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
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.
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 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 disagree. There is a market for mid-range phones and not everybody who could afford it want to waste $1k on a phone.
Agreed,
I want a phone, 5 inches across, but would take 50% or more depth than current, well made plastic case, 720 resolution, good sun viewable display, but lower midrange specs/price (2GB RAM, SD Card, 32GB Storage, Enough CPU/GPU that it doesn't hang, $180-$250).
Everything seems to be $125 or 5+ inches.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
You might like the Kyocera DuraForce. It's not the fastest phone, but it has Android 7.1 and the battery seems to last forever. Only downside with it, is it's about 2.5x the weight of a regular 5" phone with a cheap case.
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.
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+.
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!