Essential sees no way to ship the Gem phone and is closing down
Essential is never going to ship the Gem smartphone, and is ending support for the Essential Phone and Newton Mail as the company shuts down.
Essential Products, founded by Android co-founder Andy Rubin in 2015, was responsible for the inception of the Essential Phone in 2017.
The Essential Phone -- dubbed the PH-1 -- was a 5.71-inch ceramic and titanium smartphone that boasted an edge-to-edge QHD display. The PH-1 never caught on quite like the company hoped it would, and Essential announced its discontinuation in December 2018.
Essential planned to continue manufacturing smartphones, announcing their next phone -- the Gem -- in October of 2019. The Gem will not see public release as Essential released a public statement that the company is preparing to shut down.
"In October, we introduced Project GEM, a new mobile experience that our hardware, software, and cloud teams have been building and testing for the past few years. Our vision was to invent a mobile computing paradigm that more seamlessly integrated with people's lifestyle needs," the company said. "Despite our best efforts, we've now taken Gem as far as we can and regrettably have no clear path to deliver it to customers. Given this, we have made the difficult decision to cease operations and shutdown Essential."
As part of the shutdown, the PH-1 will no longer receive updates or customer support. Newton Mail, which was acquired by Essential in 2019, will also be ending its service on April 30, 2020.
Essential will be providing a prebuilt of their vendor image on their GitHub for users who want the ability to modify their systems themselves.
Essential Products, founded by Android co-founder Andy Rubin in 2015, was responsible for the inception of the Essential Phone in 2017.
The Essential Phone -- dubbed the PH-1 -- was a 5.71-inch ceramic and titanium smartphone that boasted an edge-to-edge QHD display. The PH-1 never caught on quite like the company hoped it would, and Essential announced its discontinuation in December 2018.
Essential planned to continue manufacturing smartphones, announcing their next phone -- the Gem -- in October of 2019. The Gem will not see public release as Essential released a public statement that the company is preparing to shut down.
"In October, we introduced Project GEM, a new mobile experience that our hardware, software, and cloud teams have been building and testing for the past few years. Our vision was to invent a mobile computing paradigm that more seamlessly integrated with people's lifestyle needs," the company said. "Despite our best efforts, we've now taken Gem as far as we can and regrettably have no clear path to deliver it to customers. Given this, we have made the difficult decision to cease operations and shutdown Essential."
As part of the shutdown, the PH-1 will no longer receive updates or customer support. Newton Mail, which was acquired by Essential in 2019, will also be ending its service on April 30, 2020.
Essential will be providing a prebuilt of their vendor image on their GitHub for users who want the ability to modify their systems themselves.
Comments
My first thought: Apple already did this. 13 years ago, lol.
Andy Rubin on the other hand has a suitcase full of ethics issues following him around, enough to cause Google to lose confidence in him despite the success of Android. Horrid that Google gave him an exit package which is too close to an endorsement of his time there. Poor choice on Google's part to do so and one they seem to realize and not have repeated with Drummond.
When Schmidt joined Apple's board Mr. Jobs was well aware of Google's Android and their work in creating a mobile phone operating system which would of course required phones running that OS. In fact he had it demoed for him as I recall reading some years ago, and he asked Schmidt to serve on the board anyway. Apple had no issue with Mr. Schmidt's ethics, whether you who knew nothing about it is. Steve Jobs was always welcome at Google.
My assumption is he believed he could better influence them by giving one of their execs a seat at the table and a place on stage. The anger began after he found he could not, tho Google did put off activating multi-touch as long as they reasonably could at Mr. Jobs request.
Original Android was a blackberry styled device. Then they saw iPhone and realized they had to change gears and copy it instead. Fact.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/13/12/19/googles-reaction-to-apples-iphone-unveiling-were-going-to-have-to-start-over-on-android
The fact remains Google started developing the Android smartphone OS before Steve Jobs gave approval to begin that iPhone project. Yes fact.
So when Mr. Jobs signed off on committing to a smartphone he already knew Google had started down the same path, and when Mr. Schmidt was asked to join Apple's board it was with the full knowledge Google was invested in smartphones and OS creation. Partly due to the already-in-development tablet project with what would be useful smartphone components already planned out, and then combined with a greater level of urgency as Apple typically has, they were able to get the iPhone out to market in what was honestly a short timeframe. Google tends to plod and pivot. Waymo is a poster child.
Mssrs Brin and Page were very good friends with Mr. Jobs, a mentor to them in some ways, who early on was asked to lead Google. He respectfully declined and soon returned to Apple where his heart lay while Schmidt was hired fresh out of Sun Micro to head up Google's growth. It was Steve Jobs himself that asked Google to allow Schmidt to sit on Apple's BoD, and as they were friends of course they would have said yes. It was an honor. Google wasn't hiding Android or their interest in mobile and Apple was apparently fine with it. There was no "ethics" issue to address.
It wasn't even primarily the iPhone that caused Schmidt to leave the board when he did. It was the threat of an antitrust action that forced Apple and Google's hands with an inquiry into how sharing leadership might be stifling competition with their deep cooperation. Personally I think Microsoft had a hand in that as it was common knowledge Google and Apple were creating a tag-team to take them on.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/technology/companies/04apple.html
Would the two have had a split at some point anyway? Almost certainly IMO. There would be more markets where the two would have been competing. It happened when it did because of the government forcing it even if the end result might have been the same anyway. The tag team was no longer as essential as it initially was once Microsoft was blunted. That what happens with a lot of partnerships when common goals start to dissipate.