Talk:Google Pixel

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 4 August 2020

Moved to Talk:Pixel (1st generation) § Requested move 4 August 2020

 – – Thjarkur (talk) 10:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pixel (1st generation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Pixel 6

Hey, I'm just realizing why we aren't at least stating that Pixel 6 and 6 Pro are announced with details pending? – The Grid (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

That wasn't an announcement, that was merely a preview/teaser. Google has also confirmed that the 5a is happening, yet that isn't included here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Note that the Pixel 4 wasn't added to this article until after the launch event date had been announced (diff) in late September, despite Google releasing that official teaser image and video months earlier. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I understand that but Google has confirmed its existence on their official social media and in the store . It's just that could prevent the back and forth edit war or maybe we can add an invisible comment noting the devices won't be added until the details are officially listed? – The Grid (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I already did that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Pixel roadmap report

I'm torn on how much we should trust in this recent article from Android Authority, which supposedly outlines Google's entire roadmap for the Pixel series through 2025. In the past, I've generally viewed their articles on factual news (i.e. widely reported facts) and reviews as marginally reliable, but I've never had to use their original reporting until now. Pinging @The Grid, Mliu92, and Ghostofakina for thoughts. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The details seem credible (eg the ‘’lynx’’ code names) but these will probably be verified by more reliable sources as the release dates approach — having also edited automobile articles, usually there isn’t an article prior to release (or a preview concept), so it would be premature to create a Pixel 7a or Fold article. Cheers. Mliu92 (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

True, I wasn't thinking of creating articles prematurely, I was more thinking we could add text such as "Google reportedly intends to launch _____ in _____" to existing articles, i.e. Pixel 7a info on the Pixel 7 article, future Tensor info on the Tensor article, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL would still apply (and WP:LEAKS is a nice guideline). Google will most likely not confirm this information. It's a bit perplexing on Google because they even keep detailed interviews for their Pixel Superfans as confidential information which prevents some actual insight into these products. If it seems important to mention, we might have to say something like "Android Authority published a leak of Google's roadmap for the Pixel series through 2025 which includes mentions of x, y, and z." – The Grid (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP's guidelines on leaks, but I wanted to know whether others believe Android Authority is a reliable source for original reporting. So far, I haven't really gotten a straight answer. Apologies if I wasn't being clear on what I was asking. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I've tried to avoid using sites like Android Authority for primary sources. While it might be a good source of information, I would not trust it entirely without further confirmation from other sources. Additionally, the leak is said to be from an anonymous source. Ghostofakina (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. I hate to say that I don't hold journalism about phones in a high place because their articles are usually just restating the primary source along with their previous related articles to help generate clicks. Here's an interesting thought for 2023: get some Android-related sources discussed at WP:RSP. The Verge and Ars Technica have been staples of RS but I think Android Authority and Android Police perhaps need to be evaluated. – The Grid (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll hold off adding this information until more RS's corroborate the report. Regarding The Grid's RSP suggestion, I somewhat doubt editors there are familiar with these low-caliber sources that solely focus on a niche topic, so they probably wouldn't be helpful. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Pixel 6a discontinued

I'm too lazy to fix Jippycats (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Lifespan column is confusing

I don't understand what the "lifespan" of the phones represents. I expected it to be either the release date to discontinued date, or perhaps release date to end of support?

Unless I'm really bad at math, neither of those add up for any row.

How is the lifespan figure arrived at? 51.148.133.36 (talk) 08:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Lifespan is the duration from release date to the end of the support period (EOS = no more software updates).

It should be correct now. RM12 (talk) 13:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Pixel 8a is available for preorder

Details are out. Chidedneck (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yup, I'll work on putting in the specs soon. LostInInfinity (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Support

@RM12, just because it does not clearly state support is no longer offered does not mean support is still active for the devices

Google advertised 3 years for the devices. They no longer get monthly updates. To interpret anything beyond those statements is making your own interpretation. It's been like that before they grouped 3a XL to say it no longer gets support. – The Grid (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Google advertises a minimum of 3 years for the devices. And I know myself that they don't get regular updates anymore and it's clearly stated when the phones got their last update, I can read the table myself. I don't have to interpret anything I just state the facts that Google provides in official support documents.

How do you back up your interpretation that support must have ended because they don't get monthly updates anymore? "just because it does not clearly state support is no longer offered does not mean support is still active for the devices" is an interpretation, citing an official support document unchanged is not.

The first gen Chromecast didn't get updated for two years and then received a final update and Google officially ended support after that and changed the support pages so not getting regular updates is no proof that support has ended.

Maybe you should reevaluate your definition of "interpretation". RM12 (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is another thing you misunderstand. I quote you "technically all devices can receive critical risk security updates after their EOL."[1] That may be true in some cases but can't be generalized. When Microsoft ends support (EOL) for Windows versions they don't get any updates even if a major security flaw is discovered the day after. Apple on the other hand officially supports iPhones for 5 years (EOL) but generally their phones get irregular updates for much longer so there is no clear definition of EOL and therefore we have to go by the word of the specific company and not cherry pick interpretations from different sources. RM12 (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

One look at the Factory Images for the devices in question (4, 4a, and 5) shows they are no longer getting updates - 4 was February 2023, 4a was November 2023, and 5 was February 2024. Here's an older version of the page with Internet Archive before 3a: but I see in the past they actually stated "No guaranteed Android version updates after" and "No guaranteed security updates after" with the tables. What is "Extended Support" with Google? What extended support does 4, 4a, and 5 have right now? – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@RM12 I'm still awaiting an answer here. What does extended support mean at all? – The Grid (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I took a break from Wikipedia. If you look at the archive of Google's support document from 4 Dec vs 6 Dec you can see that Google changed the support for the Pixel 4 to 5a and put them in the unsupported tier. This means the phones were technically still supported until December this year even though they haven't gotten updates in a while. This isn't my "interpretation" it's just going by Google's official statements. What you describe as EOL is the end of the guaranteed period but all Pixel phones have gotten updates past that point so your argument is invalid. RM12 (talk) 06:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Security section

Should this page have security section to have a neutral point of view? Should we only have Google approved content instead? 90.167.203.100 (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

If security is going to be mentioned, it should at least describe its features like the Titan M2 chips. Mentioning only one news piece is absurd as it is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and should have multiple sources. Do note using sources that simply restate what another source stated isn't another source. – The Grid (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please include it with an independent source. 90.167.202.253 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't pretend you're another person. I know you're within the same IP range, down to /26. – The Grid (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you want to pretend to be a separate person, I'll put this info out:

• 90.174.3.0/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) - Pixel 4 criticism
• 85.48.187.0/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) - Pixel article, criticism for OS (and just added criticism on Pixel 9 when it's not...it was about the Pixel influencers program)
• 90.174.3.123/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Criticism added for Pixel 3 and 5
• 90.174.5.239/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Pixel 4 criticism
• 85.48.184.48/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Pixel 4 and 5 criticism

and today:

• 90.167.202.253/26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with above

Every IP listed is from Spain. Orange Espagne SA. Applying /26 narrows the range down to 6 bits = 2^6 - 2 = 62 usable IP addresses.

@InfiniteNexus Would you like to chime in about this systematic editing? I think CU would do nothing here but if a /26 range shows some tendentious editing that would warrant a timed block especially as an IP hopper. – The Grid (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why you want to hide this information? 84.78.243.97 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At present, the article does not have a "history" or "security" section. If this content is to be included, there would need to be either a full-fledged "history" section detailing the history of the Pixel (which I'm actually surprised is missing) or a full-fledged "security" section detailing all the security-related aspects of the Pixel. Furthermore, the proposed text would have to be reworded substantially because its present state blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Pixel devices are susceptible to remote takeover is deliberately misleading; because of this low level of security quality is outright non-neutral. But I'm more concerned with the edit-warring on the part of both parties. This is a blockable offense. Per the recommendations at WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, the IP user should explain their reasoning on the talk page and seek consensus while the status quo is retained by default on the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That's been the issue with the IP users. They add POV sentences about anything related to Pixel through at least 2018. The issue isn't bringing them up, and it's intentionally misleading and adding their own narrative (WP:SYNTH) with no reason wanting to present a neutral tone. It's always the deflecting "why are you trying to hide this" when it's just a bad way to present a source.

It's also bordering on WP:NOTNEWS as the issues come from reddit threads (via r/Android or r/GooglePixel) and it's either The Verge, Android Police, Android Authority, 9to5, or Ars Technica picking it up as news. ARS is perhaps the best out of the sources because they try to verify and talk to someone from Google about said issues before publishing. It's something to also be aware as these sources are about a niche topic and they will report something based on what another site states. – The Grid (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you mostly, but in this case highly reputable sources like WaPo and Wired did pick this up. The Verge is also considered reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The question really is where to even include this. I could try starting a security section but probably have to look for items that Google and the Pixel team have been focusing on for each release.

The info about the IP users needs to at least be logged with admins, I think. I want to see what they say as the IP range is narrowed down to see there's a pattern. I haven't combined the edits to see if there's a pattern but I'm sure there is. – The Grid (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Discontinuation column

@RM12 First of all, accusing another editor of vandalism when there is absolutely no grounds for such claims is hostile at best and shouldn't be done at all. Second, if you have an issue with a particular part of an edit, either fix it or remove the problematic content specifically instead of blindly undoing an edit. That is not what reverting is for. Third, the Google Store still displaying devices does not mean they haven't been discontinued, even right now only a few of the non-8a/9-series SKUs are even in stock at all. If Google isn't producing new phones and just going through its leftover stock, then that phone is in fact discontinued. Fourth, the dates were not "completely made up" but taken from the articles of the individual devices which are in fact sourced. If you feel these sources should be copied over to the table, I'll happily do that. Now admittedly, the dates for the 6, 7a and 8 Pro came from the Comparison of Google Pixel smartphones rather than the device-specific pages and doesn't list a source for the date there, so those cells have been blanked out for now until a source is found. Regardless, given that Google (in this area) does not have stock for 11 out of the 15 Pixel 8 SKUs and 2 of the 4 7a SKUs, it is safe to say that these devices are in fact discontinued. YannickFran (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

First: Sorry if I offended you by my claims. It's not my intention but the discontinuation row keeps getting added back in without any sources or references and it's getting annoying. That's not on you though so please accept my apology for the rough tone.

Second: I'm not "blindly undoing an edit" and just like you want that I assume good faith you should do as well. I removed all information that is unsourced and can't therefore be proven to be correct, which is the whole discontinuation column.

Third: Somewhat valid point in theory but I'll come to that on the next point.

Fourth: The discontinuation for Pixel 3a and Pixel 5a are also unsourced and the one for the Pixel 4a is questionable as the article states "the Pixel 4a product page remained available until earlier today even though it had been “Out of stock” for months". So not even the source knows when it has been discontinued. The sources for the other Pixels only state the date they stopped being sold and not when Google stopped production and you mix up both of these on your third point. Google doesn't publicly state when they end production (maybe in investor notes but I doubt it as Google makes most its revenue elsewhere) so that's probably unknown which means people generally mean end of sale when they state discontinuation. Your last sentence makes it seem that you base the dates on many assumptions which isn't the point of an encyclopedia (WP:PROOF) and the reason that column regularly gets removed again as it's mostly unsourced or speculative information.

Don't care enough to edit war so do as you please though the correct thing -in my opinion- would be to remove it. Peace ✌ RM12 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The discontinued column was original research and, based on everything else in the table, has no value. The years of support was always based on when the units were sold, not discontinued. – The Grid (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Lifespan column

As currently structured with the table, there's no way to tell whether or not a phone has been discontinued, and therefore no way to tell whether the lifespan column is referring to the time to present or the time the phone persisted before being discontinued. Several editors seem to have expressed this already above. @The Grid, I'd highly recommend we change it. Sdkb ^talk 04:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the legend I had for supporting devices was removed. It probably got deleted by accident when the 10 Fold was released. – The Grid (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks good; thanks! Sdkb ^talk 15:41, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Pixel 10 Pro missing

There is a Wikipedia page for Pixel 10 Pro, and for the section regarding all of the Pixel phones that have been released, previous Pro models like the Pixel 9 Pro are there - but the Pixel 10 Pro isn't there. ~2025-33189-08 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I had planned to add them but I completely forgot—I'll try to work on it over the weekend but I might not be able to get to everything. Thanks for reminding me! - LostInInfinity (contribs - talk) 22:39, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Just finished all of the 10s, the page should be up to date now - LostInInfinity (contribs - talk) 01:09, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we mention GrapheneOS?

GrapheneOS is a security and privacy focussed mobile OS that currently only runs on Google Pixel phones and tablets (although certain Motorola devices may also support it soon).

For me and many others it is a major advantage and selling point of that series.

— JakeFS (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

No, it's not something that Google offers out of the box for their devices. – The Grid (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I see. Is this general Wikipedia policy or your personal opinion? I am an inexperienced editor. JakeFS (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

There should be a prominent link to the GrapheneOS article as the ability of Pixel phones to run this alternative OS has become extremely important to those concerned about privacy. What Google provides "out of the box" is completely irrelevant, i.e. this is article is not a Google advert. Please can someone add a link in an appropriate place.~2026-40181-38 (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

This article also isn't an advertisement for GrapheneOS. – The Grid (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)