Slashdot Mirror
Andy Rubin's Essential Phone Considered Anything But (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Andy Rubin's ambitions to create a new consumer electronics ecosystem are floundering at base camp. Sales of Essential's phone, which forms a key part of the strategy, are tepid. Google Play reports a mere 50,000 download of Essential's Camera app so far, the Android Police blog notes. This doesn't paint the full picture, but it can be assumed a fairly complete one, barring a few brush strokes. Essential launched in the US with support from Sprint, at a recommended SIM-free retail price of $699. After reported sales of just five thousand in the first month, this was slashed to $499 and could be grabbed for $399 in the post-Thanksgiving sales. As devices from different manufacturers proliferate in the home, Rubin has alluded to "a new operating system so it can speak all those protocols and it can do it securely and privately." But rather than launching a new software platform he's had to launch hardware.
Just make the damn thing as thick as the phone+case everyone carries now, but robust enough that the case isn't necessary. Then use the extra space for batteries (and not removing the headphone jack).
Seriously, the problem is that everyone tries so hard to make the phone look as "shiny" as possible on a store shelf, without giving a damn about what its *actually* like to the *actual* user a month later.
I disagree. I, for one, buy used high end phones for about one third their original price when they are 6-18 months old. They have good cameras and are fast, just not as fast as the latest model. But they are still much better than low end phones with crappy displays, low RAM, and lack of updates.
I couldn't care less about style however. It's a phone. I care about function, not form. And also do not confuse build quality with style and looks. It has nothing to do with each other. The best material for a phone is plastic (durable, shock-absorbent, doesn't block RF) but somehow it is considered "cheap" by so-called "build quality" freaks who prefer bad materials such as glass and metal.
I still think the essential phone was doomed to fail at $700. Not good enough for the price.
GP implied the following:
* Essential is a mid-range phone at a mid-range price - 700$
* You can get a budget (weaker than Essential) phone for about 300$
* You can get a high-end (stronger than Essential) phone for about 1000$
* There is no market for 700$ phone that is in between budget and top end phones
What you are saying is that GP is wrong, because you are happy buying previous gen high-end phone (essentially mid-range) for 1/3 of the original price, so around 300$, therefore, there is definitely a market for 700$ mid-range phone. How does this make sense?
I disagree. I, for one, buy used high end phones for about one third their original price when they are 6-18 months old.
The fact that you buy high end phones (whether used or not) is not evidence that there is a market for mid-range phones.