Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkozlows | Hacker News Reader

That is not an accurate description of the Pixel C. It's an excellent Android tablet. That some reviewers don't want Android tablets is a separate issue.

View on HN

It's a quite good Android tablet now. At launch, it was pretty messy. Part of this was because it was supposed to be a Chrome OS tablet but got rushed out as an Android tablet before Android even had split screen. Yes, the OS matters if it limits the hardware. It has 4 mics but didn't even support Google's always on at launch (seriously?). Add to that the fact that the hardware was pretty buggy at launch with lots of users complaining about random reboots and failures.

Ars Technica has a good summary in their "One year later" review of the Pixel C. The reviewer is on his 3rd Pixel C due to hardware failures. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/one-year-later-can-an...

Some units were buggy at launch, clearly. Most weren't. I bought one day one, and still have it; it's been fine the whole time. And yes, it didn't have split screen at launch -- no Android tablet did until Android 7, so that's not some special failing of the Pixel C.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but you didn't really counter anything in the previous post.

One said it launched barely functional, the other said it's an excellent Android tablet. Those are very different.

Is it not true that it could have launched barely functional and updates worked out the kinks so that now it is an excellent tablet?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com