https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Google/Pixel-7-Pro

The small difference in scores really doesn't tell the whole story. The
Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
(the iPhone 15 Pro Ultra is expected to have a much better optical zoom
<sic> as well.

Google currently has a $150 discount on the Pixel 7 Pro ($300 discount
if you port to GoogleFi for 60 days), plus they are offering very large
trade-in values (like $410 for a 64GB iPhone Xr). This means you can end
up with an ultra-premium phone for only a couple of hundred dollars.
There's also a $100 Google Store credit if you get a referral code from
an existing Pixel user.

In article <tlmlb2$g66u$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode

iphones do that without needing a separate mode.

On 2022-11-23 18:36, sms wrote:
> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Google/Pixel-7-Pro
>
> The small difference in scores really doesn't tell the whole story. The
> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
> (the iPhone 15 Pro Ultra is expected to have a much better optical zoom
> <sic> as well.
>
> Google currently has a $150 discount on the Pixel 7 Pro ($300 discount
> if you port to GoogleFi for 60 days), plus they are offering very large
> trade-in values (like $410 for a 64GB iPhone Xr). This means you can end
> up with an ultra-premium phone for only a couple of hundred dollars.
> There's also a $100 Google Store credit if you get a referral code from
> an existing Pixel user.

I love the way you conveniently (for you) omit the actual scores:

147 to 146

That's less than 0.7% better than the iPhone.

And that's only the camera score, right?

In the other three categories they score for the two devices the iPhone
wins:

Audio (142 to 137)

Display (149 to 146)

Battery (133 to 102)

On 11/23/2022 9:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
>
> iphones do that without needing a separate mode.

The tested Google Pixel 7 Pro is an $899 phone, which barely beats the much
more expensive iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max designs, at least in the camera.

Since all that extra money didn't buy camera output, what does it buy you?

On 24/11/2022 02:36, sms wrote:
> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Google/Pixel-7-Pro
>
> The small difference in scores really doesn't tell the whole story. The
> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
> (the iPhone 15 Pro Ultra is expected to have a much better optical zoom
> <sic> as well.

Having bought and rejected a Pixel 7 Pro phone, if you value telephoto mode you
are better off with the Pixel 6 Pro. I compared the image from both with the
x20 setting (520 mm equivalent) and the images from the Pixel 6 Pro were
crisper (fewer artefacts around edges). You are getting very much into the
diffraction limited area. Does dxomark show that?

I have Astrophotography on the 6 Pro, although the night skies in Edinburgh
aren't really dark enough to use it!

At the current Black Friday sale price the 6 Pro is a bargain! Amazon:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Google-Pixel-Pro-Unlocked-Smartphone/dp/B0B1QT9YB4

https://www.amazon.com/Google-Pixel-Pro-Smartphone-Telephoto/dp/B09HZ939TR

UK price GBP 599. US price $644.

I'm hoping that the Pixel 8 has a better telephoto lens - continuous zoom would
be nice but not really needed with the processing built into the camera software.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

Heron <McKeister@ipanywhere.com> wrote:

> On 11/23/2022 9:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
>>
>> iphones do that without needing a separate mode.
>
> The tested Google Pixel 7 Pro is an $899 phone, which barely beats the much
> more expensive iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max designs, at least in the camera.
>
> Since all that extra money didn't buy camera output, what does it buy you?

The Apple logo?

--
Please wear your mask!
Bugs are everywhere. :)
!__!
(@)(@)
\.'||'./
-: :: :-
/'..''..'\

On 11/23/2022 8:38 PM, Heron wrote:
> On 11/23/2022 9:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>>> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
>>
>> iphones do that without needing a separate mode.
>
> The tested Google Pixel 7 Pro is an $899 phone, which barely beats the much
> more expensive iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max designs, at least in the camera.
>
> Since all that extra money didn't buy camera output, what does it buy you?

nospam is wrong of course™.

The iPhone does not support astrophotography mode. Some analysts
predicted that it would be on the iPhone 14 based on the invitation that
was sent out for the announcement event. See
<https://9to5mac.com/2022/08/24/iphone-14-event-invite-artwork/> which
stated:

"One long-running rumor is that Apple is working on new astrophotography
features for the iPhone. This would improve the iPhone’s camera
performance in lowlight situations particularly outside.

If the feature comes to fruition, your iPhone would be able to detect
the moon or stars, then use longer exposure times and more internal
processing to perfect the image. This is a feature that is already
offered by some competing Android devices, so it makes sense for Apple
to be working on a competing feature."

Unfortunately, astrophotography mode did not appear on any of the iPhone
14 models. Perhaps a future iOS upgrade could add it, provided that it's
not a patented feature by Google. No additional hardware would be
needed, it's a computational photography feature that is done in software.

This is covered in 185a on page 88 of the document
<https://tinyurl.com/iOS-Android-Features>: "43 iOS & iPhone Features
Which [many] Android Users Wish they Had, 202 Android & Android Phone
Features Which [many] iOS Users Wish they Had."

As to price, the Google Pixel 7 Pro is heavily discounted so it's not
really an $899 phone. Right now, it's $150 off ($300 off if you sign up
for 60 days of Google-Fi (buy a phone number to transfer but Google-Fi
service is not a good MVNO option, expensive and on T-Mobile)).

Besides the discounted price, they're offering very high trade-in
values. I'm trading in my old, unlocked, 64GB iPhone Xr for $410, which
is way more than I paid for it 15 months ago. So the lowest storage
option (128GB) would have cost me $339 (but I opted for the 512GB model
which will ave a net cost of $539). Also, I got a referral promo code
from another Pixel owner which is good for $100 credit at the Google
Store, though not sure what I want from there. I didn't do the Google-Fi
option which would have saved another $60 or so, after the cost of 60
days of service.

There is one annoying negative about the Google Pixel devices. Google
has disabled HDMI-Out over USB-C. If you want wired video out you need
to use a Displaylink USB adapter (with a USB-A to USB-C adapter) such as
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01CSG7TUC>.

Google has an uphill battle against Samsung and Apple in the flagship
space so they appear to be selling the Pixel devices for not much more
than they cost to produce.

In article <tlo5r1$mi6n$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> The iPhone does not support astrophotography mode.

yes it does, it's just not called out as a separate mode, because
that's not needed.

<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/09/27/astrophotography-examples-on-iphon
e-14-pro/>

> Some analysts
> predicted that it would be on the iPhone 14 based on the invitation that
> was sent out for the announcement event.

only ignorant ones predicted that.

just about everyone knew that it meant satellite sos, which had been
rumoured for a while.

On 24 Nov 2022 at 4:23:58 PM, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps a future iOS upgrade could add it, provided that it's
> not a patented feature by Google. No additional hardware would be
> needed, it's a computational photography feature that is done in software.

Do you know if Google open sourced their astro photography feature?
Maybe there is an astro photography port for all the other brands?
--
Cheers, Rob

On 11/24/2022 8:05 AM, Bugsy wrote:
> Heron <McKeister@ipanywhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2022 9:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> Pixel 7 Pro has a better optical zoom <sic> and an astrophotography mode
>>>
>>> iphones do that without needing a separate mode.
>>
>> The tested Google Pixel 7 Pro is an $899 phone, which barely beats the much
>> more expensive iPhone 14 Pro and Pro Max designs, at least in the camera.
>>
>> Since all that extra money didn't buy camera output, what does it buy you?
>
>
>
> The Apple logo?

What's really happening is that Google is trying to sell more Pixel
devices since they want to increase their market share and doesn't
appear to care about margins since Pixel is such a tiny part of their
business.

Google is heavily discounting the Pixel. Right now they're giving $150
off the Pixel 7 Pro ($300 if you sign up for Google-Fi for 60 days),
bringing the base model to $749. They're also offering ridiculously high
amounts for trade-ins ($410 for my iPhone Xr which didn't cost that much
when new), and they are offering $100 Google Store credit if you get a
referral code (the person referring you also gets $100 credit).

The cost to manufacture the 128GB iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to be
$501
<https://fourweekmba.com/how-much-profit-does-apple-make-per-iphone/>
and it retails for $1099, an 119% margin. Assuming the same
manufacturing cost for the Pixel 7 Pro, at $749 that's a 50% margin, but
with their trade-in program they're likely at negative margins.

On 11/24/2022 9:07 AM, RJH wrote:
> On 24 Nov 2022 at 4:23:58 PM, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps a future iOS upgrade could add it, provided that it's
>> not a patented feature by Google. No additional hardware would be
>> needed, it's a computational photography feature that is done in software.
>
> Do you know if Google open sourced their astro photography feature?
> Maybe there is an astro photography port for all the other brands?

I don't know. I suspect that it's one of their computational photography
patents, but they could also have licensed it from another company.

Xiaomi also has an astrophotography patent for star trails
<https://www.gizmochina.com/2022/04/16/xiaomi-awarded-patent-for-night-sky-star-trails-photography/>.

In article <tlo8e5$mi6n$2@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Google is heavily discounting the Pixel.

that's because sales numbers are well below expectations.

decent phone, but it turns out to not be very popular.

> The cost to manufacture the 128GB iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to be

such estimates are wildly incorrect, for all sorts of reasons.

On 11/24/2022 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:

>> Google is heavily discounting the Pixel.
>
> that's because sales numbers are well below expectations.
>
> decent phone, but it turns out to not be very popular.
>
>> The cost to manufacture the 128GB iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to be
>
> such estimates are wildly incorrect, for all sorts of reasons.

If the ONLY Android choice were the Google Pixel or Samsung Galaxy, it
would be more popular but Samsung outsells Google and Apple combined.

On 11/24/2022 11:50 AM, CDB wrote:

<snip>

> If the ONLY Android choice were the Google Pixel or Samsung Galaxy, it
> would be more popular but Samsung outsells Google and Apple combined.

Google doesn't even show up in the charts, see
<https://www.appbrain.com/stats/top-manufacturers> so it's likely that
their manufacturing costs per unit are higher because of low volume.

An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost of $501. Labor
cost if about $15 per unit. Foxconn is estimated to charge $30 per unit
for manufacturing, including labor
<https://nextshark.com/real-cost-of-iphone/>.

In article <tloj3s$ngl2$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost

again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.

On 2022-11-24 11:50, CDB wrote:
> On 11/24/2022 2:15 PM, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Google is heavily discounting the Pixel.
>>
>> that's because sales numbers are well below expectations.
>>
>> decent phone, but it turns out to not be very popular.
>>
>>> The cost to manufacture the 128GB iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to be
>>
>> such estimates are wildly incorrect, for all sorts of reasons.
>
> If the ONLY Android choice were the Google Pixel or Samsung Galaxy, it
> would be more popular but Samsung outsells Google and Apple combined.

By selling lots and lots of models of "smart" phones that Apple isn't
interested in selling.

Toyota outsells Ferrari and Bentley combined.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:45:44 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost
>
> again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.

You of course have the only correct estimates.

In article <tlphus$1epu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost
> >
> > again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.
>
> You of course have the only correct estimates.

nobody outside of very few people inside apple have the correct
numbers, and they ain't talking.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 06:40:04 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>>>> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost
>>>
>>> again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.
>>
>> You of course have the only correct estimates.
>
> nobody outside of very few people inside apple have the correct
> numbers, and they ain't talking.

Then how could you say his number are wrong and yours are not?

In article <tlqt9t$6n3$1@gioia.aioe.org>, JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:

>
> >>>> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost
> >>>
> >>> again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.
> >>
> >> You of course have the only correct estimates.
> >
> > nobody outside of very few people inside apple have the correct
> > numbers, and they ain't talking.
>
> Then how could you say his number are wrong and yours are not?

i never said i had numbers.

what i said was the 'estimates' are wildly incorrect. they are nothing
more than guesses based on data that is not public.

i'll add that the parts cost is entirely meaningless.

On 11/24/2022 8:57 PM, JAB wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 15:45:44 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> An iPhone 14 Pro Max is estimated to have a parts cost
>>
>> again, such estimates are wildly incorrect.
>
> You of course have the only correct estimates.

What you want to look at is the incremental cost of producing another
unit. You're looking at parts, labor (both assembly and testing), and
the per unit overhead that the factory is charging. You're not looking
at the design costs, the tooling costs, etc., those are sunk costs. See
<https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/incrementalcost.asp>. The
teardowns give a good estimate of the incremental cost.