Color me impressed with this phone. Many things better than even the 'flagship' Pixel 4... WOW...
https://store.google.com/product/pixel_4a
https://store.google.com/product/pixel_4a
-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Google Pixel 4a, better than the 4XL?
- Thread starter NightAngel79
- Start date
-
- Tags
- google pixel 4a pixel 4a
Honestly I think this is the best Pixel yet. No, it can't compete in a spec shootout, but I'd challenge you to find any other Android phone which provides an overall experience this good, let alone at this price point.
Plus it looks like the Android blogosphere universally loves it which has never happened for a Google device. This must be something special!
Also you can unlock it while wearing a mask, something you can't do with the 4XL.
Plus it looks like the Android blogosphere universally loves it which has never happened for a Google device. This must be something special!
Also you can unlock it while wearing a mask, something you can't do with the 4XL.
It's very probable that I'll get one when they are in stores.
My sister has my PH-1 and it's showing it's age. I'll give her this 3a, I'll just have to to help her out
My sister has my PH-1 and it's showing it's age. I'll give her this 3a, I'll just have to to help her out
Honestly I think this is the best Pixel yet. No, it can't compete in a spec shootout, but I'd challenge you to find any other Android phone which provides an overall experience this good, let alone at this price point.
Plus it looks like the Android blogosphere universally loves it which has never happened for a Google device. This must be something special!
Also you can unlock it while wearing a mask, something you can't do with the 4XL.
Exactly! Would love to see a Pixel really kill it (let's face it, it's due) and this is primed to do just that.
This price point, for those features? Serious wtf... That said, actually give me more storage, and more RAM, and a larger screen and I don't mind paying a premium for the Pixel 5XL when it comes out.
Same storage as my Pixel 2, 50% more RAM, slightly smaller, bigger screen, headphone jack, faster processor, half the price. If my current phone fails or is destroyed this would be a no-brainer as a quick replacement.
Vs the 4 this is cheaper, doesn't have a silly forehead to accommodate a pointless gimmick scanner, is less breakable and has a headphone jack, a fingerprint scanner and a bigger battery. You give up the IP rating. That seems a fair trade-off to me.
The things that would swing me to a 5 would be the option of more storage (I've got about 30GB of my 128 free, so no crisis, but a bit more headroom would be nice for future proofing), a slightly smaller body (I don't want a larger phone), 5G might be nice for future-proofing given how long I keep phones. But I can't see it beating the value proposition of the 4a.
Vs the 4 this is cheaper, doesn't have a silly forehead to accommodate a pointless gimmick scanner, is less breakable and has a headphone jack, a fingerprint scanner and a bigger battery. You give up the IP rating. That seems a fair trade-off to me.
The things that would swing me to a 5 would be the option of more storage (I've got about 30GB of my 128 free, so no crisis, but a bit more headroom would be nice for future proofing), a slightly smaller body (I don't want a larger phone), 5G might be nice for future-proofing given how long I keep phones. But I can't see it beating the value proposition of the 4a.
Great points. 5g and IP rating would be nice, but both are things I've never used/needed. But would be nice. 128 fine for me for foreseeable future as well. Curious to see if this does really well, if that influences anything about the 5.
I don't think at this stage it can influence the 5, except maybe the price. Everything else is locked in at this point for the 5. There's only 2 months to go before it releases, so it's not like they can change any internals and still have it arrive on time.
A fair point (and welcome back after 4 years, LOL).
But yea, I forgot it was Aug, LMAO. I'd be ok with it influencing the price of course, but yea, nothing is changing now. Would like to depend on Google for certain things, but it is obvious they are still figuring (some) things out here.
If the 5 has finger print, 128gb, 8gb of Ram...
Scratch that, as long as they improve on the specs for the flagships, specifically ram and refresh rate, I'd think about trading in the S20 plus for it.
Yeah it's been a bit since I posted. But I have been lurking about every so often. I'm sure the 4a might be a bit slower than the flagships, but I'm not in that big of a hurry either. I'll give it a go and if it's noticeably bad I'll return it and see what the 5 has to offer. Considering what users are saying about the 3a, I think it will be fine. It would be nice not to have to take out a mortgage to buy a smartphone, which seems to be the direction the industry is going (with their flagships at least).
100% agree. Really hoping the 4a helps kick-start the trend of really good, affordable phones. New samsungs are getting up to 1399 and above and that is crazy.
And right now isn't really the time to start rolling out the Uber expensive phones. With the amount of unemployment or people working less than full-time (let alone overtime) you'd think they'd be more focused on affordability. But I suppose the phones that are currently releasing were locked in probably around the beginning of the year.
The one I can't understand is the regular Note 20. It's got a FHD 60 Hz display and a plastic back like the 4a, with a few other higher end specs obviously, but they're asking almost 3 times as much. I don't think anyone would get 3x the value out of it.
That's the inevitable result of Samsung feeling secure at the top of the heap: they increase their margins.
It's even worse in Europe as you get the inferior Exynos chip for the same price (pace currency adjustments and tax differences). And as Samsung make the Exynos (though a different division) that brings them extra profits while we get a worse phone.
And yeah, the main designs of phones released now were locked-in many months ago. And Samsung make many different phones at lower price points, so you shouldn't imagine that lowering the price of the Note range would be considered: they would just say that there are the A and J series for those who can't afford it.
I read an article the other day that explained the regular Note 20. According to that article, it is made for carriers, something they can push on unsuspecting customers, or use to upsell more knowledgeable ones to the Ultra. It also said that if you wanted a Samsung phone, that you'd have to get the regular if you were budget conscious, but wouldn't you just go with one of the S20 models instead? It's not like the Note series is all there is. But if that article's right and that's the reason for it's existence, IMHO it's kinda like a middle finger to their fans who can't afford the Ultra. It's almost like they're daring people to get the plain Note 20, just to show Samsung how loyal they are.
You should never show loyalty to a corporation, because one thing that is certain is that no corporation gives a damn about you (just the bottom line).
I'm not sure that article's explanation adds anything useful, to be honest. Carriers matter a lot in the US but much less in other parts of the world, which is to say the larger market, while the Note 20 is sold worldwide. So saying that Samsung would make a phone just for carriers to upsell or offload on the gullible comes across as a parochial view as well as conspiratorial. There are significant costs associated with developing, distributing and marketing a second model, so while I'm sure that some of the spec differences are intended to push customers to the more expensive model, just as they've done with the Galaxy S range ever since the S9 (why else does the bigger phone always get a higher spec camera?) I doubt it makes commercial sense to make a model whose primary purpose is upselling to a different model, because the costs of the extra model would certainly kill the profits from the upsell unless you can also sell a large enough number that model to other customers (i.e. it must pay for itself, or at least almost pay for itself, in its own right).
Similarly making a phone to "push on unsuspecting customers" makes no sense as a business strategy. Though I've used such language myself when talking about inadequately-specced phones (those with too little storage to be usable), the reality is that the manufacturer has cut corners to hit a price point where they think there is money to be made. If you accept that they've cut specs but maintained price so as to increase margins on that model then talking about pushing it on an unsuspecting customer doesn't really add anything, except that the author doesn't think it's good value. Conversely making a product primarily to dupe customers may make sense for an eBay seller who will close their account after a few weeks and restart under another name with another batch of fake reviews, but it doesn't add up as a strategy for a huge corporation who rely on brand image (and have spent more than the complete turnover of many of their rivals on marketing to establish that image).
To me it's very simple: if I wanted a Note it would be for the stylus, and if I didn't want the stylus I'd not buy the Note. Without that there's very little difference between the Note and S lines to my mind.
I'm not sure that article's explanation adds anything useful, to be honest. Carriers matter a lot in the US but much less in other parts of the world, which is to say the larger market, while the Note 20 is sold worldwide. So saying that Samsung would make a phone just for carriers to upsell or offload on the gullible comes across as a parochial view as well as conspiratorial. There are significant costs associated with developing, distributing and marketing a second model, so while I'm sure that some of the spec differences are intended to push customers to the more expensive model, just as they've done with the Galaxy S range ever since the S9 (why else does the bigger phone always get a higher spec camera?) I doubt it makes commercial sense to make a model whose primary purpose is upselling to a different model, because the costs of the extra model would certainly kill the profits from the upsell unless you can also sell a large enough number that model to other customers (i.e. it must pay for itself, or at least almost pay for itself, in its own right).
Similarly making a phone to "push on unsuspecting customers" makes no sense as a business strategy. Though I've used such language myself when talking about inadequately-specced phones (those with too little storage to be usable), the reality is that the manufacturer has cut corners to hit a price point where they think there is money to be made. If you accept that they've cut specs but maintained price so as to increase margins on that model then talking about pushing it on an unsuspecting customer doesn't really add anything, except that the author doesn't think it's good value. Conversely making a product primarily to dupe customers may make sense for an eBay seller who will close their account after a few weeks and restart under another name with another batch of fake reviews, but it doesn't add up as a strategy for a huge corporation who rely on brand image (and have spent more than the complete turnover of many of their rivals on marketing to establish that image).
To me it's very simple: if I wanted a Note it would be for the stylus, and if I didn't want the stylus I'd not buy the Note. Without that there's very little difference between the Note and S lines to my mind.
It's not like similar things haven't happened before. Apple has released base models with severely lacking storage capacities to push customers to higher capacity (and more costly) models while still being able to claim a low starting price. It could also be arrogance on Samsung's part. Look at the current Android market, no one is really close to Samsung, so even if they lose some sales, it's not like someone else is going to supplant their number one status.
But say I'm completely wrong on those points. How would you explain the regular Note 20 existing at the price they're asking? Samsung would be better off just having the Ultra model. Most anyone I've talked to puts the price Samsung should've asked at around $700-800. Is a pen worth $200-300?
So what's your take on it?
My take is that they repeated the strategy of last year (Note 10+ and a down-specced Note 10) and cut a couple more corners to increase margins further. And the reason it costs so much is some combination of their being sure enough of their position that they think it will sell, that pricing it lower would cost them more sales of the Ultra, and that $/£/€ 1k devices are well enough established that they can get away with it.
Yes I'm sure they hope for upselling, just as they do with the S range (the S8 was the one time they gave you the same specs in 2 sizes, ever since they've tried to push people to the more expensive models via spec differences). I just don't think it makes sense for a device like this, still full of expensive components, to have that as its primary purpose.
Yes I'm sure they hope for upselling, just as they do with the S range (the S8 was the one time they gave you the same specs in 2 sizes, ever since they've tried to push people to the more expensive models via spec differences). I just don't think it makes sense for a device like this, still full of expensive components, to have that as its primary purpose.
I get what you're saying, but if just seems like a money grab to me. They go from a glass to plastic back, lower storage, and then charge more than the previous device. For people who can't or won't spend the extra for the Ultra, it's not so much stabbing them in the back as poking them repeatedly with the knife.
Considering there is a general feeling that plastic is less premium, many will figure that if I'm paying this much for a device, I should get that much out of it in specs & materials. I personally would rather have plastic or metal as they tend to be less prone to breakage, but I get their point. And I'd imagine that glass costs more to produce, so that's why a device with it should cost more. So for them to charge more using cheaper materials and with some lower specs, that just seems a bit greedy. They may be confident in their position, but you also have to wonder if doing this might change people's perspective towards them. If they're perceived as caring more about money than providing a quality product, it might turn people away from them. This might be the first $1,000 smartphone with a plastic back out there.