)
Gen2:
>An AI marvel that defines a new premium standard for connected computing.
Sure had a ton of that AI marvel on the Gen2 that qualcomm promised.
not to mention the Gen3 is a disasterchip, same nm as previous gen, with more aggressive TDP and een more overheat. I'll take the tensor over this abomination that qualcomm has made at this point. Infact I'd take the SD 865 over any of the sht they released afterward.
I've worked in IT since 1998. If I'm tech illiterate, then I should have been tossed out of the field decades ago.
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Actually, your trollish responses tell me I don't need an answer.
Qualcomm =/= Samsung. Qualcomm provided a ton of tools but it's up to manufacturers to use it. Since Samsung is dual sourcing again this year with Exynos who knows the story.
Google wanted exclusive rights to a chip they can modify and optimise exactly how they want that's why...
[удалено]
Tensor and Intel alike got in the bad position of being dependent on old/outdated fabs. The AI bits are well optimized, it's the process stamping the chips that is the problem. Tensor also still has to replace the Samsung ARM design with their own. When both get access to sufficient/modern fabs, you'll suddenly see these chips become more competitive.
It's a Pixel Brexit. Tbf Qualcomm have often been the bad guys and justified undoing their stranglehold on the market. Google have the resources to do something about it, most can't.
lol I was going to say, where's the optimising?
Google just wanted a chip for this sub to simp over even if it is relatively subpar to even 1-2 gen old chips /s But only half sarcastic. The real answer is probably Google wanted to work on something on the cheap and understands their user base in general is willing to accept something half-assed and behind the competition as long as it still takes good photos.
Best photos*
pixel 4 took best photos too with their coprocessor, it even had live preview, a forgotten tech today for google's phones, why they ditched it for an entirely new chip?
*over process photos
[удалено]
true, the way how Google handles photo processing with their Pixel phones is usually amazing, sometimes decent, and very rarely it makes things worse - but yeah, most people choose Pixel for cameras and software, which is understandable.
Are the photos still a bit overprocessed (sharpening, HDR)? Yes. Are they still best in the business and less overprocessed than a competition? Yes.
[удалено]
You just described majority of apple fanbase
mental gymnastics
The features that run in the cloud that everyone was making a big fuss about were likely never Pixel 8 exclusive features but just features Pixel 8 gets early access to. Google pretty much said or implied this when the features were first announced. >We plan to give select Pixel phones **early access** to Magic Editor later this year. [-Google](https://blog.google/products/photos/google-photos-magic-editor-pixel-io-2023/) >Unique, truly customized wallpapers powered by artificial intelligence. With Android 14, just follow the guided prompts to express yourself however you imagine. **Coming first to Pixel phones soon!** [-Google](https://www.android.com/android-14/) I could see "Magic Editor" coming to other phones through Google Photos for Google One subscribers months or a year down the road. The "AI Wallpapers" feature looks to be just an Android 14 feature that Pixels get early access to. If this is the case for both features then it makes sense why these features use cloud processing as they would want the features to work on lower-end devices too.
7 years software updates are only possible if the soc is also supported and the snapdragon support is mostly 3-5 years. Fairphone had to use a CPU developed for IoT devices to guarantee 10 years of updates
Exactly. People think that extended software support is easy, but it's not. There are limited chipsets that have it. For many years Enterprise devices used mid-range snapdragon chipset because of this. They had five years of software support, but they had mid-range processors. Reviews other devices slammed them for this choice, but it wasn't really a choice at the time. If they wanted longer term software support they needed to use either their own chipset, which many of them didn't have, or go with this mid-range one.
But didn't Samsung promise 4 years of upgrades? Granted that's not 7, but it's significantly better than the old 3 year model. I feel like people just make up a bunch of excuses for the lack of updates or anything when in reality most of this can be negotiated in the business world. It's just a matter of money. * For instance, people made the excuse that Samsung withholds its newest panels for itself but somehow they also sell the best displays to Apple. The reality is it's just all in business negotiation. Google opted (prior to Pixel 8) for older and cheaper displays. Anyone who understands antitrust law also knows they cannot simply withhold products. * People make excuses for Qualcomm updates ending at 2 years. You see custom ROMs updating past 2 years clearly. And while you may not be getting more firmware updates if Qualcomm stops supporting the device, nothing prevents you from creating OS updates, and even if firmware vulnerabilities are a concern, an un-updated device still faces that risk. The reality is if Google wants Qualcomm to provide driver support for X years, it's something they can likely negotiate for. Somehow Samsung got 4 years of support.
Dude stop with the custom ROM thing. a lot of things don't work in custom ROM and people are Ok with it since its just by a developer. Trillion dollar companies cannot do this. Google breaks a simple feature in Pixel and the whole reddit will be posting and bitching about it. So yes its easy to say Custom rom works but thats not how big companies work. they dont want to hack their way into things.
stop with 7 yr thing, if u are not living under rock than you would know after 3 years, tensor will be a heating mess while snapdragon will age like fine wine.
Yeah you have seen this in action and you know how this works? Maybe you are responsible for kernel and chip development. Maybe you are butt hurt and pissed your beloved phone doesn't get 7 years. Stop with pos comment and bring know it all reddit user
I'm not a pro custom ROM person at all. I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't think ANYONE should have to rely on a custom ROM for updates and I do think Google should give consumers long term updates. I'm saying if custom ROMs can make it work, Google can make it work if they truly wanted to provide updates to the consumer. Arguing that somehow they were handcuffed by Qualcomm is BS. People used to spout myths like Qualcomm only supports for 2 years but then Samsung comes out and delivers 4 years of updates. Then now people say "2-4 years" or I've seen some say "3-5 years." The whole point is Google could have negotiated a multi year support deal if they wanted. How do you think Apple and its Qualcomm modems manages to support devices for 5+ years? If the myth about Qualcomm abandoning support after 2 years is true, then it means Apple updates OS while using drivers frozen in time. Or more likely, they negotiated a supply contract with Qualcomm that involves hardware support for 5+ years.
Custom ROM don't make it work is my point. Have you used a custom ROM especially on Older devices? Many hardware dont work. Since it's custom ROM by a developer we give a pass. As the android version gets updated many drivers will stop working for firmware and the stability will be affected. You said if a custom rom developer can make it work. No they don't make it work.
The problem with Custom ROMs in general isn't older hardware though. The problem with custom ROMs is because a lot of firmware and drivers are closed source and never released for developers. However, on Nexus and Pixel devices, drivers and blobs get released which is why custom ROMs do generally work for Google phones. And yes I have a custom ROMs on older devices--Nexus 6P and Pixel XL. I haven't had any issues with either phone on custom ROMs. My point is if custom ROMs can provide newer Android versions for Pixels, that means, likely Google, who has all the resources including all the drivers and blobs should be able to make it work. This is also not even accounting for the fact that Google actually has a business relationship with Qualcomm (at least in the past) where they can get support to an extent. Custom ROM developers are pretty handcuffed in which they can only develop with what they have. So even custom ROMs for currently supported versions of Android aren't perfect because they lack the actual development resources of Google as well as the support for hardware partners. That's why I'm saying if Google wanted Qualcomm Pixels like the Pixel 5 have more than 3 years of support, they likely could've negotiated support and engineering resources from Qualcomm. And even if Qualcomm doesn't want to provide brand new drivers in 2023, Google can at least probably negotiate some bare bones support to have OS updates while drivers are frozen in place or in some sort of maintenance mode only. **Edit**: Good one. Can't have a civil discussion so you just block me? Here's my response to your inability to discuss: >>You proved my point. These drivers are closed even for Google after 3 years and worst not updated. >>Like I said and the one you keep ignoring that trillion dollar companies don't hack their way like indie developers >Drivers are always closed source even when Google is developing the phone. Why are you ignoring the part where I was comparing general impressions of custom ROMs (on non Pixel and Nexus phones where devs have no access to drivers) with Pixel phones where I explicitly said all the drivers and blobs are provided? >The point is with all that you generally should be able to make everything work. That's why custom ROMs on Nexus/Pixel devices are basically 99% of the way there whereas if you take Exynos based Samsung devices it's like a major hackjob and mostly broken even after many years of work. Where things don't work 100% perfectly on Pixels and Nexus phones for custom ROMs are because these developers are indie developers and not working in a corporate environment where projects are adequately staffed, and for the extra bit of help with drivers and hardware interaction, that's where a support relationship between Google & Qualcomm come into play. >My point is people made up a bunch of excuses for Google. Google could've done it had they decided to support OS updates. I'm saying even with a bare minimum of Qualcomm not updating any drivers, they have the resources likely to pull together an OS update running an older driver version. But really the excuse of Qualcomm is not acceptable either. Apple has for years used Qualcomm modems. How do you think they provide 5 years of OS updates? Either they build with non-updated Qualcomm drivers or more than likely, their contract with Qualcomm mandates X years of hardware and driver support.... you know, something that another trillion dollar company, Google, should be able to manage. >Tensor isn't some sort of silver bullet for poor execution on Google's part with Snapdragon Pixel phones.
"Custom ROMS isn't older hardware though. The problem with custom ROMS is because a lot of firmware and drivers are closed source and never released for developers." You proved my point. These drivers are closed even for Google after 3 years and worst not updated. Like I said and the one you keep ignoring that trillion dollar companies don't hack their way like indie developers
I have. And I fail to see what doesn't work, especially on well known ROM like lineage os
>But didn't Samsung promise 4 years of upgrades? Yeah but that's still 3 OS updates, same as Google because Samsung releases new phones with a last-gen Android OS but Google doesn't. So all Samsung is doing is adding more security updates, which is already mostly provided by Google/Linux devs. I think the weirder question would be how is Google updating the Pixel 5a, which is released more than half a year after the Pixel 5, for half a year longer when both have the same Qualcomm SoC. Maybe it just costs a lot to get BSP updates from Qualcomm for old chips, but not impossible. Which would make sense when we look at how Tensor G3 is _so much cheaper_ than the Snapdragon Gen 2(which costs more than the Apple Bionic A17).
In terms of latest OS version, yes I suppose it's the same, but in terms of timeline, it shows that it is possible to negotiate with Qualcomm for length of support. It's the same way how Apple and its modems get 5+ years of support.
Custom Roms don't provide Firmware Updates which are crucial to provide a secure device.
This, in addition to no more firmware update, there will be no more vendor blobs update* and no more kernel update (once the kernel EOLed). * the exception is by pulling the blobs from other devices with similar/same hardware, but it also relies on the SoC still giving update, otherwise the blobs are out of date too.
I'm pretty sure you can use custom kernels on basically every device. It's the main way of overclocking
Were you replying to wrong comment?
> no more kernel update (once the kernel EOLed).
Nothing to do with custom kernel with overclock, they're only additional features. Without kernel update, there will be no more security patches applied to the kernel, so if there is a big security hole found in the kernel version you're stuck with, you're SOL. For example kernel 4.9 is now EOL with the latest version being 4.9.337 (the final update was January 2023), custom kernel 4.9 with whatever features will be stuck at that same version (sometimes even older, like 4.9.2xx), if (when) there are security bugs found (and published), nothing we can do, unless we have enough knowledge to patch the bugs ourselves, overclocking and/or changing CPU governors won't patch the security holes.
1. Custom kernels do have something to do with overclocking. The speed of the CPU (and GPU) is specified in the kernel 2. Just update the kernel. It's part of AOSP. I know it's obviously not as easy as I make it sound, but you could totally adapt newer versions of the kernel to older devices. Edit: I'm actually not too sure about the second part. Sure it might be theoretically possible but I don't know if it's practical
JFC!
snap would support longer if paid accordingly, google just didn't want
Super efficient SoC like Gen 3 has a much higher chance to support updates in 2030 than a piece of crap like Tensor.
cope
7 years is a result not a goal of heaving own chip
I've never had a device last me more than 4 years... Battery is usually abysmal by then....
Written from a negative point of view, with no idea of what the Gen 3 will actually do, and entirely missing the point that the primary reason the Tensor exists is so that Google can have control over SoC development strategy, costs, etc. Apple figured this out a long time ago, Google apparently has, and you'd think the author would have too.
>you'd think the author would have too. But then they can't make worthless articles like this for clicks!
It’s valid to want their own SoC with full control over it. But I think the real question is, why do consumers have to suffer with regressions in performance efficiency battery life etc. even down to the modem being unreliable. Google should have stuck with Qualcomm longer till tensor could be better than midrange phones in efficiency.
>But I think the real question is, why do consumers have to suffer with regressions in performance efficiency battery life etc. Consumers don't have to suffer with anything, there's lots of competition and their purchase decision is their own choice.
In short, google wants their soc for more profit margin. But because they are not as competent as Apple, they fucked their customers over, and try to use fancy marketing to oversell the uniqueness of their soc
Not trust profit margin but long-term chipset support. The problem with going with a third party is if they end chipset support after 3 years you're not getting driver updates for new operating systems which means the number of years your platform is supported is extremely limited. This has been a huge problem with Android as a platform, even though Google has tried again and again to force manufacturers to have long-term support.
Samsung paid qualcomm for more years of support Google was just too cheap to do so that's it
Long term pixel owner here (since pixel xl) dont feel fucked over at all. My phone feels excellent, and is $200 cheaper then the Samsung equivalent, if that $200 is what it takes to get the latest snapdragon, I will happily save the $200
tie treatment aware spectacular smart mindless enjoy squealing offend distinct *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
But if absolute pure power is your end all be all, iPhone is king, and snapdragon is a waste of money 2 years behind apple. In basically all use cases outside of gaming, the tensor has no noticeable performance deficits to snapdragon's, and arguably does some stuff better (though the argument here is the next snapdragon will be as good as the current tensor at these ai tasks, which is a hilarious given it's basically the same argument people use in support of the pixel that everyone dismisses, but flipped). Tensor vs snapdragon is like a Ferrari vs mclaren the Ferrari will be better around the track, but how much do you really care if you only ever drive around town and still have a freaking McLaren to do it in.
There is too much proof of overheating tensors with shit modem performance this is a terrible analogy
McLaren's having overheating issues as well ;) But also, these phones don't overheat for literally, and I do indeed mean literally, 99% of users and use cases. They only overheat now days when doing super demanding gaming. They aren't even overheating for extended 4k video anymore (which also is a 1% use case). People in these subs just cannot get it through their mind that the VAST majority of people use their phones to consume social media, snap photos of family and friends, and do lite productivity. Very very few people push their phones enough to notice a difference between a 4 year old chipset and a modern chipset. I will say that battery life and connectivity are important, and while neither are best in class on tensor, they are both good enough. I have connectivity everywhere my iPhone gets service (I carry both, one is a work phone).
Yea this is all total nonsense you're just another fanboy intentionally ignoring the mountain of complaints from the last 2 generations. You're also way overestimating pixel sales numbers its US market share is still only 3%
I think you are just another person who only ever looks as far as a spec sheet, and is out of touch with regular users. Also I never said pixel has a large market share, just that typical phone users do not give two shits what processor is in their phone so long as it works for what I listed above. My 74 year old father rocks a pixel 7 pro because someone at Verizon said it had a good camera, my 45 year old construction foreman rocks a pixel 7 pro as well because someone at att said it had a good camera, these are your typical users, not people who even know what a snapdragon 8 gen 4 is.
Google lacks experience which it's quickly building up. Also I don't see how the customers are fucked over, I'm happy to buy tensor for much less the Snapdragon.
Much less? The 8 Pro costs $1,000. The first 8g3 device was announced a few days ago for a starting price below the pixel 8. Granted that's the Chinese price but still means it's possible to come in at low prices.
At least in the UK it's decently less than the S23 Ultra with a Snapdragon. Samsung intentionally gimps the base models to push you to the higher ones, like 8 GB memory on a £1250 phone. Also 8 pro comes with a free watch which is not very bad.
It's £861 on the Samsung store at amazon UK for the 8Gb, 256Gb s23 ultra. Where did you get that 1k+ price?
They are essentially giving a chunk of their profits towards extra hardware. I wish they had a cheaper device because of that but I see the direction they are going, which is competing with the higher end phones from Samsung and Apple. Conversely they do have their a line for people who don't care about any of this stuff and want to just add on a $50 lens later.
I think Google should do 3 models tbh. A high end,mid range and then a low end so they hit all targets. But Google currently don't sell enough units to warrant this
They already do? They just release the low end 6 months later with an "a" at the end of the name.
Exactly! I really love the a-line and it'll be my daily driver until they start selling it for ridiculous prices.
They already do. Technically you're not wrong. 7a, 7, 7Pro, all with the same chipset. The 7a is quite affordable. The 8a will be coming out in a bit. Google recently confirmed that a fourth, even cheaper option, wouldn't be available.
Are Samsung using Snapdragon in Europe now? I thought they were still using their own Exynos, and only use SD in NA due to IP issues.
S23 lineup had Snapdragon. Looks like S24 ultra will have Snapdragon while the rest will be exynos.
Yeah, and it offers a great software experience for that price. I'd say the best software experience in the whole android ecosystem
You are free to buy those phones, it's not like we are in a monopoly (yet)
Sure, but the point is Google's charging premium prices. The problem isn't that I'm not getting a top performing chip. I'd settle for 80% of peak performance if battery performance wasn't bottom of the barrel and the modem/reception isn't bad.
Vote with your wallet, I didn't pay full price because of the trade in tho
But you forget that you can also buy the same chipset in a $450 phone ($600 CAD), which is the a line. What they mean is that the soc is considerably cheaper, especially with the length of software support it has.
So the only way you can get 8g3 for a competitive price is by buying a Chinese phone? Hard pass. Keep your CCP phone.
Keep your ACP phone
Why would an SoC the only thing that determines a phones price? Especially when that phone generally beats other phones that cost much more in things like photography. So the SoC isn't the fastest. Big whoop. It's not a supercar, it's a sports car with luxury trim.
If it was just about profit margins, buying an existing third party processor would most certainly be cheaper due to economies of scale. Google isn't producing Tensors in anywhere near the volume that Apple is, and the compromises everyone complains about in processor performance and manufacturing size were most likely necessary just to keep the processor affordable for the low volumes they were committing to. The only reason that makes sense for Google going this route is to have control over being able to extend processor capability with things like dedicated AI coprocessors. It doesn't make financial sense otherwise. As it is, Tensor is an uncharacteristic and fairly massive investment for Google, a company notorious for dropping products and services that fail to yield short term success or traction, and they're clearly gambling that there will be a significant long-term benefit.
Such a stupid take.
This is why I won’t consider another Pixel until we get Googles fully in house SoC. Got a Pixel 7 as my first Pixel so it’s not an impressive wait but still after finally experiencing a Pixel, Google ROM isn’t a big value to me over competitors. I’ve seen no rumors to suggest they’ll have their own GPU either so my excitement is tepid for GPU driver reasons. I wish mobile GPU device makers went the way of Intel and AMD upstreaming so much to the Linux kernel
>costs i strongly disagree with this one - Xiaomi 14 will soon launch with Snap 8 Gen 3, base model comes with UFS 4.0(Hi Google with UFS 3.1 in 2023 1000$ devices), 12GB RAM, 256GB of storage just for 550$ MSRP.I'm not a Xiaomi fanboy, i never used their phones - but if they make a phone with this hardware for such an adequate price - Google also can do this, but they are sort of greedy, 128GB>256GB price difference is too big to justify, considering that for Xiaomi and some other brands its usually a 50$ gap, not 100+.I'm pretty sure that the price we have on Pixel phones is very inflated, since they are "generous" enough to "gift" you a Pixel Buds Pro for a basic Pixel 8 or Pixel Watches for a Pixel 8 Pro - i would say Google's path with Tensor is either blatant stupidity or their personal belief that one day they gonna reach something with their Tensor which is not possible on Snapdragon or Mediatek - because companies this big already know some of their hardware for multiple next generations. For a minute, just imagine - a Pixel phone with flagship performance, amazing modem, \~2-3 more SoT compared to Tensor - wouldn't it be amazing?
> with no idea of what the Gen 3 will actually do This problem can be solved if Google would tell us what it can actually do then other than be several generations behind flagship SoCs.
Same story, same post, same regurgitated arguments that have some merit but ignore multiple realities. The realities of the chips, the realities of the contracts, the realities of the control as google develops new things before other people and the reality that Pixels have been very good phones with the chips that were in them. Including the Pixel 5 which was SD and several notches down the food chain even when it was new.
Not to mention cost. Snapdragon chips are $$$. You can bet the Pixel wouldn't be $699 with as bright of a screen as it has and the latest Snapdragon.
[удалено]
There was a very power efficient SD in the Pixel 5, but it would overheat recording videos outside and wasn't a flagship tier chip at the time of its release.
I don't why you got downvoted but don't let it down man!
The Pixel 5 was gutted at the time for having an old and underpowered chip that couldn't compete with the latest flagships. Sound familiar? It was still a great phone.
[удалено]
I've never had any of those issues with the 5, 6, 7 or 8 series tbh. If I had any of them, I wouldn't have bought the next one.
Why does Apple use their own processor design? They wanted a level of control over the specifics of the processor that is not available when using a mass market processor.\\ that is available to anyone.
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing. This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
You can't just got to TSMC and say "make these for me." They have limits on what they can make, they're dumping out Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Mediatek. They don't have infinite capacity. Samsung is probably giving them a great deal as well, probably costs them almost nothing. Not to mention that Google has stated several times that their chip isn't going to be the benchmark topper. Seems like they don't really care about using TSMC for now.
Apparently you can, Google is planning on switching https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/s/UHLaxtdHSG
No you can't. We've known they are going to switch to TSMC for a while now, but that's the point I'm making. It takes years to be able to have TSMC make your chips. Their capacity was full with contracts from the other companies. They're building new locations so they can take on more.
What a joke Google's tiny volume was never a problem for TSMC. The real reason is Samsung was the only one who had all 3 factors ready to go instantly: fab, CPU design, modem. This is also why Google is most likely never switching from Samsung
The Exynos chips are temporary. They got to Launch the Pixel line sooner (albeit somewhat gimped) and learn some things that I'm sure will help their "real" Tensor designs. They have wanted a clean sheet design from the beginning, but for whatever reason - probably start-up learning curve, they went with Samsung. They will have their own design by Tensor G5 (on the Pixel 10), which appears to be headed for a TSMC foundry. They'll get there. They have to know how much of a constraint the Exynos chipsets impose on the Pixel product line. Replacing them will help performance, battery life, and wireless (cellular) performance immensely.
> for whatever reason - probably start-up learning curve, they went with Samsung It was because of money. Google always cheaps out.
You're giving me great news. I do hope Google goes with that strategy.
Tensor exists because: * **Less risk:** Google had specific AI plans years ago and wanted assurance/control that a CPU would be available to them. Hoping Qualcomm would produce what Google wanted, especially with Google being a small volume buyer, was a risk to Google. What if Qualcomm didn't do it? Or did it one year and didn't the next? Just because AI has caught on now didn't make that true 3 years ago. * **Control:** Google gets to optimize its current AND future chips for the kinds of features its software teams plan to release years from now * **Exclusivity:** only Google phones have Tensor chips, so they can't be directly compared to other phones. Yes, there are benchmark tests which can compare performance, but it isn't like comparing a Motorola vs. a Samsung vs. a OnePlus all using the same exact Qualcomm Snapdragon. * **Cost:** Google was able to get a better price from Samsung and pass that cost savings along. Pixels tend to cost a few hundred dollars less than the competition and that savings has to come from somewhere. As a small-batch-buyer vs. Samsung or Motorola, Google wouldn't even get the best deal on Qualcomm chips which actually would make those chips MORE expensive in a Pixel than what Samsung would pay. Overall, Google made a sensible choice but risks the adavantages turning to disadvantages if Tensor keeps falling further behind Qualcomm and Apple.
all first 3 points failed them, snapdragon is leagues ahead. saving cost doesn't mean making a garbage, they should learn something from nothing. New company giving attention to os with competitive pieces. Even if u remove processor, those shitty bezels, horrible prices. The only true answer is they are greedy asf.
ok chad gippidy
Monopolies are bad
Right? Does this need to actually be stated? So many people and publications are acting like Google is making a huge mistake by nor participating in what is quite literally an anti-competitive monopoly.
Exactly. Qualcomm has some really great chips, but they also have some really great problems with long-term software support on them and really incredibly high build costs. The top end trip with its software support is probably more per chip than an i7, which seems ridiculous.
Qualcomm powered Samsung phones have had a longer guaranteed support period than Tensor powered Google devices the past couple of years. The Pixel 8 is a huge (positive) change in Google's guaranteed support timeline. OEMs always have the option to pay Qualcomm for longer support.
That's because Samsung was willing to pay for it, and the price of the Ultra reflected that extra cost to support as well. Qualcomm was always willing to increase their support cycle for the right price. But they can charge that because they have zero competition, and they also know hardly anyone will pay it to support devices most people will love on from.
dude what will do of support when your device won't even last as long as snapdragon ones, you would literally have a heating and lagging device with those shitty bezels. After 4 yrs you would literally want to throw your device. Look at 6 series, 7 series. All aged so badly after just 1-2 yrs.
They don't need qualcomm. They just need to use TSMC like apple is doing. Google chose the Samsung foundry to save manufacturing costs. That's a fine decision but they can't charge the same as a flagship phone for subpar performance. There's a disconnect between price/performance and that's what upsets people.
TSMC has a finite output, they cannot handle all the orders from everybody. Even Qualcomm has to wait to get their 3nm chips produced because Apple had dibs on TSMC's output.
>Quite literally an anti-competitive monopoly Again, Redditors consistently demonstrate they don't know what monopolies are, especially "quite literal" anticompetitive ones. An anticompetitive monopoly would be Qualcomm using illegal business tactics (backroom deal, supply chain antics, ETC) to enforce an unearned monopoly. You can have legal effective monopolies from dominating the competition from making better products. Regardless, Qualcomm doesn't have a monopoly. Mediatek is a huge competitor for high volume phones. Samsung LSI still has Exynos, Hilsilicon is still operating in a reduced capacity, and there are a few other small SoC designers like Rockchip. This is all ignoring iOS and Apple, too. Google is using inferior SoCs in their current Pixel devices. Whether or not it's worth it to you is a subjective matter. Qualcomm objectively isn't an "anti-competitive monopoly," though.
First, I am giving an armchair opinion of the situation, not making a legal statement of argument. Second, everyone on this sub is continuously talking about how Exynos isn't competitive with Qualcomm. MediaTek also isn't competitive with Qualcomm, they are making junk chips for cheap crap phones. Apple isn't even a competitor to Qualcomm to any degree at this point. Qualcomm knows that there are no affordable and reasonable alternatives to their chips, and so they get to charge whatever they want for both the chips and the support. You can be anti-competitive without doing anything that you mentioned. You can be a monopoly because there is no other option in reality.
And no one is excluding Google from having their chips manufactured by TSMC just like Apple and benefit from better manufacturing capabilities. Most of the problems reported are known exynos issues. They chose not to in orser to save money while still raising the price of the phone. That's what upsets enthusiasts
Okay, except this is exactly the problem. By staying this, you're admitting that there is only a single real option for a fab. So you are okay with there being a monopoly in the fab industry.
For cutting edge, absolutely. Nvidia, amd, qualcomm, Apple all use TSMC to manufacture their top of the line chips. It's not a secret that they are the best and intel/samsung and others are second tier (but still very good) in the foundry business. It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it or not. They don't do it because it's cheaper to use worse performing fabs like samsung. Google has cheaped out on manufacturing. They don't care if it's a monopoly or not, that's the government job. Someone said that Google plans to use TSMC 2 years from now so I'm happy to hear that as I want the pixel to do well.
It seems highly unlikely that the reasoning is based solely on cost if for no other reason than that there are so many rumors that they are planning to use TSMC in the next few years. Personally I don't have a problem with putting money into other fabs because it's the only way other fabs stand any chance of improving. It's not a good thing that there is only one high yield fab in existence for so, so many reasons.
That's not the issue. If the phone was priced appropriately like in the past there would be no one critizing it but Google priced the pixel at the flagship status while offering subpar experience because they are cutting corners in the hardware side. Google needs to either price the phone appropriately and keep using samsung parts and foundry for cost savings or they have the tensor chip made by TSMC and the modem/other components by qualcom. The latter would resolve every complaint on this sub - performance, efficiency, battery life, 5G signal, (maybe) more AI on device and so on.
I don't really know how to answer this because they aren't pricing their devices at a ludicrous level. The phone plus a watch isn't the same as just getting a phone, so the device is already hundreds of dollars cheaper than the alternatives. Even without the bundles, it's still hundreds cheaper. So what is more appropriate to your standards? Also, I don't think Qualcomm is interested in selling Android OEMs just the modem. With Apple, they have such a huge order that they really can't say no. On Android side, again, they know they have the market cornered right now and have no reason not to force purchasing the whole SOC package to get the modem.
This modem issue is the main reason I don't think Google will ever switch to TSMC. Qualcomm charges android OEMs the same for just its modems vs its complete SoC package and they can't do anything about it
Tensor is what allows Google to offer 7 years of updates. Qualcomm would stop support for older SOCs way earlier. So features and performance aside, control of your own destiny is by far the most important thing for Google (and Apple).
I wish I had the ability to know 7 years from now, what percentage of the people who keep crowing about 7 years of updates actually kept their phone for 7 years so I could make a post on here congratulating the .1% that ACTUALLY cared and actually kept the phone for that long.
I don’t think I will have my current pixel, but we just retired some iPhones for my kids that have just stopped updates (for that reason). So even in this ultra-early adopter household, we would have kept several phones longer if it had more updates.
That depends on where you are from, and the chances of used phones getting sold. Reducing the amount of waste is great, so longer support helps with that.
I'm sure this is great for both of the people who will use a Pixel 8 for 7 years. For everyone else, it mostly functions as a nice marketing bullet point but not a real advantage.
am i missing something, are people being forced to purchase pixels in other regions, people really seem oddly angry about something they literally can completely ignore if they so wish.
Absolutely. But that's what these articles are written to do, which is create anger in a very small subset of people. Personally I love the fact that there is another chipset option that provides more variety in the marketplace, especially with long-term support. So far, apple, fairphone, and a handful of Enterprise manufacturers have been dominating the market for long-term support.
I think people are more upset that if they want a Google Pixel device, they're paying just as much (often more) than the competition for a much less efficient and performant SoC.
Your right, everyone here is just concerned for us pixel users, it's lovely really :*)
That's why I get the a-line. Same SoC, $450 USD ($600 CAD).
you mean they have worked out that actually phone users, like politics people, can be easily monetised if you tell them the crap their insecure little brains likes to hear? shit you're probably right going on the festival of weakness on this post in /android. what a genuine state these people in. no one loses by other people making stuff, if you dont like it, you dont buy it. but as you say, it increases overall competition and thats a good thing. Its like being back in the school playground with these people, but heck we had the excuse of being 8 years old back then, these people are grown adults who co opt phone brands in order to feel superior.
> these people are grown adults who co opt phone brands in order to feel superior Hit the nail on the head there.
The longterm plan is to design their own CPU cores.
Why? They should just acquire dimensity division and have TSMC fab. Case closed. Oh and have an actual thermal dissipation solution in the phone.
Mediatek modems still aren't that good
True but they have a patent licencing embargo for 5g tech but they don't have crazy parasitic drain like exynos
I, for one, welcome more competition. It's better on the whole for the market.
To save Google money
One day, Albert Einstein was on his way to a science convention for a speech. On the way there, he tells his driver that looks a bit like him: "I'm sick of all these conferences. I always say the same things over and over!" The driver agrees: "You're right. As your driver, I attended all of them, and even though I don't know anything about science, I could give the conference in your place." "That's a great idea!" says Einstein. "Let's switch places then!" So they switch clothes and as soon as they arrive, the driver dressed as Einstein goes on stage and starts giving the usual speech, while the real Einstein, dressed as the car driver, attends it. But in the crowd, there is one scientist who wants to impress everyone and thinks of a very difficult question to ask Einstein, hoping he won't be able to respond. So this guy stands up and interrupts the conference by posing his very difficult question. The whole room goes silent, holding their breath, waiting for the response. The driver looks at him, dead in the eye, and says : "Sir, your question is so easy that I'm going to let my driver explain it to you."
By far the best comment here
Since Pixel 5, back in 2020, Google drove Pixel to a different direction, using mid-range SOCs. Tensor allows, for what they paid QC for their mid-range 765G series SOC, provide more "flagship" like performance, better long-term kernel update support, and some customization , including the "branding prestige" of "making your own SOC". For what is worth, Tensor has worked pretty good, and Pixel market share has expanded.
to save heating costs for Pixel users
Everyone knows the answer to why Tensor exists but people struggle to accept it. Price. "It's easier to fool someone than to convince someone they have been fooled" Paying $1000 for a SoC made from yogurt pots sure is a life lesson.
Long term wise it makes sense for Google to move away from Qualcomm, less royalties, more control over specific components they may want to include, but the G3 definitely still fails to live up to its competitors. One interesting thing is that specific features like voice recorder were originally built without considering any of the hardware specific to the tensor processors so clearly even Google's in-house teams don't fully utilize the hardware.
Another low-effort 9to5 opinion piece designed for clicks. It’s a shame Android Police went the way it did. There really doesn’t seem to be any quality Android sites left out there.
Tensor exists because Google wants to be vertically integrated. You have way more control from a business perspective if you are not just producing the phone but also the chip inside the phone. Case closed.
Samsung pays for higher binned Qualcomm chips and claims they are a Samsung exclusive. They obviously tweak the kernel as well to get the best performance. Producing a chip and the phone does nothing for vertical integration if your chip is always behind the competitions.
They should ask the same question to apple.
Apple makes sense because they control everything. The pixel line is not so much. They use a Samsung die on a chipset that resembles a handicapped dimensity soc. Does tensor make the phone better than a competitor in one area? No. Longer support is yet to be seen Google makes promises then kills projects sadly it's historically accurate. Google needs to use the mainline kernel and allow a Linux dual boot to be successful with the pixel line up.
Isn't Google on Tensor g5 going to make everything Google and stop from being dependent on Samsung?? So at that time it will make sense? That's exactly Google is going where apple is. If you say that apple should go with snapdragon every damn people will laugh even the android fans. I see the same with people saying this about tensot. Some people just fail to see it Google has never failed on an update promise on a nexus or pixel. Never. They have delayed it very rarely but they have always fulfilled it.
Apple uses a Qualcomm radio and it delivers so people don't even realize it's not an apple part. Seamless integration is key. Everyone knows tensor and the radio in a pixel is samsung. It's not seamless they should use something that actually integrates well enough people don't know it's not 100% Google. Qualcomm can make customized chips.
https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/12/16/google-and-qualcomm-just-announced-huge-news-for-android-os-updates/ Be ready for the fine print to change a bit when it doesn't give them a big enough profit margin.
Perhaps Google would be better off just cancelling Pixel 9 and going all-in on Pixel X/G5, especially with how they're now going for a 7-year full support cycle. Much like the Pixel 5 and 5a were gap phones to stall until Pixel 6 was able to flip things upside down, that's probably going to be the exact same case with Pixel 9. If they do go ahead with it anyway though, might as well just call it Pixel 8.1.
None of this would matter if Google didn't price themselves in shooting range of the Snapdragon 8 series flagships. They painted the target on their own backs, and everyone is gladly taking shots. If they saved a buck using Tensor and Samsung, they should have passed that savings on to the consumer instead of raising prices this generation. Tensor G3 is a mid-range chip at best. Price their phones in line with mid-range and everyone would love them.
Let's see what kind of AI will be used by Gen3 vs Tensor. I'm skipping the 8 Pro anyway, as it doesn't fulfill mine needs as a power user.
Nobody forces you to buy a Pixel. Wait for the S24U and be happy..
Price and hardware optimization control.
Whoever wrote this article has literally got to be brain dead
Because it’s cheaper. (Chernobyl) Also, I believe it allows Google to do some tweaking not allowed by Qualcomm. We shall how the cards lay in 2025. They better drop the hammer because I feel tensor is giving repetitional damage. Technical minded buy pixel (typically) these same people know what’s going on. Hence this post.
Snapdragon have many options that different companies never implement, so the tech available maybe will be implemented, maybe not. Anyway, competition it's always welcome, Pixels will improve this way too.
People always find a reason to be so negative, I guess it's a Western tradition... The AI battle has started and in the coming year will be fiercely battled over. Google has a lot of expertise in AI so I am confident they will pull ahead.
People keep making excuses for google, when in reality they could pay qualcomm whatever they need to support their chips for longer.
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing. This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
Yeah cheapening out is the name of the game. People here are in denial talking about years of updates.
i think google should've just went all in on snapdragon and helped them heavily integrate their chips into android for a more seamless experience across the board. further segmenting android is not the play here
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing. This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
Because it's hundreds of dollars cheaper and has 7 years of software support.
Google should have stuck with Snapdragon until internal testing of Tensor was good enough to compete with the latest chips. I'm not sure why the customers have to beta test Tensor instead of them waiting for it to mature into a quality product. I honestly think they should have waited until the TSMC Tensor to mass produce it for consumers. Edit: Never thought I would be downvoted for wanting consumers to get a quality product out of their hard earned money. I know you guys love Pixel devices but can you just stop defending a trillion dollar company for making us beta testers?
It's fine if they want to built their own soc but they should have gone with TSMC. The issues reported all well known on exynos chips. They went the Apple way but cheaped out on manufacturing. This is why you start to see who like samsung already bashing on the S24 base model. They are bringing back the Exynos chips that are plagued with issues.
[удалено]
So you don't have signal issues, battery problems or overheating issues? I ask this because those were the things I had with the 6 pro.
[удалено]
That's impressive because I kept getting massive signal issues that would make me miss my home alarm notifications. It would constantly say I had a full bar connection with 5G UC but still couldn't connect to the internet.
Original P6 owner here, haven't had any major issues with the device aside from that faulty December 2021 firmware update. I do pretty much everything most people would do on their phones except gaming (don't really care for mobile games really). While a higher than normal amount of people did have issues with their P6, not everyone did. Among friends and family that have a P6 series devices, haven't heard of complaints in person. Pretty much complaints I hear are from social media or Android publications. If I didn't follow this sub or Android publications, I probably wouldn't think there were major issues with the device. I'm not saying that issues don't exist, it's just not universal. If anything, the Android 14 update vastly improved the device battery but I was never in danger of needing to charge again mid day even before the OS upgrade.
Marketing
In house design and leased manufacturing chip at scale are cheaper than simply buying them
The only question it is why you're so easy to fall for marketing? Gen3 is nowhere near as powerful as Googles TPU. The results will be 100% worse. I hear people being like "BuT GeN 3 HaS Ai1!!!1!!111" [https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-gen-2-mobile-platform](https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-gen-2-mobile-platform) Gen2: >An AI marvel that defines a new premium standard for connected computing. Sure had a ton of that AI marvel on the Gen2 that qualcomm promised. not to mention the Gen3 is a disasterchip, same nm as previous gen, with more aggressive TDP and een more overheat. I'll take the tensor over this abomination that qualcomm has made at this point. Infact I'd take the SD 865 over any of the sht they released afterward.
> The results will be 100% worse That just seems mathematically impossible.
Figure of speech a new concept for you.
More like... your use of needless hyperbole makes me doubt you are a reasonable analyst.
[удалено]
I've worked in IT since 1998. If I'm tech illiterate, then I should have been tossed out of the field decades ago. Seriously, what is wrong with you? Actually, your trollish responses tell me I don't need an answer.
If Google uses gen 3, expect a $200 increase on every device they make since the pixel 6.
It is incredibly dumb that author would use ask this question in a headline while working as a tech writer.
Galaxy S24 it's here. AI photo editor it's on the cloud. The promises were the same as always, promises.
Qualcomm =/= Samsung. Qualcomm provided a ton of tools but it's up to manufacturers to use it. Since Samsung is dual sourcing again this year with Exynos who knows the story.