Jump to content

Talk:Google Pixel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 August 2020

[edit]
Moved to Talk:Pixel (1st generation) § Requested move 4 August 2020
 – – Thjarkur (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pixel (1st generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel 6

[edit]

Hey, I'm just realizing why we aren't at least stating that Pixel 6 and 6 Pro are announced with details pending? – The Grid (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an announcement, that was merely a preview/teaser. Google has also confirmed that the 5a is happening, yet that isn't included here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Pixel 4 wasn't added to this article until after the launch event date had been announced (diff) in late September, despite Google releasing that official teaser image and video months earlier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I understand that but Google has confirmed its existence on their official social media and in the store [1]. It's just that could prevent the back and forth edit war or maybe we can add an invisible comment noting the devices won't be added until the details are officially listed? – The Grid (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already did that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel roadmap report

[edit]

I'm torn on how much we should trust in this recent article from Android Authority, which supposedly outlines Google's entire roadmap for the Pixel series through 2025. In the past, I've generally viewed their articles on factual news (i.e. widely reported facts) and reviews as marginally reliable, but I've never had to use their original reporting until now. Pinging @The Grid, Mliu92, and Ghostofakina for thoughts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The details seem credible (eg the ‘’lynx’’ code names) but these will probably be verified by more reliable sources as the release dates approach — having also edited automobile articles, usually there isn’t an article prior to release (or a preview concept), so it would be premature to create a Pixel 7a or Fold article. Cheers. Mliu92 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, I wasn't thinking of creating articles prematurely, I was more thinking we could add text such as "Google reportedly intends to launch _____ in _____" to existing articles, i.e. Pixel 7a info on the Pixel 7 article, future Tensor info on the Tensor article, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL would still apply (and WP:LEAKS is a nice guideline). Google will most likely not confirm this information. It's a bit perplexing on Google because they even keep detailed interviews for their Pixel Superfans as confidential information which prevents some actual insight into these products. If it seems important to mention, we might have to say something like "Android Authority published a leak of Google's roadmap for the Pixel series through 2025 which includes mentions of x, y, and z." – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with WP's guidelines on leaks, but I wanted to know whether others believe Android Authority is a reliable source for original reporting. So far, I haven't really gotten a straight answer. Apologies if I wasn't being clear on what I was asking. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've tried to avoid using sites like Android Authority for primary sources. While it might be a good source of information, I would not trust it entirely without further confirmation from other sources. Additionally, the leak is said to be from an anonymous source. Ghostofakina (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I hate to say that I don't hold journalism about phones in a high place because their articles are usually just restating the primary source along with their previous related articles to help generate clicks. Here's an interesting thought for 2023: get some Android-related sources discussed at WP:RSP. The Verge and Ars Technica have been staples of RS but I think Android Authority and Android Police perhaps need to be evaluated. – The Grid (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I guess I'll hold off adding this information until more RS's corroborate the report. Regarding The Grid's RSP suggestion, I somewhat doubt editors there are familiar with these low-caliber sources that solely focus on a niche topic, so they probably wouldn't be helpful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel 6a discontinued

[edit]

I'm too lazy to fix Jippycats (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan column is confusing

[edit]

I don't understand what the "lifespan" of the phones represents. I expected it to be either the release date to discontinued date, or perhaps release date to end of support?

Unless I'm really bad at math, neither of those add up for any row.

How is the lifespan figure arrived at? 51.148.133.36 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan is the duration from release date to the end of the support period (EOS = no more software updates).
It should be correct now. RM12 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel 8a is available for preorder

[edit]

Details are out. Chidedneck (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'll work on putting in the specs soon. LostInInfinity (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]

@RM12, just because it does not clearly state support is no longer offered does not mean support is still active for the devices

Google advertised 3 years for the devices. They no longer get monthly updates. To interpret anything beyond those statements is making your own interpretation. It's been like that before they grouped 3a XL to say it no longer gets support. – The Grid (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google advertises a minimum of 3 years for the devices. And I know myself that they don't get regular updates anymore and it's clearly stated when the phones got their last update, I can read the table myself. I don't have to interpret anything I just state the facts that Google provides in official support documents.
How do you back up your interpretation that support must have ended because they don't get monthly updates anymore? "just because it does not clearly state support is no longer offered does not mean support is still active for the devices" is an interpretation, citing an official support document unchanged is not.
The first gen Chromecast didn't get updated for two years and then received a final update and Google officially ended support after that and changed the support pages so not getting regular updates is no proof that support has ended.
Maybe you should reevaluate your definition of "interpretation". RM12 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another thing you misunderstand. I quote you "technically all devices can receive critical risk security updates after their EOL."[1] That may be true in some cases but can't be generalized. When Microsoft ends support (EOL) for Windows versions they don't get any updates even if a major security flaw is discovered the day after. Apple on the other hand officially supports iPhones for 5 years (EOL) but generally their phones get irregular updates for much longer so there is no clear definition of EOL and therefore we have to go by the word of the specific company and not cherry pick interpretations from different sources. RM12 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One look at the Factory Images for the devices in question (4, 4a, and 5) shows they are no longer getting updates - 4 was February 2023, 4a was November 2023, and 5 was February 2024. Here's an older version of the page with Internet Archive before 3a: [2] but I see in the past they actually stated "No guaranteed Android version updates after" and "No guaranteed security updates after" with the tables. What is "Extended Support" with Google? What extended support does 4, 4a, and 5 have right now? – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RM12 I'm still awaiting an answer here. What does extended support mean at all? – The Grid (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Security section

[edit]

Should this page have security section to have a neutral point of view? Should we only have Google approved content instead? 90.167.203.100 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If security is going to be mentioned, it should at least describe its features like the Titan M2 chips. Mentioning only one news piece is absurd as it is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and should have multiple sources. Do note using sources that simply restate what another source stated isn't another source. – The Grid (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please include it with an independent source. 90.167.202.253 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pretend you're another person. I know you're within the same IP range, down to /26. – The Grid (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you want to pretend to be a separate person, I'll put this info out:
and today:
Every IP listed is from Spain. Orange Espagne SA. Applying /26 narrows the range down to 6 bits = 2^6 - 2 = 62 usable IP addresses.
@InfiniteNexus Would you like to chime in about this systematic editing? I think CU would do nothing here but if a /26 range shows some tendentious editing that would warrant a timed block especially as an IP hopper. – The Grid (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you want to hide this information? 84.78.243.97 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the article does not have a "history" or "security" section. If this content is to be included, there would need to be either a full-fledged "history" section detailing the history of the Pixel (which I'm actually surprised is missing) or a full-fledged "security" section detailing all the security-related aspects of the Pixel. Furthermore, the proposed text would have to be reworded substantially because its present state blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Pixel devices are susceptible to remote takeover is deliberately misleading; because of this low level of security quality is outright non-neutral. But I'm more concerned with the edit-warring on the part of both parties. This is a blockable offense. Per the recommendations at WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, the IP user should explain their reasoning on the talk page and seek consensus while the status quo is retained by default on the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's been the issue with the IP users. They add POV sentences about anything related to Pixel through at least 2018. The issue isn't bringing them up, and it's intentionally misleading and adding their own narrative (WP:SYNTH) with no reason wanting to present a neutral tone. It's always the deflecting "why are you trying to hide this" when it's just a bad way to present a source.
It's also bordering on WP:NOTNEWS as the issues come from reddit threads (via r/Android or r/GooglePixel) and it's either The Verge, Android Police, Android Authority, 9to5, or Ars Technica picking it up as news. ARS is perhaps the best out of the sources because they try to verify and talk to someone from Google about said issues before publishing. It's something to also be aware as these sources are about a niche topic and they will report something based on what another site states. – The Grid (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you mostly, but in this case highly reputable sources like WaPo and Wired did pick this up. The Verge is also considered reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. The question really is where to even include this. I could try starting a security section but probably have to look for items that Google and the Pixel team have been focusing on for each release.
The info about the IP users needs to at least be logged with admins, I think. I want to see what they say as the IP range is narrowed down to see there's a pattern. I haven't combined the edits to see if there's a pattern but I'm sure there is. – The Grid (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google_Pixel&oldid=1254048388"