Google Pixel 2 and Pixel XL 2 event livestream


The Google Pixel 2 event livestream link is already available, despite us still having time ahead of the October 4th date.

So if you needed an early reminder, here you have it: mark October 4th, 9:00 am PT | 12:00pm ET for the Google Pixel 2 launch.

That's exactly when Google plans to kick off the livestream for the announcement.

What do we expect to see?

Of course, two new phones by Google: the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL, but also a new Chromebook and a smaller version of the Google Home speaker.

The Pixel 2 series are expected to skip the bezel-less design, but instead get an evolved look with dual front speakers, a squeeze feature like the one on the HTC U11, a Snapdragon 835 system chip, enhanced battery life and an improved camera system (but no dual camera trickery). Also, expect their price to be slightly higher than that of last year's models.

Related phones

Pixel 2
  • Display 5.0" 1080 x 1920 pixels
  • Camera 12.2 MP / 8 MP front
  • Processor Qualcomm Snapdragon 835, Octa-core, 2350 MHz
  • Storage 128 GB
  • Battery 2700 mAh

FEATURED VIDEO

49 Comments

1. Flash

Posts: 1972; Member since: May 19, 2017

Omg my body is ready for this. Let's go Pixel 2.

5. bambamboogy02

Posts: 832; Member since: Jun 23, 2012

I'm not a fan of this new aspect ratio .Makes the phones feel like TV Remotes, Tall and skinny. I have a Pixel XL, and love it, bezels and all. I will probably move to the smaller pixel 2, because of screen ratio. I want to be able to watch movies and things on full screen, not with black bars on the side. (Talk about regression on video watching, black bars again...)

9. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

So, you are not disturbed by the small screen that you watch a video on and the fact that you hardly see shit, you're disturbed by the black bars... Well, that's a mindf**k!

11. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Most video is recorded in 16:9 (outside of cinematic releases), so they wouldn't have black bars. The only difference now is that cinema won't have black bars, but everything else will. I'd be willing to bet between TV and self recorded video, which are shot in 16:9, outnumber cinematic releases.

13. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I'm sure youțre right in what you're saying. I was just laughing at the idea of watching movies (not short YouTube videos, but whole 1-2-3h movies) on a tiny tablet screen...

16. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

This would be on a smartphone screen, not a tablet, tiny or otherwise. As for watching movies, most would cast their screen to their TV. Even people with old CRT TVs could use a combination of a HDMI to RCA/coax out and a Chromecast. That wouldn't affect the picture on a TV because it would be transmitting on a standard 16:9 aspect ratio. So my question is, if it's laughable to watch a 2hr movie on a smartphone screen, then where are the benefits of moving to this slimmer aspect ratio for video viewing, since as I said before, most of those videos are in a 16:9 format. Viewing those kinds of videos means black bars on the sides of the videos instead on the top and bottom. What was full screen on a 16:9 screen wouldn't fill the screen completely anymore, unless you either were able to stretch to video to fit, or crop of some of the top and bottom. It seems like a solution in search of a problem.

17. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

A smartphone is something one can use with a single hand, Note 8 or Pixel XL don't fit in this category, so I call them small tablets. Any media consumption - except small YouTube videos with a dog chasing a cat - should be done on 50+ cm (for a display), 100+ cm (I recommend 150 cm) for a TV. I have watched a full movie on a 33 cm ultrabook and it was an ordeal.

18. troutsy

Posts: 378; Member since: Feb 17, 2012

Maybe you just need to go to the eye doctor.

20. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I have no problem seeing things even on a display of 10 cm, I just rather not fk up my eyes, doing that.

21. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

They can be used one handed. I had a 6p last go round, and I could use it one handed, and that was before they added a one handed mode. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The person you initially responded to was complaining about them switching to this new aspect ratio. If anything, the new aspect ratio is more in line with cinematic releases than the standard 16:9 ratio used in phones previously. His complaint about not wanting to watch "movies and things" on that aspect ratio is valid, because most all video has been optimized for the 16:9 aspect ratio. Yet your counterpoint is that it's a stupid assertion because you don't like to watch 2hr movies on a smaller screen. What does that have to do with aspect ratio, which was the point of his comment? If you're arguing FOR the newer aspect ratio, which would be the argument against his comment, how would it be a benefit on videos that are shot in the standard 16:9 ratio? They would get black bars on the sides of the screen in landscape mode, effectively putting them right back down to a smaller screen size unless, as I said in my last post, you either stretch the video to fit the screen or crop the top and bottom of the video. So the only gains you really see would he maybe another row of icons on the homescreen. Unless you're watching full length movies that are shot in a similar aspect ratio, but then you said that it's ridiculous to do so. So please clarify your position.

22. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

You can use a laptop with one hand, that doesn't mean it's meant to be used that way or that it is comfortable. I'm just trying to say that movies are made to be watched on big screens; if one can't go to cinema theaters, at least one should be using the biggest screen for the room one is in. On the phone one is watching 2 min videos of kids running through the grass and that's it.

23. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

No, you actually can't use a laptop one handed, unless you're holding it and not doing anything else, or using your nose or tongue to input commands. Otherwise, you're not using it one handed. Just because you don't use a smartphone to watch videos longer than 2 minutes, it doesn't mean that other people don't or shouldn't. My point was you took one fraction of his comment and fixated on it. And in reality, you confirmed his point. If, like you said, long videos like movies shouldn't be watched on a small screen, then there's no point to moving to a cinematic aspect ratio.

24. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I put the laptop on a table and I use it with one hand; dude, don't you have any imagination :)?! Are you fking serious? We are talking about MOVIES, not videos; who the fk, in his/her right mind, gets a tiny tablet to watch movies?! Have you seen any OEM, advertising movie watching on a smartphone?

25. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

In that way of thinking, you can do the same thing with any phone, and now it's good for one handed use! There's a difference. Yes, have you seen any commercials for smartphones? I've seen quite a few commercials where the person is watching a movie on them, usually it's a recent blockbuster. Again, just because you don't do it doesn't mean that others think the same. I have a 50" flat screen, but when I hold my phone where I normally hold it, the displays look about the same in terms of size. As for holding the phone for that long, I do that quite a bit when I'm surfing the web or reading. The main reason I don't watch movies on my phone is the battery hit it takes and the sound isn't as good as my home theater. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie if I'm in a position where I'm not at home and don't have access to a larger screen.

26. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

I am smart, which means I do smart people stuff, I don't watch TV. I also only look at movies at the theater or at home with the loved ones or friends. You might be right - a lot of people are watching movies on the phone - but that doesn't make it less stupid. Cheers!

27. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I was referring to watching movies on my TV. Yes, it is possible to do. If you have to tell people you're smart, it negates your statement. If you're truly smart, you don't have to tell people, they can see it for themselves.

28. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

"I was referring to watching movies on my TV" Than you shouldn't have replied to me, because I was referring (AS I STATED MANNY TIMES IN MY MESSAGES) to watching movies on a tiny tablet (or a huge smartphone, if you will). Vanity doesn't make someone less smart...

29. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

"Any media consumption - except small YouTube videos with a dog chasing a cat - should be done on 50+ cm (for a display), 100+ cm (I recommend 150 cm) for a TV." Those were your words. And when I said I normally watch them on my TV, you said you don't watch TV, but you watch movies at home. What do you watch them on, if not on a TV? Because obviously you're not watching them on a smartphone. And you missed the point. Anyone who is truly smart, people can tell that from their words. If you have to tell someone that you're smart, then maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.

30. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

"Watching TV" means watching TV shows (CNN, NBC, ESPN etc). "I am sometimes a fox and sometimes a lion. The whole secret of government lies in knowing when to be the one or the other." Those are the words of one of the greatest men that ever lived; if you understand why they belong here, you have a great mind too and I applaud you for that!

31. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

I never brought up watching TV, as in broadcast TV, that was you. I said I watch longer programs like movies ON my TV. That's the difference. It explains a lot that you out think Napoleon is one of the greatest men that ever lived. He was a self important, narcissistic war monger. But that's beside the point. There's a difference between being smart but acting stupid to keep people off balance, and being stupid but acting smart to inflate your own ego.

32. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Well, it's not my fault that you don't know English so well; I also have my downs (and a lot of them), but I ask when I don't understand something. Smart people can also be evil ;).

33. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

You're the one with the comprehension issue. I'm sure that was an attempt to be funny, and if it was, sorry try again next time. And I didn't misunderstand anything. You're the one who could figure out I was talking about watching movies on my TV, not broadcasts. Take your own advice and try to learn better reading comprehension. There's also a difference between smart and greatness. You called him great, not smart.

34. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Sorry, next time I'll get my orb to guess what you have wanted to say...

35. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Here's what I wrote you putz. I was talking about where I watch MOVIES, and you replied you didn't watch TV, apparently because I mentioned my flat screen. Unfortunately you weren't able to make the leap that movies can be watched on a TV. "I have a 50" flat screen, but when I hold my phone where I normally hold it, the displays look about the same in terms of size. As for holding the phone for that long, I do that quite a bit when I'm surfing the web or reading. The main reason I don't watch movies on my phone is the battery hit it takes and the sound isn't as good as my home theater. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't watch a movie if I'm in a position where I'm not at home and don't have access to a larger screen." Note sentence three of what I quoted. If I'm not watching movies on my phone, and I just previously mentioned my flat screen, then it doesn't take a genius to figure i meant I watched the movies on my TV. Or maybe it does.

36. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

When you start using insults, I don't give a flying f**k about what you're saying anymore. So, go f**k yourself, you piece of dumb s**t! PS: in English language "watching TV" means watching TV shows (Showtime, Discovery etc) on a TV set; "watching a movie on the TV set" means... watching a movie on a TV set.

37. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Then you apparently don't live in America, because here watching TV means both watching TV and movies on a TV set. I've spoken English my entire life, and NO ONE says I'm going to watch movies on a TV set. They may either say I'm gonna watch TV and then say specifically what they're watch when asked, or they'll simply say I'm gonna watch a movie. Apparently that's not the way English is spoken in your country, but that s the way it is in America. Are you seriously that insulted by the word putz? That's like calling someone an idiot or stupid. And that warranted two f@#ks and a $hit? No wonder you can't comprehend what I'm saying, you apparently have trouble seeing equalities between things.

38. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

Watch TV means watch TV shows; watch movies (I closed the quote where I shouldn't have) means watch movies. The moment you resort to name calling - no matter what term you're using - I either close the discussion or I take out the f**ks, because it's clear to me that I'm taking to a dumb person that is unable to debate, using logical arguments.

39. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Maybe that's the case where you are, but in America, the term watching TV includes watching broadcast TV, Movies, or anything else that can he viewed on a TV. My use of name calling has nothing to do with my intelligence or ability to debate. It does have to do with my frustration with you. Whether you were being intentionally or unintentionally oblivious, I don't know. Each time you kept arguing semantics to justify your position. And as for insults, when you were under the impression that by watching TV I meant broadcast TV, your response was that you were smart, and only did smart stuff, like not watching broadcast TV. That right there is a subtle way of calling me or anyone else who would watch broadcast TV as stupid. I didn't resort to insults until you threw one my way, and I didn't resort to name calling until you beat this particular dead horse to the point that frustration took over. So before you get indignant about me insulting you, take a look at your own statements.

40. Leo_MC

Posts: 6391; Member since: Dec 02, 2011

When you're streaming a video from your phone to the TV set so that grandmother can see her nephews you're saying "ma, let's watch the kids on TV?" “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” (or do you have a problem with Socrates too?) Research has shown that smart people are less prone of wasting time, watching TV shows; that doesn't mean people that watch TV shows are stupid, it only means that they are exceptions, if they are proving to be smart people. So I was only referring to myself, you misinterpreted and resorted to name calling when it was not the case. While I have always talked about phenomenons, you have taken the discussion personally so you should take into consideration that you're a part of the rule and not the exception in watching TV shows... Cheers, I won't respond to this topic anymore!

41. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Yes, that probably what would he said. Or should I say, ma, let's watch the kids on our TV set? TV and TV set are saying the same thing, but saying tv is shorter, so that's what's generally used. So to prove how supposedly morally and intellectually superior you are, you're using a quote condemning slander in a debate to slander someone in a debate. Or is calling someone a loser not a slander in your eyes? Does only the word putz make that qualification? And then you do it again. Do you not see the irony there? If you're going to condemn someone for using insults in a debate, don't do it multiple times yourself. Cheers, I hope not, I've wasted far too much time on this argument that only managed to reinforce my previous opinion of you.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.