Is the Google Pixel Failing? (Premium)

The late 2018 release of the Pixel 3 was a sales disaster for Google. But there are indications that the Pixel 4 is even worse off. Is the Pixel family of handsets doomed?

I know, I’ve sounded the Pixel alarm many times in the past. The Pixel 2 XL, in particular, was a reliability disaster. And then Google said in the year-ago quarter that the Pixel 3 line—which included the awful Pixel 3 XL—had sold more poorly than its predecessors.

Despite a maddening storage limitation and middling performance, the Pixel 3a, released in mid-2019, emerged as a viable alternative to more expensive flagships thanks to its excellent camera and durable polycarbonate body. Customers responded by buying twice as many Pixels in that quarter than they had in the same quarter a year previous, though, that was a low bar given the low sales of the Pixel 3 and 3 XL.

The Pixel 4 … underwhelmed, frankly. It’s a capable handset, of course, but it has a bland design and it lacks an ultra-wide-angle camera lens at a time when the other flagships offer that option and are otherwise catching up with Google’s once-unassailable lead in computation photography.

Predictably, the Pixel 4 didn’t sell very well in its first quarter of availability. We don’t know how poorly because Google chose to hide that information from investors in Alphabet’s recent quarterly earnings report. But if we read between the lines a bit, a picture emerges of a handset lineup that’s in trouble.

In its post-earnings conference call, Google noted that its hardware lineup—which also includes smart speakers and the like—is “still in the early stages of delivering on our vision for ambient computing,” Google’s unfortunate name for its strategy of pushing its services to as many devices as possible. (I earlier had coined the phrase “ambient computing” to mean computing services that are hidden and can be controlled by voice, such as you see in a smart home.)

But when it came to devices that “sold well,” Google only mentioned three: The Nest Mini and Nest Hub Max, which “sold well over the holidays,” and the Pixel 3a, “which sold well last year.” Not the Pixel 4.

Interesting.

So what did Google say about its latest handsets? Just this.

“With Pixel 4, we continue to build out our capabilities and are keenly focused on execution, delivering great user experiences and broadening our distribution.” The first bit—” build out our capabilities and are keenly focused on execution”—relates to Google’s post-Pixel 4 launch announcement about it delivering new capabilities each month. And the second bit, regarding broadening its distribution, is a bit confusing: The Pixel 4 isn’t notable for much, but it is the first Pixel handset to be made available on all major US carriers. Perhaps they mean internationally.

Whatever they mean, I feel that these mentions—and non-mentions—all add up to one thing: The Pixel 4 isn’t selling well.

We know a Pixel 4a is on the way. And while I have high hopes for that mid-market family of handsets, they will of course be dogged by the same storage and performance issues as their predecessors, which makes them less viable over the long term and thus perhaps not as good a value as they appear upfront, as I noted in my recent post, Revisiting the Google Pixel 3a XL.

Regardless, even with the mini-success of the Pixel 3a (and perhaps a similar level of success with the Pixel 4a), the Pixel lineup isn’t exactly setting the market on fire. In a sense, Google’s inability to capitalize on its position as Android’s maker mimics Microsoft’s experience with Surface in the PC world. Each lineup has its fans and enthusiasts. But compared to the established market leaders, neither has made even a ripple in the market, and neither appears in any lists of best-selling devices in either category.

(That Google had previously used third parties to promote its pure Android via Nexus is interesting, because that, in turn, mimicked Microsoft’s earlier efforts with the Signature PC program. Both now are simply designing and making their own hardware instead of partnering with others.)

I have no answers to this problem, for Google or for Microsoft. But I have a few observations.

Both companies are basically boutique hardware makers in their respective markets, so neither benefits from the scale of the market leaders. Both had serious reliability issues, and both appear to have gotten past that, but both are also not offering some basic features—an ultra-wide-angle camera in Google’s case, Thunderbolt 3 in Microsoft’s—that were already embraced by their bigger competitors. And both continue to focus mostly on premium products at a time when the market is starting to move to lengthier upgrade cycles and lower-cost options.

As an enthusiast, and someone who my less technical friends and family members turn to for advice, I should be able to recommend Google Pixel handsets—and Microsoft Surface PCs—without reservation. I mean, these things should be no-brainers. Instead, I find myself really liking both for personal reasons, but unsure about recommending them to others. That is perhaps telling.

I don’t know. But it’s interesting that the conversation about the Pixel—again, as with Surface—is so unsure. And that, once again, I’m wondering if it can even survive.