Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Hubris. There's a shit ton of phones in the Android OS space, and there wasn't a chance in hell of Essential standing out from the crowd even for a short time. "Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market".
Duh, and maybe his next venture will fail as well.
You brought up Elon; what a fucking dickhead that guy has been the last couple of days, trying to divert media attention from the pending epic fail of the Model 3, and the possibility of financial failure of Tesla. A perfect case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As for Jobs and NeXT, it lives on in all of Apple's hardware, and arguably, one of the great reverses in the history of mergers. Lots of people would agree that Job's NeXT actually took over Apple.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Hubris. There's a shit ton of phones in the Android OS space, and there wasn't a chance in hell of Essential standing out from the crowd even for a short time. "Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market".
Duh, and maybe his next venture will fail as well.
You brought up Elon; what a fucking dickhead that guy has been the last couple of days, trying to divert media attention from the pending epic fail of the Model 3, and the possibility of financial failure Tesla. A perfect case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As for Jobs and NeXT, it lives on in all of Apple's hardware, and arguably, one of the great reverses in the history of mergers. Lots of people would agree that Job's NeXT actually took over Apple.
1) And maybe his next venture will be successful, just as Jobs had plenty of failures before coming back to Apple, and even at Apple he had plenty of missteps. Your assertion that Rubin will always fail simply because he's a competitor of Apple is asinine.
2) So why is Space X a failure because you don't like Tesla? What have you done in your life to be able to say that other entrepreneurs, like Rubin and Musk, shouldn't even attempt to new things because they compete with other companies you use or force you to change your position on how technology will advance? I'm certain you said that an electric car from a startup will never exist and yet I see Teslas on the road every day. While you say "it's an epic fail" the Model 3s are outselling all other Tesla models on the market. It's an actual product, not vaporware, despite claims that Musk is a charlatan (but you lot started saying that as soon as the rumours about Apple getting into the car business started trickling in, just as you say that about Bezos as soon as they started competing slightly with Apple). Looking at MB's numbers for April 2018, all their sales are 30k, while Tesla's are 6k, yet MB sells a much broader range, is almost entirely ICE, and has been around 135 years since its inception and yet only has a reported 2.16% of the market; yet I wouldn't dare say MB is a failure simply because they have such a small part of the market in units, just I wouldn't say that about Apple and their small part of all their HW products in their respective markets.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Hubris. There's a shit ton of phones in the Android OS space, and there wasn't a chance in hell of Essential standing out from the crowd even for a short time. "Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market".
Duh, and maybe his next venture will fail as well.
You brought up Elon; what a fucking dickhead that guy has been the last couple of days, trying to divert media attention from the pending epic fail of the Model 3, and the possibility of financial failure Tesla. A perfect case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As for Jobs and NeXT, it lives on in all of Apple's hardware, and arguably, one of the great reverses in the history of mergers. Lots of people would agree that Job's NeXT actually took over Apple.
And maybe his next venture will be successful, just as Jobs had plenty of failures before coming back to Apple and ev en at Apple had plenty of failures. Your assertion that Rubin will always fail simply because he's a competitor of Apple is asinine.
That isn't what I stated, and I absolutely didn't state and don't think that the Essential Phone was competing with Apple's iPhone, hence why I mentioned the market that Andy had to compete in, the Android OS device market.
It's a mature market. The likelihood of a new entrant, at a time of consolidation in the Android OS device market, being able to differentiate itself from the herd is extremely low. Andy's failure is proof of that. He would have been better off in competing against Nest or Google and Amazon in the smart speaker market, which is still relatively open to new entrants, including it would appear, Apple.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Hubris. There's a shit ton of phones in the Android OS space, and there wasn't a chance in hell of Essential standing out from the crowd even for a short time. "Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market".
Duh, and maybe his next venture will fail as well.
You brought up Elon; what a fucking dickhead that guy has been the last couple of days, trying to divert media attention from the pending epic fail of the Model 3, and the possibility of financial failure Tesla. A perfect case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As for Jobs and NeXT, it lives on in all of Apple's hardware, and arguably, one of the great reverses in the history of mergers. Lots of people would agree that Job's NeXT actually took over Apple.
And maybe his next venture will be successful, just as Jobs had plenty of failures before coming back to Apple and ev en at Apple had plenty of failures. Your assertion that Rubin will always fail simply because he's a competitor of Apple is asinine.
That isn't what I stated, and I absolutely didn't state and don't think that the Essential Phone was competing with Apple's iPhone, hence why I mentioned the market that Andy had to compete in, the Android OS device market.
It's a mature market. The likelihood of a new entrant, at a time of consolidation in the Android OS device market, being able to differentiate itself from the herd is extremely low. Andy's failure is proof of that. He would have been better off in competing against Nest or Google and Amazon in the smart speaker market, which is still relatively open to new entrants, including it would appear, Apple.
1) All the experts said the smartphone was a mature market before the iPhone was announced, after it was announced, after it was on sale, and even after it started eating everyone's lunch.
"Let's make a dent in the universe." — Steve Jobs
2) The history of technology is coming into a seemingly established market and taking over. The world is filled with people like you that say "no need to try, because I've already said it's a failure." You can spit names like "narcissist" at Jobs, Rubin, Bezos, Musk, et al. all you want but these people are taking risks to bring products to market. You aren't required to buy, but it's sad that you can't even look at what they're doing with an objective eye. We need more people like them in this world, not people that right them off before they start or laugh when they fail. I thought Palm had a great opportunity with WebOS and brand loyalty, but I didn't think jumping out with an unfinished product right before an iPhone launch was a great move. Maybe that's why they failed to gain traction, but I wouldn't say that it was it was just hubris or poor engineering that led to their demise.
"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far they can go." — T.S. Eliot
PS: I recall reading that Jobs had to be talked into allowing iTunes for Windows to be made and for the iPod to connect to it. I wonder what would've happened had he kept the iPod on the Mac. Would Apple have been able to climb out of that pit?
PPS: You people need to keep your irrational hatred straight. Just last week someone said that it's easy for a startup to come into an established market.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
"Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue". What you are stating is that there is no barrier to entry into the Android OS device market. It's a playing field that is dominated by only big players. There are no disrupters, not even RED, which at least attempted to build a unique device.
Andy fucking failed...there is no years down the road because of diffusion.
Diffusion is the process by which your competition adds your features to its products almost as fast is you can create new ones. Companies do this to Apple all the time, but, lacking the ability to compete within Apple's ecosystem, they only end up with competing with other Android OS device makers.
There isn't any reason for an attempt at disruption in the smartphone market simply because the hot markets are now wearables. I wish Andy better luck in that market.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
1) Another? What was his first one?
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Read tmay’s comment again. ‘Another’ is obviously referring to all the other Android smartphones by all makers. No need to be deliberately obtuse, eh?
it’s hubris due to exactly what I pointed out in my first comment, in which I detailed some of the reasons the press, and any startup smartphone maker, should not proclaim a new brand, even headed by Andy Rubin, the next iPhone killer. Apple is a tough competitor for the reasons I listed. And so too is Samsung and a slew of others on the Android side of the equation. Ergo, it’s hubris to create a me-too product against globally established and entrenched players. It was hubris for Jobs to create NeXT, and it too failed on its own, as you indicated. No need to attempt to suggest anyone here would have a different view on that. Companies that succeed do so by a combination of timing, market opportunity and innovation. None of that need imply hubris, so I’d say “No, not necessarily” to your question about whether we apply hubris to startup companies that succeed. Maybe there’s hubris in some cases, but it doesn’t logicalky follow that we would think so in all cases. We just happen to think so in this case. Hope that’s okay with you.
”All the experts said the smartphone was a mature market before the iPhone was announced, after it was announced, after it was on sale, and even after it started eating everyone's lunch.”
Did you just use the original iPhone, going up against established players as comparable to what Essential just did? Wow! No wonder your arguments seem like you’re running an agenda detached from reality. You do realize that the original iPhone was an incredible departure from the user experience common to the tens upon tens of millions of phones in use at that time. And that the Essential phone was, well... not.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
”All the experts said the smartphone was a mature market before the iPhone was announced, after it was announced, after it was on sale, and even after it started eating everyone's lunch.”
Did you just use the original iPhone, going up against established players as comparable to what Essential just did?
How the fuck could they when it's over a decade later and Apple changed the entire market? The point is you "experts" are coming in after something doesn't work to claim they shouldn't have ever attempted it. You're no better than the people that keep saying Apple will fail any day now.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for you to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you fuckers can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for one you techtards to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you fuckers can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for one you techtards to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
How about a neutral party's experience with the "Essential Phone"?
Brutal.
That review seems fair, but it's irrelevant to the discussion about creating an entirely new OS+ecosystem v creating a smartphone to try compete with Samsung in the US, which Spam stated was the better avenue, and radarthekat said conflicted with a previous comment because I said that HW for an existing ecosystem was easier to bring to market than creating an entire OS+ecosystem
That Essential phone notch is not iPhone X notch. It looks much like a manufacturing defect instead of a real design feature as in iPhone X.
Not as attractive as the iPhone X's notch, and while I don't think it looks like a defect they could've done more to make it flow more naturally, like Apple's approach with the notch. That said, I doubt it wouldn't made a difference to their target audience.
I do like that there's plenty of space for Status Bar elements. I hope Apple is able to reduce the width of the notch this year and will add back more Status Bar elements. I do feel that Essential missed the boat by not going to the bottom edge, but that costs money. As a start up they risked a lot to make waves. Perhaps they shouldn't have got with the top edge out of the gate, either, so they could invest that time and money into a different resource.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you fuckers can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for one you techtards to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
How about a neutral party's experience with the "Essential Phone"?
Brutal.
That review seems fair, but it's irrelevant to the discussion about creating an entirely new OS+ecosystem v creating a smartphone to try compete with Samsung in the US, which Spam stated was the better avenue, and radarthekat said conflicted with a previous comment because I said that HW for an existing ecosystem was easier to bring to market than creating an entire OS+ecosystem
That Essential phone notch is not iPhone X notch. It looks much like a manufacturing defect instead of a real design feature as in iPhone X.
Not as attractive as the iPhone X's notch, and while I don't think it looks like a defect they could've done more to make it flow more naturally, like Apple's approach with the notch. That said, I doubt it wouldn't made a difference to their target audience.
I do like that there's plenty of space for Status Bar elements. I hope Apple is able to reduce the width of the notch this year and will add back more Status Bar elements. I do feel that Essential missed the boat by not going to the bottom edge, but that costs money. As a start up they risked a lot to make waves. Perhaps they shouldn't have got with the top edge out of the gate, either, so they could invest that time and money into a different resource.
No.
The discussion that I was in with you, that I initiated with you, was why the fuck would Andy think that he could walk in a be considered a player in smartphones.
Andy failed precisely because he didn't understand the Android OS device market, and the decidedly mediocre "Essential Phone" is evidence of that.
Honestly, for the timeframe, Rubin put out an exceptional product.
He didn’t gauge the market well for a quality Android phone for 2017, but his ability to engineer a device and bring it to market is impressive in its own right.
Maybe his next venture will be a market success.
The problem with his "exceptional" product is that he was selling it into the Android OS device market, as if he had another choice. Even with his "exceptional" design, the "Essential" phone wasn't differentiated enough from all other premium Android OS devices, and certainly, Google likely had the same problem with it's Pixel 2, which only sold and estimated 4 million units for the year. It isn't possible to command the same premiums in the Android OS market as it is for Apple to command in the iPhone market.
The market for a quality Android phone is another discussion altogether.
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
Why did Andy Rubin believe that he could innovate with yet another smartphone in the Android OS market?
That's just hubris.
Precisely. Why not spend the terribly difficult time it would take to develop a different phone OS instead? Android is littered with crap-phones from here to the moon. There's little to no room for something that isn't extremely innovative.
You think that creating a smartphone to try to carve out a premium part of the Android base is on par with 1) developing an entirely new mobile OS that's on par with Android and iOS, 2) finding a way to get that new mobile OS to get developers on board with enough quality apps that it's viable in the market? If that's what you really think then you have no idea why the market is the way it is. Creating another Android-based device is far and away the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue. It's not even comparable. Now, maybe that was his longterm plan, but in order to do that he would have to have created a premium Android-based device FIRST that had a solid niche of the market before he could push that eventuality years down the road.
“... the simplest, cheapest, and fastest avenue.”
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you fuckers can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for one you techtards to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
How about a neutral party's experience with the "Essential Phone"?
Brutal.
That review seems fair, but it's irrelevant to the discussion about creating an entirely new OS+ecosystem v creating a smartphone to try compete with Samsung in the US, which Spam stated was the better avenue, and radarthekat said conflicted with a previous comment because I said that HW for an existing ecosystem was easier to bring to market than creating an entire OS+ecosystem
That Essential phone notch is not iPhone X notch. It looks much like a manufacturing defect instead of a real design feature as in iPhone X.
Not as attractive as the iPhone X's notch, and while I don't think it looks like a defect they could've done more to make it flow more naturally, like Apple's approach with the notch. That said, I doubt it wouldn't made a difference to their target audience.
I do like that there's plenty of space for Status Bar elements. I hope Apple is able to reduce the width of the notch this year and will add back more Status Bar elements. I do feel that Essential missed the boat by not going to the bottom edge, but that costs money. As a start up they risked a lot to make waves. Perhaps they shouldn't have got with the top edge out of the gate, either, so they could invest that time and money into a different resource.
No.
The discussion that I was in with you, that I initiated with you, was why the fuck would Andy think that he could walk in a be considered a player in smartphones.
Andy failed precisely because he didn't understand the Android OS device market, and the decidedly mediocre "Essential Phone" is evidence of that.
Why would anyone come into an existing market and think they could sell a product? I gave many examples from many companies doing just this, which included Apple's failures and successes. Some with great products that are struggling and others with limited products that changed the landscape. Why are you still under the impression that all great products win and bad products lose despite Android winning and WebOS losing? And if there are countless Android-based phones out there, then why do you think think Essential failed? Do you honestly believe it's the exact same as the ZTE phone I linked to simply because it runs Android? Do you agree with Spam that it would've been easier for them to create an entirely new mobile OS and ecosystem than to produce a quality smartphone that runs Android? If so, why didn't Windows carve out a niche? It was a great mobile OS with a lot money for development and advertising backed heavily my MS. To reiterate, for its timeframe, Essential phone was an exceptional product.
A recent article stated that Apple bet the farm to make the iPhone. If it failed to attract enough buyers it would've been a spectacular fail for the company and I'm sure someone would be saying it was just hubris for them to come into an established and mature market to make a device that didn't even have basic features like cut/copy/paste, a physical keyboard, or even 3G. What Rubin was considerably less adventurous because he wasn't trying to change the industry, just trying to make a good device to sit in within the Android ecosystem. But I get what you're saying (hubris = trying and failing; genius = winning) which is a sad and incorrect way of looking at technology.
PS: I hope one day you and others can see that it's better to look upon technology as a whole, instead of just caring about a single company. There's a world of engineering beyond Apple's product guide to explore.
Comments
Despite all the bellyaching on tech forums, actual customers tend to be very different from what they whiners want. It’s why multiple attempts to create modular smartphones is a pipe dream that adds cost and bulk without increasing utility or lifespan.
That's just hubris.
2) If it’s hubris to take a chance with a startup, do you apply that to companies that are successful, too? Was it hubris that led Apple to make the iPhone or Musk to start Space X? Do you not see how you may have a bias toward Rubin that wouldn’t you have toward someone else, like Jobs, that failed to make NeXT viable in the market? I’d think a reasonable person could look at NeXT and see it as a market failure, while also seeing the quality engineering without some claiming that making quality PCs must be easy if there are so many cheap PCs on the market. Engineering a good product doesn’t mean you have an automatic market.
Duh, and maybe his next venture will fail as well.
You brought up Elon; what a fucking dickhead that guy has been the last couple of days, trying to divert media attention from the pending epic fail of the Model 3, and the possibility of financial failure of Tesla. A perfect case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As for Jobs and NeXT, it lives on in all of Apple's hardware, and arguably, one of the great reverses in the history of mergers. Lots of people would agree that Job's NeXT actually took over Apple.
2) So why is Space X a failure because you don't like Tesla? What have you done in your life to be able to say that other entrepreneurs, like Rubin and Musk, shouldn't even attempt to new things because they compete with other companies you use or force you to change your position on how technology will advance? I'm certain you said that an electric car from a startup will never exist and yet I see Teslas on the road every day. While you say "it's an epic fail" the Model 3s are outselling all other Tesla models on the market. It's an actual product, not vaporware, despite claims that Musk is a charlatan (but you lot started saying that as soon as the rumours about Apple getting into the car business started trickling in, just as you say that about Bezos as soon as they started competing slightly with Apple). Looking at MB's numbers for April 2018, all their sales are 30k, while Tesla's are 6k, yet MB sells a much broader range, is almost entirely ICE, and has been around 135 years since its inception and yet only has a reported 2.16% of the market; yet I wouldn't dare say MB is a failure simply because they have such a small part of the market in units, just I wouldn't say that about Apple and their small part of all their HW products in their respective markets.
It's a mature market. The likelihood of a new entrant, at a time of consolidation in the Android OS device market, being able to differentiate itself from the herd is extremely low. Andy's failure is proof of that. He would have been better off in competing against Nest or Google and Amazon in the smart speaker market, which is still relatively open to new entrants, including it would appear, Apple.
2) The history of technology is coming into a seemingly established market and taking over. The world is filled with people like you that say "no need to try, because I've already said it's a failure." You can spit names like "narcissist" at Jobs, Rubin, Bezos, Musk, et al. all you want but these people are taking risks to bring products to market. You aren't required to buy, but it's sad that you can't even look at what they're doing with an objective eye. We need more people like them in this world, not people that right them off before they start or laugh when they fail. I thought Palm had a great opportunity with WebOS and brand loyalty, but I didn't think jumping out with an unfinished product right before an iPhone launch was a great move. Maybe that's why they failed to gain traction, but I wouldn't say that it was it was just hubris or poor engineering that led to their demise.
PS: I recall reading that Jobs had to be talked into allowing iTunes for Windows to be made and for the iPod to connect to it. I wonder what would've happened had he kept the iPod on the Mac. Would Apple have been able to climb out of that pit?
PPS: You people need to keep your irrational hatred straight. Just last week someone said that it's easy for a startup to come into an established market.
Andy fucking failed...there is no years down the road because of diffusion.
Diffusion is the process by which your competition adds your features to its products almost as fast is you can create new ones. Companies do this to Apple all the time, but, lacking the ability to compete within Apple's ecosystem, they only end up with competing with other Android OS device makers.
There isn't any reason for an attempt at disruption in the smartphone market simply because the hot markets are now wearables. I wish Andy better luck in that market.
obtuse, eh?
it’s hubris due to exactly what I pointed out in my first comment, in which I detailed some of the reasons the press, and any startup smartphone maker, should not proclaim a new brand, even headed by Andy Rubin, the next iPhone killer. Apple is a tough competitor for the reasons I listed. And so too is Samsung and a slew of others on the Android side of the equation. Ergo, it’s hubris to create a me-too product against globally established and entrenched players. It was hubris for Jobs to create NeXT, and it too failed on its own, as you indicated. No need to attempt to suggest anyone here would have a different view on that. Companies that succeed do so by a combination of timing, market opportunity and innovation. None of that need imply hubris, so I’d say “No, not necessarily” to your question about whether we apply hubris to startup companies that succeed. Maybe there’s hubris in some cases, but it doesn’t logicalky follow that we would think so in all cases. We just happen to think so in this case. Hope that’s okay with you.
”All the experts said the smartphone was a mature market before the iPhone was announced, after it was announced, after it was on sale, and even after it started eating everyone's lunch.”
Did you just use the original iPhone, going up against established players as comparable to what Essential just did? Wow! No wonder your arguments seem like you’re running an agenda detached from reality. You do realize that the original iPhone was an incredible departure from the user experience common to the tens upon tens of millions of phones in use at that time. And that the Essential phone was, well... not.
This characterization directly conflicts with your earlier response to me where you showed the Essential logic board claiming it’s a mighty feat to create a premium smartphone. Do you even realize you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth, contradicting in one comment what you claim in another?
Where's the conflict? HW isn't the same as designing an OS and en ecosystem—oh, that's right, because you hate Android, you believe no device that uses it can be considered good, regardless of how well the components are engineered. Well if Rubin wants to give creating an OS and developer ecosystem a go then he should, but don't try to claim that he should've done that first because it's the easier target as Spam did, or try to claim that any device that runs Android is therefore poorly designed HW because you can't get over your irrational hatred for Android. There is no us v them. Apple is just a company whose products you buy, not your identity. For once I'd love for you to come into a discussion without waving your pro-Apple or anti-Apple flags on this forum. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
How about a neutral party's experience with the "Essential Phone"?
Brutal.
Not as attractive as the iPhone X's notch, and while I don't think it looks like a defect they could've done more to make it flow more naturally, like Apple's approach with the notch. That said, I doubt it wouldn't made a difference to their target audience.
I do like that there's plenty of space for Status Bar elements. I hope Apple is able to reduce the width of the notch this year and will add back more Status Bar elements. I do feel that Essential missed the boat by not going to the bottom edge, but that costs money. As a start up they risked a lot to make waves. Perhaps they shouldn't have got with the top edge out of the gate, either, so they could invest that time and money into a different resource.
The discussion that I was in with you, that I initiated with you, was why the fuck would Andy think that he could walk in a be considered a player in smartphones.
Andy failed precisely because he didn't understand the Android OS device market, and the decidedly mediocre "Essential Phone" is evidence of that.
A recent article stated that Apple bet the farm to make the iPhone. If it failed to attract enough buyers it would've been a spectacular fail for the company and I'm sure someone would be saying it was just hubris for them to come into an established and mature market to make a device that didn't even have basic features like cut/copy/paste, a physical keyboard, or even 3G. What Rubin was considerably less adventurous because he wasn't trying to change the industry, just trying to make a good device to sit in within the Android ecosystem. But I get what you're saying (hubris = trying and failing; genius = winning) which is a sad and incorrect way of looking at technology.
PS: I hope one day you and others can see that it's better to look upon technology as a whole, instead of just caring about a single company. There's a world of engineering beyond Apple's product guide to explore.