However, since most phones now tend to reach the "good enough" level, my main question is about software and left unanswered. What version/flavour of Android does it run? How will updates be planned? For how many years will updates be provided? What's the size of the security team at Essential?
Providing an up-to-date Android with updates for at least 4 years like Apple does is key to me, as vulnerabilities come and go and the only reasonable way to be secure is to get security patches asap.
Software and hardware each built with the other in mind is how Apple is able to support updates for 4 years after you buy your iPhone. Manufacturers who use Android aren't able to do so because the two aren't coupled.
Hopefully Essential does it right and take full ownership of their OS. That would be a real game changer.
It's slowness is a little annoying, but definitely good enough.
I hope they offer a Windows 10 option in the future. Full Windows 10 on ARM with x86 Win32 emulation offers capability not available on Android or iOS. Being able to run Win32 software on the device would be very useful for a lot of people.
The number of people I've seen wandering around with cracked phone screens from drops is quite high, and is the reason I put a case which covers the front on every phone I buy.
So having no phone case here just means you get the usual after market screen protectors and risk of cracked glass that most other phones suffer from.
It doesn't cover the front, it just extends a few mm in front of the screen to prevent "flat front" impact. It's still susceptible to smashing the screen on a corner, but how often does someone really drop their phone screen-first on the corner of a stair?
How do you know that?
The universe doesn't necessarily obey my intuition, of course, but since it differs quite dramatically from yours I thought I'd mention that there's an alternative model of the problem which supports the actions Essential Products is taking.
Any drop which damages the glass of a phone is a problem. A phone with a cracked screen is at the very least damaged and potentially entirely unusuable.
My point was that they're addressing something which isn't the weak point in the system. Aluminium might scuff, but that's generally just a cosmetic issue. If a phone manufacturer wants a phone which doesn't require a case, they need to address the glass problem.
Toughening the corners doesn't seem to help that.
There are good rugged phones that don't need a case. Caterpillar (yes, the bulldozer maker) has a phone brand.[1] Kyocera and Samsung make rugged phones, as do some smaller players. Also, the web site for this new phone doesn't mention MIL-STD-810G testing, which is the usual standard for rugged portable devices. (For that, it's OK if the case gets scuffed, but the thing has to work after the drop testing. The parent article seems more concerned with the appearance than the functionality.)
Is there a reason Android phones don't shatter as easily? Is it the elasticity of the plastic frame that causes this?
My data is entirely anecdotal, but they seem about the same to me.
Fwiw, this is called "the spider app" among the younger.
Breaking your screen is called "installing" (the spider app)
Apart from major damage I care much less about damage to the shell than I care about damage to the glass
But their drop test conveniently misses that
Drop it face down and we'll talk
Even better, it uses 60GHz wireless to get data across the fraction-of-an-inch gap between the phone and the accessory. That should be a fun one for battery life.
Just no. It's just a tool that I use to communicate.
And your treatment of your smartphone as such is a public expression of who you are and what you stand for ;)
My gf says I'm the worst geek she's ever known since I use a nearly 7 year old PC, 4 year old laptop and a 4 year old trashed phone.
So if my phone is an expression of anything it's that I don't replace things that still work.
Ok, so at first glance this is just a diplomatic, manifesto-ese way of saying "no bloatware". However, there's probably a very pragmatic discussion about what this really means and that just leads us back around to where we are now with who defines "anything" (i.e., the phone app is on table for that discussion...)
> - We will always play well with others. Closed ecosystems are divisive and outdated.
Closed ecosystems are also knowable, stable, and can produce very happy customers.
> - Premium materials and true craftsmanship shouldn’t be just for the few.
So for a few more? There's a reason mass-production is an economic success.
> - Devices shouldn’t become outdated every year. They should evolve with you.
"Outdated" is an extremely subjective concept. Hardware that evolves? Do tell.
> - Technology should assist you so that you can get on with enjoying your life.
Should it?
> - Simple is always better.
Now you're just being lazy.
I'm a huge fan of big picture, think-outside-the-box vision-casting.
But this just comes across as so tone deaf from the very start and ultimately so vapid that it's easy to see how these SV figureheads have earned such a reputation for utter lack of self-awareness.
Please, if you have become this level of successful, you need someone in your inner circle who specifically is tasked with keeping you grounded.
... until they don't. Then you are screwed.
> Now you're just being lazy
Now you are just arguing for the sake of the argument.
His point works well in a world where Android isn't competing with Apple which, while far from perfect, does not suffer nearly as badly from the looong tail of terrible quality apps.
The third-party Android app markets are neat but, pirated content aside, they largely serve only niches.
> Now you are just arguing for the sake of the argument.
No, it's point unto itself: Simple is not always better. (Obviously.)
Here's where Apple eats the larger pie: the exclusivity of its experience that can only came at a price. In the past, the naive me used to think why Apple doesn't try to dent Microsoft's 95% desktop market with its excellent OS. Now I understand why that'd never happen: you can't be premium in people's eyes unless you create a brand of exclusiveness.
... you so realize that your hot take is the minority opinion, right? The vast majority of customers consistently choose phones based on hardware features.
> But the software is just another commodity that would be available for 1/3rd the price. That's why Google Pixel would always feel exorbitant even when the price is almost close to Apple iPhone.
Google's phones always launch with the cutting edge version of Android and receives consistent updates. Isn't that the experience exclusivity you're clamoring for?
Also, what the hell does "the exclusivity of its experience that can only came at a price" mean? What is the cost of manufacturing the latest iphone? Or do you mean it feels exclusive because I paid a lot??
I was annoyed when Google killed the Nexus line and replaced them with Pixels and hoped it would fail so that we would get the Nexus line back, but they've been unable to keep up with demand.
Similarly this page spends a lot of time talking about cameras, which I have zero interest in, but seems to be important to a lot of people, yet everyone on HN is talking about everything but the camera stuff.
In what way is it meaningful that Google calls it a Pixel instead of a Nexus?
They sold out early and had long periods where no stock was available. This seems to point to a supply side issue, not a demand side problem
- Lasts a full day
- Looks nice
That's all.
Currently I can buy various 8mm phones with various bad-to-OK cases.
Give me a beautiful 16mm phone and software updates and I'll give you my 700 bucks.
Some specs [1]:
Dimensions: 154.3 x 77 x 8 mm (6.07 x 3.03 x 0.31 in)
Weight: 170 g (6.00 oz)
Battery: 5000mAh
Size: 5.5 inches (~70.2% screen-to-body ratio)
Resolution: 1080 x 1920 pixels (~401 ppi pixel density)
Price: Starting at $329USD [2]
I don't own the phone, but came across it the other day and was surprised by the large battery size.
[0]: https://www.asus.com/us/Phone/ZenFone-3-Zoom-ZE553KL/
[1]: http://www.gsmarena.com/asus_zenfone_3_zoom_ze553kl-8509.php
[2]: https://www.amazon.com/ZenFone-storage-Unlocked-Warranty-ZE5...
I'd be happy to sell you one for 700 bucks. Looks like an easy way to make a few hundred dollar profit :)
Many phones do this. Both my iPhone 6 and my iPhone 6s do this and more (usually two days). The issue here is that your use case is likely different than mine. It isn't enough to just say, "full day" without specifying full day doing what.
Don't worry, they won't sell many of these phones.
For me it's just another expensive android phone with expensive addons. Is the "docking station" really nothing more than a quick charger?
Why do they call themselves essential?
700 dollars for a phone? You can get a s8, HTC, or LG for cheaper with the promotions they are running and those companies have a track record for making phones. They could have been like One plus one and produced a high end phone ~400 bucks. For 700 dollars this will have a hard time getting traction.
- replaceable battery
- SD card slot
- wireless charging
Those three are all essential to the lifetime of the phone. Storage requirements may change, batteries and power connectors may wear off.
I still use my 5 old Samsung S3 which has all those features (with updated Software). While I am willing to pay for a newer model (better camera, faster processor, etc.), I can't find a phone that promises an equal longevity.
People are disappointed, they had probably expected another miracle from andy, that's all.
you are better off with Xiaomi Mi Mix running Lineage OS than this joke
- Private space program? Everybody's done that.
- Sports team? Not into sports enough.
- Museum? Boring.
- Supercar company? IC engines are so last-cen and electrics mean competing with Elon.
- Super high end phone? Yeah!
Its 2017 and where is my "Rosie the maid" from jetsons? It should be here by now. I hate doing house chores.
I like the idea he's promoting with the phone where all the accessories either magnetically connect or a wireless connection. I hate having to purchase the same things over and over again.
Where does all the excitement for 360° videos come from? In its current implementation it adds absolutely nothing for the viewer and strips away the possibility for the creator to tell a story by choosing what the viewer sees.
Useful for VR yes, on a flat screen just no.
You don't have to be a "tortured genius" to want to frame a picture and make it look nice. Nearly everyone wants to take a picture where things are in frame, in focus, and the setting is controlled.
360 photos can be achieved with normal cameras like they are today without a fad attachment. No one is limiting your choice, let's not be hyperbolic.
I have a feeling the phone will be obscure in a year or two, and the Home will be even less popular.
Of course, in an alternate future, some enterprising HNer will quote this comment... I'm prepared for that.
No one cares about CPU performance. I've got a SD820 now in my Axon 7, and I can tell you there is 0 difference with a SD625 in daily use.
Except that the SD625 is cheaper and has an incredible battery life.
The only company realising that people care about UX in stead of specs seems to be Xiaomi. Consistently choosing SD625 and SD660 for their phones, because it is clear that any CPU can pull a phone.
And let's be honest. No one cares about mobile VR.
I'll take SD625 and 5000mAh battery over SD835 and 6GB RAM any day.
- "And let's be honest. No one cares about having 2 GB RAM on a phone"
- "And let's be honest. No one cares about <any new technology>"
New processors are not only 'faster' but also more energy efficient, which is an equally (or more) important thing especially now when we've reached high speeds even in basic (/cheap) smartphones. As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them.
1) Camera's had proven use and adoption before being mounted on mobile computers. RAM has been ever increasing since the inception of it.
2) My comment should be seen in a timeframe. When I say no one needs 6GB RAM, there is an implied 'in 2017' added to that. Otherwise every discussion about hardware could be killed with you argument.
>As long as they're not going backwards, I don't see a reason why these companies should not go with them.
The question is: which one do you choose to put in your phone now. Knowing Android, knowing the other specs of the phone and knowing what kind of apps people use.
In that case: I think the SD835 is overkill for 99% of people. That last 1% being people who want the fastest simply _because_ it is the fastest, or who play the most advanced mobile games / VR. Those people are a very small subset of all smartphone users. 1% might be too much.
Huh, everyone cares how fast they browse the web. 835 trounces the 625 in JS/web benchmarks by a factor of 2-3 or more:
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph11201/Snapdragon_835...
That's Mozilla's benchmark. The Moto Z Play on the bottom is the only phone on the list with a 625. Its score would have been good in 2013.
Maybe the current generation is different, but I got a Mi 5 (SD820) and haven't looked back. The battery life is fine, enough to last a full day with lots of spare capacity.
I think you'd care if you're running full Windows 10 for ARM on it. That would function as a laptop replacement and in the desktop usage scenario you'd care about performance.
I like the idea of a titanium enclosure that is resistant to damage during falls -- but that force needs to be absorbed somewhere. It's nice to know that the outer enclosure of my phone is absorbing some of the impact of a fall. If the Essential phone's titanium is not doing this – are the internal components going to suffer more?
I'm interested in giving Android another shot but without the ability to go into a store and play around with one, it's hard to throw $700+ on blind faith. For example, the Pixel looks incredible in photos. It resembles the iPhone and offers an appearance of quality. Holding in your hand, however, it feels like a plastic piece of crap. If I'd have gone on photos/videos alone, I'd have been very disappointed.
Apple, for me, has been great due to the progressive enhancement and the ability to go into a store and play around. Each phone release is familiar, yet new and refreshing.
Every time the latest 'killer' Android device comes out, it will inevitably introduce a handful of paradigm shifts in both the hardware and software. I feel like you either need to be an early adopter willing to throw hundreds of dollars at devices more frequently, or settle for Samsung bloatware.
There's a LOT of good options for high end Android phones, and even if you manage to take 2nd or 3rd place, you won't remotely get half or a third of the profits.
They're getting too greedy too early. You have to earn the public's trust before you jump in with a $700 device.
re: "we're a luxury phone like iPhone," this is a claim that they don't have the brand to attempt. Sure, the co-creator of Android is nice, but I doubt anyone will be compelled by it. Building a top of the line brand takes years of cultivation and careful adjustment. Essential has to prove itself before it can just 'be luxury'.
I hope they get enough traction so that it'll be a viable business and these won't be paperweights in 2-3 years time
...And right off the block, no headphone jack.
Why do companies insist on just blindly following Apple? Baah.
- No microSD card slot. Yes, 128GB internal storage -- and it being an UFS, which is fast -- is a lot, but there are people who carry data on their phones and require portability and speed. There's honestly no excuse not to have a microSD these days.
- Small battery; 3040 mAh, seriously, shouldn't the OEMs have learned by now? Android is a battery eater, Google doesn't seem interested in making the OS more efficient and keeps thinking of half-assed "solutions" like the Doze mode which is basically "if it's the night and the phone hasn't moved in an hour, please cripple its functions until the owner picks it up", heh. For Android you'd best go for the absolute minimum of 3500 mAh or just admit you're after a quick buck. If you're serious about an Android phone, better just put 4500 mAh or more in your device and then I'll take you seriously.
- No 3.5mm audio jack. Yeah, keep dreaming, Andy Rubin. Parties with rich friends who tell you "things they hear" are not a good indicator about market needs. And you dare call your hardware "essential", lol.
- Display is not AMOLED. Heard about actually having a black color on your display? Guess not. Heard about dynamically turning off parts of the screen to save power while not losing any part of the image (because the turned off part is black)? Guess you haven't heard of that either, nor energy efficiency for that matter.
- No word on planned maintenance period -- 1 year, 2, 4, how much? It's a crucially important element nowadays, how can Android's creator be unaware of that?
- Cameras look good on paper but we all know it's the camera app which makes the real difference. I bet it'll be some default vanilla app which won't make a good use of at least 50% of the device's camera functions.
Overall -- overpriced pretty device. What else is new? The guy is pulling a popularity card to get away with yet another mediocre device and entice naive people to buy it because of his supposed prestige as Android's creator.
For a marketing site, I am just not impressed with the amount of important information. Maybe the answers to all of this are in there, but it is so poorly arranged that after checking in a bunch of places I expect it to be. I have given up
- expandable flash
- best mobile camera to date
- Android (no bloat, unlocked, easily rootable)
- no bezel
- great battery
- size of Xperia Compact Z3 but thinner
- withstands rain and beach
- upperclass CPU/GFX/RAM/Flash
> I know people are going to ask me a lot of questions about why I started this company. Why didn’t I just travel the world, ride my motorcycle, tinker with my robots, hang out at my bakery with friends and family. And to be honest I still do ask myself that sometimes…but not too often.
1. Maybe I'm not geeky enough, but I don't know who you are
2. I don't care who you are
3. What are you selling? A phone?
4. Oh screw this, I don't care enough to read past that pompous nonsense...
Oh well.
It's also so informal and personal that it made me think that what followed was going to be kind of a blog entry, or a simple and static announcement page, not what was actually a pretty compelling product walkthrough.
But then at the end I scrolled back to the top, and was like, was this actually effective? It doesn't read like marketing speech, and I did end up reading the entire page. Maybe they know something that I don't? But it still seems so misplaced among all of the obvious craftsmanship that went into the rest of the page.
You might not know that he created Android, but surely you must know that he created the sidekick??
Jokes aside, if you don't know who he is you probably don't need a smartphone.
Wow, how incredibly dismissive and insulting. There's estimated to be something like 2 billion smartphone users globally. Sorry that some of us aren't as cool/hip/in touch as you to know the name of one (admittedly important) person involved in their development.
Do you know who Nils Bohlin was? If not, I guess you don't need three point seat belts in your car. Maybe I'm being facetious, but this seems to me about as on point as your comment – which is to say not at all.
Of course I can enjoy the benefits of a smartphone, even need them, regardless of whether or not I know who someone is.
It filled its purpose of filtering those that are further on the adoption curve away
I really like maximizing local computation over cloud services.
And at first I thought this might be it. But alas, it appears to be just another pretty and overpriced Android phone. I guess I will continue buying last year's latest and greatest at a 50% discount or more once brand new shiny disrupts it.
The rumors from a few months ago said Sprint was onboard, we'll see if that panes out.
I see that going well.
UPDATE: Nevermind, it started to work after couple refreshes.
UPDATE: Actually, 'home' section started to work, 'phone' section still doesn't work in Safari.
the home hub looks interesting, but it seems the main selling point is it can work with other devices? so does it mean I can do things like asking Alexa to stream my itunes library on chromecast?
Trying to make a brand that is more expensive than Apple will likely fail. They have made gold devices before. Plus, most of luxury is perception - and they stand no chance of having better brand marketing and recognition.
I don't think that the operating system is enough of a differentiator, particularly when Google controls the software while promoting their own high-end hardware.
Also hardware looks lovely. Any chance it runs something other than Android?
The phone part of the site didn't show anything for me.
I didn't see mention of a camera!
To be fair, all phones look basically the same. Not saying that there aren't differences, but most phones are difficult to tell apart at first glance.
It is not at all obvious what the webpage wants to tell me.
I'd like to be exited about this, but this uncertainty combined with the fact that their security personnel is a team of dogs[1] makes it quite hard for me.
Still, the optics aren't good.
EDIT: If there were humans on that team in addition to the dogs, I'd not be nearly so upset.
Most team pages I've seen don't specifically identify people working on infosec aspects of the product. That could be an attack vector if you're really being paranoid.
No seriously I bet you this is just a blunt humor attempt. Someone thought it was cute. Those who prefer to remain hidden from camera just don't want to be seen on the Internet. I probably should go on LinkedIn and look for someone with security title working for this conpany, I might be right.
Employees with dogs: "Aww! It'll be so cute to add our dogs! Let's give them fun titles!"
Most people: "So cute! Look honey, they have a picture of a dog named 'Cosmo' that's their 'Head of Security'! Haha!"
Hacker News: "This is an affront to the serious nature of computer security and an insult! I am shocked that a startup would make such an attempt at 'humor' when the OS they use does not have 100% perfect security and our privacy and digital security is being threatened daily by the men in black. I will never buy this product!!!!!11"
HN: What's the big deal?
Most people: It's a little creepy that everyone knows everything about me, and the identity theft epidemic kinda sucks. Not much I can do other than keep an eye on the accounts, chase down fraud as it happens, self-censor, and pray I don't get hit with ransomeware. I have other battles to fight, so I hope the tech industry has my 6 on this one.
and it seems to be buggy with no webgl? using chromium under linux I get "Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'getExtension' of null"
(b) It is showing four products on the one page. Four. And seemingly jumping between them.
(c) Almost all of the text is very hard to read. It's light grey on dark grey. Dark grey on light grey.
(d) It doesn't even render at all on Safari/OSX.
The site "works" on my laptop, but not really on my phone - I'm not a fan of the overly flashy animation intro, again subjective.
I work on a small screen (12.5 inch) - here's my narrative as I load the site - the entire screen is taken up with a menu bar and a picture of the top of a device. I'm not sure what is on offer at first glance. Scrolling down there's a lovely story to draw me in by the founder, but still no mention of what the "thing" he is trying to sell is.
The first mention on the page of any product is "accessories" - so they sell accessories for phones I guess.....I scroll back up - aaaaah one of the menu items is "phone" - maybe they are selling a phone.
That was my user experience on my laptop. On my phone I was greeted with a black screen for quite a few seconds and then a website that was slow and dithering. I tried clicking through to a few sub pages but they froze and then broke my back button completely. Granted it's an old, slow barely internet enabled mobile with a not very well supported OS. Still, it's very seldom I don't get a reasonable experience on well coded websites.
Was Andy a douche before he got rich or is that the price of success?
> the casing is made out of titanium rather than aluminium -- the makers claim this is more resistant to drop damage.
> there are hole-clip attachments near the camera for peripherals (Notably the "360 camera" that they are also selling)
> There are no logos on the phone
I'm not sure if I've missed anything
Is there enough money in $750 Android phones like this? I would imagine this is a commodified market.
