Google Pixel 10 series review

Why in the world I would buy a phone (any not just Google) that costs north of $800 is beyond me unless I want to signal my purchasing power. If utility is my metric and not outward signalling and flex, I find this worst deployment of my funds.

So called "budget" phones these days have OLED screens some even come with 120Hz displays (beyond me why someone would want that) and plenty of compute and memory.

You want camera, buy a camera. You want gaming, buy a console or gaming machine.

Pixel phones are rarely full price. Right now you can get it on Google Fi for $450.

They run promos around the clock. iPhones OTOH are never discounted.

for me it's the hope of at least some minor degree of longevity. I used a pixel 3 for six years, until the degenerating battery finally drove me to get a new phone, and I paid whatever exorbitant amount they wanted for a pixel 9 pro which will hopefully last me another six years

For me it was "want camera", and I chose the top SKU (P8 Pro) because I wanted maximum camera.

"Buy a camera" doesn't work because (a) I don't want to pocket two devices, (b) most point-and-shoot dedicated cameras that are actually better are more bulky, too, (c) even entry-level good digital cameras are >$500 (e.g. a ZV-1F or something), so even the combo with a midrange phone often comes out more expensive and (d) a seperate camera makes it really annoying to send photos anywhere on the go.

That said: I came away fairly unhappy with the Pixel 8 Pro camera, which my book has a too editorialized post-processing look that I simply don't like. In retrospect, I think I should have gone for the Xperia in that generation, which appears to have been the last phone with high-end smartphone camera gear that took neutral-looking shots. My S21, despite having a worse sensor and optics, took subjectively nicer photos.

I've now updated my definition of "maximum phone camera" to be more choosy ...

$800 sounds like a lot, but is very reasonable for a device someone might use 3+ hours a day for 2 years. At the end of those years, it can likely be sold for at least $400. That works out to something like $0.36/hour.

What if I want:

(1) a camera with zoom and night shot capability comparable to my 2010 Sony Cybershot camera.

(2) An internet terminal with enough CPU/RAM to browse modern websites.

(3) A music player with a space for 150-300 GB of MP3's and nice-ish UI

(4) Online and offline map

(5) wireless charging (because I keep destroying charging ports in my devices)

(6) all of this should fit in my pocket. I've spent >5 years of my life carrying a separate camera on the belt, I am not doing this again.

All functional requirements, no "outward signalling or flex". What should I get?

(Genuine question, I've spent few days researching this recently and high-end smartphone aeems to be the only match. Weirdly, it's good camera and wireless charging that raises the price, not CPU)

It's an extremely weird way to look at price. My family use the same dining table for more than two decades. So it's about 5,000 ~ 10,000 hours. But it doesn't make it somehow worth a few thousands of bucks.

I just bought a refurbished pixel 8 for $200

> So called "budget" phones these days have OLED screens some even come with 120Hz displays (beyond me why someone would want that) and plenty of compute and memory.

Are you mistakenly calling the Pixel 10 a budget phone? Because it's not. The actual budget phones are like $200, and they certainly don't have 120 Hz OLED screens.

> You want camera, buy a camera. You want gaming, buy a console or gaming machine.

Because why would I buy a separate camera and portable gaming machine when I can have them all on a single device?

Do you honestly not see the benefits of having a single device that does everything rather than having to pack multiple things? Especially a camera. They're bulky as hell and require a whole-ass bag dedicated to them. At least a Nintendo Switch can still fit in a large pocket.

I'm not a professional photographer and don't pretend to be one. I just want something that'll create "good enough" pictures to share with friends and family.

Flagship devices are also faster, which saves time.

For existing Fi users, it's $450 off, plus another $200 in store credit for the Pro models (not money off since it's parked in Google Store, but if you're buying accessories or other items over the next year it's like money). Selling my old phone brings the price of a 10 Pro down to around $400 (not counting the $200 store credit).

If you sign up for Fi when buying the phone, the deals are pretty enticing: $300 off right away, $500 more in Fi bill credits over 24 months. I think you also get the $200 store credit too.

Regardless of how 'good' a phone camera sensor might be on a spec list, it's looking through a massively aspherical plastic lens that's about 5mm thick and admits a magnitude less light than your Sony camera for any given scene.

I think the best comment on the subject was here in HN years ago; although they're both called cameras, they're really different media. One is like charcoal sketching and the other is like oil painting.

The difference to the few gen back flagships is not as significant as between the tiers in the same gen.

Get Samsung A series and it will last you easily four years or five. Priced around $300 or so.

How so? They may be a different media for a professional photographer, but for a layman (like me) they have exactly the same purpose: I press the button, and I get a picture of my friends / that bird / landscape. And while I can easily tell charcoal sketching vs oil painting apart, I (and most of my friends) cannot tell real camera picture apart from high quality cell phone.

So no, I would not say it's a different media for the modern-ish phones (like pixel 8, iphones, etc...). If your impressions are based on cheap smartphones, they are out of date - there is a whole new world out there.

On a more advanced level, I am awed how a camera with ultra-high-FPS + many GFLOPs of CPU + advanced post-processing algorithms can make tiny lens work like regular ones, while still being thin enough to fit in the pocket.

The price comparison should be to other phones (presumption is you are definitely buying one).

Then, the question is if phone A costs $0.25 per hour, and phone B costs $0.36 per hour, are you willing to spend an extra $0.11 per hour.

The same applies to the dining table, but obviously the comparison is to other dining tables.

It's like buying a hammer with only one head and saying to use a crowbar if you want to remove a nail. You can get both in one. Overwhelming majority of people don't need or want to carry around a DSLR or know how to use it. They also don't want to lug around a PS5 and monitor. Believe it or not you can actually get all that in one device for cheaper.

Budget phones tend to come with very short support windows so you'll be buying multiple budget phones while someone with a flagship keeps the same phone for many more years. You could use plastic silverware for every meal or you could spend more on metal silverware and clean it. You'll save more in the long run and it works much better.

I went from an A52 5G to a S25+ (3 years between the two models). The S25 is infinitely nicer to use. The screen is usable in direct sunlight. OneUI is noticeably smoother. The camera is way better (like, way, way better, in both good and poor lighting conditions). Background apps don't close as frequently. Heavy social media apps perform more smoothly.