I doubt the headphone jack had much of an impact on the market, but the go-to-market strategy just wasn't there (Sprint isn't a tier 1 carrier), the camera got poor reviews, and their first accessory, the 360 camera, just wasn't compelling enough, even for the enthusiast market.

There is no reasonable medium to top end phone that is almost pure android and has a headphone jack. it's just stupid to drop it, those who want the headphone jack would buy such a unicorn phone that would lead to it being a real competitive advantage.

Bought the phone and sold it at a loss more than a few months later for less than half. Camera is terrible and it did not at all improve with time. Screen to phone ratio was amazing but another drawback nobody mentions was the weight. for a 5 inch phone it weighed more than my previous Nexus 6p. Carrying it in my pocket made it heavy.

FWIW, yes.

The camera is awful, and it is a dense brick to carry around.

I am using a PH-1 as my phone, a clearance sale item promoted by Amazon this past summer. I believe Amazon is a major investor in Essential. Looks like another fail for them, in terms of Amazon becoming a smartphone creator with a viable mass-market product.

I still believe there's room for another premium US smartphone besides Pixel, Apple. China has Xiaomi and Europe has totally lost the smartphone race. Open source software, hardware initiatives have also failed to attract attention (Ubuntu, Firefoxos, ..)

Essential or anyone needs some innovative new features or 'feel' to it.

I don't think there's much room for another player. Not at this stage. Even Google with the Pixel is a drop in the ocean in terms of hardware sales.

Truth is, Essential simply had no chance. The segment of users caring about build materials and craftsmanship is also the one who care about stuff like camera quality, software quality and features and when the PH-1 launched, its camera sucked, it had less features than other flagships and it was riddled with cellular reception issues. Price wasn't cheap either.

If it wasn't for Andy Rubin, there's no way this startup would have received the investment they did.

There's definitely room for a premium smartphone beyond Google and Apple! Samsung devices running Android seems to own that space pretty effectively.

>room for a premium _US_ smartphone

Samsung has a strong US market position, running mostly US-made software on hardware fabricated and assembled elsewhere.

At this point Samsung's phones are about as American as Google's or Apple's.

The OS on ph1 is ideal. I want zero crapware, and security updates, and for gods sake give me a headphone. That's going to be so rare it's going to be an actual competitive advantage. But at least no crapware is a big advantage.

I understand where you're coming from. Headphones are common! Let me use them, you assholes! And for love of fsck, no shitty vendor replacement for apps that are actually decent.

With all that said, it might be worth considering that recent events at Essential suggest that this might not be the significant competitive edge that might be hoped for. It's abstractly possible that our tastes in phones might not be an accurate reflection of the wider market.

Except for the fact that, you know, it's a Korean company... but sure.

How smartphones do Google and Apple actually produce in US?

So, I think I was misunderstood here... I only piped up because the GP explicitly said "US" in relation to a failing US based company. Saying that Samsung fills that gap makes no sense, regardless of where the phones are manufactured.

In one sense, you're absolutely right. It's a Korean-owned company and therefore obviously in no way American.

In another sense, the ownership of Samsung is irrelevant. The actual phones have roughly the same level of US-origin content and US-local labor as those phones famously labeled "Designed by Apple in California".

How was it design-wise ahead of the curve? All I see is yet another flat rectangle. With a notch. Ugh.

It's a shame that no one really tries to innovate on mobile device design any more in order to target niche markets. But perhaps the economics of mass production mean that's no longer a viable strategy.

I miss all the different shapes. Nokia alone had so many different shapes in the early 2000s, different layouts, wide ranges of colour ect.

It's just rectangles now

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bryanthui/3881160306/

> With a notch

I believe it was one of (if not) the first with a notch.

The notch isn't really a design feature though... assuming you're being sarcastic.

One man's notch is another's "edge to edge display". The cutout allows a higher display to body ratio, which some people value.

In other words, an unfortunate trade-off which exists due to a technical limitation. No one _wants_ a notch.

And the software ecosystem. If the millions of 3rd party apps only support rectangles, it’s hard to do something different.

What is there to innovate on, design wise? I'm not saying there's nothing, but a lot of people bemoan the "lack of innovation" in mobile device design, but never say what they'd like to see, design wise.