Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Beartooth

beartooth.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: Beartooth

#31

Post by ricardobeat »

tetrep wrote: post #19
csomar wrote: post #7

I can see a chicken-egg problem here. Without enough users (probably millions), this device is useless. If the device is useless now, it makes no sense to purchase it. The pricing doesn't help either: $249! (and $399 after pre-sale). Assuming 10 million a good number to kickstart this thing and make it useful in many locations, they'll need to make a few billion dollars sales in the next couple years.

Yeah, the promise of "do things when you don't have signal" is predicated on a chain of people with these devices existing all the way from where you are to where a cell phone signal is. Which means you need to go to popular outdoorsy places, which (IMO) are intrinsically less interesting due to being around other people.

That would be nice, but is not what it does. It only enables communication between nearby devices (which includes gps location sharing), not mesh networking.

Re: Beartooth

#32

Post by yuvalkarmi »

csomar wrote: post #11
linksbro wrote: post #4

It transmits via some sub-1ghz free spectrum bands, which travel a good distance and have decent structure penetration. https://beartooth.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216797018-Wh... This is why unlicensed spectrum bands are great; they allow for stuff like this to be built without a billion dollar spectrum price tag.

I don't think 2 miles is a good travel distance. (or maybe it is from a technical perspective but not from a practical one). That would assume lots of users which I feel can be problematic with a $399 price range and big form factor.

With enough users on the network, wouldn't you be able to fairly easily extend the range by using idle beartooths as relay devices / amplifiers? Similar to how packets travel through the Internet.

Re: Beartooth

#33

Post by olympus »

csomar wrote: post #7

I can see a chicken-egg problem here. Without enough users (probably millions), this device is useless. If the device is useless now, it makes no sense to purchase it. The pricing doesn't help either: $249! (and $399 after pre-sale). Assuming 10 million a good number to kickstart this thing and make it useful in many locations, they'll need to make a few billion dollars sales in the next couple years.

Compare the price to the previously existing Garmin Rhino, which shares GPS data among receivers and allows non-encrypted comms (privacy codes are to reduce interference/crosstalk and aren't really encryption). Garmin Rhinos cost ~$500 each, so if you can get a pair of these modules for $250 you are saving a ton of money considering the phone is something you already own.

Re: Beartooth

#34

Post by vermontdevil »

jdietrich wrote: post #30

As with any smartphone product being marketed for use in wilderness environments, a note of caution is necessary. Rescue services have seen an increasing number of life-threatening situations caused by the unwise use of smartphones. Phones aren't sufficiently rugged and often lack user-replaceable batteries, so cannot be relied upon as a navigation tool or as a means of emergency communication. If you're considering…

Also take orienteering class if you want to be an outdoorsy person. I took it and it was a blast. Now looking to join a local club and get into orienteering competitions.

Re: Beartooth

#35

Post by seanp2k2 »

freehunter wrote: post #17
csomar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think 2 miles is a good travel distance. (or maybe it is from a technical perspective but not from a practical one). That would assume lots of users which I feel can be problematic with a $399 price range and big form factor.

I've been trying to solve an issue similar to what Beartooth is doing, and 2 miles is amazing range. Bear in mind, these aren't huge towers hundreds of feet above the ground with 50kWh power sources and million dollar price tags, they're battery-powered, handheld, and consumer-priced. And cell towers with all the advantages listed only travel less than 20 miles. 2 miles with those limitations is a great distance. I t…

Ham can do text and digital voice over e.g. D-STAR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amateur_radio_modes

Encryption to obscure your communication is technically against the rules, but things like D-STAR need a proprietary decoder (the spec isn't open) to be decoded, so some people consider that encryption even though it's pretty popular and not being shut down: http://www.amateurradio.com/encryption-is-already-legal-its-...

Re: Beartooth

#36

Post by rajangdavis »

I hope this isn't too off topic, but is there anything similar but for networked devices? For example, something for IOT devices to talk to each other minus the internet.

Re: Beartooth

#37

Post by unsignedint »

lallysingh wrote: post #3
osiris679 wrote: post #2

Does this use a mesh network?

Looks that way: https://beartooth.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/216791588-Ho... "Once you've paired Beartooth with your smartphone you can communicate with any other Beartooth users within range (about 2 miles). You can use Beartooth's app to talk, text, use maps, and share your location"

It sounds like to me just 1-to-1 contact with random people with the same device, and not necessarily using someone else as a relay to form a mesh network.

Re: Beartooth

#38

Post by adekok »

baldfat wrote: post #13
csomar wrote: post #7

I can see a chicken-egg problem here. Without enough users (probably millions), this device is useless. If the device is useless now, it makes no sense to purchase it. The pricing doesn't help either: $249! (and $399 after pre-sale). Assuming 10 million a good number to kickstart this thing and make it useful in many locations, they'll need to make a few billion dollars sales in the next couple years.

If it replaces walkie talkies in rural areas you only need your friends to have them. I know in the Adirondack Mountains in NY has very spotty signal and would be great with a few friends. Currently we use walkie talkies that have a 23 mile range. They cost as a pair $43 on Amazon ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001UE6MIO/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_d... ) and they are single purpose and really don't need to worry about batte…

Hmm... $43 for a 23 mile range, or $249 for a 2 mile range.

Sometimes improved technology isn't the right solution.

Re: Beartooth

#39

Post by gamegoblin »

chrissnell wrote: post #26
baldfat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try buying a bunch of two ways on amazon. You can get 6 of them for $150 and they work for 10 hours on 2 AA batteries and have a 23 mile range.

If you're talking about 2-meter radios, you're going to need a ham radio license to use them in the US. It's not hard, but it is necessary. Also, FCC regulations do not permit "broadcasting" on these bands. That is, you can't play music over them. Having a music festival playing in the background is flirting with that rule. You're better off just using FRS radios.

I suspect user baldfat is referring to two-way walkie-talkies.

Re: Beartooth

#40

Post by anthonybsd »

vermontdevil wrote: post #34
jdietrich wrote: post #30

As with any smartphone product being marketed for use in wilderness environments, a note of caution is necessary. Rescue services have seen an increasing number of life-threatening situations caused by the unwise use of smartphones. Phones aren't sufficiently rugged and often lack user-replaceable batteries, so cannot be relied upon as a navigation tool or as a means of emergency communication. If you're considering…

Also take orienteering class if you want to be an outdoorsy person. I took it and it was a blast. Now looking to join a local club and get into orienteering competitions.

Orienteering was mandatory in my school when I was a teenager. Interesting memories... :)
Post reply on HN