Grey import so not as good as when JBHi-Fi were selling it for $699 as described in this post but JB have since put their prices back up.
Silver version only (32 GB) as the black version is still selling for $769. Hopefully useful for someone still after one of these.
Not sure if this is part of their "Kogan Frenzy" deal, which I think finishes at midnight tonight.
Tru Dat!
$700 for a last generation phone is waay too expensive
you can get a Galaxy S8 for only $9 more https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/342648
Fair enough. I don't think it is a great deal for anyone looking for that latest and greatest Android phone. Think it might be useful for anyone who specifically wants a Pixel (stock Android, decent camera and unlimited photo storage).
Super overpriced for a 32GB non-expandable model. Considering the Mi6's from GB been sold for <$400.. Really makes this deal bad..
It's pretty expensive, but at least it comes with a very good camera and unlimited full-res cloud storage for your photos and videos.
And updates. Runs android 8.
Super overpriced for a 32GB non-expandable model
You're assuming expandable storage as a feature is important to everyone.
It is once you put it into perspectives of what you can actually do with 32GB (28GB in reality).
OS
Patches
Android Run Time cache
= @20GB left
Install a few apps, take a few pictures and videos and you're down to nothing.
Why you think 2018's Flagship base models for the mainstream will be minimum 64GB?
Install a few apps, take a few pictures and videos and you're down to nothing.
Exaggerating much?
You have unlimited cloud storage in Google Photos, so there's no reason to have your life's memories on the internal storage.
Why you think 2018's Flagship base models for the mainstream will be minimum 64GB?
This will continue to increase but only because people are too lazy to actively manage their own data.
You have unlimited cloud storage in Google Photos, so there's no reason to have your life's memories on the internal storage.
I've logged some active faults with Google for over 6 months to complain about Google photos app. Unlike the iOS version, there are no settings to manage the cache size of this app. The more photos you have, the bigger the app cache becomes to store these as you look back in your album. I have flushed out 3GB+ of ART Cache for this app on a number of my devices (I have about 56000 photos in my collection). Only took 6 weeks to fill this size before another flush is required.
Exaggerating much?
A standard 12Mpix photo in good quality (not RAW) JPG takes about 10MB on average. You only need 100 of these to fill 1GB of space. On holidays, I will do anything up to 200 pics a day depending on where I am.
A 1080p Video will chew up about 100MB per minute or 1GB every hour on conservative settings. so between Pics and video when you are on holidays - well, doesnt leave much storage capacity.
This will continue to increase but only because people are too lazy to actively manage their own data.
That's definitely not true. For every iteration update of an app, it grows by a small percentage due to it adding more features and functions inside. As a comparision, Angry Birds as a game started off being 14MB in size. By the time it was obsolete (replaced by 2), it was 120MB split between APK and OBB files. Facebook is also in the same boat with similar sizes that required it to split out functions such as Messenger because it grew too big.
People demand HD graphics and better functionality in their apps. Where you think this is stored? Magically they can squeeze more capability in the same capacity?
Or what about the difference in JPG sizes from when 5Mpix and 8Mpix crappy quality pictures that was <1MB in size? And now we are looking at lossless JPG at 10MB+? Or RAWs at 200MB?
All your arguments are debunked. 32GB non-expandable is not enough for today's users. Good reason why the current gen of iPhones and Galaxy's are 64GB+ with even talks about moving the baseline up to 128GB.
A standard 12Mpix photo in good quality (not RAW) JPG takes about 10MB on average.
Mmm, what do you base that on?
I just took a photo of a messy desk (so lots of detail needed) with my Pixel 2. The jpeg takes up 3.9MB at 12.2MP. The same photo on a Sony A6500 in the top X.FINE jpeg mode takes up 13.3MB at 24MP.
I have flushed out 3GB+ of ART Cache for this app on a number of my devices (I have about 56000 photos in my collection). Only took 6 weeks to fill this size before another flush is required.
I think it's safe to say you're not a typical user. :)
32GB non-expandable is not enough for today's users.
32GB is not enough for most power users. It can be enough for a typical everyday user with free unlimited photos/video cloud storage though, as long as they follow the prompts that pop up in the Photos app to free up space. Not everyone takes 200 photos a day when on holiday. :)
I've logged some active faults with Google for over 6 months to complain about Google photos app. Unlike the iOS version, there are no settings to manage the cache size of this app. The more photos you have, the bigger the app cache becomes to store these as you look back in your album. I have flushed out 3GB+ of ART Cache for this app on a number of my devices (I have about 56000 photos in my collection). Only took 6 weeks to fill this size before another flush is required.
That's unfortunate, I don't see how that's related to storing all of your photos/videos in the cloud though.
take a few pictures and videos and you're down to nothing.
This, then:
A standard 12Mpix photo in good quality (not RAW) JPG takes about 10MB on average. You only need 100 of these to fill 1GB of space. On holidays, I will do anything up to 200 pics a day depending on where I am.
A 1080p Video will chew up about 100MB per minute or 1GB every hour on conservative settings. so between Pics and video when you are on holidays - well, doesnt leave much storage capacity.
Well, which one is it? A few or a few hundred?
That's definitely not true. For every iteration update of an app, it grows by a small percentage due to it adding more features and functions inside.
That's definitely not true, size of app updates can go one of two ways, they can get bigger or smaller depending on the changes made.
As a comparision, Angry Birds as a game started off being 14MB in size. By the time it was obsolete (replaced by 2), it was 120MB split between APK and OBB files.
I wouldn't consider a game a normal application, they are there purely for entertainment purposes and your average Joe doesn't have many of them installed, I in-fact have zero games installed.
Facebook is also in the same boat with similar sizes that required it to split out functions such as Messenger because it grew too big.
Facebook has actually released a 'lite' version for their Messenger app, and are doing the same for their core Facebook app, how's that improvement in technology?
All your arguments are debunked. 32GB non-expandable is not enough for today's users. Good reason why the current gen of iPhones and Galaxy's are 64GB+ with even talks about moving the baseline up to 128GB.
Says who? 32GB may not 'be enough' for some users, you are clearly a special case and even then, I question the integrity of what you're saying and what you store on your smartphone.
Perhaps you would be better off with a non-Google phone that has expandable storage - see how I said you and not everyone?
I'll save everyone some time:
It has unlimited photo storage
Oh I know, just thought other might be as over reading the same dribble as I am.
👍
Its not bargain
Seems over-priced still for a 2016 grey import android.