Pixel Cheaper on Amazon

[techbeck]

Looking to get a new phone finally but noticed that the Pixel 3 XL 128gb is $200 cheaper on Amazon. as compared to  Google's site.    Not sure exactly why.  Google site it is $999, while on Amazon, it is about $799.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Google-Pixel-Unlocked-GSM-CDMA/dp/B07KDWMP86/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=pixel+3+xl&qid=1552051344&s=videogames&sr=8-4

 

That is the link to Amazon's site.  Says sold by Google.  And if it is $200 cheaper, why is that?  It is an unlocked phone and I will be using it on Verizon and looks to be the same as Google's site.

Edited March 8, 2019 by techbeck

[Jim K Global Moderator]

"Ships from and sold by The Whiz Cells"

 

 

[techbeck]

Looks like they are not selling through Google but still not sure how they can discount it by $200.

Just now, Jim K said:

"Ships from and sold by The Whiz Cells"

 

 

Yes, just saw that.  Not sure why the discount tho.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

4 minutes ago, techbeck said:

Looks like they are not selling through Google but still not sure how they can discount it by $200.

Yes, just saw that.  Not sure why the discount tho.

Good question. From the description, price, etc., it appears to be a good deal.  Absolutely no experience with the seller...nor am I sure of Amazon's protection of buyers with respect to third party sellers. 

 

Seems fine though...I guess. 

[tsupersonic]

You'd be crazy to buy a Pixel 3 at full retail price right now. It's been discounted by Google many times, and Pixel 3 128 GB was recently $749. Just wait for a sale. 

[spikey_richie]

Seems legit /s

[+Warwagon MVC]

27 minutes ago, tsupersonic said:

You'd be crazy to buy a Pixel 3 at full retail price right now. It's been discounted by Google many times, and Pixel 3 128 GB was recently $749. Just wait for a sale. 

Ya it would be like buying gan Amazon Echo Dot at full price or  Amazon Firestick 4k at retail price.

[techbeck]

I am hoping for a deal soon.  Don't really want to pay $1000 for a phone.  Just checking what is out there really.

[PGHammer]

On 3/8/2019 at 9:26 AM, techbeck said:

I am hoping for a deal soon.  Don't really want to pay $1000 for a phone.  Just checking what is out there really.

The Pixel 3a series is still out there - I got mine yesterday (Amazon every-carrier version).  If you're used to USB-3a at one end, and USB at the other (for connecting to your PC) you'll need a USB-3c-to-USB connectivity cable (one does not come on the box - instead, the cable included is USB-3c to USB-3c).  That is, in fact, my only quibble with the phone.

[shockz]

5 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

The Pixel 3a series is still out there - I got mine yesterday (Amazon every-carrier version).  If you're used to USB-3a at one end, and USB at the other (for connecting to your PC) you'll need a USB-3c-to-USB connectivity cable (one does not come on the box - instead, the cable included is USB-3c to USB-3c).  That is, in fact, my only quibble with the phone.

The proc in the 3a is terrible and you get what you pay for. If you want to actually have a responsive phone 2 years from now, I'd opt for investing in something with an 8 series proc. 

[PGHammer]

2 minutes ago, shockz said:

The proc in the 3a is terrible and you get what you pay for. If you want to actually have a responsive phone 2 years from now, I'd opt for investing in something with an 8 series proc. 

shockz - you're thinking that only flagships have acceptable performance - and before getting my mitts on the 3a, I thought the same way.  Said thinking is wrong, wrong, wrong - no, the 3a and 3a XL are not flagships, which makes comparing them TO flagships utterly unfair (and I wish reviewers would stop doing so).  To be honest, name ONE SD8xx-driven phone in the same price range of the 3a or 3a XL from anybody.  The 3a is faster than the S7 it replaces - which I did not expect - and not just stock Oreo vs. stock Pie, either - but even stock Oreo (S7) to stock beta 4 of Q (3a).  The 3a and 3a XL are midrange "utility infielder" smartphones with sane prices - which is, in fact, their whole point.

[shockz]

29 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

shockz - you're thinking that only flagships have acceptable performance - and before getting my mitts on the 3a, I thought the same way.  Said thinking is wrong, wrong, wrong - no, the 3a and 3a XL are not flagships, which makes comparing them TO flagships utterly unfair (and I wish reviewers would stop doing so).  To be honest, name ONE SD8xx-driven phone in the same price range of the 3a or 3a XL from anybody.  The 3a is faster than the S7 it replaces - which I did not expect - and not just stock Oreo vs. stock Pie, either - but even stock Oreo (S7) to stock beta 4 of Q (3a).  The 3a and 3a XL are midrange "utility infielder" smartphones with sane prices - which is, in fact, their whole point.

I've used several devices running with a Snapdragon 630 or a Snapdragon 430, back when those processors were released within a 6 month time frame. The 430 was slow from the getgo and was unusable after about a year of standard updates, when available. That's probably a big reason as to why OEMs probably don't update lower end hardware, it's because it would struggle to run.

 

The 630 Nokia I have runs Android 9 okay, but it'd say it's only adequate. You notice the slowness in day to day use... having google maps route something, camera app loading, chrome loading up a more complex page, streaming video initial load up, Android Auto lags always, etc... now it's not horrible, but there are times where I'm just basically thinking to myself, hurry up phone. Again, not horrible, not great, just adequate. 

 

If I'm planning on keeping a phone for more than a year, I'd probably spend the extra couple hundred to have a consistent experience without worrying about slowdowns for a few years. 

[PGHammer]

11 minutes ago, shockz said:

I've used several devices running with a Snapdragon 630 or a Snapdragon 430, back when those processors were released within a 6 month time frame. The 430 was slow from the getgo and was unusable after about a year of standard updates, when available. That's probably a big reason as to why OEMs probably don't update lower end hardware, it's because it would struggle to run.

 

The 630 Nokia I have runs Android 9 okay, but it'd say it's only adequate. You notice the slowness in day to day use... having google maps route something, camera app loading, chrome loading up a more complex page, streaming video initial load up, Android Auto lags always, etc... now it's not horrible, but there are times where I'm just basically thinking to myself, hurry up phone. Again, not horrible, not great, just adequate. 

 

If I'm planning on keeping a phone for more than a year, I'd probably spend the extra couple hundred to have a consistent experience without worrying about slowdowns for a few years. 

That sort of usage WILL tax a midrange or mainstream phone, just as a similar usage would tax a midrange or mainstream PC or notebook; however, due to the cheaper prices of phones (in absolute dollars), very few users will *cheapen out* on a phone vs. a notebook or PC.  As far as route planning, I use Google Maps - however, I use it on the PC first (and use Firefox Sync to connect it to the phone).  The same applies to other taxing tasks; I use the PC (either desktop or notebook) for those - not the phone.  Just like with desktop vs. laptop or notebook, it is about what gets done where.