All this sturm und drang about tech vs hubris misses at least two important points:
the User Experience
the users' trust that the manufacturer has the means to provide and support it over time
1) "tech vs hubris"? Why do you think these are at odds with other? Jobs was often successful despite his hubris. In fact, you could argue his hubris was created by his early success which lead to his run of failures.
2) Just this week on Facebook I read a comment about how the iPhone sucked because they've issued updates since deploying iOS 11 which he compared to his Samsung phone which hadn't had a single update all year.
1) "tech vs hubris"? Why do you think these are at odds with other?
I don't think that these are at odds -- its just that you and several others have been arguing over them for the last 20, or so, posts -- and missing the big picture -- the users decide -- not some techies on a manufacturer-centric forum.
Usually we get posts lamenting the failure of some revolutionary and superior product that couldn’t make it in the market. That’s usually followed by an analysis that says it’s hard to break into a market that’s already dominated by the likes of Apple and Samsung. Yada, yada, yada. But then I always remember the trash talking about the iPhone when it came out. Nokia and Microsoft (well, Steve Ballmer) literally laughed their asses off at the thought of Apple having any success in the “mature” cellphone market. Apple had no experience in producing cellphones and would fail miserably. That didn’t quite happen did it. So I wouldn’t count Rubin out just yet.
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?
Jesus. Do you realize what a complete jackass you sound like? Are you on the spectrum?
Also, there are completely valid reasons to think android is a piece of shit other than an irrational hatred. Get fucking real.
”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.
Okay, how’s this... No company should try to enter the smartphone market with a me-too product that doesn’t radically disrupt the current touch interface paradigm. Can’t believe I have to say this but there, now I have said it. So we’re covered for all future me-too brands, yes? I guess I could have, and should have, said the same thing about companies trying to compete with Nokia and Motorola with a me-too button phone. Took RIM with its full-keyboard phones to make a big impact in that market. Seems obvious but for you, I suppose someone would have to have stated it beforehand.
...because of 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. What happened to being a fan of technology without making it a pathetic, partisan endeavour?
Uh oh. I think I’ve subconsciously started to convert Soli. Next thing you know he’ll read ISBN 0970312598 and want the application of its theories punishable by death.
As a moderator I shouldn’t say this out loud, but... I think Soli has very little idea how to think critically. It’s evidenced in many of his rants. Also, he continually places words in other’s mouths, showing his own terribly misplaced agenda in the process. That’s getting very old, very quickly. He’s does it in nearly every post, as his method of argument. He cannot seem to argue the point on the table so makes up some rant he assumes represents the other person’s hidden view and then bites back against that. A bit more of that and his posts will be deleted. A bit more after that and so will he be.
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.
Likewise, he applied what I said completely out of context. I said NOTHING about Rubin potentially making a new OS; I was commenting only on the Essential phone as a me-too in a crowded market. There’s a narrative running in Soli’s mind that is divorced from the conversation at hand. Whether deliberately introduced to obfuscate the conversations here or unconsciously, I’ll not tolerate it.
Personally I think 2 or 3 posters and maybe a moderator here need to take a really deep breath, call it an evening and start fresh tomorrow. Just my two cents
I think Soli has very little idea how to think critically. It’s evidenced in many of his rants.
Thing is, the old “Solipsism” and “SolipsismX” accounts were totally different in belief and presentation. Now, I’m not slighting changes in beliefs. I myself was in a totally different place politically just a decade ago. But he has shifted in such a way that I wonder if it’s the same person. Anyway, it’s just a musing. I respected the old accouts’ rationality and insight into Apple and the industry. Strange change. Then again, I’m not the Apple fanatic I once was myself.
GG has a good point. The current discussion in this thread isn’t getting us much of anywhere.
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.
Likewise, he applied what I said completely out of context. I said NOTHING about Rubin potentially making a new OS; I was commenting only on the Essential phone as a me-too in a crowded market. There’s a narrative running in Soli’s mind that is divorced from the conversation at hand. Whether deliberately introduced to obfuscate the conversations here or unconsciously, I’ll not tolerate it.
Spam did, hence my repeated referencing to Spam when that was brought up as a better avenue for Rubin to enter into the smartphone market. Once such comment to tmay:
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?
Which I don't think this simple question was answered.
PS: All your bellyaching because I said I Essential did a good job engineering a device for the given timeframe, which you tried to contort into a conversation about marketing. Way to go on that critical thinking, C.
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?
Jesus. Do you realize what a complete jackass you sound like? Are you on the spectrum?
Also, there are completely valid reasons to think android is a piece of shit other than an irrational hatred. Get fucking real.
Prove it for once instead of blindly bashing any and all competitors that aren't Apple. I'd say you could google it, but that might be a trigger for you.
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?
Jesus. Do you realize what a complete jackass you sound like? Are you on the spectrum?
Also, there are completely valid reasons to think android is a piece of shit other than an irrational hatred. Get fucking real.
But at the end of the day those 'valid reasons' are nothing more than opinions.
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.
Why not? There's no definitive #3. After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. What you have is a scarcity mindset when in fact there's abundance. Rubin failed how most others fail, the execution was flawed.
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.
Why not? There's no definitive #3. After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. What you have is a scarcity mindset when in fact there's abundance. Rubin failed how most others fail, the execution was flawed.
After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. - I don't think so. BBK (Oppo + Vivo + OnePlus), Huawei and Xiaomi are all making a profit whatever miniscule number that be. I agree with the other point though - the execution was flawed. Essential phone would have been successful if it had all the fundamentals covered (A very good camera/ display/SoC performance and software optimization). The fact that the essential phone had an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing. But to call it hubris is a short-sighted position in my view.
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.
Why not? There's no definitive #3. After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. What you have is a scarcity mindset when in fact there's abundance. Rubin failed how most others fail, the execution was flawed.
After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. - I don't think so. BBK (Oppo + Vivo + OnePlus), Huawei and Xiaomi are all making a profit whatever miniscule number that be. I agree with the other point though - the execution was flawed. Essential phone would have been successful if it had all the fundamentals covered (A very good camera/ display/SoC performance and software optimization). The fact that the essential phone had an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing. But to call it hubris is a short-sighted position in my view.
You, and a few others, are fine with making excuses for Andy's failure(s).
I'm embarrassed for all of you.
"His execution was flawed"
"...an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing..."
"...would have been successful if it had all of the fundamentals covered..."
So, why did Andy ship the Essential Phone if it wasn't ready? Why didn't he just start over with a new design and do it right?
Example:
"Another example: When Jobs was designing the first Apple Store, his retail VP Ron Johnson woke up in the middle of a night before a big meeting with an excruciating thought: They had organized the stores completely wrong. Apple had previously organized the stores by the types of products being sold, but Johnson realized Apple needed to organize the store based around what people might want to do with those products.
Johnson told Jobs his epiphany the next morning, and after a brief eruption from Jobs, the Apple CEO told all who attended that day's meeting that Johson was absolutely right, and they needed to redo the entire layout, which delayed the planned rollout by 3-4 months. "We've only got one chance to get it right," Jobs said. "
What part of "We've only got one chance to get it right" did Andy miss?
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.
Why not? There's no definitive #3. After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. What you have is a scarcity mindset when in fact there's abundance. Rubin failed how most others fail, the execution was flawed.
After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. - I don't think so. BBK (Oppo + Vivo + OnePlus), Huawei and Xiaomi are all making a profit whatever miniscule number that be. I agree with the other point though - the execution was flawed. Essential phone would have been successful if it had all the fundamentals covered (A very good camera/ display/SoC performance and software optimization). The fact that the essential phone had an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing. But to call it hubris is a short-sighted position in my view.
You, and a few others, are fine with making excuses for Andy's failure(s).
I'm embarrassed for all of you.
"His execution was flawed"
"...an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing..."
"...would have been successful if it had all of the fundamentals covered..."
So, why did Andy ship the Essential Phone if it wasn't ready? Why didn't he just start over with a new design and do it right?
Example:
"Another example: When Jobs was designing the first Apple Store, his retail VP Ron Johnson woke up in the middle of a night before a big meeting with an excruciating thought: They had organized the stores completely wrong. Apple had previously organized the stores by the types of products being sold, but Johnson realized Apple needed to organize the store based around what people might want to do with those products.
Johnson told Jobs his epiphany the next morning, and after a brief eruption from Jobs, the Apple CEO told all who attended that day's meeting that Johson was absolutely right, and they needed to redo the entire layout, which delayed the planned rollout by 3-4 months. "We've only got one chance to get it right," Jobs said. "
What part of "We've only got one chance to get it right" did Andy miss?
I think you are being a bit too harsh on Andy. "We've only got one chance to get it right" - Would you apply that to Apple's ANY 1st generation product? Apple Watch, HomePod, iPhone, iPod etc? It is understandable that 1st generation products come out with few teething issues which are rectified in 2nd generation. To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view.
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.
Why not? There's no definitive #3. After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. What you have is a scarcity mindset when in fact there's abundance. Rubin failed how most others fail, the execution was flawed.
After Apple and Samsung there's a long line of smartphone manufacturers that are just losing money. - I don't think so. BBK (Oppo + Vivo + OnePlus), Huawei and Xiaomi are all making a profit whatever miniscule number that be. I agree with the other point though - the execution was flawed. Essential phone would have been successful if it had all the fundamentals covered (A very good camera/ display/SoC performance and software optimization). The fact that the essential phone had an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing. But to call it hubris is a short-sighted position in my view.
You, and a few others, are fine with making excuses for Andy's failure(s).
I'm embarrassed for all of you.
"His execution was flawed"
"...an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing..."
"...would have been successful if it had all of the fundamentals covered..."
So, why did Andy ship the Essential Phone if it wasn't ready? Why didn't he just start over with a new design and do it right?
Example:
"Another example: When Jobs was designing the first Apple Store, his retail VP Ron Johnson woke up in the middle of a night before a big meeting with an excruciating thought: They had organized the stores completely wrong. Apple had previously organized the stores by the types of products being sold, but Johnson realized Apple needed to organize the store based around what people might want to do with those products.
Johnson told Jobs his epiphany the next morning, and after a brief eruption from Jobs, the Apple CEO told all who attended that day's meeting that Johson was absolutely right, and they needed to redo the entire layout, which delayed the planned rollout by 3-4 months. "We've only got one chance to get it right," Jobs said. "
What part of "We've only got one chance to get it right" did Andy miss?
That is such nonsense. Nobody ever does things right the first time the first time. The first iPhone was missing features that every other cell had at the time. It was far from being right but it was released anyway. Apple stores aren't a hit because of the layout, they are popular because of the product, and if Ron Johnson is so great why couldn't he do the same for JC Penny?
Comments
2) Just this week on Facebook I read a comment about how the iPhone sucked because they've issued updates since deploying iOS 11 which he compared to his Samsung phone which hadn't had a single update all year.
I don't think that these are at odds -- its just that you and several others have been arguing over them for the last 20, or so, posts -- and missing the big picture -- the users decide -- not some techies on a manufacturer-centric forum.
Also, there are completely valid reasons to think android is a piece of shit other than an irrational hatred. Get fucking real.
Likewise, he applied what I said completely out of context. I said NOTHING about Rubin potentially making a new OS; I was commenting only on the Essential phone as a me-too in a crowded market. There’s a narrative running in Soli’s mind that is divorced from the conversation at hand. Whether deliberately introduced to obfuscate the conversations here or unconsciously, I’ll not tolerate it.
GG has a good point. The current discussion in this thread isn’t getting us much of anywhere.
Which I don't think this simple question was answered.
PS: All your bellyaching because I said I Essential did a good job engineering a device for the given timeframe, which you tried to contort into a conversation about marketing. Way to go on that critical thinking, C.
Prove it for once instead of blindly bashing any and all competitors that aren't Apple. I'd say you could google it, but that might be a trigger for you.
I'm embarrassed for all of you.
"His execution was flawed"
"...an average camera for a $600 phone was its undoing..."
"...would have been successful if it had all of the fundamentals covered..."
So, why did Andy ship the Essential Phone if it wasn't ready? Why didn't he just start over with a new design and do it right?
Example:
"Another example: When Jobs was designing the first Apple Store, his retail VP Ron Johnson woke up in the middle of a night before a big meeting with an excruciating thought: They had organized the stores completely wrong. Apple had previously organized the stores by the types of products being sold, but Johnson realized Apple needed to organize the store based around what people might want to do with those products.
Johnson told Jobs his epiphany the next morning, and after a brief eruption from Jobs, the Apple CEO told all who attended that day's meeting that Johson was absolutely right, and they needed to redo the entire layout, which delayed the planned rollout by 3-4 months. "We've only got one chance to get it right," Jobs said. "
I think you are being a bit too harsh on Andy. "We've only got one chance to get it right" - Would you apply that to Apple's ANY 1st generation product? Apple Watch, HomePod, iPhone, iPod etc? It is understandable that 1st generation products come out with few teething issues which are rectified in 2nd generation. To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view.