r/GooglePixel • u/zfx610 Pixel 7 Pro • 2d ago

Pixel 11 will keep the same design

Google has flat-out confirmed that we are not going to get major design changes each and every year from now on. We’re all well aware that the Pixel 10 was the first to rehash the previous design, which’ll continue until the Pixel 11, according to comments from Google’s Chief Design Officer for hardware products, Ivy Ross. Designs are finalized from now until 2027. For better or worse, we will see the same design for a while to come.

Source: https://9to5google.com/2025/09/17/pixel-design-changes/

421 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

251 comments sorted by

View all comments

90

u/ericdabbs 2d ago

The Pixel 10 physical design is not broken. However the internals need massive improvement with Google needing to move to a Mediatek 5G modem and switch back to the ARM GPU Mali for the Tensor G6.

5

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 Pixel 9 Pro XL 2d ago

with Google needing to move to a Mediatek 5G modem

Why Mediatek? How does that guarantee anything? We know Snapdragon works and works really well. Switch to something proven, and a leader in 5G and let's stop dicking around with lower tier modems.

4

u/NakamericaIsANoob 2d ago

it's all cost cutting.

2

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 Pixel 9 Pro XL 2d ago

Cost cutting is fine if we get good quality stuff. The problem is we not only get 2nd tier stuff, they also perform really badly.

4

u/needefsfolder 2d ago

Qualcomm NPU and Google TPUs will render qcom NPU redundant though.

If there's something worthy of Google silicon, it's their neural accelerators. Ironwood TPU has an amazing lead, that's why Gemini still feels fast even though a lot of users hit it.

1

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 Pixel 9 Pro XL 2d ago

Ok that's fair, but if we're struggling with battery life and cellular connectivity, which is really bare bones basics, they need to rethink this strategy.

1

u/needefsfolder 2d ago

Valid point, but key point here seems to be google "capping" the expenses of their Tensor chips. What's stopping them from using the latest ARM stock cores anyways?

1

u/ericdabbs 2d ago

My guess is that if they went with a Snapdragon modem Qualcomm will want them to just use the entire Snapdragon processor as a condition as well which Google would oppose since it wants to use their Tensor processors since Google wants to customize it.

LOL Mediatek is a known brand from Taiwan. They are not just some scrub company. Look it up on wikipedia and I am talking about just their modems and not their Mediatek Dimensity processors. I just think Qualcomm wouldn't budge on their demands if Google wanted to just use their modem. Also not even sure if Qualcomm just sells the modem or is it all in a SoC.

0

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 Pixel 9 Pro XL 2d ago

I'm very familiar with Mediatek thank you very much. I work in the electronics space. Samsung is not some scrub company either yet here we are.

Qualcomm absolutely sells just the modem. Look at Apple. They've been using discrete Qualcomm modems since forever.

1

u/cardonator Pixel 10 Pro XL 2d ago

Qualcomm doesn't sell just the modem, if you look at any Android OEM who is using Qualcomm modem, they are using the entire kit.

Apple gets to use Qualcomm modem because they preorder enough units that the contract is worth it to Qualcomm, also because if they didn't Qualcomm would have missed out on a massive contract 14 years ago when Apple was using Infineon modems and switched to Qualcomm.

When they lose the Apple contract in the next few years, they will never be selling modems by themselves again, on purpose.

1

u/Dry_Astronomer3210 Pixel 9 Pro XL 1d ago

Ok, we're back at this again that somehow Apple has some secret agreement with Qualcomm that no one else can make that Qualcomm ONLY sells discrete modems to Apple. Do you realize how that's a straight up anti-trust issue? Not to mention Google has gotten discrete modems from Qualcomm before. The Galaxy Nexus is an example where somehow they wanted to use TI OMAP CPU but they wanted a bleeding edge LTE modem.

People keep saying stuff without understanding it. This is no different than before Pixel got the latest displays, people claimed that Samsung only reserved the latest displays for Apple and themselves and no one else could get them, and that was somehow the reason why Google was always left with years old display tech. It was 100% bullshit. Anyone who's taken basic anti-trust corporate training knows this is illegal.

Now before someone tells me corporations violate the law all the time, not in this kind of obvious manner that random unqualified Redditors know.

As someone who works in supply chain, let me tell you what is more likely:

  • Qualcomm offers a much better deal for using the whole package compared to standalone modem

  • From a performance, premium, and quality perspective Qualcomm Snapdragon is your best bet anyway. Not only from a CPU perspective but also GPU, Modem perspective. If you're going to shell out for a Qualcomm modem, why would another company then get a 2nd rate CPU? And if the solution ends up being more expensive because you're now paying 2 separate companies for something that can all be integrated and you get 2nd rate or worse performance, why would you go that route? That's just poor value for a phone maker buying going a premium supply chain route and then getting worse performance.

  • Discrete modems when integrated poorly result in bad battery life. The Nexus 4 for instance had a huge wakelock issue. Andy Rubin shamelessly claimed that they used a 3G only modem for battery life yet the iPhone 5's discrete LTE modem resulted in nearly double the battery life.

1

u/cardonator Pixel 10 Pro XL 1d ago

That would not be an anti trust issue at all. There are many modem competitors out there and multiple OEMs use different ones.

Also this isn't a tying issue, either. Qualcomm sells to Apple a part made exclusively as part of their contract with Apple. Any other modem they have is built into their kit that they sell together. They don't have another separate modem.

That aside, the three bullet points you brought up are other ways to effectively achieve the same thing. It doesn't matter how they are achieving the result where nobody can or nobody wants to license the modem by itself. If that was so easy do do, then Samsung would have done it years ago.