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.
Costly niche product doesn't sell in large numbers, news at 11!
(If they ever want money, just build a modern smartphone in landscape slider form)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Security is simply no sales argument and can't compete with OHHH SHINY!!!!!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Consumers are saturated with ONE FORM FACTOR for their phones.
Many consumers are tired of enormous, fragile, thin phones.
We want a phone that fits comfortably and safely in our back jeans pocket and does not break if sat on.
Like ALL phones a few short years ago.
MAKE ONE, SHEEP !
AND WE DON'T CARE HOW THICK IT IS !
Technically and ethically the Essential phone is a fine phone... However I don't think they understand the Cell phone market.
Because for a few hundred dollars less, you can get a good budget phone, or a few hundred dollars more you can get a premium phone.
Cell phones are not like cars. Where there is a need for a large range of different models. Even the expensive iPhone X at over $1k wouldn't be a painful expense to most middle class people, unlike getting a top end luxury or sports car, where such payments for a middle class person may mean the difference between home mortgage or having the car. So with cell phones a good portion of people can afford to get arguably "the best" phone that money can buy. For those who do not want the best, they are actually happy getting a lower end model. Cars have a middle ground which is popular because they are so much more expensive, that if you are middle class you may want more then a budget car, but not as much as a high end car, because there is variances in your budget to purchase more then the minimum.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't understand how a person can come to wield financial power of the scale required to launch something like new smartphone hardware, and yet be so clueless as to the market. The fact that Microsoft could not survive in this market, with their experience creating software, purchase of Nokia, and the ability to tie the software / user experience in with their world-dominating desktop OS, should be a huge, huge hint as to their likelihood to succeed.
Better known as 318230.
I guess he was too busy harassing women and not paying attention to the fact that no one wants a $700 phone that isn't an iPhone.
Security is simply no sales argument and can't compete with OHHH SHINY!!!!!
True though in fairness security and "shiny" are not mutually exclusive and security (in principle) should be a given. Even though they shouldn't, people are going to tend to assume that devices are secure. This isn't true of course but if they don't (knowingly) get hurt then they will assume that it isn't a problem. And there is no reason in principle to assume that a device cannot be both secure and a lot of interesting useful features too.
Huge problems with the camera app on a $700 smartphone? That isn't a problem at all. No one uses a camera on a smartphone, so why even bother testing it before it ships?
I don't understand how a person can come to wield financial power of the scale required to launch something like new smartphone hardware, and yet be so clueless as to the market.
There are LOTS of people who have achieved fame and fortune due to fortuitous circumstances which they are incapable of repeating. It's not hard to come up with examples. Also remember that Rubin didn't do it by himself. It's kind of like being the lead singer of a successful band who cannot replicate the success of the band as a solo artist. You have to have the right team under the right circumstances to succeed.
I disagree. There is a market for mid-range phones and not everybody who could afford it want to waste $1k on a phone.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
to the majority. That is why nearly everyone you know carries a iPhone, not because of technical superiority (that might be debatable). That is why it is exceptionally difficult for a new entrant to break into the market.
Phones are perceived as status symbols and unlike lot of materialistic things, even the most expensive models are within reach for most with the leasing plans offered by carriers. And largely for this reason Amazon failed with their reasonably priced phone with comparable features despite their huge brand cachet and marketing reach. Unfortunately, it was simply in the wrong market as its brand name does not quite correlate with luxury and status.
I would imagine the a phone launched by a luxury brand is more likely to succeed than a new entrant with tech pedegree.
I would actually say "phones are hard to distinguish by specs, so brands matter".
Other things matter, but Samsung is popular not because just because they're cool, but also because they are a known quantity (decent build, some interesting features, interface tweaks people (not me) like). An iPhone was for a while smoother (interface), or longer battery than Android, they beI'm came popular when they were arguably better. Yeah, no 3g, but the OG Android (forget the name) couldn't really keep up with 3g anyway.
I use budget phones personally, but even then, I'm brand loyal because of history of value.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
title says it all, it was expected like months ago and nothing. Their problem was the US market was no place for that phone - the purists already have enough to chose from with iPhones, Pixels and OnePluses. Contract-free price is meaningless there.
Sell that phone at 400eur/380gbp on this side of the pond, where a LOT of phones are bought flat out, sans-strings attached, and where we really appreciate that effort, and you would notice a market response. How they fail to see this is beyond me. Did I mention Pixels and iPhones are ultra-expensive here, and OnePlus is not every european's cup of tea?
I bet you an arm that, for that price, stock would go kaput as soon as this hit a launch in London or Paris.
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.
It has been shown time and again that roughtly $200 is the sweet spot in pricing for establishing a market for tech gear. Usually consumers wait for that price or something close to it.
Apple has already established themselves as the high-end "prestige" brand. They can ask whatever they want. But newcomers must "try harder"
Recently the xda-developers released their pick for best bang for your buck phones. Their pick? The $200 Honor 7X, a hacker friendly octocore, 64gb with "premium body quality" and construction. Besides the great features, the $200 sweet spot was part of the criteria. Runners up included Sony XA1 and Moto G5Splus.
I like Essential but they need two tier pricing, one unit for the hoi polloi to pay Essentials bills, and another tier for their flagship unit to compete at the higher end.
Not everyone wants or needs a four digit priced phone. For a lot of people, a lower end LG, BLU, or Huawei device is good enough. For $250, I picked up a LG Stylo 3 Plus for development work. Other than lack of NFC (which I rarely use), it is a decent phone with a very responsive fingerprint scanner. There are not many apps that really matter that require a flagship device, other than having animated poop.
If a phone has the usual features (fingerprint scanner, NFC, wireless charging, etc.) there isn't that much difference for day to day use. Especially if you clean out the bloatware.
Nothing wrong with an iPhone X. However, there is still plenty of room in the market for the iPhone 8 and 8+.
That is why nearly everyone you know carries a iPhone
Apply some geography to that statement. iOS is hugely popular in the USA and a few other countries, but globally, Android's market share is close to 90%.
Circumcision is child abuse.
You are right...the number of Essential phones is likely much much lower than the number of downloads.
GP implied the following:
* Essential is a mid-range phone at a mid-range price - 700$
* 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?
Maybe the Sprint version. The unlocked one works ok and everything updated. Now running the oreo beta without problems. Btw there is only one app, the camera one, rest is stock clean android.
I really like the phone. Camera is ok. Never used the headphone jack. Dont care about waterproofing. I thought it was overpriced now at 400 is perfect. A solid titanium block with stock android. Reminds me of my favorite iPhone, the iPhone 4.
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.
Other than lack of NFC (which I rarely use)
Does anyone use it? Years ago, NFC was touted as a way to "pay for stuff with your phone". But now that the future has arrived, when I pay, it is always by scanning a QR code on the kiosk screen and then using the plain ol' cellular network to complete the transaction. No NFC needed.
Who knew competing with companies like Samsung and Apple who spend billions in advertising and billions more in R&D would be so difficult?
Everyone has their own style, but I've used NFC (or more specifically Apple Pay) quite often. For all but some vending machines with a bum transceiver, it works well.
Same here. I never buy a "new release". I wait til another new release comes out, scoop up the last years model, like you, for about 1/2 price. Better bang for your buck IMO.
I bought the Essential phone at the $399 price including the 360 camera. It's a really nice phone with the same snapdragon 835 processor as the other flagship phones. The LCD display seems less impressive compared to the amoled display on my last phone(Nexus 6p), but I don't stare at pictures all day, so I rarely notice it. The other weakness is the camera which could be better, but it still takes great pictures. Overall, I would say it compares with the other flagship phones better than I thought it would. I like the ceramic over metal or plastic and the modular ability with the 360 camera is pretty cool.
I actually know a lot of people who are getting tired of spending a lot of money for cell phones and contract plans. One middle class bachelor might not mind spending $1000 every two years, but if you have a family, that becomes $5000 every two years. Add insurance and it becomes $6000 every two years. With a service plan, it's ~$10,000 every two years! This is an unlocked phone that I can switch over to another network if they offer a better rate and it's cheap enough that I don't worry about insurance. If you're going to pay $1000, you're probably getting insurance, so it's really $1200.
I think the main problem is marketing. Teenagers and 20-somethings are whining that "all my friends have an iphone"! Seen it happen multiple times and talked to other parents, it's similar to the ipod days when "all my friends have an ipod"! The only other phone they seem to acknowledge is the Samsung Galaxy s8, but they still prefer to have an iphone. It's not like they do a lot of research into what they need and what will satisfy their needs and look into reviews etc. They don't know which phones have the best battery life or best reception or gps. It's all marketing. And since it's the parents who would end up paying for it, they don't care how much it costs.
But you end-up paying large sums for the device with your monthly plan
Well to me $700 USD is clearly the high end phone segment, $300 is mid range and budget is $150 or less.
The Galaxy S8 is about $700 and I consider it a high end phone. I don't think any phone is worth $1000 to begin with, in that sense I think the essential is a better idea at $700. I think a lot of people buy phones in that price range, the Essential was just too little too late, and Samsung has better marketing a distribution networks.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've had it now for two weeks, and it's pretty darn sweet:
* same basic specs as the Galaxy S8. Same SOC, memory and 128GB storage. Phone is a little shorter, but with less bezel, there's not much difference in pixels
* fantastic battery life
* sturdy construction
* can't beat the price at those specs -- it's a high-end phone at mid-range prices
* pure Android, no carrier or manufacturer cruft
Downsides
* camera is not top-notch (but it's getting better in software)
* accessories are minimal
* there may be some touchscreen glitches, hard to pin down (could be software, as alternate firmware doesn't have the problem)
This is the android phone for people who want the pure experience, unlocked bootloader, and don't want to pay Pixel prices.
Their marketing is not top-notch. I would barely have heard of it if I didn't fish in the android forum waters.
My biggest worry is if Andy Rubin decides he's bored with it, and it loses support for upgrades in the future. However, if they deliver on the Project Treble version of Oreo, maintaining upgraded firmware gets a lot easier.
Design for Use, not Construction!
I use the NFC payment system in my phone for 90%+ of my transactions. Pretty much every store in Australia supports paywave / paypass so I just use my phone.
Personally I love it.
I paid about $330 for my Moto X Pure. It works great and does everything I need; great display, microSD slot, and plenty fast enough. What exactly is "low end" about it besides the price?
What do I get by spending three times as much?
I have a Yuibkey NEO which uses NFC to talk to the phone. I can encrypt and decrypt messages using OpenKeychain by pressing the two devices together and entering the passphrase to my private key.
NFC is awesome for triggering events, like getting into your car, tapping an NFC tag and having it go into WiFi sharing, enabling Bluetooth, opening google maps, launching pod cast, etc. But recently, it's nice for pairing without hassle to things like headphones and portable speakers.
Fuck off you apk type piece of shit.
Because people can't erase their phones and download apps again? You know there's a huge group of people who are continually fucking about with modding their phone etc?
At the initial price point, it wasn't exactly a stellar deal for anybody.
Personally, I still consider it seriously overpriced as it lacks essentials such as headphone jack, SD card slot and removable battery.
That is why nearly everyone you know carries a iPhone
Actually, nearly everyone I know uses an Android phone. I can count the total number of iPhones I see regularly on one hand.
iOS is hugely popular in the USA and a few other countries
And even within the US, there are huge geographical differences.
Same thing happened with BlackBerry's first Android phone. Apps preinstalled were not automatically updating until after the first manual search and update. It caused an issue with bad out of box experiences for bugs fixed and already released. It left a bad taste that could have been prevented and led to returns. I can see how an app not installed through Play isn't detected for auto update, but fuck, learn about the problems from much more compentant companies so you don't repeat what fucked them over.
Why would you ask such a stupid question, knowing the answer is over 50,000 and no where close to one? It's a stupid question asked by an obviously stupid person.
Fuck off you racist piece of shit. Your mother should have aborted you.
because this phone also gives no (headphone) jack.
Bluetooth still has a lot of problems including output lag, quality, battery, price, and security. It's a good option to have but not a replacement. Also the adapter can easily break due to one flaw. Angled 3.5mm headphone plug can tell you why.
Please don't take this as a criticism, I'm really interested.
Here in Europe we don't really work with heroes à la Andy Rubin, but we've had the Dutch Fairphone company for years now, which is geared to ethical procurement rather than google independence but still have a rooted version, and even a version compatible with the Sailfish OS (for the daring).
Their latest model, Fairphone 2, is about one year old now.
I had the Fairphone 1 before my company forced me to use their Samsung-VPNed standard : FF1 was technically reasonable only (but an excellent root experience). The new Fairphone 2 looks clearly better on all specs, with a very impressive modularity (each element dismountable with a simple screwdriver, of course replaceable battery etc.)
While I'd have little need for a second, non-company-owned phone, I have been considering Fairphone 2 for quite a while -the company is well afloat now.
I wonder how Rubins' specs compare, I'm definitely interested...
TIA!
Herve S.
I have no idea what you mean by "scanning a QR code on the kiosk screen and then using the plain ol' cellular network to complete the transaction".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Some people are using it. Apple Pay (popular), Samsung Pay (somewhat popular), and Android Pay (not very popular so far) are all out there.
Perhaps more importantly, the next generation of transit payment systems will use NFC. Chicago, Portland, and Salt Lake City already allow NFC payments. New York, Boston, and Seattle all will in the future.
No phone will ever support simultaneous voice and data on CDMA. The underlying technology doesn't support it, and Qualcomm has no plans to upgrade CDMA to include that capability. Fortunately, LTE networks are improving. Within a few years carriers will probably start turning off CDMA service, starting in major cities, and go LTE-only. (They'll start in the cities because that's where the pressure on spectrum availability is most severe.)