This is confusingly written. It makes it sounds like you'd get a free phone after 24 months, but it's just really a 2-year subscription plan that bundles the hardware and a selection of Google services in a single monthly fee.

What you get after 2 years is the chance to sign up for another 2-year subscription, which includes a new phone, paid monthly over another 2 years.

Google has not just deprived a bunch of people of free phones, they are just eliminating this subscription bundle plan.

More info:

- https://blog.google/products/pixel/introducing-pixel-pass/

- https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/pixel-6-with-pixel-pass-how...

When I got Stadia, I set my dad up with it to play Red Dead 2, because he knows nothing of games, and I wasn't buying him a PS4 just to play 1 game. It was great. When he got stuck, I logged in across the country and advanced the story for him, and he took back over. Spectacular product.

I told my dad, day 1, "You'd better enjoy this now, because in 2 years, Google will kill this and you'll never be able to play again." I was off by about a year, but I was 100% right. At least they gave me back 100% of my money and game purchase $. Still, standard Google.

Additionally, anyone notice that nothing works worse together than Google and Google. I had Google Wifi, Google phones, Chromebooks, EVERYTHING. And nothing ever worked reliably. Ever.

The issue was whoever created this didn't design a widely compelling proposition..

You had to value the bundled Google Game Pass and YouTube Music Premium to make it a good deal. Anyone who doesn't play games and uses Spotify would be under water vs just paying monthly for the phone (if payments is what makes the new phone accessible).

Also the open secret in Google Pixel lifecycle is that Google heavily subsidizes the trade in value of the prior gen phone at launch, which has meant each consecutive Pixel phone has cost me $100 or less to trade up into on an annual basis. Holding onto a Pixel phone for 2 years actually leads to a significant depreciation curve vs annual trade up.

I avoid using google wherever possible. Forget all the hate they get. Their customer service sucks making it harder to recommend any of their product. Then there is the fact that they will just kill the product any time.

If you are going to use google products, stick to dinosaur products like android, gmail etc. DO NOT EVER INVEST IN A NEW GOOGLE PRODUCT. It is just a matter of time before it disappears.

This has become a joke. The last project I had hold my breath for was Project Ara. And I don't plan to do that again.

I have no faith in any of Google’s endeavours lasting. When you sign up for any Google service, you’re essentially a human lab rat with the odds being the service will be unceremoniously cancelled. I’ve developed the “anything but Google” mentality with this in mind.

The real news here is that a Google service lasted more than 12 months

And yet another Google service goes to the Google Graveyard.

The only practical advice you can follow now is "if it's a Google product and it's not Search, YouTube, Maps, Gmail or Docs, don't bet on it being around in the long term"

I find this pretty wild because I am paying more than this for my iPhone Upgrade Program (which I get yearly upgrades) and Apple One (Premier). Was this just not successful or is this just another case of Google being Google and if it isn't an instant success it doesn't survive?

To me this seems like one of those things you subsidize for a few years to get people using your services and then people are "locked" in. Or just recognize that someone doing this is one of our best customers since they are clearly in your ecosystem and just more beneficial in that regard alone.

Our family is on GoogleFi because of the unparalleled international travel benefits. I really hope they don't kill it but I am sure they will one day.

I think the frustration we all have was that Google was the Willy Wonka factory of cool tech and services. Eagrly waiting to see what cool candy they can invent.

Now that has disappeared, many people are dissolutioned by the lack of focus and stagnation.

Is having an end-of-life deadline a requirement in pre-mortems done for product launches at Google?

undefined

...but why? It seems like a great, simple concept, and not one that seems very expensive to maintain. What's the reasoning here? Like, what sort of returns did they expect here, and why weren't they met?

I mean, it's Google. At this point it's pretty much mandatory that anything they launch must be killed within 2 years after someone inside realised what a terrible idea it was.

Never trust Google for anything, ever.

I’d be curious to see how many $100 off coupons they issue vs how many are utilized.

Google kills. Must be the most sustainable brand on Earth. Am I surprised?

How is that legal? Seems like a blatant bait and switch

> The terms of the Pixel Pass were for two years, and paying the subscription for that time would pay off your Pixel phone. Early cancellation meant a big final bill for the remainder of the phone cost. That won't happen here, though—while new signups are no longer allowed, existing users will be able to finish out their two-year term. The end of the term was supposed to mean re-upping with a shiny new device, but Google now says, "By the end of the 2 year term, you can’t upgrade to a new phone with Pixel Pass."

But you do get a 100$ off coupon for your next pixel.

The jokes literally write themselves at this point.

[dead]

[flagged]

Rugpulled again!

killedbygoogle.com might have a new entry now

If I were a pixel pass subscriber, I would want a refund on the price difference between pixel pass versus buying all the included subcomponents, plus the cost of the initial free phone.

Although after writing that, I'm wondering if there actually is any monetary difference.

Edit: Other commenters explained that after 2 years you did not get another phone, you got the chance to renew and then get another phone. So I guess there's no need to get a refund because Google fulfilled their contract.

The article makes this sound a lot worse than it is.