Essential Products – Andy Rubin’s new hardware company | Hacker News Reader

Essential Products – Andy Rubin’s new hardware company

essential.com

281 pointshenrikgs241 comments

Ok, a new phone made by the creator of Android which claims to be extremely well built.

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.

> What version/flavour of Android

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.

It's hard to see any manufacturer seriously revisiting the Windows story on mobile platforms. It has died a couple of times already, and for a casual observer it looks like Microsoft is more committed to Android+iOS story now too.

Yes, but the big difference this time around is that it's the same Windows as on the desktop with the ability to run desktop software. You get mobile plus desktop on the one device which is something Microsoft's better positioned to deliver on than either Google or Apple. And because of that Microsoft will finally start succeeding on mobile.

That was the story with Windows Phone 7 and Windows Phone 8 too, and it never happened. Believe me, I bought into the ecosystem and was a true believer. And it never happened.

But again, the difference is that it's full Windows 10 on ARM with x86 Win32 emulation. You can take your 32-bit Windows x86 software and run it with no changes needed if you want to. You don't have to buy into any new ecosystem because there is no new ecosystem.

Here's a demo video they released at the start of the year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_GlGglbu1U

TBH, there is not much you can do on a phone of that size. There aren't many windows exclusive applications that you would want to use on a phone.

Also, it simply doesn't make sense when seen through a buisnessman's perspective.

The x86 desktop application support is for the desktop use case. For a phone you'd plug it into a dock and use it as a desktop or into a laptop shell and use it like a laptop. Like this for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNzatcI9Fqw

But I don't want to?

Then it's not for you. But it is for me, it is for the company I work at, and it is for many companies like it. This capability will be huge.

> And because of that Microsoft will finally start succeeding on mobile.

Has been said so many times before.

> And because of that Microsoft will finally start succeeding on mobile.

I've heard this joke before, but go on..

This was the mistake that MS made before.

Phone software is so radically different to desktop software that attempting to target the same program to them both makes both worse.

I was under the impression that they start with Android and sorta roll their own OS from there on out. At least, that's what I would do if I were bold enough to start a new hardware company with the likes of Apple controlling the sector.

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.

I used to think the same about being "good enough", but unfortunately my nexus 5x still struggles to give me a day of battery life, despite the fact that I only check e-mail and chat on it.

It's slowness is a little annoying, but definitely good enough.

I don't have battery problems with my 5x. If I'm not using mine much, it will last two days on a charge. Sounds to me like you may want to consider replacing your battery. A $5-10 new battery and ~15 minutes of your time, may be worth it.

If he has a bad cell signal, replacing the battery won't make any difference. He needs to look at his stats.

If you get more apps (even if you don't always use them), those apps are allowed to drain all your battery. I'm pretty sure that's not the case on iOS.

(No, nothing is in my notification tray or scheduled.)

I like the idea of tougher phones, but to me it misses the mark to talk about the titanium phone case surviving corner drop tests, it's the glass that's the problem.

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.

Correct

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

My intuition says that it's very difficult to get a phone to impact glass-first and that 99% of all drops are going to see it dance on the corners, if only for an invisible fraction of a second, before flopping/sliding down on the glass. My intuition also says that those corner impacts are going to be a much greater threat to the hardened glass than the final face-first flop/slide.

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.

I think the point was that even when the phone is dropped on a corner, the glass cracks?

Toughening the corners doesn't seem to help that.

The glass cracks from a corner drop because the aluminum flexes and/or deforms much more than the glass, effectively focusing the force onto a small part of the glass's edge, which is the weakest part due to the hardening. Increasing stiffness and decreasing deformation spreads the force out across the edge, multiplying the effective strength.

There's a reason why cracks almost always seem to start at the edges. In the most severe cases of direct impact of the face on a sharp/hard protrusion, you get a radial crack pattern, but by my estimation those are a tiny minority.

Not sure we're differing that much. My point was that the titanium shell they're providing doesn't (to me) remove the need for a case as they're saying it does.

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.

My point was that by addressing the corner problem they are addressing the glass problem because glass breaks primarily due to poorly diffused corner impacts, not face impacts.

Ahh I see, interesting theory, but I guess I'd want to see some drop tests of the full phone before I was convinced to have a phone with no case.

I thought the same thing, and you'll notice they don't show the glass side of the phone in the drop test video or in the "after" photo. Given the edge-to-edge design I would be very worried about that.

It uses Gorilla glass 5 which is the more resilient commercial glass ever made for a phone. And the titanium case gives it significant rigidity. So this should be one tough bastard!

It'd be good to see that, but to me I'd want to see drop tests on the full phone to have some comfort that I wouldn't need a case...

For what it's worth, my Rhino Shield "crash guard" case [0] has saved several iPhones from multiple waist-high drops onto concrete. Shock transfer into the screen simply does not seem to be an issue.

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?

0: https://rhinoshield.io/

>[...] my Rhino Shield "crash guard" case [0] has saved several iPhones [...]

How do you know that?

Because I have owned several, and none of them have broken despite several impacts on hard ground. Meanwhile the iPhones of my friends and family have not been so lucky in other cases (that aren't massive Otterbox cases). Small sample size, but relatively controlled experiment.

I think a lot of luck is involved. I have regularly dropped iPhone's from chest height to concrete and the only time I had any screen damage was when there happened to be a tiny stone where the phone landed. Not that cases can't make a difference but iPhones are pretty durable nowadays.

I had a Otterbox but hated its bulk, so I stopped using it after a year. Then I cracked two screens in a year from waist-drops. For the last year I got one of those minimal silicone cases [0] and it has surrived a few more similar drops without cracking. Might be luck, but just that tiny bit of padding seems to be enough.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HFNP0OQ/

> The number of people I've seen wandering around with cracked phone screens

Fwiw, this is called "the spider app" among the younger.

Breaking your screen is called "installing" (the spider app)

Most of the time I see a cracked display it is on an iPhone.

Is there a reason Android phones don't shatter as easily? Is it the elasticity of the plastic frame that causes this?

I've had a couple Android phones that had pretty bad cracks on the display. My partner always purchases iPhones and they seem about the same, in terms of damage when there's no case. Having handled both, the phones do seem roughly similar in terms of flex and hardness (Apple, Samsung, Motorola).

My data is entirely anecdotal, but they seem about the same to me.

I like the idea of tougher phones, but to me it misses the mark to talk about the titanium phone case surviving corner drop tests, it's the glass that's the problem.

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.)

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVPku-xItv8

"We want to make a device that plays well with others, so here's our new proprietary expansion port!"

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.

> Your phone is your personal property. It’s a public expression of who you are and what you stand for.

Just no. It's just a tool that I use to communicate.

It's also not really our personal property when we can't use and repair it at will.

That's why I'm considering the Fairphone 2 as my next phone.

Those phones look really intriguing to me. I feel no need to keep up with the latest flagships—I just want a phone that is good enough, as long as the camera is decent.

If Fairphone produces a phone with USB-C charging and sells it in the United States, I'm sold.

Too much mission for a device.

> 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 ;)

Yeah, going out of your way to make sure everyone knows that your phone is just a communications tool is a louder expression of your personality than a bright pink Hello Kitty case IMO.

That's totally why I have a phone with a simple black case. It's not because I went with the most pragmatic case in a color that matched the phone, but because I secretly want to be a special ops ninja, but because of dress code requirements, I'm only able to put my phone in a tuxedo.

I have a nexus 4 that is battered, the back glass got broken a couple of years after I got it and I just taped up the back with black electrical tape.

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.

I'd like to know what their take is regarding what their product and all the other phone's (and by extension me...) "stand for".

> - Devices are your personal property. We won’t force you to have anything on them you don’t want to have.

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.

> Closed ecosystems are also knowable, stable, and can produce very happy customers

... 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.

> ... until they don't. Then you are screwed.

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.)

It doesn't seem premium Android phones have something spectacular to differentiate. Sure, you can spice up the camera, make the body more glossy, and add a beautiful screen. 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. Seeing Essential's price tag, I have the same visceral feeling: "$750 for an Android Phone...? What?".

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.

I just want a phone that:

- 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.

You can buy an external case for the iPhone which fits this description, e.g. at http://mophie.com (I have no relation to that site).

I'd be happy to sell you one for 700 bucks. Looks like an easy way to make a few hundred dollar profit :)

Yes. I own two. Hence:

> Currently I can buy various 8mm phones with various bad-to-OK cases.

In the post you're replying to.

It wasn't clear from your post that you meant /battery/ cases.

What's the problem with the cases on the market that make them unacceptable? I haven't tried the one I linked to but it looks good, seems to be well designed, and is around the total thickness you're aiming fora

> - Lasts a full day

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.

12 hours with the screen and WiFi or 3g always on. That would be amazing, and it doesn't sound that unachievable. I don't need ultraquadHD resolutions, even 720p is enough.

Have a look at this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14448309

Full day using the phone frequently. Honestly specifying the activity isn't necessary, just double the damn battery.

Here you go: Asus Zenfone 3 Zoom ZE553KL [0]

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...

> It doesn't seem premium Android phones have something spectacular to differentiate. Sure, you can spice up the camera, make the body more glossy, and add a beautiful screen.

... 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?

To add to that: Samsung high-end phones cost as much as iphones these days (if not more in some countries) and they seem to be doing great.

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??

The vast majority of customers consistently choose phones based on price, not hardware features...

I've come to the conclusion that neither I, nor the majority of HN, have any clue what sorts of consumer electronics will actually succeed.

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.

> 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.

In what way is it meaningful that Google calls it a Pixel instead of a Nexus?

None, but they also approximately doubled the price. I suppose Nexus may also have a sort nostalgic glow around it, too, as developer's device - I have had an N1, N4, N5 and now an N6P.

> they also approximately doubled the price

I paid $699 for a 64GB Nexus 6. The Pixel XL with 128 GB is $869. I don't know what they were charging for the 6P but based on the 6, they definitely didn't double it, though clearly the price did increase.

I paid $349 for my Nexus 5, $399 for my Nexus 5X; the cheapest price for the Pixel is $649. It's not double the price, but it's a 60-85%+ increase at the bottom end depending where you count from. I felt like $399 for the 5X was the wrong direction already.

> but they've been unable to keep up with demand

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

There are very good reasons that aluminum is the best option for a mobile phone, rather than titanium. The most important is environmental. Aluminum is more abundant than titanium, it is easier and friendlier to extract/process. It can be recycled (very important!) and it is cheaper. Aluminum also has much better technical qualities. It is much lighter weight and easier to machine. It is softer, which means the casing will absorb most of the force from an impact when you drop your phone. And as others have pointed out; your screen or battery will break long before the structural casing. I have personally never been bothered with scratches on the casing of my iPhone. I'm much more worried about the overall environmental impact of the device.

Of the 8 reasons you listed why Al is allegedly superior, 7 are reasons that it's actually the lower-grade product and the 8th (drop resistance) is simply incorrect. To a first approximation, overall acceleration doesn't kill glass or batteries, it's the uneven application of force that kills them. I'd imagine that increasing the rigidity of the frame improves drop resistance a great deal.

Are you trying to argue that being cheaper, lighter weight and recyclable makes aluminum a worse choice for a mass produced mobile device? Are you insane?

> The most important is environmental. Aluminum is more abundant than titanium, it is easier and friendlier to extract/process.

Don't worry, they won't sell many of these phones.

Who cares if the casing is scratch resistant titantium? That case is not the limiting factor for hardware longevity, the non-removal non-user-servicable battery is.

Agreed. This was the first thing I checked.

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?

They are selling the phone for 700 dollars.

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.

Well, I like the 'no logo' and the open software features. The other stuff looks more or less like a normal flagship smartphone nowadays (yes I like the 360° camera too, but it is not essential). The things that I am missing:

- 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.

This is the first phone since the iPhone that triggers an "I want that" feeling. Why the negativity?

because it has horrible battery, no jack and cut out camera in display which could be easily fitted in bottom bezel?

you are better off with Xiaomi Mi Mix running Lineage OS than this joke

Because in Android-land there are better phones for less money.

People are disappointed, they had probably expected another miracle from andy, that's all.

What's the reason? Do you just like the design? I don't really get why this is special or interesting.

First-world problem: what business to start when you have too much money and no really good ideas.

- 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!

I still think a robotics company for the masses is something waiting for a billionare to indulge in.

Its 2017 and where is my "Rosie the maid" from jetsons? It should be here by now. I hate doing house chores.

100% agreed. The pieces are there, someone needs to put them together. It's VR in 2009.

VR may be the next 3D TV. It's been around for a while, but it's a niche product. Hassle of using it outweighs the benefits.

You're right that it's a niche product at this point, but it's very different from 3D TV. Tesla cars are niche products too.

It's hard to think of a product less niche than automobiles. 80% of Americans have one.

Tesla is in a small-volume, premium segment of a proven commodity, whereas VR is still niche. (Though, Google Cardboard proves it needn't be premium-only!)

Consumer Reports says the Samsung Powerbot robot vacuum is finally good enough to be useful. The Dyson robot vacuum is almost as good, they report. Previous robot vacuums were just too weak at vacuuming to do a good job.

Sweet! Ideas for more: laundry, dishwashing, toilet scrubbing, lawnmowing, gutter-cleaning, grocery shopping, and table un-cluttering. "All in one" would eventually be ideal ;)

Interesting. So he's started a new company to focus on products that have "play well with others" as a design concept.

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.

I found it ironic that they talk about how annoying dongles are, but still the phone requires a dongle for headphones

„Why 360 changes everything“

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.

Most consumers don't want to "tell a story" but record memories. The auteurs who wish to "tell a story" can crop the viewport to their hearts desire without limiting choices for everyone else who isn't a tortured genius.

So you've never posed for a photo? Waited until the giraffe was looking right at you before you took a picture at the zoo? You're comfortable just snapping a picture, any old picture, and calling it good enough? You just want a picture of your kid, it doesn't matter if they're in focus, or looking at you, or picking their nose. It'll go on the christmas card anyway, right?

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.

> Nearly everyone wants to take a picture where things are in frame, in focus, and the setting is controlled.

Not everyone wants to take a picture where things are in frame, in focus, and the setting is controlled - but they want a picture when the conditions are right: this is why burst-mode-with-auto-best selection is a thing. When I'm taking a picture, please don't make me think too hard, work tor hard, or it or hope to get the timing exactly right. I don't have a clue why fidelity-loss at point of capture is romanticized when you can do it in 'post'. It is also not future-proof for no good reason, IMO. My argument is an extension of why you would want to shoot and save pictures in RAW, rather than JPEG.

My personal holy grail would be a continuous, high-quality 360-degree video on which I can go back in time and frame a specific area at a given time to put on the Christmas card/push in the gallery. Bonus point would be opening the framed-image in a gallery and being able to see the context around it (360-video with sound).

Seems like a great idea in a space that needs more competition. Apple has a monopoly on designing complete user experiences using technology and I'm tired of it. Can't wait to see where this takes us.

Wow what? A space that needs more competition? Android phones???

The high-end smartphone market is dominated by Apple, with Samsung a very distant second.

And Essential is going to change that and get more market share than Samsung or even Apple?

Please.

There are tons of great choices of Android high-end devices available from Google itself, from LG, Xiaomi, Huawei, htc, even from OnePlus, you name it. Good to have onemore choice with Essential now.

What we need is alternative to Android and iOS, not more shitty Android phones.

There is a reason why iOS feels buttery smooth compared to any phone running Android.

If buttery smooth could sell phones windows phone would still be around.

With that said, have you used a modern Android recently?

> The high-end smartphone market is dominated by Apple, with Samsung a very distant second.

Only if you're measuring by profit/revenue.

If you're measuring by actual high-end features delivered, and customer satisfaction, then No!, the high-end smartphone market is very competitive

I find the Home product more interesting than the phone: https://www.essential.com/home

I find the Home product to look essentially vapor-grade. The mock UI is awful, no indication of size on the site, no indication of who their voice vendor will be (Google? Amazon? home made?), no realistic roadmap... Just product renders and optimistic statements.

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.

What is it with these companies putting the latest SnapDragon CPUs in their mobile devices?

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.

I had a Xiaomi Mi 4i which had a SD615, thinking "how bad can it be". Turns out, it was painfully slow to use; no match at all to the vanilla Mi 4 with a SD801.

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.

- "And let's be honest. No one cares about a camera phone"

- "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.

I don't think that is a fair response.

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.

As I said, I'd choose SD835 simply because it's more energy efficient even if the speed improvement is insignificant (even though it is not), and for most people more battery saving is a very welcome improvement. Moreover, it's not just that. Here's what's new in SD835 besides being 'faster' -

- Around 25% less power consumption

- Quick Charge 4 (up to 25% faster charging than Quick Charge 3)

- Faster, more reliable and efficient Wireless (Gigabit LTE)

- Bluetooth 5.0 support (significantly better than BLE 4.*)

- Inbuilt Dual camera support and Electronic Image Stabilization version 3.0 for much better shake free videos.

- Considerably smaller size so that phone makers can fit more 'stuff' inside.

- And more ...

All of these features are quite important to me. Of course, we'll have to see how these numbers turn up in real life, but to say it's an overkill for most people is equivalent to saying any new phone with new features is an overkill.

Like physical keyboards.

> No one cares about CPU performance.

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.

> No one cares about CPU performance.

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.

As someone who's still using his Nexus 5 and seeing it get slower and slower as app bloat increases... I care, because I know the app bloat isn't going away.

The 360º camera feels like a gimmick. I dig the idea of having it, but it gives me a gopro accessory vibe: pain in the ass to use and store (where do you keep it when you're not using it??), it'll get lost, etc...

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.

I do think pricing is the biggest problem here. Android phones have been flourishing recently because of cut prices (see: Moto G, OnePlus).

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.

On the other hand, wouldn't it be hard to raise the price after grounding it low? What they're saying is "we're a luxury phone like iPhone."

I mean, yeah, it's infinitely easier to lower a price than raise it, but at the same time if they announced it today with a killer price their marketing would have a lot more momentum.

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 think it looks really good. Not a huge fan of a proprietary expansion port, but I guess there is no other way of future-proofing for certain accessories, like sensors for inside-out VR/AR tracking.

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

The expansion port will be open source, like Ambiant OS, according to Andy.

>>> play well with others

...And right off the block, no headphone jack.

Why do companies insist on just blindly following Apple? Baah.

Here are some angrily and hastily written observations:

- 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.

I am not impressed by the website at all. It is very well designed and in some ways pretends to give you a lot of information but I find myself asking the most basic of questions. What is Essential, does it do hardware, software or both? Is it running a special Android or vanilla? What is the screen made of? There is all this hype about how strong the phone is but I have never heard anyone complain that aluminum is not strong enough for their purposes etc.

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

The example picture of the waves rolling on the beach doesn't even look all that high quality. Perhaps it is my crappy monitors at work, but it looks pretty basic.

I want: - 4 buttons on the finger's side, one jogwheel/microswitch at the thumb. Buttons are configurable/contextual. Of course, also touch-screen

- 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

“Et cent balles et un mars,” as we delicately put it in France.

Hehe. As you get older you don't have time to wait for things to evolve, which long time ago already have evolved. Technically it's possible, because we have seen it. Now all should go into one device. What's so difficult about it? I would have thought, that an engineer comes up with something better than the marketing team.

Looks great. I just wish they went with AMOLED. It'd be worth the increased price.

I get a blank screen except for the menu. What plugin is needed to view that site?

I get to see some content briefly before the site crashes Safari. This is on an iPad2.

I did too before I enabled WebGL. If it can't show the mp4 movie it won't show any content.

Works with chrome and Firefox, zero plugins.

This is the first paragraph that shows up when seeing the site in mobile safari:

> 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.

I know who he is and I cringed at the humblebrag.

And that's absolutely fine, the site wasn't built for you

It filled its purpose of filtering those that are further on the adoption curve away

Of course you got downvoted for telling the truth. Essential seems to be in pre-launch and Rubin is one helluva competitive advantage who early adopters will know about.

While we are discussing this, is there a name of OPs behaviour?

If not, can I suggest ignorantbragg? How about zippbrag? Maybe whaowhatwhenbrag?

Yeah, this didn't make sense to me. It's the most important real-estate on the page, and not only is he humble-bragging, but he's instilling some doubt into his commitment to the project. "And to be honest I still do ask myself that sometimes.."

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.

> I don't know who you are

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.

>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.

> Jokes aside, if you don't know who he is you probably don't need a smartphone.

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.

I really like the idea of a mobile phone that just works with a suite of consistent apps for photos, SMS, email, navigation, and whatever.

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.

no jack, no waterproofing, 3000mAh battery for 5.7", display disrupted by camera, no brand and they ask 700$ for this?

"My software engineers wanted me to talk about our vision for making all devices, even those we don't make ourselves, play well together." This sounds really interesting to me, but I can't find anymore information about what that means. Does anybody know?

It doesn't mean anything. It's marketing tripe.

Interested to see if Sprint and Verizon will support this on their networks. The phone supports all the needed bands, it more a business decision on the CDMA carrier side to certify it.

The rumors from a few months ago said Sprint was onboard, we'll see if that panes out.

What do you mean by "support"? Do they really get to tell you that you can't use a device even though it supports the standard their network uses? (I'm clueless of how things work with these carriers.)

AFAIK, Sprint and Verizon still require you to register your phone's serial number to access the legacy CDMA network (or have they finally implemented RUIM?). A SIM card should be fine for their LTE network though.

Verizon used RUIM, but it still has to be registered. Sprint is still using NV based authentication.

Both carriers are more focused on getting to VoLTE than improving the CDMA process at this point.

Ahh, so new Android phone shipping only to US where Apple is dominating the high-end sales?

I see that going well.

it's not like they would have lot of chances everywhere else where Xiaomi Mi Mix with bigger battery and jack is just fine

This website doesn't work in Safari. Google Chrome is required. Back to IE6 age...

UPDATE: Nevermind, it started to work after couple refreshes.

UPDATE: Actually, 'home' section started to work, 'phone' section still doesn't work in Safari.

No mention of waterproofing, water resistance. That's the main thing I look for.

I thought Rubin's other new product, Lighthouse, a security camera which uses an AI backend to analyze video for anything "suspicious" and notify you on your phone was much more interesting & promising.

dare i say the phone looks underwhelming?

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?

Shipping to the US only...

Just saw that; aaaaaaanddd it all becomes irrelevant oh so quickly :-/

All I want is the best processor, most ram, micro sd, replaceable battery and root. Why can't anyone deliver this? I'm here cracking a v20 when I could be happier.

Because more people want to consume DRM content than who want root.

Not saying this is good or bad, it just is.

Drm mostly works on root now and root can still be a choice. Just made easier, I had to use dirtycow on this phone.

There also seems to be a new smart home device in the making, just click on the right icon in the header. Not sure if that's actually new or if I just misclicked...

Between generic brands and Apple, I don't think there is room for a third competitor. Fitbit learned this the hard way trying to sit in-between.

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.

Lovely site, but scroll lag janks so hard it's almost unusable!

Also hardware looks lovely. Any chance it runs something other than Android?

I'm drowning in a pretty website with no summary of what I am looking at.

I think they're selling a new Android phone, plus some accessories like a 360 camera, but the site makes it seem like the 360 camera is the main product.

I got that it was a home device like Google Home or Alexa.

The phone part of the site didn't show anything for me.

I didn't see mention of a camera!

It's literally the same concept as Apple's Mac Pro website, and there's a picture of a phone you haven't seen before when you open it. How obvious does it need to be?

> a picture of a phone you haven't seen before

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.

There's a picture of a phone, a founder's story and a description of a separate camera.

It is not at all obvious what the webpage wants to tell me.

We are the misfists, the craftsmen ... and uhh... Oh thats already been made. Well dammit it worked once!

I like the 360 camera idea, but how could that not snap to a case for any other phone?

That site makes me sea sick.

Andy has been able to get together a stellar team in such a short time

I bet this phone will not get fast Android updates ;)

Will the battery be easily replaceable?

But does it run SailfishOS?

is a 360 degrees camera really essential?

Nope, that's why it (seems to be) a separate, attachable accessory.

Ha! Yet another android phone.

They seem to avoid mentioning the version of Android they are running - the specs only say "Android".

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.

[1]https://www.essential.com/about

I thought you were being unimaginably rude until I went to the page and saw that there were actual dogs listed.

Wow. For a platform that struggles with security, listing a security team entirely composed of dogs comes across as the equivalent of "I drive better drunk!". One has to wonder whether it was intended as a joke or as a dismissal, and in both cases it evidences an alarming attitude towards a very serious problem.

EDIT: If there were humans on that team in addition to the dogs, I'd not be nearly so upset.

Well professionally I'd like a human photo. If this were a shy photo, I would hope for not a cute puppy photo, but a human animated icon. There is a bit I called professional prsentation vs being cute, but this is a startup and it's someone else's company.

or you could just accept that this a cute way to present the office dog, and get on with your life...

I __think__ they mean physical security (as in, Guard Dogs), rather than their Software Security team.

Still, the optics aren't good.

The optics are fine. It's a cutesy "about us" page.

Moreover, their whole website is not accessible when JavaScript is blocked, leaving the impression that security-minded people are not their target audience at all - which is really a pity!

Do you think the guy that designs their web site and the guy that works on phone security are even remotely related?

What does it matter? If a website for a new router only supported Internet Explorer, I definitely would know either I'm not their target market, or they know nothing about that market, or they don't care.

Funny you mentioned that, ASUS latest routers try to mimic OSX UI.

It still works on Chrome but you never know what the next firmware upgrade brings...

I would argue that the percentage of people who care about websites working with JavaScript disabled is so low that no hardware company considers them a target market

I wasn't saying that no JS support is hurting them. I was objecting to the notion that them being separate teams is relevant. It's perfectly reasonable to judge a product by how it is marketed.

Do you think clients will be mapping out their whole corporate structure before making an assumption about their level of service?

If they are not, how can I trust anything written on that page about quality and security?

Android 7.1.1

https://support.essential.com/hc/en-us/articles/115008012428...

Not sure there is an issue here... I think it's just a joke about 'physical security' of the premises.

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.

That's a myth. If someone were to attack your infosec engineers physically or virtually you need to build your company from the moon because only nation states and the 1% richest would be able to afford the ride there. If someone were to do social engineering well it will be done, regardless of title. :)

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.

NSA has been known to target sysadmins so I wouldn't call this a myth.

I already said it, social engineering will work regardless whether someone hides their identity. Government knows who works for who. IRS is a good source, so this is a myth that hiding photo can save someone's security. No it is a false sense of security. When I said it's a myth it's satirical

The less information available about the infosec and (more importantly) the sys admins the better.

Nation states are like any organization. They are resource and time constrained. If you set the bar high you will eliminate the low hanging fruit adversaries. Force them to put the work in... Plus if you show them you are very careful and watching everything you will force them to be extra careful, as not to tip off any surveillance, which expends more resources.

Whether or not they can actually be anonymous is not the ultimate goal. That would require a lot of work and attention to detail. But you can still do some basic stuff to make the lives of hackers hard.

That's false sense of security you and many have. It takes very little time for nation states to identify who works for XYZ company.

If what you suggested is the right practice, then why is Google Zero Project members a public thing? A lot of them are publicly known. If infosec people are vulnerable, isn't your building security guard vulnerable? We got tens of thousands of hackers attending DefCon, Blackhats, and other security events every years and shouldn't we be worried? We got some of the most respected hackers and security engineers on planets attending them. How do you think government (FBI) recruited an anonymous hacker to work for them? Aren't your network engineers not vulnerable? Let's not kid ourselves with this ridiculous and quite frankly stupid obfuscation. If people are easy to fall for social engineering, let's find a solution that address the problem. Your impression of hidhing behind the curtain is basically the sterotype of hackers in basement. History has taught us the only famous computer programmer yet to be revealed is the creator(s) of Bitcoin. We don't knod if any nation states know who created Bitcoin. Otherwise, the government has pretty good hand in finding people. Resource constraint is a joke. If government wants to hack into Verizon they would have the resource assigned.

Sorry to be harsh but this is again false sense of security. Most startups would have developers have access to production so developers are just as vulnerable as infosec folks. Then why reveal the rest of the team? That counters your argument malicious actors would have a harder time to social engineer. So let's really not pretend we are doing better without revealing infosec because that's just nonsense in practice unless you are working on a project that may have serious retialation such as defeating Wanna worm then I understand masking your identity.

> It takes very little time for nation states to identify who works for XYZ company.

If it requires a person to spend time researching non-open source intelligence avenues then I disagree.

The point is by not doing something a company can gain something. That's not a big ask for the marketing team not to mention names in any public interface.

It's easy to assume that 'nation state' surveillance means that a sophisticated person will hunt down a piece of information. But that's actually quite a resource intensive request.

Quickly finding someones name on publicly available resources and adding it to a list is on quite a different level than having a hacker/trained person hunt down a hidden piece of information that must be triangulated from other disparate pieces of information. And I say this having spent quite a bit of time doxxing people for fun myself - it's a time intensive activity regardless if it was ultimately easy to do. The less information available the much hard it is to do.

But it is a pretty much a lost argument here because (1) developers aren't shielded, (2) developers are as vulnerable to social engineering as any infosec (but probably even more vulnerable if said infosec workers are very careful). The issue is the effort is neligible in a manhunt. For non-nation state actors like you and I, sure, it takes a huge effort. But if you don't everyone, then there is very little gain from hiding only people in infosec. In my experience, a lot of developers have production access. Compliance do not care if developers have access or not, auditors only care about if approval is in place and audit report can be produced without tampering. Also, in many enterprise, infosec often don't have access to actual production, they are just managing incident response process. Therefore, it is not usual to see massive social engineering, because it only takes one victim. Even if said victim has no access to most of the data, a breach in network is already a gold mine.

Also, you probably are familiar, sites like LinkedIn can be a great source for getting list of employees, and guessing company email is usually takes some effort once the attacker figures out the naming convention of email addresses.

Anyway, partial information is just as bad as full disclosure when the unhidden secrets are just as useful as the hidden one. So we either hide everything or we don't hide anything.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ghcq-targets-engin...

See my response on another comment.

Marketing person: "I think it'll be cute to add our pets to the about page!"

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"

Situation: There are 0 people and 2 dogs listed as the security department on a platform where security has long been a metaphorical joke and is now evidently a literal joke.

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.

The About page lists a fairly large number of engineers, some of whom who no doubt have responsibilities involving security. But Essential is not Android, and nor are they Google, so they have a much smaller subset of security concerns to deal with as a handset maker.

And the camera person doesn't have a picture...

why the hell is the about page 1.8MB (when all the resources are loaded)?

and it seems to be buggy with no webgl? using chromium under linux I get "Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read property 'getExtension' of null"

I had a lot of trouble scrolling through that site on my very beefy work MacBook, which never hiccups on webpages.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14444305 and marked it off-topic.

Hope the product is better than the website....

Website seemed quite functional for me on my galaxy 7. What were your gripes?

Did not work in Firefox for me, despite allowing all scripts to run. Plus, as a subjective note, I perceived it overall too designy, i.e. more focus on the "coolness" than the information itself.

Huh? Works for me (FF 53 on Arch Linux). I have uMatrix set to allow only first-party JS by default, but they play nice and serve all JS from the same domain (essential.com)

I still find the website overdesigned, of course, but the technical execution worked perfectly for me.

It killed Safari on my MacBook Air. Chrome seemed to perform a bit better. I almost gave up on the website before find a browser that played well with it.

On desktop Safari I can see only the top menu. The rest of the page is blank. Works well on Chrome.

Chrome 58, top menu only (only appears after ten seconds). Clicking menu items, nada.

Not working in Chrome 58

(a) It is one of the worst abuses of parallax scrolling. Everything is moving about in a chaotic, flickering fashion with far too many sections. And you have text blocks always covering the images.

(b) It is showing four products on the one page. Four. And seemingly jumping between them.

(d) It doesn't even render at all on Safari/OSX.

Absolutely no offense, I want to see the works of people who does this kind of comments all the time. I mean, I'm really curious what they are doing. I liked the the design of this website, but when I saw your comments it made sense, but still, I want to see what do you like or did.

My main gripe is that in general, I don't think it puts the user first. It's flashy for the sake of it and I find it a terrible user experience. This is certainly subjective, but it's not helping my impression of the product which I now associate with an ideal that is trying to show how clever the designers are but not really put an excellent sublime user experience in my hands (which is what I think they were shooting for. This is all completely subjective, but they are my impressions none the less.

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.

The website works really well on Safari on an iPhone 7+.

Boy do I miss the websites of the late 90s. How about you spend another second or two thinking about how your content is structured.

> Why didn’t I just travel the world, ride my motorcycle, tinker with my robots, hang out at my bakery with friends and family.

Was Andy a douche before he got rich or is that the price of success?

Personal attacks will get you banned on HN, so please don't do this again. It doesn't matter if the other person is rich or even if they deserve it; what matters is that it poisons the community, and we don't want that.

Dang, you have a lot of rules that you enforce but don't write down. Any criticism could be called an attack and everyone is a person so you're being arbitrary. My stance is that I'm doing some guy who refers to "my engineers" like they're his royal subjects, the favor his copy editor should do him in letting him know how aragance plays with the audience. I'm arbitrarily enforcing our culture's unwritten sanction against humble bragging and general douche baggery. Basically, what you do.

Interpretation is always involved, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. Everything we do as moderators follows from the principles of the site—intellectual curiosity and civil, substantive discussion.

> don't write down

It's impossible to write everything down, it would be boring to try, and the reward for such foolishness would be even worse behavior. The commenters who most poison internet forums are experts in adapting to rules so they're technically not violating them.

> I'm arbitrarily enforcing our culture's unwritten sanction

Sure, there are many such values and there are tradeoffs between them. In this case the need to protect the commons takes precedence, because it's fragile and worth protecting. There were other ways to make the substantive point behind your comment.

Chrome 40, so all I see is menu headings. Anyone got a summary?

it's a pretty and expensive android phone

Yeah the website is a total mess. First visual I see is a picture of Andy Rubin (???). Anyway, AFAICT, it's an android phone made from titanium and has some cool looking attachments.

Is there enough money in $750 Android phones like this? I would imagine this is a commodified market.

It would be, but the titanium, full screen and accessory systems are USP's.

Full screen has already been done by Samsung and Apple is likely to be releasing a full screen iPhone 8/X/? around September. And most people use cases so the titanium isn't that compelling. Accessories typically just use Bluetooth to communicate so that isn't much of a USP either.

It's a new phone. The essential differences is that

> 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

Uh, you are almost 20 version worth of security updates behind.

Bank locked down version. What can you do?

Chrome 58 for me. Blank page for ten seconds, then menu headers, but nothing else, appears.

He dumped the pile of insecure garbage called Android on us and now he's moving on to reinvent iOS. Got it.

Oh..just another craproid device

Reply on news.ycombinator.com