Today, Google has described in detail two of the unannounced features of Pixel 4, which are most likely to be billed on their October debuts: 3D Face Recognition and radar-driven gesture control. While only the soli-radar stuff is really new in the smartphone industry, Google will also launch the first Android phone with a truly secure face-unlock that competes with Apple's on the iPhone X (other Android phones). Phones have used it, but Android as the operating system could not.) T use it yet).
With the phone and its design put to the test earlier this summer, Google offers unparalleled insight into a product that's still months from release – the kind of Move-Tech marketers and lawyers traditionally fear if the product does not deliver or does not produce sufficient hype. But only the tech industry really seems to be so paranoid, and it's been a long time since a company with the size and influence of Google has shown us what we already knew: there is absolutely no reason to be a tech product for To keep the company completely secret because of a large mega-revelation. And it has led me to ask why we have stuck to this pronounced marketing trope for so long.
As we all probably know, the reason tech companies first adopted the false narrative of total secrecy ̵
It has been said (too) often, but Apple's events are more like religious renewal than marketing presentations. And while Apple will continue its tradition of superlative keynotes based on minimalist technical slides and unreasonably polished television advertising, I can not believe that the rest of the industry will continue this ritual much longer. No company has successfully modeled Apple's technology, and it has been tried for a good decade. Google's slow Pixel 4 test is a clear sign that Gospel of Jobs has less stringent adherents to product marketers and executives than in previous years. A trend I expect will only continue as it becomes increasingly difficult to keep almost everything secret about a product.
Telephone Keynotes are expensive, needlessly fierce and a waste of time for most journalists. They serve primarily to satisfy the ego of executives and the budget of the marketer, who want to earn a living by using stubs, so that an audience is trapped for one to two hours without interruption in the often not very tight company company messaging. I do not say that all keynotes are bad; In fact, many more technical ones can be useful, especially those that need to cover a wide range of topics and concepts. However, almost every smartphone keynote does not provide anything that could be effectively communicated or shared in a blog post, image gallery, and some YouTube videos. Today's products are almost infinitely more similar than they are different, and the length that manufacturers need to deliver narrative filler is becoming a painful number of journalists, analysts, and industry professionals in one place, meaning that it's efficient. This, too, largely breaks down as nonsense. Pre-event briefings are commonplace in the industry, and companies sometimes even go so far as to send journalists the product weeks before they are announced. Telephone conference presentations, shared media resources, and blog posts are equally effective tools for this purpose. And if the argument is that people can actually try the product, sure: But why do they have the keynote? If anything, I would be much more motivated to go into a room with a phone that I knew very little about, and try to find a good point of view or a good function, compared to one I and 500 of my closest I had already heard all about it (and I'm sure most journalists in my position would agree with that).
So, I appreciate that Google is raining on its own parade. It supplants the myth that smartphones are a kind of special product class that needs to be uncovered only when they are really ready and that it is an abomination to do so. After all, the video game, automotive, and movie industry products are constantly teasing before their official revelations and what did they care about? We often see such products hyped for a year or more before they become available, and most recently I've verified that none of these sectors imploded as a result. It is time to expose the Joban dogma that has determined the introduction of technology products (and smartphones in particular) and how little evidence actually serves to support them.