A lot of people buy Android. But very few people buy Pixel:
> In a world dominated by iPhones and Samsung phones, Google isn't a contender. Since the first Pixel launched in 2016, the entire series has sold 27.6 million units, according to data by analyst firm IDC -- a number that's one-tenth of the 272 million phones Samsung shipped in 2021 alone. Apple's no slouch, having shipped 235 million phones in the same period. [1]
I've wanted to buy a Pixel for years but Google doesn't distribute it here. It's not like I'm living in some remote area, I live in Mexico, right next door.
The first couple of years I assumed Google was just testing the waters, but after so many Pixel models I suspect it's really just more of a marketing thing for Android. They don't seem to have any interest in distributing the Pixel worldwide, ramping up production, etc.
Because jayd16 was responding to samwillis's comment about Apple being in a unique position.
Part of that unique position is already being a popular product. Google adding a bunch of local ML features isn't going to move the needle for Google if people aren't buying Pixels in the first place for reasons that have nothing to do with ML.
If Google's trying to roll out local ML features but 90% of Android phones can't support them, it's not benefiting Google that much. Hence, Apple's unique position to benefit in a way that Google won't.
> number of phones Google has sold is completely irrelevant to the fact that they too do local ai
How will they make money? For Apple, device purchases make local processing worth it. For Google, who distribute software to varied hardware, subscription is the only way. For reasons from updating to piracy, subscription software tends to be SaaS.
Does Google do on-device processing? Or do they have to pander to the lowest denominator, which happens to be their biggest marketshare?
If the answer is no, then does it make sense for them to allocate those resources for such a small segment, and potentially alienate its users that choose non-Pixel devices?
Also, if the answer is no, this is where Apple would have the upper-hand, given that ALL iOS devices run on hardware created by Apple, giving some guarantees.
Pixel is just an example of Google owning the stack end to end but the Qualcomm chips in the Samsung phones have Tensor accelerator hardware and all mobile hardware is shared memory. I think samwillis was referring to the uniqueness of their PC hardware and my comment was that they're simply using the very common mobile architecture in their PCs instead of being in a completely unique place.
> In a world dominated by iPhones and Samsung phones, Google isn't a contender. Since the first Pixel launched in 2016, the entire series has sold 27.6 million units, according to data by analyst firm IDC -- a number that's one-tenth of the 272 million phones Samsung shipped in 2021 alone. Apple's no slouch, having shipped 235 million phones in the same period. [1]
[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/why-google-pixels-arent-as-...