Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Android Creator Lost Out On a Big Investment, and Apple May Be To Blame (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the what's-happening dept.

Earlier this year, we learned that Andy Rubin, creator of the Android operating system, has built a new company called Essential. The company was reportedly working on a "high-end smartphone with a large edge-to-edge screen that lacks a surrounding bezel." It appears things aren't chugging along so smoothly. From a report: Andy Rubin, a co-creator of Android, lost out on a $100 million investment from SoftBank as Apple deepened ties with the Japanese investor, people familiar with the matter told The Wall Street Journal. Rubin's company, Essential Products, is reportedly planning to release a new high-end smartphone this spring, and SoftBank planned to market the phone in Japan, the Journal said. But Apple subsequently agreed to commit $1 billion to SoftBank's Vision Fund, a move that "complicated" SoftBank's investment in Essential Products, the Journal reported Monday. Apple did not directly block the deal, the Journal said, though Rubin's premium phone would be released ahead of the highly anticipated 10th anniversary iPhone. The deal was "nearly complete," sources told the Journal.

7 of 74 comments (clear)

  1. Stop whining and get back to work... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

    Translation: The 800-pound gorilla in the market ate our lunch. We didn't see that coming.

  2. Destroy all competition! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Destroy all competition, or DAC is the precarious stage of a product life cycle in which the company has already recognized its products as stagnated and turns into destroying all competition instead of inventing marketable novelty. DAC stages are more typical for products of big companies with established ecosystems and revenue streams. -- Fake Marketing 101, Chapter 13

    1. Re:Destroy all competition! by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Destroy all competition, or DAC is the precarious stage of a product life cycle in which the company has already recognized its products as stagnated and turns into destroying all competition instead of inventing marketable novelty. DAC stages are more typical for products of big companies with established ecosystems and revenue streams. -- Fake Marketing 101, Chapter 13

      I think this is more alternate facts than anything, because the business case makes zero sense.

      Apple invested a billion dollars into softbank. I don't know about you, but a billion dollars is a YUGGGGGGGGGEEEEEE amount. All for what? To kill a smartphone company who hasn't even released a phone yet? That makes zero business sense - they don't have a phone, they don't have a prototype, they don't have anything. And you don't know how much it costs, or what market they're targeting.

      I'm sure the Pixel and Pixel XL phones have Apple worried that Google is stomping around their price points.Enough that some no-name (yeah he created Android, and no one cared) who promises a phone with everything and the kitchen sink which hasn't been released yet or even a business plan produced is even more scary.

      No, what likely happened is Apple was making an investment in a carrier that believed in them (SoftBank was one of the first carriers outside the US to carry the iPhone, and in Japan, where their phones are light years ahead of what North America has) for $1B.

      And it's likely because of this, SoftBank wanted them to switch from a direct investment to using this new fund with its big pot of money in it ($1B!) which would be used to encourage innovation, and either it failed because the phone wasn't practical, or other business reason. If it was a "nothing but iPhone" fund, then would be rather useless.

      He likely got caught up in his own hype about the phone that it was supposed to be the next JesusPhone. Especially if he wanted to release it before the iPhone - that would mean he'd be in production right now, and thus all the hardware has been designed and debugged. Seeking funding now to go to mass production would put them even further behind thanks to how long it'll take

  3. Why are people obsessed with lack of bezels? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everyone seems to be clamoring for a phone without bezels, but it seems obvious to me that you have to HOLD the device, and parts of your hand will always cover some of the front of the device if you hold it securely, and therefore with a bezel-less device you will be covering your screen all the time.

    Why do people seem to want this? It makes no sense. I like bezels on my handheld devices so I can actually hold and use them at the same time!

    1. Re:Why are people obsessed with lack of bezels? by aicrules · · Score: 3, Insightful

      because the sheets of "glass" that they show in many scifi shows and movies seem like they would be cool as a computer/phone. Practical? Hell i don't know. But if they make advances in technology that allow it to happen then that's fine by me. There are bound to be applications for those advances that go beyond aesthetics. I prefer my phone not to so easily become shattered, thus I put it in a case. This nullifies the aesthetic benefit of having no bezel for me.

    2. Re:Why are people obsessed with lack of bezels? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Same reason they want thinner and lighter. Because the general public is really stupid and when you market at them properly they will lap it up.

      I want a phone that is 2X as thick as available today and has a 4 day battery life. Single day battery life today is only because of stupidity. we should be at the 1 week of battery like we had with the Razr flip phone.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Battery cases address this problem by perpenso · · Score: 2

    Cases with integrated batteries address this problem. The phone itself does not have to go in this direction.

    There is another thing about the Razr that is loved and missed. A small size that easily fit in the pocket. Thin and lightweight are an attempt to partially fulfill this Razr attribute. However today's handheld computers need a larger screen so we will always fall short of the Razr's convenience. An iPhone SE with the thickness and weight of an iPod touch might be convenient enough, ignoring the technical limitations that make that infeasible today. A case roughly twice as thick that triples battery life would seem reasonable for those that want endurance.

    Seems like a thin phone plus a thick case is a path that lets both the convenience and endurance camps get what they desire.