Startup Obituary : Essential

Essential Products: The Rise and Fall of Andy Rubin’s Smartphone Vision. Inside the PH-1’s Bold Design, Record-Breaking Funding, and the Corporate Missteps That Doomed a Silicon Valley Unicorn

We're not just building a phone; we're building a platform.

Andy Rubin, 2017

🌱 The Vision

Andy Rubin helped invent Android. Then he tried to reinvent the smartphone.

In 2015, fresh off his departure from Google, Rubin launched Essential Products in Palo Alto. The pitch? Build the anti-iPhone. A sleek, open, high-end device—bloatware-free, beautifully built, and designed to last. But it was more than just a phone. Essential aimed to build an ecosystem of devices: a modular smartphone, a privacy-focused smart home hub, and a future mobile experience built around AI and voice.

Rubin had pedigree. Investors piled in. Hype followed.

But execution? That’s another story.

📱 The Product

Essential’s first and only phone—the PH-1—was a stunner.

Unveiled in May 2017 and priced at $699, it featured a titanium and ceramic body, nearly bezel-less screen, and the industry’s first-ever notch. That tiny camera cutout at the top of the screen? Apple copied it for the iPhone X.

Rubin called it “premium and pure.” No extra apps. No carrier bloat.

Just Android, clean.

The PH-1 also came with magnetic connectors that allowed users to snap on accessories like a 360-degree camera—hinting at a modular future. Essential even teased a smart speaker (Essential Home) and an ultra-thin second device (Project Gem) that looked more remote control than phone.

The design was ahead of its time.

The ecosystem? Still just an idea.

💸 The Funding

Essential raised $330 million from top-tier investors:

  • Amazon’s Alexa Fund

  • Tencent

  • Redpoint Ventures

  • Playground Global (Rubin’s own VC)

By mid-2017, it had unicorn status—valued at over $1.2 billion before shipping a single device.

But money doesn’t guarantee traction. Despite the design buzz, only 5,000 units sold in the first month. Total lifetime sales? Around 150,000—a drop in the smartphone ocean.

🧱 The Cracks

By 2018, it was clear: Essential was struggling.

  • 📦 Distribution was weak: Sprint was the only major U.S. carrier at launch.

  • 📸 The camera was disappointing at launch—critical in a photo-first market.

  • 📣 Marketing was almost nonexistent: no flagship campaigns, no carrier blitz, no strong brand identity.

  • 🔌 Modularity didn’t click: Few accessories, little third-party support.

Worse still, key execs (VP of marketing, head of UX, head of comms) left before the phone even shipped.

And then came the controversy.

⚠️ The Scandal

In late 2017, news broke that Rubin had left Google with a $90 million payout after an internal investigation into sexual misconduct. The story damaged his reputation and cast a shadow over Essential. Some media outlets even stopped covering the company’s products. Investors and partners grew wary.

Essential, once a symbol of founder genius and second acts, suddenly carried the weight of public backlash.

🧪 The Final Gamble: Project GEM

In 2019, Essential teased Project Gem, a bold, slim phone meant to replace app-heavy screens with voice-first AI interaction. It was radical. Gorgeous. Risky.

But behind the scenes, the team knew the truth:

No carrier deals. No dev ecosystem. No viable path to launch.

On February 12, 2020, Essential officially shut down.

“Despite our best efforts,” they wrote, “we’ve now taken Gem as far as we can and regrettably have no clear path to deliver it to customers.”

🔚 What Remains

After Essential folded, its brand, trademarks, and some patents were acquired by Carl Pei’s Nothing Technologies in 2021. Pei, co-founder of OnePlus, has since built his own anti-iPhone ethos—arguably picking up the baton Rubin dropped.

Today, Essential lives on more as a cautionary tale than a legacy. But it wasn’t all for nothing.

  • The notch design pioneered by Essential became an industry standard.

  • Its commitment to clean Android helped shape user expectations.

  • The hardware design remains admired even years later.

As for the Essential Phone? It’s now a collector’s item for tech geeks.

Essential Scorecard

Dimension 

Score 

Reasoning

Product-Market Fit

2/5

The Essential Phone (PH-1) was beloved by design nerds but failed to attract mass adoption. Only ~150K units sold—a signal that the market didn’t truly need it.

USP

4/5

Clean Android, premium build, modular accessories, and a post-iPhone philosophy gave Essential a clear identity—but one not effectively delivered to users.

Timing

2/5

The product launched into a saturated, competitive market (Samsung, Apple, Google Pixel) without strong carrier backing. The timing of the Rubin scandal further hurt momentum.

Founder Fit

3/5

Rubin had unmatched Android pedigree and vision—but also brought serious reputational risk. His technical skills couldn’t offset the leadership liabilities.

Team (Execution)

2/5

Key team departures, weak distribution, poor marketing, and undercooked accessories showed weak execution across the board.

🧠 Lessons for Founders

Essential didn’t fail for lack of vision. It failed at the messy stuff:

  • Distribution matters: A gorgeous product no one sees is a gorgeous failure.

  • Marketing isn’t optional: You can’t out-engineer visibility.

  • Execution > Pedigree: Even Android’s inventor can misread the market.

  • Culture follows the founder: Leadership controversies don’t stay private for long.

🧩 And perhaps most critically: innovation without momentum is just noise.

💬 Final Word

Essential tried to break the smartphone mold—with elegance, with modularity, and with a bold bet on a post-touch future.

But it turns out the hard part isn’t building the future.

It’s shipping it.

I hope Essential’s story highlights the need for good PMF, timing and execution.

Good luck with your stratup!

Cheers,

Ram

👉 My simple ask: It took hours to put together this post for you. I hope you forward this email to at least one founder friend or share on your social channels 🙏.

Startup Obituary is for educational purpose only not a business advice.

Reply

or to participate.