I wish Google didn’t make smartphones

While I always welcome more competition in the Android smartphone market, one key player I haven’t been so happy about is Google. At first, I was interested to see what Google could do and the potential that more stock Android smartphones could offer.

But over time, that interest has turned into concern — to the point that I actually wish Google didn’t make smartphones. This isn’t due to the hardware itself or even Google as a company, but rather Google’s position as the primary developer of Android.

Over the past few years, many Android manufacturers have focused more on differentiating their devices on the software front rather than hardware. This incentivizes people to keep buying the latest smartphones even with extended Android update support and iterative hardware updates.

For example, one of my frustrations with Samsung is the company’s practice of keeping certain features, like Now Brief, limited to later devices, even if older models have the hardware capable of supporting them.

Google isn’t exempt from this. It has showcased impressive hardware over the years, but I don’t think it has escaped the pressure to sell more devices by emphasizing certain software features. Since it has its own line of smartphones, the incentive is to roll out improvements to its own devices rather than Android in general.

This is demonstrated by the sheer number of Pixel-exclusive features and apps that seemingly aren’t tied to hardware limitations.

In my opinion, some of these features should be available as part of stock Android. I’m happy for Pixels to keep their photo editing tools, but certain features would actually contribute to the safety of Android users.

Call Screen, for example, would be incredibly useful in helping Android users avoid spam and scam calls. Android currently has a built-in caller ID feature, but this hasn’t been very useful in my experience. Instead, many users have to rely on third-party apps like Truecaller to try to avoid spam calls. Scam Detection would also help identify common scam formats.

A feature like advanced voice typing in Gboard would also enhance accessibility. You can access basic voice typing in Gboard on any Android device, but advanced features, such as adding punctuation and editing text with your voice, are limited to Pixel devices.

The Battery Health indicator available on new Pixels is another feature that I think should just be available on Android in general, especially as manufacturers move to higher charging speeds and newer battery technology.

There are some other Pixel features I would like to see on stock Android that aren’t as essential, but are convenient.

The At A Glance widget, for example, is much more powerful on Pixel phones. While it’s available as a widget on other Android devices, its functionality is extremely limited, even if you use other Google apps that work with it. I compared my widget with my colleague Rita’s. On my Honor and Samsung phones, I have a single page of toggles. Rita’s Pixel, however, included just under three pages of toggles. Toggles that I don’t have, despite using compatible Google apps on my phone — including bedtime, fitness, timers, and the flashlight.

Besides incentivizing Google to keep certain features limited to Pixel devices, I also think the company’s status as a phone manufacturer gives it less reason to stay committed to the Android Open Source Project (AOSP).

Recent developments have made many people nervous about the future of Android as Google continues to tighten its reins on the OS. Google says that AOSP isn’t going away, but I’m not the only one who is concerned regarding the future of the project.

The delay of Android 16 QPR1’s source code has reignited fears around Google’s commitment. And while Google might not necessarily delay the release of code to push smartphone sales, having its own hardware adds to the reasons why truly committing to an open source project may no longer make business sense.

Google has achieved its goal by making Android an open-source OS. Most of the world’s smartphone manufacturers use it, leading to the proliferation of Google apps and Google Mobile Services (GMS). The dominance of the Play Store aligns with Google’s business interests.

While the company likely won’t make Android fully closed-source, this doesn’t mean Google will stay aligned with the spirit of open-source development. With the incentive to also push its own hardware sales, there’s one less reason to really engage with open-source principles in good faith.

Now, some readers may argue that if I want to have access to Pixel-exclusive features, I should cough up and buy Google’s hardware. After all, one can’t expect Google to thanklessly create innovative software without reward.

However, the reality is that Google ignores certain regions when it comes to hardware availability. This applies not only to Pixel smartphones but also to Google Home devices and wearables. Even if you import a device or buy it from a local distributor, you won’t necessarily have access to all the features it offers. That’s partly why my colleague Hadlee regretted importing a Pixel.

I’ve experienced this living in South Africa. The Google Store isn’t available in Africa, meaning you can’t purchase devices directly from Google. While Fitbit had been on the market in South Africa for years, Google’s acquisition of the company eventually led to it stopping the sale of devices locally. I have an old Google Home speaker, but certain voice commands weren’t supported, so I eventually stopped using it.

For many people around the world, the only way to access certain Google features is through the hardware manufacturers that have agreements with Google and use its open-source software. It’s why I have a smart TV box that includes Google TV, even though no first-party Google devices are available in my country.

The more Google moves towards focusing on Pixel-only features and moving away from engaging with Android as an open-source initiative in good faith, the less people in excluded markets will be able to access useful features. There’s already a divide between who has access to what features from Google, and I worry that this will only worsen over time.

While I’m always happy to see competition in the smartphone market, I think that due to a combined number of factors, Google’s sale of its own smartphones hurts more than helps the future of Android. It was always likely that Google would tighten its control of Android once it had achieved the desired market share. But the sale of its own smartphones contributes to a divide in who can access important features that should just be part of the core Android OS.