Pixel Imperfect (Premium)

Thanks to the 2020 lineup, I’ve gone through what I call the 7 Stages of Pixel Grief: Confusion, Confusion, Confusion, Confusion, Confusion, Anger, and Resignation.

Sigh.

Today, my final smartphone purchase of 2020 arrives, the Google Pixel 4a 5G, capping a crazy year of broken promises, reduced expectations, and general disappointment. Yes, I’m referring to the Pixel lineup there and not COVID. 2020 was the year in which Google finally gave up trying to compete with the Samsungs and Apples of the flagship part of the market and tried something different. In doing so, alas, it made all the wrong decisions for its fans and for its erstwhile customers. And boy is that frustrating.

It used to be so much better. In the pre-Pixel world, Google worked with its hardware partners to release at least one Nexus-branded smartphone model each year. And there were some real winners. The Nexus 5—which factors heavily into this discussion of Google’s 2020 handsets—was the first indication that an Android phone that provided a clean Google software image, a minimalist design, and a decent camera experience—could thrive in a market dominated by other companies. And the Nexus 5X and 6P were just about as perfect as could be, with the best camera systems found in any smartphone to that date and lowball pricing that made them no brainers for so many.

And then Pixel happened.

It’s a story to which any Microsoft fan can relate. Jealous of the success of Apple and its integration of hardware and software, Google pulled the plug on its Signature PC-like Nexus lineup and decided to bring it all in-house with its Surface-like Pixel lineup in which the platform maker would now compete directly with its own partners.

The first Pixels were not actually designed by Google, but the online giant eventually bought the team at HTC that did do that work and, well, it’s several years later now so let’s not belabor the point. What did happen right away was that Google raised the prices of its handsets dramatically, putting them firmly in the sights of the Apple and Samsung flagships, and worked to improve distribution through major wireless carriers, another part of this story that factors heavily into this discussion of Google’s 2020 handsets.

Looking back at four generations of Pixels, I can make a few statements about what happened.

First, Google dominated smartphone photography … until it didn’t. Huawei came out of nowhere in 2018 with smartphone camera systems that rivaled what Google offered and then surpassed Google for good in 2019. Samsung and Apple both upped their smartphone camera games, and by late 2019 (or maybe early 2020 in Samsung’s case) both firms had likewise equaled or surpassed Google in this area. For its part, Google has been using the same main camera sensor since 2018’s Pixel 3 lineup (and really since the 2017 Pixel 2, as the differences between the two are minor). And its struggled to adapt to the multi-sensor world in which Huawei, Apple, and Samsung now excel.

Second, and maybe this should have been first, there hasn’t been a single Pixel flagship family that didn’t suffer from major reliability or quality issues. This is an embarrassing black eye for any handset maker, but when you consider the flagships it seeks to compete with, Google looks even worse.

Third, sales have been terrible and have declined year after year: Google sold fewer smartphones in 2019 than it did in 2018, it sold fewer smartphones in 2018 than it did in 2017, and it sold fewer smartphones in 2017 than it did in 2016. Most of the reasons are listed above: The prices were too high, the quality was too low, and the brief advantage it had in photography quickly disappeared. I would also add that Google has struggled to find a popular look and feel for its Pixel handsets (and other devices), and that most models were, at best, bland-looking.

Finally, there’s been one bright spot in all this mess: In early 2019, Google re-embraced the value part of the smartphone market and released its first low-end (or maybe midmarket) Pixel smartphone, the Pixel 3a family (which came in normal and XL sizes). It was, relative to the rest of Pixel, a smash success, something akin to that Nexus 5 I mentioned earlier, the perfect combination of a clean Google software image, a minimalist design, and a decent camera experience. Plus, it was inexpensive.

We always knew that the success of the Pixel 3a would lead to a Pixel 4a in 2020. But what we didn’t know was that the Pixel 4, with its bland design, terrible battery life (in the XL version), bizarre feature set, and misguided camera system—seriously, Google chose a telephoto sensor over the more ubiquitous and necessary ultra-wide camera sensor—would be such a disaster. Obviously, things need to change for 2020.

Watching 2020 unfold was, of course, like watching a slow-motion car crash, with the resulting feelings of helplessness and fear, and here, again, I’m talking about Pixel and not COVID. The Pixel 4a was delayed from May until August, screwing up the normal release cadence and butting right up against the Pixel 5. The Pixel 4a provided low-end components and a single rear camera sensor, and it came in only one size, the less desirable (but less expensive to build) smaller size. And it had zero options, including color choices. All done for the sake of saving (Google) money.

The result was, to be fair, a minor success, albeit one that should have arrived earlier in 2020: The Pixel 4a, at $350, is a unique bargain in the smartphone world, especially given our pandemic concerns and uncertainties.

But it is the Pixel 5—and the curiously named and positioned Pixel 4a 5G that Google announced later in the year that caused the most confusion. These three handsets, collectively, are all of the same vintage, or family. The Pixel 4a and Pixel 5 are basically the same small size, while the Pixel 4a 5G is a slightly bigger design that might be called, using Google’s marketing style against it, “Barely XL” or “Not Quite XL.” The Pixel 4a is 4G only, but the Pixel 5 and 4a 5G both offer 5G. But different kinds of 5G. Unless you buy the 4a 5G from Verizon. In which case it costs more but has all the 5G. Or something.

None of these phones are flagships. As their starting prices—$350, $500, and $700, respectively—indicate, they are all, instead, low-end and/or midmarket handsets. That they come with a confusing matrix of capabilities is, of course, classic Google. The Pixel 4a and 4a 5G are made of polycarbonate, but the Pixel 5 is made of aluminum for some reason, and it’s coated with a plastic-like resin for some reason. The Pixel 4a and 4a 5G have 6 GB of RAM, while the Pixel 5 has 8. The Pixel 5 has wireless (and reverse wireless) charging and an IP rating for water resistance, but the 4a and 4a 5G do no. Unless you buy the 4a 5G from T-Mobile, in which case it does have an IP rating. And so on. It’s not just confusing, it’s comical.

Here’s the thing. I speak with PC and handset makers routinely, and I hear a lot of familiar marketing spiels from all of them. But HP once communicated something to reviewers that I really liked, noting that it had some number of dollars to spend on the components that made up a PC, and that it was its responsibility to spend those dollars wisely on behalf of its customers. In the world of personal tech reviewers, we often speak of the resulting products as being “compromises,” as if that’s a bad word, in which a hardware maker may include or not include certain features to reach a certain price point. But from HP’s perspective, it’s just about making the right decisions.

With that in mind, let’s consider what Google did in 2020 with the Pixel lineup. Here, we see great compromises and everywhere, and, yes, those compromises were often made to reach certain price points that the firm hopes will help it find more customers. But the matrix of choices that Google made with each 2020 Pixel—and in particular with the Pixel 4a 5G and Pixel 5 tells me that the online giant wasn’t always taking its responsibility to those customers so seriously. In some cases, Google clearly sold out its human customers in order to appease its wireless carrier customers and thus keep at least some of its handsets in the public eye.

I am referring here, mostly, to 5G. If you as a hardware maker want a wireless carrier to promote your products, you need to include 5G. And 5G is expensive. Just adding the most basic form of 5G—the more common Sub-6 type—adds about $100 in component costs to a phone. But adding support for the mmWave-type 5G that Verizon requires/prefers adds another $50 to $100. Those are big numbers for phones that sell for $1000 or more. But they’re killers for handsets in the $350 to $700 range.

Should the Pixel 4a 5G and Pixel 5 have simply used 4G chipsets to save money? Well, yes, given their positioning and the fact that 5G isn’t there yet and probably won’t be for years. But that’s only true in a vacuum: If Google wants Pixel to survive—and then maybe even succeed—it needs the support of wireless carriers. And that support isn’t happening without 5G.

And that’s a shame. Imagine if the Pixel 4a “XL” (nee 5G) cost only $400. And the Pixel 5 cost only $600. That’s what could have happened if it weren’t for the 5G tax.

It’s not just 5G, of course. The 2020 Pixels are all low-end or midmarket devices, as noted, and that comes with its own problems related to longevity and the lack of future-proofing. That is, a 2020 Pixel may work fine now, but what will that experience be like under Android 12, 13, or 14? I guess we’ll find out, but imagine if Microsoft suddenly converted its Surface lineup to have only Intel m3 and Y-series chipsets. Sure, they’d work. But who would want such a thing?

Honestly, I’m more than OK with what I think of as “good enough” computing. But while it’s easy to achieve a low price point, achieving value is a more difficult target. Something that’s cheap isn’t automatically a good value. The sweet spot, so to speak, happens when you get both: Something that is inexpensive and provides a good value.

In the context of the 2020 Pixel lineup, then, the Pixel 4a 5G is the only handset that appears to hit at this target and at least sort-of meet my needs. I really like the look of the Pixel 5, but it is too small and is too expensive given what you get. But the Pixel 4a 5G? Maybe. (Getting $365 on my Pixel 4 XL trade-in helps. A lot.)

If you look back at my Pixel 4a review, you’ll see that I described it as “an excellent and inexpensive smartphone that delivers unique value.” But I also noted that it wasn’t for me because it didn’t have an XL form factor or an ultra-wide camera lens. The Pixel 4a 5G achieves both, for the most part: Its 6.2-inch display is just a hair smaller than the 6.3-inch Pixel 4 XL display and it does have that ultra-wide camera.

I’m not compromising here, I’m settling, plain and simple. But as an Android and Pixel fan, I’m still curious and still interested in staying in this ecosystem if I can. I feel like the size will be OK. I feel like the camera system will be good, though a third (telephoto) lens would have put it over the top. The old-school Gorilla Glass 3 screen protection (Gorilla Glass 6 is the latest version) and the lack of an IP rating and wireless charging are not ideal … but they’re not deal-breakers either. So we’ll see.

The Pixel 4a 5G is supposed to arrive today, and unless I suffer from another FedEx theft, I will know soon enough.