The Essential Phone is official:

Well the developers said they didn't really care if it succeeded or not, if they want more people to use it they'd be better off just giving them away for free 'cause not many folk are gonna buy that thing from Sprint, I'd say they'll sell less than 100,000 of 'em but that's my guess and that's even considering the potential they could offer them at a pretty drastic discount with a 2 year contract or something to spread out the payments over time.

Bad idea, Mr. Rubin, this is a terrible idea but, you said you expected it to not be a success - you should go work for Microsoft, you'd fit right in with that kind of attitude. :D
 
Sprint only ? Ugh. Who the heck is still on Sprint ? They freaking blow.

Put it on all four carriers, or none of the carriers. But exclusive deals suck. And exclusive deals on the worst carrier with the least amount of subscribers = Insta fail.
 
It'll work on all carriers. Sprint is just the only one officially selling them at their stores, which means that Softbank may be selling them in Japan too. One of the requirements is that there won't be carrier bloat, and sprint is the only one willing to do it. So I think that's pretty good sign for the carrier.
 
Vermillion said:
Sprint is the exclusive carrier. Phone is DOA. Makes me sad. I am actually very intrigued by this phone.
Click to expand...

No way. You mean to say, they arent going to sell a GSM version online, you know the standard the rest of the world uses?
 
The Lurker said:
No way. You mean to say, they arent going to sell a GSM version online, you know the standard the rest of the world uses?
Click to expand...

Sorry I should have been more descriptive. For US carriers only Sprint will be carrying it. So either you pony up $700 straight up and buy direct from Essential or you go to Sprint. That makes this device DOA. The fact that only Sprint is carrying it is disappointing. Not everybody can drop $700 on a phone. I also don't believe it has to do anything with Bloatware (well maybe on Verizon). My last 4 phones from LG on T-Mobile have been nearly bloat free. The only thing I'd probably consider bloat that I can't get rid of is T-Mobile's app but you can disable all of it's functionality.
 
The Sprint deal wouldn't be so bad if it weren't that the phone will easily be lost in the shuffle otherwise. Never mind the S8 -- guess what happens when the iPhone 8 arrives and it's all you hear about at every carrier? Essential needed wider coverage so that it didn't become the next Aquos Crystal... a clever phone on a network most people don't use.
 
Vermillion said:
Sorry I should have been more descriptive. For US carriers only Sprint will be carrying it. So either you pony up $700 straight up and buy direct from Essential or you go to Sprint. That makes this device DOA. The fact that only Sprint is carrying it is disappointing. Not everybody can drop $700 on a phone. I also don't believe it has to do anything with Bloatware (well maybe on Verizon). My last 4 phones from LG on T-Mobile have been nearly bloat free. The only thing I'd probably consider bloat that I can't get rid of is T-Mobile's app but you can disable all of it's functionality.
Click to expand...

I agree. The carriers besides providing marketing also provide financing.

Im still blown away they want $700 for it. Samsung, LG, maybe HTC and Apple can ask for that because they have earned the right too. First phone to market and its asking for big dog money? gtfo.
 
Sprint exclusive? Welp, so much for that, I talked the family into dumping Sprint for T-Mobile back in January (about two years after I first tried to convince them, to boot).

As mentioned above, Sprint exclusivity is what killed the Aquos Crystal here, alongside Sharp not releasing the flagship Aquos Crystal X AT ALL over here, instead sticking us with just a mid-range offering.

Carrier exclusivity in general is just dumb at this point; I know a lot of people brushed off the Pixel (XL) because of the exclusive Verizon deal on top of the high price, even if it can be bought unlocked AT FULL PRICE.

It's especially dumb when it's on CDMA carriers, and I should reiterate that until that fateful date on February 2015 when they were legally required to do so on new phone releases, Sprint did their damnedest to keep their phones from being domestically unlockable, and crippled if you actually managed to do so (for instance, through GalaxyTools/idoneapps) because they use different LTE bands from everyone else on top of being CDMA instead of GSM. My N910P Note 4 is pretty much gimped because of this, only running 3G on any other carrier and losing coverage when everyone else gets good signal, and it's not cost-effective to just replace it with an N910T or other suitable variant when the Note 8's on the horizon.
 
Once again, much like the HTC U11, you can get this phone directly from Essential for ATT, Verizon, T-Mobile, as well as sprint. Sprint will be the only carrier officially selling it at their stores. I'm sure Essential will come up with their own finance plan if you get it straight from them like many other companies for 24 months. Heck, best buy may even have them and best buy often have zero interest for 12 months etc sales if you use the store credit card.
 
So...no place in Europe to get this?
had a look over the site, couldn't see anything about a euro shop
meh
 
>promise to be shipping the device to customers within 30 days of the announcement
>37 days go by
>no new updates, no new blog entries, no new announcements, no devices shipping

Someone tell Andy Rubin that perhaps it's essential for this company to keep its word and ship on time and if it can't then it's essential to let customers know what the fuck is going on or else the customers are going to essentially give said company the finger and do their business elsewhere. :D
 
Yeah, this is not impressing me - it looks like a glorified Pixel XL, and reading the comments on this thread only solidifies me holding true on my pending iPhone purchase.
 
Zorachus said:
Sprint only ? Ugh. Who the heck is still on Sprint ? They freaking blow.

Put it on all four carriers, or none of the carriers. But exclusive deals suck. And exclusive deals on the worst carrier with the least amount of subscribers = Insta fail.
Click to expand...
And final nail in the coffin on this. Sprint sucks in my area, and I'm happy with Cricket, so not a chance in hell of me buying this phone.

Sorry, not sorry, Andy.... you fouled up on this one.
 
Goddamn... For the last time it isn't sprint exclusive! Sprint is the only carrier carrying it at the stores. Huge difference! You can buy it online for any other carrier, and perhaps at stores like bestbuy too.
 
Last edited:
This will be selling for $99 on Amazon by New Year to dump all the overstock in warehouses.

A Sprint only exclusive = fail. Or buy it outright for $700+ = fail, compared to either more affordable phones like the OnePlus 5 for $489, or higher end phone like the upcoming Pixel 2 for $750 ( due out in a couple months )

For a very close price I'd take the Pixel XL 2, when shopping for new phones this Fall. The Pixel XL 2 is supposed to be an LG made phone, based upon the G6 build design, just slightly larger at 5.9", with the SD835 + 4GB RAM + Waterproof + 3450mAh battery.
 
/me wonders if people are going to ever actually pay attention to the fact that it's not a Sprint exclusive - Sprint is the only carrier that will sell it in retail locations but as has been noted many times including in the post above the post above that it's also available direct from Essential whenever they get off their dead asses and actually ship (yes I realize it's a long supply chain from their offices to the manufacturing plants in China and back but even so...)

Yes, Sprint will be the only carrier that sells it but that does not make it a Sprint exclusive - if that's the way people want to look at the situation then the Google Pixel and Pixel XL are Verizon exclusive devices as well.

But since they're not Verizon exclusive devices then you can obviously see that the Essential Phone isn't a Sprint exclusive, right? Right? :D
 
The thing you guys are missing the point on, there already are two nerd phones on the market, with a fan base and following. I think it is hard to introduce a brand new third nerd phone on the market, the geek smartphone market is not that big of the sales

We already have

- Affordable nerd phone = OnePlus 3T and now the OnePlus 5
- High end flagship nerd phone = Current Pixel XL and coming soon Pixel XL 2.

Ultra niche geek smartphones have a VERY SMALL % of the market. I think maybe 5% of the total smartphone market, which is made primarily by the iPhone and Galaxy phones, which each of those brands selling like some crazy 100 million phones each year. So those two companies combined probably sell over 200 million phones annually. Compare that to the Pixel, which last I heard maybe sold like 1.5 million phones as of March of this year.

Point being, for this Essential phone to even be relevant, it needs to compete with the now popular OnePlus line of affordable stock Android like phones, or you go the high end flagship route with the Google Pixel line, that gets updates first and right away, and is the #1 nerd phone, especially the new Pixel 2 coming soon, with much needed improvements.

I would take the Pixel 2 all day long over the Essential. I think price wise they will be very close, with the Pixel 2 XL, maybe being $50 more. Or if I am on a budget, but still want a nerd phone, then I'm going OnePlus. I just don't see where this Essential phone fits in with already well known brands this year like the OnePlus 5 and Pixel 2.
 
Tiberian said:
So... what's your point? :D
Click to expand...


Mine ? That this Essential will have a super tough time selling, and really don't see the need for it, when we have the affordable OnePlus nerd phone line, and the flagship Google Pixel line.

I guess it's cool there is a new higher end stock Android type phone, but is it really stock like direct updates from Google stock ? Which I doubt. Or is it more like a Motorola phone or OnePlus phone running a near stock like experience, but then waiting for that manufacturer to send out updates when they can, which can typically be months after Google.

I wish Essential luck, but sorry to predict, I see this as a massive flop, close to Amazon Fire flop.
 
Not sure where the HTC U11 fits in the nerd phone hierarchy... my guess is between OP5 and Pixel XL. I give it nerd status because it can be rooted/ROMed. I just sent back my U11 after less than 24 hours. It felt iPhone 7 Plus heavy in my hand and the glass back is screaming to be scratched up. Several months with Oxygen OS on my 3T has made HTC Sense seem kinda sluggish to me. My last hope for a new front sensor phone in 2017 is the Moto Z2 Force GSM version, later this month.
 
Google only provides direct updates for Nexus and Pixel devices, period. And if those devices were sold by a carrier then you can typically still grab the updates for the device when they're posted (as Google posted the latest security patches and updates earlier today for Nexus and Pixel devices). For any and all other devices from whoever the hell makes 'em the maker of the device - in this example that would be Essential itself - will get the security patches and updates from Google, do testing on it for their customized version of Android on the Essential Phone, and if it passes muster then they will either offer it to people as a manual upgrade or push it directly. In the case with Sprint and the Essential Phone Sprint will have to do testing on the build they get from Essential so it could take longer on those devices if you have one sold directly by Sprint - probably not, but it could delay things a little while.

And yes, I believe the Essential Phone is a failure before it even ships with all things and all the current info available, as for the Fire Phone, I just sold the one I had but I really did like it a lot once I got rid of the horrendous Fire OS that was on it and put a proper Android ROM on it aka Lineage. :D

That made the Fire Phone damned nice, actually, very fast, very fluid and smooth, all courtesy of that still-to-this-day freakin' awesome Snapdragon 800 SoC.
 
Domingo said:
or those people complaining about a non-replaceable battery - which newer phones DO allow that? That seems to be something that has gone the way of the buffalo. Not saying I like it, but it doesn't seem like that's going to come back.
Click to expand...

CHANG3D said:
People hating on a lack of removable batteries when no other flagship device has a removable battery...
Click to expand...

CHANG3D said:
I wonder how much y'all are willing to pay for a phone with removable batteries if the phone is not waterproof and has big bezels. Would you kickstart one right now?
Click to expand...

According to some texts that I read, the main reason for replaceable batteries going away is that replaceable lithium ion batteries have to designed with the consumer in mind. Folks want their phones thinner, lighter and with more "on" power. Designing a replaceable battery that has to be idiot proof, makes it thicker, heavier and less "on" time for the same size. Its possible that if the curent non replaceable battery were consumer replaceable we would have more exploding battery issues. So in effect its to protect the consumer.

Hopefully "tomorrow" , "solid li Ion" will get someone to figure out how to get it all done. Always feels funny having a non replaceable battery. "Saying" non replaceable battery brings forth some kind of mental conflict.
 
I've yet to hear of one device with a removable battery exploding or having any major battery related issues, and what I would counter with is that devices with removable batteries don't fucking crush them into the cramped space inside the device which is what caused the Note7 fiasco - the damned battery in the Note7 was physically damaged by being crammed into that entirely too tight spacing (which was just too tight, period) and in the process it caused the battery plates to come into contact with each other, this was clearly shown in X-ray images taken of the cells that were used in some of the returned Note7 hardware and it is plainly evident what was going on.

When Samsung tells people the new Note7 FE refurb models have smaller batteries, it's not just in the mAh rating: the new batteries are physically smaller by about 1.5-2 mm on each side because the Note7 FE is still the Note7, they couldn't go back and retool the bodies of the devices so the only logical response was to have the battery makers they contract with literally provide them with a physically smaller battery so the cramped crushed plate issue isn't, well, an issue this time around. :)

Think of it from this perspective, we'll use the Note7 as an example:

Non-removable battery: Note7 battery suffers catastrophic plate contact failure, battery internals begin to overheat then expand as the gases inside the sealed battery pouch expand with the heat build up, the battery pouch then tries to expand like a balloon (which is why Li-Ion cells come in the pouch form factor in smartphones) and when it tries to do that it can't because it doesn't have any wiggle room at all and the back cover of the device is considered to be non-removable, this situation just builds on itself as the gases increase expansion, the battery pouch has no place to grow, the innards compress due to the gas expansion, poof, it has no choice but to explode/burn up

Removable battery: Note7 battery suffers catastrophic plate contact failure, same process happens but this time as the battery pouch expands the back cover pops off completely, the battery pushes itself away from the internals of the phone main assembly, separates from the phone entirely (if it's not in a pocket or purse or something, or a full body case, etc), phone survives to a point, the battery pouch expands but the gas never escapes, the expansion of the pouch allows the plates to separate as designed and voila, no explosion but obviously a pretty severely serious situation even so

The only rational reason for non-removable batteries is making the devices thinner, and the majority of smartphone owners DON'T actually give a shit about that no matter what Apple wants people to believe. People want rock solid dependable smartphones with crazy long battery life and if they can get more battery life with a 9mm thick device than they can with a 6.5mm thick device they're more than likely going to get the thicker one given other aspects aren't considered as important. I'm one of those people that practically demands a removable battery and on some occasions I will get a device that does not have one but it has to have a microSD card slot - I can deal without the removable battery, but locked down non-expandable non-removable storage, fuck that, nope, ain't happening.

The Note7 FE went on sale in South Korea today so I fully expect to see them on the black market (wherever that ends up being) soon for crazy bloated insane pricing, and the funny thing is they might not even work in the US because of carrier blacklisting, even with new IMEI numbers if Samsung went that additional step to reprogram every one of the ~400,000 first run they're claiming to have available for sale.

Still wouldn't mind having one even in spite of that potential non-usable nature, would make a great PMP for damned sure. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tiberian said:
I've yet to hear of one device with a removable battery exploding or having any major battery related issues, and what I would counter with is that devices with removable batteries don't fucking crush them into the cramped space inside the device which is what caused the Note7 fiasco - the damned battery in the Note7 was physically damaged by being crammed into that entirely too tight spacing (which was just too tight, period) and in the process it caused the battery plates to come into contact with each other, this was clearly shown in X-ray images taken of the cells that were used in some of the returned Note7 hardware and it is plainly evident what was going on.

*snip for focus*

The only rational reason for non-removable batteries is making the devices thinner, and the majority of smartphone owners DON'T actually give a shit about that no matter what Apple wants people to believe. People want rock solid dependable smartphones with crazy long battery life and if they can get more battery life with a 9mm thick device than they can with a 6.5mm thick device they're more than likely going to get the thicker one given other aspects aren't considered as important. I'm one of those people that practically demands a removable battery and on some occasions I will get a device that does not have one but it has to have a microSD card slot - I can deal without the removable battery, but locked down non-expandable non-removable storage, fuck that, nope, ain't happening.

The Note7 FE went on sale in South Korea today so I fully expect to see them on the black market (wherever that ends up being) soon for crazy bloated insane pricing, and the funny thing is they might not even work in the US because of carrier blacklisting, even with new IMEI numbers if Samsung went that additional step to reprogram every one of the ~400,000 first run they're claiming to have available for sale.

Still wouldn't mind having one even in spite of that potential non-usable nature, would make a great PMP for damned sure. :D
Click to expand...

This is strictly anecdotal, but I have an LG V10 whose battery spontaneously swelled up. Yeah, the removable battery means that replacing it involves a cheap purchase at Amazon, but I wouldn't say that having a removable battery necessarily makes a phone safer.

And there's a problem with your "people don't care about thinner devices, they want battery life" logic. If that were true, Motorola would dominate the American mobile landscape -- it's been making phones with epic battery life for a few years, and Verizon certainly promotes them. The truth is that battery life is just one factor among many for the typical buyer, and it's something they consider after their choice of platform and phone features. Week-long battery life doesn't matter if you don't enjoy using a device, and people will put up with short battery life if it's a device they otherwise really like. Thinness doesn't matter a huge amount, but it's clear that many people don't object to the tradeoff so much that they gravitate toward the models with big batteries.
 
Essential misses its promised 30-day shipping period for the Essential phone

http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/0...hipping-period-essential-phone/#disqus_thread

When the phone was unveiled, Andy Rubin stated that the phone would ship within 30 days. That period ended on June 29, and it's now July 8. We've reached out to Essential to ask why, but it has not yet responded. The company didn't respond to CNET or Business Insider either. We can only speculate about why the phone was delayed; perhaps the company wanted to improve the camera performance, or there were problems with manufacturing.

Either way, it is concerning that Essential is staying quiet on the delay. You only get one shot at a first impression.
 
Aurelius said:
And there's a problem with your "people don't care about thinner devices, they want battery life" logic.
Click to expand...

I ain't got a problem with the statement I made, neither would the vast majority of people I know and work around that buy phones that need to work as long as possible and that rarely means iPhones and it rarely means Motorola hardware either - as an owner of multiple Motorola devices over the past decade from the original Droid to the Droid Turbo 2 and a Moto Z Play earlier this year (battery life for me personally wasn't up to snuff and certainly not what others were claiming, maybe I just had a bad unit which happens sometimes). I will say that they do tend to have longer battery life than the majority of the competition but a lot of the time because the Droid series is Verizon only a lot of companies I've worked with don't get 'em for whatever reasons they could come up with.

Best battery life I've ever had on a pure stock factory supplied device? A Samsung Galaxy S7 Active I had last year with that awesome 4000 mAh cell in it, the one I owned for a brief period of time would readily stretch well into a 4th day of use before I'd get the 15% battery is low notification, brightness on that quad HD Super AMOLED panel at 30% most of the time, 90% in outdoor situations/direct sunlight, 9+ hours of SOT over the course of a single charge. Never had a device come even close to that unless I modded it like I did many years ago with a Motorola Atrix HD (as luck would have it) where I swapped out the factory battery for one from the RAZR MAXX (3500 mAh capacity) and could get practically 3 days of use with 8-10 hours SOT without any real issues.

As for the thin thing, well, a pretty and thin device that's dead in your pocket ain't of much use. :D
 
Tiberian said:
I ain't got a problem with the statement I made, neither would the vast majority of people I know and work around that buy phones that need to work as long as possible and that rarely means iPhones and it rarely means Motorola hardware either - as an owner of multiple Motorola devices over the past decade from the original Droid to the Droid Turbo 2 and a Moto Z Play earlier this year (battery life for me personally wasn't up to snuff and certainly not what others were claiming, maybe I just had a bad unit which happens sometimes). I will say that they do tend to have longer battery life than the majority of the competition but a lot of the time because the Droid series is Verizon only a lot of companies I've worked with don't get 'em for whatever reasons they could come up with.

Best battery life I've ever had on a pure stock factory supplied device? A Samsung Galaxy S7 Active I had last year with that awesome 4000 mAh cell in it, the one I owned for a brief period of time would readily stretch well into a 4th day of use before I'd get the 15% battery is low notification, brightness on that quad HD Super AMOLED panel at 30% most of the time, 90% in outdoor situations/direct sunlight, 9+ hours of SOT over the course of a single charge. Never had a device come even close to that unless I modded it like I did many years ago with a Motorola Atrix HD (as luck would have it) where I swapped out the factory battery for one from the RAZR MAXX (3500 mAh capacity) and could get practically 3 days of use with 8-10 hours SOT without any real issues.

As for the thin thing, well, a pretty and thin device that's dead in your pocket ain't of much use. :D
Click to expand...

Anecdotal evidence doesn't represent proof -- it just means that the people in your immediate social circle use big-battery phones from other OEMs.

Here's the practical reality: in the US, most people buy either iPhones or Samsung phones (that's data from the spring, but the general ratio has been true for years). And when large-battery phones represent a minority of sales even among those two, let alone other vendors... well, you get the idea! If most people really, truly valued battery life, Apple would primarily sell Plus-model iPhones, Samsung would have a hard time selling the standard S8 and Motorola would have more than 4 percent market share (don't forget, devices like the Droid Turbo 2 make up just a fraction of that 4 percent).

It's true that a thin phone with a dead battery isn't much use, but it seems like most people would rather risk that than get a phone they're unfamiliar with or don't like.
 
Those statistics are skewed by one factor: the carriers are always the major source where Apple and Samsung shove their wares down the throats of the consumers - Apple and Samsung push what they want to sell on customers, the carriers have nothing to do with things in that respect and of course with devices claiming to have big batteries but in slimmer packaging what happens is Apple and Samsung and thousands of Mom&Pop local shops see massive turn-around in people wanting those "big slim batteries" replaced with alarming regularity which is how things actually go in the real world where I live, not in the statistics on screens or printed out with hard copy.

Just as an impromptu thing yesterday my wife and I were out on Fremont Street I did a walk-up questionnaire for maybe 45-50 people under the canopy that had smartphones in their hands and asked them what brand/device it was and whether they would prefer it have very long battery life at least 2 days between charges or be even thinner and slimmer than it current is: about 93% answered longer battery life across most every brand (Sony, Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Blu, Huawei, LG, and two Note7 models oddly enough, sill wondering how they got those into the US, lucky I suppose). I then asked if they really put a lot of time and focus on whether their device was thinner or thicker than the device a friend of family member might have and about 70% said it wasn't relevant, they were using cases to protect their devices so looks became effectively irrelevant.

And I ended with my typical question: "What's more important to you, a smartphone that's really awesome and a joy to use but needs to be charged more frequently, perhaps several times a day, or a smartphone that gets the job done just as well if not better but only needs you to plug in once a day if even that much and most of the time once every 2 days to charge?"

Considering my own position on this situation, it's not hard to see that a few dozen people from every country on earth visiting Las Vegas in the middle of summer in 112F temps on Fremont answered me in a way that I wasn't surprised at all about: usable battery life ranked way higher on the level of importance than looks. Once guy even threw my own words back at me, funny enough, and said "A pretty smartphone that has a dead battery is nothing but dead weight in my hand or my pocket so, no, thin means shit to me, give me battery life above and beyond looks anyday..." and he held up a Galaxy Note 4 with the ZeroLemon 10,000 mAh extended battery case on it (which I happen to own myself) and he ended by saying "4 days, 34% left, still going..." then walked away.

Anyway, there are always two sides to such situations, I'm firmly on the side that requires a device to keep working, form factor and looks are irrelevant but I know some folks do put a high priority on the "pretty shinny thin" factor when making a purchase. I've yet to buy a smartphone just because I put that kind of a priority on what it looks like - form is irrelevant to me, really, function is all that really truly matters or else it's just a piece of "art" as some might call it.

We've all got out own requirements, that much is obvious, but I still say that most people want longer operational battery life over the way a smartphone looks, it just may be that there will never be any actual concrete data on such a thing to prove it one way or another, all I know is the multitude of nationalities I spoke with yesterday told me in no uncertain terms "Give me battery life or give me... well, a device that runs longer, period." :D
 
Tiberian said:
Those statistics are skewed by one factor: the carriers are always the major source where Apple and Samsung shove their wares down the throats of the consumers - Apple and Samsung push what they want to sell on customers, the carriers have nothing to do with things in that respect and of course with devices claiming to have big batteries but in slimmer packaging what happens is Apple and Samsung and thousands of Mom&Pop local shops see massive turn-around in people wanting those "big slim batteries" replaced with alarming regularity which is how things actually go in the real world where I live, not in the statistics on screens or printed out with hard copy.

Just as an impromptu thing yesterday my wife and I were out on Fremont Street I did a walk-up questionnaire for maybe 45-50 people under the canopy that had smartphones in their hands and asked them what brand/device it was and whether they would prefer it have very long battery life at least 2 days between charges or be even thinner and slimmer than it current is: about 93% answered longer battery life across most every brand (Sony, Apple, Samsung, Motorola, Blu, Huawei, LG, and two Note7 models oddly enough, sill wondering how they got those into the US, lucky I suppose). I then asked if they really put a lot of time and focus on whether their device was thinner or thicker than the device a friend of family member might have and about 70% said it wasn't relevant, they were using cases to protect their devices so looks became effectively irrelevant.

And I ended with my typical question: "What's more important to you, a smartphone that's really awesome and a joy to use but needs to be charged more frequently, perhaps several times a day, or a smartphone that gets the job done just as well if not better but only needs you to plug in once a day if even that much and most of the time once every 2 days to charge?"

Considering my own position on this situation, it's not hard to see that a few dozen people from every country on earth visiting Las Vegas in the middle of summer in 112F temps on Fremont answered me in a way that I wasn't surprised at all about: usable battery life ranked way higher on the level of importance than looks. Once guy even threw my own words back at me, funny enough, and said "A pretty smartphone that has a dead battery is nothing but dead weight in my hand or my pocket so, no, thin means shit to me, give me battery life above and beyond looks anyday..." and he held up a Galaxy Note 4 with the ZeroLemon 10,000 mAh extended battery case on it (which I happen to own myself) and he ended by saying "4 days, 34% left, still going..." then walked away.

Anyway, there are always two sides to such situations, I'm firmly on the side that requires a device to keep working, form factor and looks are irrelevant but I know some folks do put a high priority on the "pretty shinny thin" factor when making a purchase. I've yet to buy a smartphone just because I put that kind of a priority on what it looks like - form is irrelevant to me, really, function is all that really truly matters or else it's just a piece of "art" as some might call it.

We've all got out own requirements, that much is obvious, but I still say that most people want longer operational battery life over the way a smartphone looks, it just may be that there will never be any actual concrete data on such a thing to prove it one way or another, all I know is the multitude of nationalities I spoke with yesterday told me in no uncertain terms "Give me battery life or give me... well, a device that runs longer, period." :D
Click to expand...
It's not difficult to imagine that most folks really do feel this way when the question is posed directly - and yet, on the day they drop and shatter their old phone and rush to the AT&T store for a replacement, it's the "shiny slim" factor (along with a healthy sales pitch) that sways their hastily-made buying decision. Or, perhaps more likely, they're predestined to buy whichever brand has been shoved down their throats in mass marketing (Apple or Samsung) no matter what the pros and cons of said brand.

Most consumers are not rational actors.
 
I don't think it's irrational to want to buy the best looking phones that are also the most popular phones.
 
Seems pretty neat. Yet I feel I'll almost certainly want to have a case on it. It might be durable if you drop it on a corner, but I like having a lip case in case it falls straight down flat. Plus, I also like having the additional grip on the sides that a case provides. I job with my phone as a music player and I don't exactly want my sweaty hands to cause me to drop it. With no rubber or grips on the back, I'll need something.
 
Tiberian said:
We've all got out own requirements, that much is obvious, but I still say that most people want longer operational battery life over the way a smartphone looks, it just may be that there will never be any actual concrete data on such a thing to prove it one way or another, all I know is the multitude of nationalities I spoke with yesterday told me in no uncertain terms "Give me battery life or give me... well, a device that runs longer, period.
Click to expand...

For sale <hypothetical>:

#1 - Brand new smartphone, flexible and see through. Newest oled technology, minor battery life decrease because of the new tech, many new apps,
#2 - Brand new smartphone, last years tech but made tougher. 5x improved battery life using new solidstate batteries, 1 min to full recharge.

Which phone sells more?
 
Domingo said:
Seems pretty neat. Yet I feel I'll almost certainly want to have a case on it. It might be durable if you drop it on a corner, but I like having a lip case in case it falls straight down flat. Plus, I also like having the additional grip on the sides that a case provides. I job with my phone as a music player and I don't exactly want my sweaty hands to cause me to drop it. With no rubber or grips on the back, I'll need something.
Click to expand...
Andy Rubin is against cases. But he's offering $99 for 2 years of accidental damage with a $99 deductible... Honestly, he should probably have included that with the preorders cause he doesn't want any case for the phone. But even at $99 deductible it's still a bit insane.
 
CHANG3D said:
Andy Rubin is against cases. But he's offering $99 for 2 years of accidental damage with a $99 deductible... Honestly, he should probably have included that with the preorders cause he doesn't want any case for the phone. But even at $99 deductible it's still a bit insane.
Click to expand...

If he's against cases, maybe offer some sort of grippable surface on the sides. The old iPhone "bumper" did a good job of working like a case, but without making the device bloated.
 
Domingo said:
If he's against cases, maybe offer some sort of grippable surface on the sides. The old iPhone "bumper" did a good job of working like a case, but without making the device bloated.
Click to expand...

I loved the official bumper case on my iphone 4s. I am not a big case guy and this one did a great job of keeping things simple but protecting my phone.
 
Even with just a bumper on, you still can't use the attachments. I honestly don't know if Andy Rubin is seriously against cases, or if he is against cases, because you won't be able to attach the 360 camera etc. If it's a shatterproof plastic display, sure I guess. Even if you're not thinking about using an attachment, I am still unable to find third party companies making cases for this phone.
 
AltTabbins said:
I loved the official bumper case on my iphone 4s. I am not a big case guy and this one did a great job of keeping things simple but protecting my phone.
Click to expand...

Same. I've seen some bumper-like cases for Android phones, but they usually feel cheap or they obstruct the volume/screen buttons. The iPhone 4 bumper had metal buttons I preferred to the normal volume toggle.

I honestly don't care about the attachment functionality for this phone. They could remove that for all I care. Hell, give me a version with no attachments and waterproofing. Toss in some kind of grip while they're at it.
 
This phone was officially announced around the end of May or so, with a release "Within a month". It' almost September now, and it' still not on store shelves yet.

- Has an average LCD screen, not OLED like rest of 2017 flagships.

- Camera is said to be good, not great.

- No IP68 certification like rest of 2017 flagships.

- No wireless charging like rest of 2017 flagships.

- Battery of 3,050mAh is pretty small. I know the hardware is more efficient, blah, blah, blah. I still bet it get just average to good battery life, not outstanding battery life compared to phones with 3,500mAh battteries like the S8+

$700 for this phone. LOL. It should be priced closer to the OnePlus 5 which is a very similar phone, minus the build materials.
 
It's shipping now though.

And it's $700 for 128GB with promise of frequent updates. Samsung GS8 needs extra battery to power all the extra bloat. It's water resistant, but not IP67 certified. I did not know all 2017 flagships have wireless charging. Honestly, I just don't like the display on the Essential. But for my money, I'd wait for the Pixel 2 XL. Or heck the HTC U11 - cause sense ui is as fast if not faster than stock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top