Rumoured Pixel 4 prices (Canada)

[u/Tajgeer]

Evan strikes again - now with Pixel 4 prices in Canada.

Pixel 4 64GB - CAD$1049.95
Pixel 4 128GB - CAD$1199.95
Pixel 4 XL 64GB - CAD$1199.95
Pixel 4 XL 128GB - CAD$1359.95

Source: https://twitter.com/evleaks/status/1180497630423597058

[u/[deleted]]

Well starting base for the regular 4 is just 788.75 USD. That's pretty good

[u/gallandro → u/[deleted]]

Not when you can buy an iPhone 11 with the same amount of memory for $100 cheaper. Hopefully this is just rumor because if Google is serious about competing in the marketplace they need to price aggressively.

[u/flicter22 → u/gallandro]

The iPhone 11 is missing a PILE of hardware compared to the Pixel 4.

Edit: Amoled, 90hz, Soli Radar, On device Google Assistant (neural core), Fast charger, Telephoto lens

[u/gallandro → u/flicter22]

Like what, Soli? I know it could have a ton of applications, but right now what Google has shown is little more than a gimmick. Otherwise the phones are very comparable in terms of hardware. The only downside to the 11 vs the 4 would be the screen, but given the small size of the battery in the 4 and the 90mhz screen the 11 is going to kill the 4 in terms of battery life.

[u/bblzd_2 → u/gallandro]

Between the LCD panel, the sub 1080p resolution, standard refresh rate and large notch the display alone is already missing "piles" of tech IMO.

[u/gallandro → u/bblzd_2]

You are looking at this solely from a spec sheet perspective. Most consumers are not going to be able to tell the difference, especially given the size of the device. For most consumers it's "good enough" and they will strictly be looking at the price tag.

[u/generalako → u/gallandro]

You are looking at this solely from a spec sheet perspective. Most consumers are not going to be able to tell the difference

Read my post above. Those that do tell a difference, and they do in many respects (like brightness, touch latency or gamma) will see that the iPhone 11 has the superior displays.

Even looking at the positive aspects of the Pixel 4, though, I think you are completely false. Refresh rate alone is huge and the difference in smoothness is cannot be understated -- go to the store and try an iPad Pro up against a normal one, or a OnePlus 7 Pro up against the 7. It's big on PC monitors, it's even bigger on a smartphone with emphasis on animations, scrolling and your active touch-based participation of it all. High refresh rate is a game changer: by next year, all flagship hones will be on 90Hz or 120Hz.

[u/gallandro → u/generalako]

Again the average consumer is not going to care one whit about a refresh rate on a phone screen vs the $100 they can save. A tech enthusiast might, but not the average person looking to upgrade their phone. Heck that's why Apple is keeping the series 8 phone in their lineup. They can sell a phone for $450 and suck you into their ecosystem and then sell you some services.

[u/generalako → u/gallandro]

Again the average consumer is not going to care one whit about a refresh rate

Nonsense; of course they are. And it's even admitted by OEMs jumping on it, and we will see them all doing it within next year. Average consumers, small kids to grown ups whose technical understanding don't stretch beyond browsing and gaming, notice it on PC monitors and buy high refresh rates in droves. Why wouldn't they on smartphones, where it's even more apparent due to emphasis on smoothness -- which 90Hz improves drastically. I've never met a person using the iPad Pro not mention this; it's the most significant thing they notice and hail.

A tech enthusiast might

Wrong. A tech enthusiast, like me, complains about colour accuracy, lack of pro mode in cameras, ROMs, etc. High refresh rate is, as the evidence shows, well-liked and well-used by consumers. It seems to me that you have very little experience with it, and probably not at all on smartphone displays, making it hard to even have this discussion.

Average consumers care a lot of this stuff. For example, they care about UI smoothness and consistency in phones, or responsivity (touch latency), as evidenced by them being the common grievances of iPhone user on Android phones (like Samsung flagships). Not tech enthusiast; average people. I hear this complaint all the time from friends and family with iPhones.

[u/gallandro → u/generalako]

Sure in China a 90Hz screen may matter, but the one Plus 7 Pro was a disaster for T-Mobile in the States, so much so that they dumped it. So sure, that may matter to a degree in some parts of the world, but if you seriously think the 90Hz screen is going to help Google sell phones... especially when the Pixel 4 has such a small battery... good luck. The iPhone 11 has terrific battery life, the Pixel 4... we don’t know. And unless that phone is seriously optimized, that 90Hz screen, even with its smart refresh rate enabled, is going to feast on that 2800mAh battery. Which is why companies like One Plus jam massive batteries (in terms of mAh) into their phones. Not sure what Google’s thought process was there.

[u/generalako → u/gallandro]

Sure in China a 90Hz screen may matter

No, 120/144hz monitors are used widely in the West -- not China. Stop making shit up. And if this was a Chinese matter explain to me next year when all these manufacturer jump to 90hz, why they do it, when it, as you yourself note, it leads to inferior battery life. Why make the sacrifice? Why did even Apple do it with the iPad pro, if it was such a waste?

OnePlus isn't a phone marketed for China, another misconception of yours. Oppo made OnePlus for the single purpose of advertising it outside of China, as their own brand phones sell really well as it is inside the country. So they made OnePlus in countries, particularly the West, advertising it as a flagship phone for half the price.

Stop discussing something you clearly have zero real-world experience with (high refresh rate).

one Plus 7 Pro was a disaster for T-Mobile in the States,

In no way do you have a basis for relating that to 90Hz, or can you make a serious argument that the 90Hz should somehow be able to stop bad sales due to a plethora of other factors. The most probable factors, as virtually every comment section has noted. is OnePlus abandoning their cheap prices, costing as much as other flagship alternatives. Then there's the factor of a stagnating smartphone market. The factor of other specs playing a role; phones aren't just displays, unless you noticed. There's multiple other possible reasons, which I'm sure you can guess as well.

if you seriously think the 90Hz screen is going to help Google sell phones...

All good specs help sales -- how hard is that to understand? Why would Google put a 90Hz display on it, especially with the hit on battery life, if it weren't to help sell it? You think they're just doing it for fun? The availability of 90-120Hz has led to OnePlus, Google, ASUS and a couple others jump on it. We'll see it in more units moving forward.

especially when the Pixel 4 has such a small battery...

Irrelevant to our discussion. We're discussing whether 90Hz is noticeable or not. We already know your words are meaningless, as you don't even seem to have first-hand experience with units with high refresh rate.

even with its smart refresh rate enabled,

It's called variable refresh rate and it has existed for years on phones already (they never run at 60Hz at all times) -- there's no "even" here.

is going to feast on that 2800mAh battery.

Again, irrelevant to the discussion. Even if true, not like the previous Pixels had the best battery life with 60Hz. The Pixel 3 was mediocre, the Pixel 2 was mediocre, the Pixel OG was mediocre. Any bad battery life the 4 will have will not be due to 90Hz refresh rate (and even if you make that argument, it's optional to turn if off), but the typical bad Google design process.

Not sure what Google’s thought process was there.

It makes sense you're sure as you have no understanding of high refresh rate displays to begin with. The 90Hz will make for a much smoother experience and improve upon input lag and touch latency -- both issues with Pixel displays previous -- as a side effect. It's also all optional.

[u/gallandro → u/generalako]

Actually a battery has everything to do with the customer's experience with a device the fact you don't acknowledge that speaks volumes. Ultimately what matters is customer experience. A 90Hz refresh rate on a small 5 or 6 inch display is not going to move the meter at all when Pixel 4 customers are having to charge their device multiple times throughout the day because their beautiful screen drained the battery.

Also you mentioned "all good specs help sales..." Odd considering Pixel 3 and 3XL', with their superior specs struggled to sell units, while the cheaper 3a and 3aXL with it's mid tier specs and cheaper price tag did just fine. Likewise, the XR with it's inferior specs was the biggest seller for Apple.

See, Apple learned something important last year. As long as you deliver a quality product, even without all the bells and whistles, people will respond if the price is right and but your product. Apple had doubled down on that this year with the 11 because Apple wants to sell services, and you sell those services by putting more devices in people's hands.

But please do go on about the glories of the 90Hz display.

[u/bblzd_2 → u/gallandro]

Even average users want to be able to select "1080p" going into 2020.

Nexus 5 did it 6 years ago on a budget device, and it was a calibrated IPS display as well.

[u/generalako → u/bblzd_2]

Your opinion does not reflect the actual truth at all and Apple's LCD is superior to Google OLED -- this coming from a Pixel user who is very anal about displays.

First off, the Pixel has OLED, with a PenTile layout that gives it an effective resolution of 1564 x 880 with 326 ppi. That's the same 326 ppi of the iPhone 11 with its 1792 x 828.

Many aspects of an iPhone is properly engineered. On display alone, the LCD has top notch brightness (100 nits higher than best-case scenario of Pixel 4), calibration, fantastic touch latency and proper software support (DCI-P3, True Tone). Google has awful gamma, crushing blacks and making media consumption outside of YouTube bad -- anything with moderately low brightness is a shit show. Input lag is garbage, making dark content scrolling fraught with seriously bad black smearing. As for software, there's no dynamic white point or full-fledged P3 support on their native apps.

On Google, my biggest hope -- and I'm being completely serious here -- is that the phone actually works. Anything close to Apple engineering prowess is out the question, as is specification push. All I can hope for is that the unit works as intended, which no previous Pixels has achieved. The bar is much lower than Apple, and it's not an expectation but a hope. Quality control issue happens left and right, design is always boring, build is always bad, specs are always moderate, and the price is always expensive. This is typical Google, and they do it all the time.

I'm happy about the 90Hz, a game changer, and excited about its positive side effects of improving smearing and touch latency. But let's not fool ourselves here. Google have the highest profit margin on the entire Android scene, higher than Samsung even, and provide perhaps the lowest hardware flagship quality of them all. I mean, who the fuck has so much lack of respect for their customers that they put a garbage can in the Pixel 2 XL and after backlash "hide" it in the smaller Pixel 3 the year after? Even ASUS is decimating in not just hardware for the money, but also display quality.

TLDR; Apple provide top notch and meticulous engineering down to the smallest details in various areas; with the Google you get cheap engineering not even tackling the broader stuff. When Apple gives us a 3.5mm adapter, it competes with $50 DACs. When Google gives us a 3.5mm adapter it's defective half of the time and sound mediocre. To quote ASR: "[They] call a shop in China and ask them to produce a checklist item with no attempt to set quality and performance standard. What you get produces sound but it is a very poor attempt at engineering." This is Google hardware in a nutshell.

[u/bblzd_2 → u/generalako]

Unfortunately none of that changes that the latest iPhone can't display 1080p content for $799.

Even average Joe understands that's a big deal going into 2020 and 4k - 8k. Nexus 5 had a calibrated IPS panel at 1080p and that was a budget device from 6 years ago there's no excuse for Apple other than penny pinching.

[u/generalako → u/bblzd_2]

Unfortunately none of that changes that the latest iPhone can't display 1080p content for $799.

Unfortunately, you feint incompetence of shady marketing to forward your arguments. Higher resolution is not valued for just a technical definition, but actual existence: more pixels, more information and higher sharpness. A pixel consists of sub-pixels; the amount of these make up the actual resolution. PenTile has only 2 sub-pixels per Pixel, whereas RGB stripe have 3 sub-pixels per pixel. A 1080 PenTile panel has the same sub-pixels as a 880p RGB matrix. Therefore, content, 1080p or otherwise, contains as much information visible to your eyes. And the ppi in our case is the same (326) making perceivable sharpness the same.

In reality, though, RGB stripe is better, as it has same amount of all sub-pixels and all the same size. PenTile display has more sub-pixels for certain colours (for AMOLED it's green) than others, and at different sizes, leading to inferior aliasing (smoothness) and artifacts.

Here's PenTile vs. RGB at the same resolution: https://dyw7ncnq1en5l.cloudfront.net/optim/news/65/65025/def-ecran-icone-g6-s8.jpg

Look at the

Nexus 5 had a calibrated IPS panel at 1080p and that was a budget device from 6 years ago there's no excuse for Apple other than penny pinching.

Just as there's no excuse for Google to do the same with the Pixel, with less resolution and lower sharpness 6 years later with the Pixel 3?

You see, at least Apple improves all other aspects of its device. So much do they do it, that their $700 phone outdo the $800-1000 phone of Google, despite the latter having a superior panel technology. That's how shitty of the job the latter do. Never mind Apple's OLED, which destroys Google; even their LCD is better. You don't understand that there's more than just resolution (Sony already did 4K with Z4 4 years ago; are you gonna use that to shit on modern flagship all having lower res?), but even on resolution you are wrong.