<https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127>

sms wrote at Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:03:32 -0700 :

> https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127

$1,055 for a 1TB iPhone 13 Pro Max and $975 for a 1TB Galaxy S22 Ultra.

This seems to hint that you can actually make money by turning in a phone
that costs more than the Pixel 7 variant that you want to buy.

Another interesting thing is that Google is ready to slash $440 off the
Pixel 7 if you trade in a third-gen 64GB iPhone SE, even though the phone
itself costs $429.

On 10/15/22 6:58 PM, curmudgeon wrote:
> sms wrote at Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:03:32 -0700 :
>
>> https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127
>
> $1,055 for a 1TB iPhone 13 Pro Max and $975 for a 1TB Galaxy S22 Ultra.
>
> This seems to hint that you can actually make money by turning in a phone
> that costs more than the Pixel 7 variant that you want to buy.
>
> Another interesting thing is that Google is ready to slash $440 off the
> Pixel 7 if you trade in a third-gen 64GB iPhone SE, even though the phone
> itself costs $429.

OTOH, I'd get $12.00 for my Pixel2.

--
Cheers, Bev
The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese.

On 10/15/2022 7:08 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

<snip>

> OTOH, I'd get $12.00 for my Pixel2.

I think that you have to pay them $12 to take it. Someone I know
advertised a bunch of Micro-USB cables that she was trying to sell. I
advised her that she'd be lucky to find someone to take them for free.

In article <tijpe7$3fa3g$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Someone I know
> advertised a bunch of Micro-USB cables that she was trying to sell. I
> advised her that she'd be lucky to find someone to take them for free.

bad advice. micro-usb cables are still very useful, with external hard
drives being one of the most common uses, especially the usb 3 version.

On 10/17/22 7:39 AM, sms wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 7:08 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> OTOH, I'd get $12.00 for my Pixel2.
>
> I think that you have to pay them $12 to take it. Someone I know
> advertised a bunch of Micro-USB cables that she was trying to sell. I
> advised her that she'd be lucky to find someone to take them for free.

I love it and just paid $60 to give it a new battery. I also bought a
dozen adapters when I bought the phone 2.5 years ago. I had previously
purchased long cables so I could take pictures from my car without
disconnecting the charger.

As soon as you throw away a useless cable that doesn't connect to
anything you own you will discover your mistake :-(

--
Cheers, Bev
"What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine."
-- S. Brown

On 10/15/2022 6:58 PM, curmudgeon wrote:
> sms wrote at Sat, 15 Oct 2022 16:03:32 -0700 :
>
>> https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127
>
> $1,055 for a 1TB iPhone 13 Pro Max and $975 for a 1TB Galaxy S22 Ultra.
>
> This seems to hint that you can actually make money by turning in a phone
> that costs more than the Pixel 7 variant that you want to buy.
>
> Another interesting thing is that Google is ready to slash $440 off the
> Pixel 7 if you trade in a third-gen 64GB iPhone SE, even though the phone
> itself costs $429.

Also remember that even if the phone is locked it's okay, as long as
it's not under contract. And it doesn't have to be new. When I bought a
Samsung S10E for my wife I first bought a refurbished Tracfone iPhone 6s
to use as a trade-in, since the trade-in value from Samsung was much
greater than the cost of the refurbished iPhone.

It looks like Google is willing to write-off a lot of money to try to
jump-start Pixel sales.

sms wrote:

> Also remember that even if the phone is locked it's okay, as long as
> it's not under contract. And it doesn't have to be new. When I bought a
> Samsung S10E for my wife I first bought a refurbished Tracfone iPhone 6s
> to use as a trade-in, since the trade-in value from Samsung was much
> greater than the cost of the refurbished iPhone.
>
> It looks like Google is willing to write-off a lot of money to try to
> jump-start Pixel sales.

Usually in trade-in deals the old phone simply has to be in working order
and owned by you and that's about it. The battery can be within an ounce of
it's life as can the screen (as long as it's unbroken) and the phone simply
has to be able to "make a phone call" at least technically if not actually.

Besides, Google has the money in the bank to promote loss leaders where I'd
be interested in what people think about the Pixel series phones since I've
always had Samsung series devices myself.

How does the top and middle and bottom Pixel line compare in general to the
high and medium and low end Samsung offering overall?

On 10/19/2022 6:33 AM, andrew wrote:

<snip>

> How does the top and middle and bottom Pixel line compare in general to the
> high and medium and low end Samsung offering overall?

The 7 Pro is right up there with the S22 Ultra and the iPhone 14 Pro
Max. Better in some ways, like the cameras. No active stylus like the
S22 Ultra

On 10/19/22 6:33 AM, andrew wrote:

> How does the top and middle and bottom Pixel line compare in general to the
> high and medium and low end Samsung offering overall?

My Pixel2 was born in 2017. I just had the battery replaced. The Pixel
cameras are top drawer. Everything else is perfectly functional,
although the non-phone sound is pitiful unless you use earphones. A
bigger screen would be nice, but that's because I have rotten eyes.

I'm really pissed at how NEW Samsung stuff dies (TV, printer, stove)
close to the end and a few months after the 1-year warranty. Not
exactly "high quality" if you ask me.

--
Cheers, Bev
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
it's worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it any more.

On 10/15/2022 7:03 PM, sms wrote:
> <https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127>

The proposed trade-in on my Pixel 6 Pro really astounded me. Makes me think
that my long-standing practice of keeping a device for at least three
generations can be ditched given the price. Tough decision. My 6 is in
perfect condition and I've not suffered from any of the ills that are
supposed to afflict the generation.

On 10/19/2022 7:15 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 10/19/22 6:33 AM, andrew wrote:
>
>> How does the top and middle and bottom Pixel line compare in general
>> to the
>> high and medium and low end Samsung offering overall?
>
> My Pixel2 was born in 2017.  I just had the battery replaced.  The Pixel
> cameras are top drawer.   Everything else is perfectly functional,
> although the non-phone sound is pitiful unless you use earphones.  A
> bigger screen would be nice, but that's because I have rotten eyes.
>
> I'm really pissed at how NEW Samsung stuff dies (TV, printer, stove)
> close to the end  and a few months after the 1-year warranty.  Not
> exactly "high quality" if you ask me.

Huh? I have two Samsung televisions and two Samsung Blu-Ray players,
both several years old.

What you generally want to avoid are LG and Samsung large appliances
(refrigerators, washers, dryers).

You can get more useful info on Whatsapp (https://grouplinkonly.com/)

On 10/20/2022 12:36 PM, Bodger wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 7:03 PM, sms wrote:
>> <https://www.phonearena.com/news/google-increases-iphone-samsung-trade-in-values-for-pixel-7_id143127>
>
> The proposed trade-in on my Pixel 6 Pro really astounded me. Makes me think
> that my long-standing practice of keeping a device for at least three
> generations can be ditched given the price. Tough decision. My 6 is in
> perfect condition and I've not suffered from any of the ills that are
> supposed to afflict the generation.

Admission: I gave in to the temptation and ordered a 7 Pro 256 today. The
$540 trade-in on my 6 Pro 256 was just too much to resist...

On 21/10/2022 19:59, Bodger wrote:
> Admission: I gave in to the temptation and ordered a 7 Pro 256 today. The
> $540 trade-in on my 6 Pro 256 was just too much to resist...

I saw little benefit in the 7 Pro compared to my 6 Pro. There's not enough
improvement in the camera (my main interest) to justify the cost - OK, 5X
optical zoom compared to 4x. Had that been more...

I think the majority of the improvements are in any software, and experience so
far suggests that will be equally applicable to 6 and 7. Now, when the 8 comes
along....

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 10/21/2022 9:28 PM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 21/10/2022 19:59, Bodger wrote:
>> Admission: I gave in to the temptation and ordered a 7 Pro 256 today. The
>> $540 trade-in on my 6 Pro 256 was just too much to resist...
>
> I saw little benefit in the 7 Pro compared to my 6 Pro.  There's not
> enough improvement in the camera (my main interest) to justify the cost
> - OK, 5X optical zoom compared to 4x.  Had that been more...

Better cameras in terms of ultra-wide and telephoto, better battery
life, faster CPU (which helps in computational photography), and
brighter screen. Certainly not worth spending $1000 on, but depending on
the trade-in value, it could be worth it.

It's the cameras that lead many people to upgrade to the newest flagships.

On 22/10/2022 15:53, sms wrote:
> Better cameras in terms of ultra-wide and telephoto, better battery
> life, faster CPU (which helps in computational photography), and
> brighter screen. Certainly not worth spending $1000 on, but depending on
> the trade-in value, it could be worth it.
>
> It's the cameras that lead many people to upgrade to the newest flagships.

Thanks.

There are more advantages than I had originally thought, but the wider
wide-angle doesn't particularly attract me. The extra telephoto does, but
holding the 6 Pro for x20 is difficult enough. I'll be interested to see what
the extra processing function bring (I'll check the reviews) and also be in the
faint hope that they may filter down to the 6 Pro in due course.

I wonder what's planned for the Pixel 8?
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 10/22/2022 8:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
> On 22/10/2022 15:53, sms wrote:
>> Better cameras in terms of ultra-wide and telephoto, better battery
>> life, faster CPU (which helps in computational photography), and
>> brighter screen. Certainly not worth spending $1000 on, but depending on
>> the trade-in value, it could be worth it.
>>
>> It's the cameras that lead many people to upgrade to the newest
>> flagships.
>
> Thanks.
>
> There are more advantages than I had originally thought, but the wider
> wide-angle doesn't particularly attract me.  The extra telephoto does,
> but holding the 6 Pro for x20 is difficult enough.  I'll be interested
> to see what the extra processing function bring (I'll check the reviews)
> and also be in the faint hope that they may filter down to the 6 Pro in
> due course.
>
> I wonder what's planned for the Pixel 8?

Perhaps true optical zoom.

It's been tried, and abandoned, by Samsung with the Galaxy K Zoom
<https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-k-zoom-black-8gb-sm-c1150zkabtu/>.

Now Sony has a phone with true optical zoom, the Xperia 1 IV
<https://electronics.sony.com/mobile/smartphone/all/p/xqct62-b> but it's
very expensive, a lot more than a Pixel 7 Pro or an iPhone Pro Max. It
still has a headphone jack and a MicroSD card slot.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 12:38:20 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/22/2022 8:44 AM, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 22/10/2022 15:53, sms wrote:
>>> Better cameras in terms of ultra-wide and telephoto, better battery
>>> life, faster CPU (which helps in computational photography), and
>>> brighter screen. Certainly not worth spending $1000 on, but depending on
>>> the trade-in value, it could be worth it.
>>>
>>> It's the cameras that lead many people to upgrade to the newest
>>> flagships.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> There are more advantages than I had originally thought, but the wider
>> wide-angle doesn't particularly attract me.  The extra telephoto does,
>> but holding the 6 Pro for x20 is difficult enough.  I'll be interested
>> to see what the extra processing function bring (I'll check the reviews)
>> and also be in the faint hope that they may filter down to the 6 Pro in
>> due course.
>>
>> I wonder what's planned for the Pixel 8?
>
>Perhaps true optical zoom.

Are you saying that the Pixel 7's optical zoom is fake? Not to
disagree, since I don't know, but why? What's fake about it.

>It's been tried, and abandoned, by Samsung with the Galaxy K Zoom
><https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-k-zoom-black-8gb-sm-c1150zkabtu/>.
>
>Now Sony has a phone with true optical zoom, the Xperia 1 IV
><https://electronics.sony.com/mobile/smartphone/all/p/xqct62-b> but it's
>very expensive, a lot more than a Pixel 7 Pro or an iPhone Pro Max. It
>still has a headphone jack and a MicroSD card slot.

On 10/22/2022 3:38 PM, sms wrote:
snip...
>> I wonder what's planned for the Pixel 8?
>
> Perhaps true optical zoom.
>
> It's been tried, and abandoned, by Samsung with the Galaxy K Zoom
> <https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-k-zoom-black-8gb-sm-c1150zkabtu/>.
>
> Now Sony has a phone with true optical zoom, the Xperia 1 IV
> <https://electronics.sony.com/mobile/smartphone/all/p/xqct62-b> but it's
> very expensive, a lot more than a Pixel 7 Pro or an iPhone Pro Max. It
> still has a headphone jack and a MicroSD card slot.

The Pixel 6 Pro has a 4X true optical zoom. The Pixel 7 Pro has a 5X true
optical zoom. That is the meaning of the "periscope" lens that is mentioned
in articles about the cameras.

On 22/10/2022 20:38, sms wrote:
> Perhaps true optical zoom.
>
> It's been tried, and abandoned, by Samsung with the Galaxy K Zoom
> <https://www.samsung.com/uk/smartphones/others/galaxy-k-zoom-black-8gb-sm-c1150zkabtu/>.
>
> Now Sony has a phone with true optical zoom, the Xperia 1 IV
> <https://electronics.sony.com/mobile/smartphone/all/p/xqct62-b> but it's
> very expensive, a lot more than a Pixel 7 Pro or an iPhone Pro Max. It
> still has a headphone jack and a MicroSD card slot.

Yes, true zoom would be nice, but when consumer display typically only handles
2 MP the digital zoom is acceptable, except for pixel-peepers!

--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 22/10/2022 20:55, Ken Blake wrote:
> Are you saying that the Pixel 7's optical zoom is fake? Not to
> disagree, since I don't know, but why? What's fake about it.

Yes, you could call it "fake", it's not a "zoom" as such. A more accurate
description would be "has an additional telephoto camera with a ~100mm
equivalent lens".

In practice the zoom slide on the camera app works continuously from 0.7x
(wide-angle camera, up to ~1.4x digital zoom) through 1.0x-3.9x (normal camera,
up to 4x digital zoom) to 4x-20x (telephoto camera, up to 5x digital zoom). In
practice, under low-lighting conditions, for 4x zoom the f/1.8 camera with
digital zoom is preferred to the f/3.5 telephoto camera. Probably not a choice
I would have made, though.

It's the built-in software which is real winner, though - night shots with
multiple exposures (up to tens of seconds) with automatic image alignment
post-processing, panoramas with excellent alignment, and portrait mode bokeh
effects. It means that for the majority of my pictures, at least,
post-processing is no longer required.

PS: I do have micro-four thirds and DSLR kit with multiple lenses, but they are
hardly used these days. The Panasonic MFT with 100-300 (200-600 eq) an Olympus
macro lens are sometimes brought out for simple bird or detail photography.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Bodger wrote:
> The Pixel 6 Pro has a 4X true optical zoom. The Pixel 7 Pro has
> a 5X true optical zoom. That is the meaning of the "periscope"
> lens that is mentioned in articles about the cameras.

So what? Does that vast majority of smartphone buyers buy a new
model for its zoom capabilities of even for its photographic
quatitief? Then how comes zillions of people use the far lower
quality front lens, because they're addicted to selfies?

And what is even 5x true optical zoom compared to real cameras
with a much larger zoom range? The only "argument" is that most
people tend to have their phone at hand, not their camera, and
that in fact they don't care much about photographic quality.

So yes, all those Big Numbers are just fuzz about nothing, and
mainly used to boost the maker's PR.

-p

On 23/10/2022 10:36, Piet wrote:
> So what? Does that vast majority of smartphone buyers buy a new
> model for its zoom capabilities of even for its photographic
> quatitief? Then how comes zillions of people use the far lower
> quality front lens, because they're addicted to selfies?
>
> And what is even 5x true optical zoom compared to real cameras
> with a much larger zoom range? The only "argument" is that most
> people tend to have their phone at hand, not their camera, and
> that in fact they don't care much about photographic quality.
>
> So yes, all those Big Numbers are just fuzz about nothing, and
> mainly used to boost the maker's PR.

I care about photographic quality, which is why I bought the Pixel 6 Pro.
However, I'm not making 16x20 prints for exhibition display. Many people's
best display resolution is just a couple of megapixels (or less).

The sales of "real" cameras are reported to be in rapid decline. It's a matter
of getting something which is "good enough".
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

On 10/23/2022 5:36 AM, Piet wrote:
> Bodger wrote:
>> The Pixel 6 Pro has a 4X true optical zoom. The Pixel 7 Pro  has
> > a 5X true optical zoom. That is the meaning of the "periscope"
> > lens that is mentioned in articles about the cameras.
>
> So what? Does that vast majority of smartphone buyers buy a new
> model for its zoom capabilities of even for its photographic
> quatitief? Then how comes zillions of people use the far lower
> quality front lens, because they're addicted to selfies?
>
> And what is even 5x true optical zoom compared to real cameras
> with a much larger zoom range? The only "argument" is that most
> people tend to have their phone at hand, not their camera, and
> that in fact they don't care much about photographic quality.
>
> So yes, all those Big Numbers are just fuzz about nothing, and
> mainly used to boost the maker's PR.
>
> -p
>

Different people have different priorities. All I was doing in my post was
stating facts to correct the statement by sms who suggested that these
cameras didn't have "real" zoom capability. It seems that this really works
some people up and I'm at a loss to see why.

I just finished a two week visit to Wales and western England on the 17th
for hiking and general lazing about and carried a drone, an action camera
with automatic pan head and my Pixel 6 Pro and got images and video varying
from more-than-good-enough to fantastic. All of this gear weighed in at
less that the Canon gear I'd carried on previous similar trips and it all
fit easily in my day pack or on my belt leaving plenty of room for other
necessary gear. If I was to blow up similar images to wall-sized would I be
able to tell the difference? Sure, but I don't do that and the variety of
equipment I did carry on this trip enabled viewpoints that the Canon gear
could never manage.