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.
First of all, there is no second generation for Essential Phone unless the company's assets are picked up by another company and they restart the product. I contend that the product wasn't very good for the price point, not just that it had teething problems.
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
"To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view."
IMHO, there isn't going to be a second attempt. There certainly may be a phone called "Essential Phone" in the future, but it won't be anything close to "essential".
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.
First of all, there is no second generation for Essential Phone unless the company's assets are picked up by another company and they restart the product. I contend that the product wasn't very good for the price point, not just that it had teething problems.
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
Agreed, but then that should not be labeled as Hubris. That is the whole point. It was a honest attempt, in which Andy did not succeed like many other humans. Smart watches were an established market when Apple entered, but still 1st generation Apple watch was NOT near-perfect by any stretch of imagination. If you are being reasonable, you would agree that it is very difficult to get a near-perfect product first time, even in 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.
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.
First of all, there is no second generation for Essential Phone unless the company's assets are picked up by another company and they restart the product. I contend that the product wasn't very good for the price point, not just that it had teething problems.
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
"To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view."
IMHO, there isn't going to be a second attempt. There certainly may be a phone called "Essential Phone" in the future, but it won't be anything close to "essential".
BS, the HomePod is in an already saturated 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.
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.
First of all, there is no second generation for Essential Phone unless the company's assets are picked up by another company and they restart the product. I contend that the product wasn't very good for the price point, not just that it had teething problems.
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
"To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view."
IMHO, there isn't going to be a second attempt. There certainly may be a phone called "Essential Phone" in the future, but it won't be anything close to "essential".
BS, the HomePod is in an already saturated market.
So the HomePod isn't selling? The HomePod is not targeting a different niche than the cheap smart speakers? The smart speaker market isn't growing?
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.
Difference being, Apple wasn’t betting the company on Watch or HomePod. But they were on iPhone. And Apple clearly got Watch, for example, right. In its third generation it’s substantially the same product. It’s not radically different the way, say, Fitbit's attempts have been from one generation to the next. It’s getting the basics right, which in the Essential’s case would have required a market-competing camera, for starters.
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.
First of all, there is no second generation for Essential Phone unless the company's assets are picked up by another company and they restart the product. I contend that the product wasn't very good for the price point, not just that it had teething problems.
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
"To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view."
IMHO, there isn't going to be a second attempt. There certainly may be a phone called "Essential Phone" in the future, but it won't be anything close to "essential".
BS, the HomePod is in an already saturated market.
So the HomePod isn't selling? The HomePod is not targeting a different niche than the cheap smart speakers? The smart speaker market isn't growing?
It is selling, nobody said it wasn't. It's just not going to dominate the market or people's minds the way the iPhone and iPad do. The HomePod is the first device in which Apple seemed reactive instead of proactive. It's a device it's customer base was waiting for.
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.
Difference being, Apple wasn’t betting the company on Watch or HomePod. But they were on iPhone. And Apple clearly got Watch, for example, right. In its third generation it’s substantially the same product. It’s not radically different the way, say, Fitbit's attempts have been from one generation to the next. It’s getting the basics right, which in the Essential’s case would have required a market-competing camera, for starters.
I am not disputing with your assessment per se. Only point was - It is a very difficult market to succeed in, particularly for a new company in its very first attempt. If the business plan itself was to succeed/shut down based on very first attempt, it was a flawed one. Hubris - Not so sure, like many people in this forum.
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'm surprised Ron Johnson was capable of such an insight, yet lacked all common sense when he became CEO of JC Penney.
Comments
Second, most of Apple's successes have been in nascent markets, created either by disruption, examples being iPod, iPad, iPhone and Watch, or like the HomePod, by directing the first iteration towards a specific niche that is underserved, as the HomePod was, and for a fact, we don't know if the HomePod will be a success going forward.
Third, Apple has well established branding and distribution, which Essential did not have.
In a market flooded with high volumes of "near perfect" products, not meeting that minimal standard at that price point had consequences.
"To suggest that one should make a near-perfect product in their very first attempt is unreasonable in my view."
IMHO, there isn't going to be a second attempt. There certainly may be a phone called "Essential Phone" in the future, but it won't be anything close to "essential".
The HomePod is not targeting a different niche than the cheap smart speakers?
The smart speaker market isn't growing?
https://voicebot.ai/2018/03/29/idc-says-smart-speaker-sales-rise-4-4-billion-17-4-billion-2022/
Apple doesn't have better branding, user base, and distribution than Essential Phone had?
Or is it just that the Essential Phone wasn't that good, or was it also not competitive in a declining market?
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-market-declined-yoy-second-successive-quarter-q1-2018/
I am not disputing with your assessment per se. Only point was - It is a very difficult market to succeed in, particularly for a new company in its very first attempt. If the business plan itself was to succeed/shut down based on very first attempt, it was a flawed one. Hubris - Not so sure, like many people in this forum.