[Emaderton3]

Priv isn't online anymore, but I saw it on display at my Verizon store. It was on a table with some other phones and not even all the way in the back!

Posted via CB10

[llrenta]

Wow is all I can say!

[ssirica]

At my Verizon store also - but they don't have any in stock and they claim they cannot order it - still listed at $408!

Posted via CB10

[Emaderton3]

At my Verizon store also - but they don't have any in stock and they claim they cannot order it - still listed at $408!

Posted via CB10

Same price here. Interestingly, the rep said the worst selling phone by far was the Pixel.

Posted via CB10

[ssirica]

I offered to purchase the working display unit and they said they couldn't sell it either!

Posted via CB10

[Emaderton3]

I offered to purchase the working display unit and they said they couldn't sell it either!

Posted via CB10

He told me he wasn't sure if there were even any in the back.

Posted via CB10

[Troy Tiscareno]

Same price here. Interestingly, the rep said the worst selling phone by far was the Pixel.

The Pixel is intentionally volume-reduced (Google intentionally makes far fewer than they can sell, because they don't want to be competing directly with all of their licensees), and most Pixel buyers buy unlocked, so they aren't trapped into Verizon's update schedule (if you buy a Verizon Pixel, you have to wait on Verizon for updates).

[Chuck Finley69]

The Pixel is intentionally volume-reduced (Google intentionally makes far fewer than they can sell, because they don't want to be competing directly with all of their licensees), and most Pixel buyers buy unlocked, so they aren't trapped into Verizon's update schedule (if you buy a Verizon Pixel, you have to wait on Verizon for updates).

So, kinda like a KEYone release, just more intentional? LOL

[Troy Tiscareno]

Google's reason for making phones has always been more of a demonstration to the industry about what CAN be done with hardware and software, and NOT an attempt at building a smartphone device business. They have nearly 200 partners who have licensed Android for smartphones, and they don't want to compete with them too strongly - they just want to say "hey, check out what you can do with Android." Thus, they make enough to make a point, but not nearly enough to satisfy the demand (and they don't advertise, so they're not trying to build demand either).

Google isn't like LG or HTC or Moto or Sony, etc., who need to sell as many of their devices as possible. Google would probably be better off (in the short run) if they didn't make devices at all - they do so because they CAN, but they keep the volume small enough so that they aren't stepping on their partners' toes.

And so their situation is different from BBMo's with the K1. The K1's production numbers are low because demand is low - because it's a niche device from a niche brand. Of course we all know that the supply wasn't enough to meet the initial launch demand - BBMo was being extra cautious for a number of reasons - but if they had met launch demand, it's virtually certain that follow-up demand would have fallen off a cliff. Once most interested CBer's got their K1, there simply wouldn't be a significant number of others looking for a PKB phone. With very low production, BBMo can have a tiny production team AND keep them around to be ready to build the NEXT device whenever that comes. That's better than having a bigger team for 1 or 2 months of big demand and then having to lay people off for several months until the next device launches.

[Emaderton3]

Google's reason for making phones has always been more of a demonstration to the industry about what CAN be done with hardware and software, and NOT an attempt at building a smartphone device business. They have nearly 200 partners who have licensed Android for smartphones, and they don't want to compete with them too strongly - they just want to say "hey, check out what you can do with Android." Thus, they make enough to make a point, but not nearly enough to satisfy the demand (and they don't advertise, so they're not trying to build demand either).

Google isn't like LG or HTC or Moto or Sony, etc., who need to sell as many of their devices as possible. Google would probably be better off (in the short run) if they didn't make devices at all - they do so because they CAN, but they keep the volume small enough so that they aren't stepping on their partners' toes.

And so their situation is different from BBMo's with the K1. The K1's production numbers are low because demand is low - because it's a niche device from a niche brand. Of course we all know that the supply wasn't enough to meet the initial launch demand - BBMo was being extra cautious for a number of reasons - but if they had met launch demand, it's virtually certain that follow-up demand would have fallen off a cliff. Once most interested CBer's got their K1, there simply wouldn't be a significant number of others looking for a PKB phone. With very low production, BBMo can have a tiny production team AND keep them around to be ready to build the NEXT device whenever that comes. That's better than having a bigger team for 1 or 2 months of big demand and then having to lay people off for several months until the next device launches.

The rep said the number one reason people were turned off by it was the lack of expandable storage. I thought that was interesting but also odd since that is the case with other phones.

Posted via CB10

[Denise in Los Angeles]

My husband has the Pixel. Its nice, but too expensive. His company gives him a mobile allowance, thereby allowing him to spend that much money. If it was all coming out of his pocket, he would have bought a less expensive phone.

[TGR1]

Google's reason for making phones has always been more of a demonstration to the industry about what CAN be done with hardware and software, and NOT an attempt at building a smartphone device business.

I accept that argument back when the Nexus line was launched but I don't think Google made a good case using the Pixel. Not a really standout example to follow.

Google isn't like LG or HTC or Moto or Sony, etc., who need to sell as many of their devices as possible. Google would probably be better off (in the short run) if they didn't make devices at all - they do so because they CAN, but they keep the volume small enough so that they aren't stepping on their partners' toes.

I wonder if they are switching gears somewhat with respect to hardware, given their recent hiring of an SOC designer. I can't imagine that even if successful they would find a foundry to manufacture enough other than for limited runs but it is clear that Apple has some distinct strengths by owning their own silicon and being beholden to Qualcomm can hurt. OTOH, it could be just another example of "Squirrel!" on Google's part.

And so their situation is different from BBMo's with the K1. The K1's production numbers are low because demand is low - because it's a niche device from a niche brand. Of course we all know that the supply wasn't enough to meet the initial launch demand - BBMo was being extra cautious for a number of reasons - but if they had met launch demand, it's virtually certain that follow-up demand would have fallen off a cliff. Once most interested CBer's got their K1, there simply wouldn't be a significant number of others looking for a PKB phone. With very low production, BBMo can have a tiny production team AND keep them around to be ready to build the NEXT device whenever that comes. That's better than having a bigger team for 1 or 2 months of big demand and then having to lay people off for several months until the next device launches.

I agree that very small production runs are pretty well a given but such low projections for potential buyers also seem to support short sales lifetimes. Does it make sense that TCL would support fairly rapid refresh cycles? Doesn't seem commercially viable.

[Emaderton3]

I accept that argument back when the Nexus line was launched but I don't think Google made a good case using the Pixel. Not a really standout example to follow.



I wonder if they are switching gears somewhat with respect to hardware, given their recent hiring of an SOC designer. I can't imagine that even if successful they would find a foundry to manufacture enough other than for limited runs but it is clear that Apple has some distinct strengths by owning their own silicon and being beholden to Qualcomm can hurt. OTOH, it could be just another example of "Squirrel!" on Google's part.



I agree that very small production runs are pretty well a given but such low projections for potential buyers also seem to support short sales lifetimes. Does it make sense that TCL would support fairly rapid refresh cycles? Doesn't seem commercially viable.

How profitable is such a strategy?

Posted via CB10

[anon(10268214)]

Pixel...blah. No SD card, no thanks!

[TGR1]

How profitable is such a strategy?

Posted via CB10

I wouldn't think it would be but to have tiny launches spaced widely apart seems pointless too for establishing a brand. I confess the road forward isn't clear to me.