Pixel Matters (Premium)

The Made by Google event is a major annual milestone for Pixel and Android fans, but it could be so much more than that. Where Apple’s fall iPhone event and even Samsung’s two big smartphone announcements each year are greeted with widespread interest and mainstream media coverage, Made by Google comes and goes with hardly any mention.

Case in point, The New York Times, which apparently thinks so little of this event that the term “Google” only appears on its Technology page today one time, in a story about Google Flights. Or, The Washington Post, which sort of covered the new devices in a single article about how AI might make for better phone photos.

You may point to the tech and gadget blogs and YouTube channels, which, yes, excitedly covered Made by Google just like they excitedly cover everything, that day, before quickly moving on to the next shiny bauble like cats distracted by a laser beam on the wall. And to the Android-focused blogs and channels that will linger on these topics because that’s all they do, in their curiously myopic ways.

But I find all this to be frustrating. Just as I found it frustrating in the late 1980s that no one seemed to be buying the Amigas I knew to be superior to the PCs and Macs of that era. Those who still hold a candle for Windows Phone can relate. Everyone around you is choosing inferior products and it’s maddening.

We need to be honest with ourselves to some degree. One thing these platforms all have in common is that each is (or was) as deeply flawed in as many ways as they are (or were) superior. They’re all wannabes, undermined in some ways by the companies that make (made) them, these little bursts of innovation that thrill the true believers but never rise to meaningful success in the market. For example, the Amiga’s ability to multitask in a single floppy disk configuration still stands as a technical achievement for the ages, though that experience was miserable and, thanks to the cheapness of Commodore’s drives, slow and loud. But this innovation never helped the platform overcome a PC market inertia that continues to this day. You know the drill.

Android is far from perfect, we all know that. And the Pixel, which is very much not “clean” Android but rather a highly customized version of that system, still has some big issues despite its many niceties. But Pixel, which could mean something, stand for something, if Google would just figure it out, deserves better. Certainly, its fans and users do.

I feel like Google tries, in its own half-assed way. One of the themes of this year’s Made by Google event was a celebration, of sorts, of the Pixel’s 10th anniversary, with Google glossing over 10 generations of Pixels that advanced in fits and starts rather than in a single, logical, and cohesive year-by-year evolution. But this anniversary is perhaps more notable for how rare such a thing is in this part of Google, a truth highlighted by its pre-announcement of something called Gemini Live that will one day replace the systems inside of Google smart speakers and screens that the company has not updated, not once, in several years. This is the real problem with the Google ecosystem. It’s like Swiss cheese, full of holes, many of which will never be filled.

? Why Pixel?

Just to be clear about where I’m at.

There is no perfect phone or phone platform, and if there was, I would use that. What makes something suitable, or perfect, for someone is, of course, subjective. And each of us has some list of features or functionality that we require or weigh more heavily than other factors and those that are less important. This is that “matrix of decisions” we sometimes discuss, a list or grid of pros and cons. To me, Android and iOS are largely a wash, meaning that they both work well enough, both have specific pros and cons, and neither is obviously better than the other overall. Of course, there’s no such thing as “Android” per se, so there are really three choices here, iOS and then Pixel Android and Samsung One UI. But the math is still the same. As is the uncertainty.

If there is one constant thread through the entire history of Pixel–and to be fair, there really isn’t–it’s that the Pixel software has always outperformed the hardware on which it runs. This situation parallels what we experienced with Windows and the PC until the late 1990s, when you would always get the best experience with the latest hardware.

As an obvious example of this issue with Pixel, Google has long offered superior computational photography capabilities in its phones. These features bogged early Pixels down so badly that Google created a proto-NPU in the form of Pixel Visual Core before finally turning to actual NPUs. But then Google further handicapped its software prowess with underpowered processors in the Pixel 5 series before finally shifting to its own Tensor chips starting with the Pixel 6 family. Chips that have, to date, proven to be lackluster for almost everything, as they’re slow, run hot, and provide poor battery life.

So that’s what Pixel fans, myself included, put up with. A compromise with the core experience and the broader ecosystem in return for consistently stunning photos. And the other things you get with a Pixel, which include more helpful software- and service-based features than I can count, a growing array of useful AI-based features, and, with the most recent Pixels, a distinctive look and feel to the hardware that I–subjectively–really like.

So depending on how the math works out for you, how you shuffle and weigh the many mini-decisions that go into the full matrix of decisions that result in some product purchase, the Pixel is either a no-brainer or a non-event. This is a problem for any company that makes any product. But for companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung that make full ecosystems that consist of hardware devices, software platforms, apps, services, and peripherals, it’s even worse. This is expensive, time consuming work. It needs to be done correctly. It needs to be complete. And customers–existing and potential–need to believe in what you’re doing, trust that things can only improve in time.

And that is not what Google promises or delivers. Every year, Made with Google comes around, and every year, we get a combination of more of the same and whatever random focus the company has this time. More often than not, a big focus from a previous year is never mentioned again, and whatever products or services came out of that either linger in the market, not updated, or quietly disappear. Yes, Apple and Samsung do this to some degree. But Google is far worse.

We all have bad relationships with technology, all of us. Some of us have some good relationships with some technology. None of us have good relationships with technology, generally. If you’re all-in on Apple, you get the closest to that latter ideal, but you give up so much, too, and this is why Android fans exist. But Android, Pixel Android, One UI, whatever, are all compromises that demand a lot from users. And this is why the Amiga comparison hits so hard for me when I think about Pixel. I love the damn thing. But I recognize how it lets me down, too. And I kind of resent it.

? Putting your best foot forward, whatever that means

I’ve always been fascinated by Google live events. Unlike Apple, Google hasn’t given up on this connection with its fans, or really with friendly or influential media members. Its events can be as stilted as any other tech event, but they are live, performed by real human beings in front of real audiences. These audiences are sometimes quite big, as with Google I/O, another annual milestone on the Google event calendar. Or they can be quite small, as is the case with Made by Google.

This makes sense. Google I/O is ostensibly a developer conference, but it represents the company-wide initiatives that power the bulk of its revenues and its strategies for continuing that success into the future. But Made by Google is about a much smaller and more precarious part of the company. If you look at the most recent Alphabet/Google earnings, you can see that Google subscriptions, platforms, and devices contributed $11.2 billion of the company’s $96.4 billion in revenues. That’s just 12 percent, and it’s got to be the lowest margin business that Google operates.

This also means that there’s room for growth. And some other Google businesses, like Google Cloud, have consistently delivered strong growth year after year, and without the help of advertising dollars. Surely, Google can grow this business, too. The part of the company that includes Pixel, the related Nest-branded smart home hardware, plus Android, Chrome OS, Google One, and its consumer-focused Google AI subscriptions.

All it needs to do is put its best foot forward, announce the right products and services, build out its ecosystem, and deliver a consistent experience that customers won’t just want but will seek out. This is easy, right? I mean, just ask Siri.

But I kid.

? Made by Google, but made for whom?

There’s little point in debating about Google’s decision to enlist the help of B-list celebrities and C-list social media “stars” for this year’s Made by Google event. To some this was all cringe, but I don’t see how this is any worse than past Apple, Microsoft, or Samsung gaffes. (Anyone want a free U2 album in their music collection? No? Well, too bad.) The bigger question here is whether this was a hand-waving distraction attempt, as others allege, because what Google is offering this year is collectively too tepid, too minor to warrant much attention.

I must disagree with both of these concerns. Apple can get away with selling minor updates as monumental, history-defining changes. Google cannot. Even when Google does offer something truly innovative or interesting, it is ignored by media and mainstream audiences. And so I see this year’s Made by Google event through a slightly different lens: What it was doing before never worked, so it makes sense to mix things up. I’m not saying that the event was great per se. But I am saying it was no better or worse than previous Made by Google events. And that shifting the conversation to a less techy worldview is a good idea. We can quibble over the details. But Google needs to reach a mainstream audience and get them to care about its hardware products.

Granted, we’re not a mainstream audience. “Those in the know,” as we like to think of ourselves, have long recognized the advantages (and disadvantages) of Pixel and Google’s other hardware products. We live in a year-over-year bubble, of sorts, and we’re jaded to the incremental improvements that all these companies deliver every year. But this isn’t just natural, given how mature some of these product categories are, it’s also not how mainstream users view phone and device upgrades. These days, those upgrades happen every several years, and the advantages to a new device at that point make it easier to justify the cost.

I upgrade my phones every year. I get a new Pixel flagship almost every year–I skipped out on the lackluster Pixel 5, my one moment of clarity–as I do with iPhone, typically. The justification for these purchases requires some imagination. Because the reality is that it rarely makes sense.

This year more than ever.

? Speeds and feeds

Consider. I have a Pixel 9 Pro XL. Comparatively, the Pixel 10 Pro XL offers the following differences:

Price. The base Pixel 9 Pro XL with 128 GB of storage was $1099 at launch, but the base Pixel 10 Pro XL with 256 GB of storage is $1199, or $100 more. Yes, a 256 GB Pixel 9 Pro XL would have cost $1199 one year ago, the same price as the Pixel 10 Pro XL. But I only needed 128 GB of storage, so this year’s base Pixel 10 Pro XL is still $100 more than the phone I bought one year ago.

Size, weight. The size of the Pixel 10 Pro XL–6.4 x 3 x 0.3 inches–is identical to that of the Pixel 9 Pro XL. But the weight, 8.2 ounces, is significantly more than the 7.8 ounces of the (quite heavy) Pixel 9 Pro XL. Why? The battery is bigger: 5200 mAh vs. 5060 mAh. This, and the more efficient Tensor 5 processor (see below), might help with battery life (or might not, see below), which would help counter one of the biggest issues with recent Pixels.

Display. No physical differences, but the Pixel 10 Pro XL display is brighter, with 2200 nits of brightness for HDR content and 3300 nits of peak HDR brightness, vs. 2000/3000 nits for the Pixel 9 Pro XL. This doesn’t feel meaningful to me.

Battery life. Oddly, the battery life Google cites for the Pixel 10 Pro XL is no different from that of its predecessor: 24+ hours overall, up to 100 hours with Extreme Battery Saver.

Charging. This is significant. Though Pixel 10 Pro XL wired charging is unchanged–both support 45 watts of wired charging with a 70 percent charge in just 30 minutes–wireless charging is much better. It supports Qi2 wireless charging and works with any Apple MagSafe-compatible devices, including chargers. And you can wirelessly charge at 25 watts with compatible wireless chargers, up from just 15 watts on the previous phone. It’s impossible to overstate what a big deal this is, not so much for the speed but for interoperability with the MagSafe ecosystem. Plus, Google’s new Pixelsnap-branded accessories are cool, too.

RAM/storage. These are mostly the same, with 16 GB of RAM across the board, though Pixel 10 Pro XL starts at 256 GB of UFS storage, not 128. If you get a 512 GB or 1 TB Pixel 10 Pro XL, you also get an upgrade to Zoned UFS storage, which should be a bit faster, especially for on-device AI operations. But that won’t impact me: A 512 Pixel 10 Pro XL costs $1319 (!). What.

Processor. This is potentially significant, though I’ve been disappointed by the reality of previous generation Tensor processors, especially over time. But the Tensor 5 processor in the Pixel 10 Pro XL promises “the biggest leap in performance since Tensor’s debut,” with a 34 percent faster CPU and 60 percent faster NPU. It also features an upgraded Imaging Signal Processor (the successor to Pixel Visual Core), and a more efficient 3 nm design (vs. 4 m for the Tensor 4 in the Pixel 9 Pro XL) that should help with the heat and battery life issues. We’ll see. But this has been a problem so far. I want to believe.

Camera system. The hardware is identical, front and back, and it is impossible for me to describe how disappointing that is. Thanks to that new Tensor 5 ISP, the Pixel 10 Pro XL provides 100x Pro Res Zoom vs. 30x for the Pixel 9 Pro XL, which is just digital (or, more politely “hybrid”) zoom. I’d rather see a bump to 8x optical zoom on the telephoto lens, but no. The Camera app also includes Camera Coach, Auto Unblur, Auto Best Take, Sky styles, Resize and move objects, and Portrait blur on Pixel 10 Pro. But see below, as these will all come to Pixel 9 Pro XL in the future.

AI features. Like its predecessor, the Pixel 10 Pro XL provides one year of Google AI Pro for free (at $240 value), plus Gemini nano, Gemini with Gemini Live, and various Gemini-powered/integrated apps. But it also offers a new Gemini nano model, some enhancements in some Gemini-powered apps, the new Magic Cue, and various new features in the Camera app. All of which, let’s face it, will come to the Pixel 9 Pro XL soon enough.

Audio and video. All identical. Same screen capabilities, same speakers, same spatial audio, same microphones.

Look and feel. Given their identical dimensions, one could assume that the Pixel 10 Pro XL and Pixel 9 Pro XL are physically identical. And they are, though the newer phone is available in a slightly different mix of colors and a “refined” exterior with “a silky matte glass back, polished frame, and beautiful diamond-cut camera bar.” The Pixel 9 Pro XL body also has a “silky matte glass back with polished metal frame,” and that camera bar is unchanged. Plus, I’m not a serial killer, so I’ll be using a case. This is not an upgrade of any kind.

? Look what you made me do

Objectively, the Pixel 10 Pro XL is as minor as any year-over-year flagship smartphone upgrade in recent memory. Which, again, is fine, since so few people would ever pay for that upgrade.

But I’m not most people. So what would that look like, for me?

A base Pixel 10 Pro XL costs $1199 before taxes, fees, and a case (and, to be fair, a few Pixelsnap accessories). Google will give me $600 in trade for my Pixel 9 Pro XL, bringing the cost down to $599. Or, if I were so inclined, I could opt to pay Google Fi $33.31 per month for three years, or with my trade, now worth just $413, for $21.84 per month over three years. (Making the total cost $786.) Oddly, my 256 GB iPhone 16 Pro Max is worth just $475 on trade through Fi, though Google would give me $799 on an outright purchase were I a switcher. Which I am not. Because no one phone is perfect.

In the end, I opted to preorder a Pixel 10 Pro XL in Moonstone outright, so I reverted my Pixel 9 Pro XL to the current, stable version of Android last night (it was in the beta track previously) and allowed it to wipe out the device completely in a factory reset. I also preordered a Pixelsnap Case, also in Moonstone for $49.99, and a Pixelsnap Ring Stand, which apparently only comes in Moonstone ($29.99). Because it looks fun.

I’ve been doing this long enough that I can anticipate the trough of despair that might normally accompany such a lackluster upgrade. And I can justify this price because of what I do for a living, and thanks to the harsh reality that Google is aware of my desire to review this and its other devices but has thus far declined to accommodate this request.

I will do right by the device, regardless. But I do wonder what Google could do, if anything, to make Pixel matter. Because Pixel does matter to me. But I’ve been here before. And I know how this ends.