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

So Close

hackernoon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#41

Post by anigbrowl »

yoodenvranx wrote: post #13
a13n wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the title of the article though, seems fine to me.

No, it is not fine. I know it is standard practice on HN but I really don't like it at all. Just imagine every submitted article had a title like this: the HN frontpage would be full of links like "so close", "a look back", "introducing our most important features yet", "a statement regarding the events last weeks"... HN would completely unusable like this because you would have to click on every single link to figur…

Quite. Often our reasons for being interested in something are quite different from those of the audience it was written for.

Re: So Close

#42

Post by greenleafjacob »

nkkollaw wrote: post #38
twblalock wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't even have a proximity sensor -- you have to touch it to make it work. Might as well stick a key in at the same time. If I paid that kind of money I would expect my door to unlock for me when I approached it. It also has no manual override with a key like some smart locks -- it just has some backup batteries that last an unspecified amount of time. Because it has no key, it can't be re-keyed, so good luck c…

It's so awesome when people create problems to fix non-problems. I never once thought my life would be better if I didn't need to put up with those nasty keys...

Never locked yourself out?

Re: So Close

#43

Post by wellboy »

> While a tedious process, we built a close working relationship and shared their enthusiasm about our future together. On December 11th, they called me and stated they would not complete the acquisition nor revisit the investment proposal. I was stunned. The reason is still not understood.

That's the problem if your CEO is an inventor with no or little business acumen. They are always super-enthusiastic and can be played like puppets by some M&A guys with mediocre experience.

Memo: Don't be enthusiastic with "acquirers", restraint enthusiasm is the keyword. Screen them vs. them screen you.

Memo2: Deals are made to fall trough - Paul Graham. Never bid everything on one horse, don't put all your eggs in one basket etc. 9 out of 10 deals like this fall through, adjust accordingly.

Re: So Close

#44

Post by coldtea »

ricardobeat wrote: post #26
twblalock wrote: post #10

If I understand the sequence of events properly, the company entered acquisition negotiations and agreed not to solicit other bids during that time. When the acquisition fell apart, the company was out of money and had to stop operations. If that's correct, it seems to me like it's something they should have known in advance -- if they knew they would be out of money by the end of the year, why would they enter acqui…

Those were exactly my thoughts upon reading it. “Four weeks from generating revenue” and then sudden death because of a failed acquisition sounds like awful planning for a well-funded startup. Also, it’s a damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth. Do you really need $45M and designing new mechanical systems from scratch to make it work? I’m sure their team did amazing work but all of it sounds incredibly head…

>Also, it’s a damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth. Do you really need $45M and designing new mechanical systems from scratch to make it work?

If you don't intend on making just a "damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth", of which there are many, but a great one, then very possibly yes.

Re: So Close

#45

Post by yoodenvranx »

nkkollaw wrote: post #37
yoodenvranx wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not fine. I know it is standard practice on HN but I really don't like it at all. Just imagine every submitted article had a title like this: the HN frontpage would be full of links like "so close", "a look back", "introducing our most important features yet", "a statement regarding the events last weeks"... HN would completely unusable like this because you would have to click on every single link to figur…

Luckily, most writers pick better titles than this guy. If what you describe actually happened, the rules would change.

The problem is that this guy did not select the title for HN but for his own personal/company blog. If you visit his blog then his title makes completely sense in this context but it loses its meaning in all other contexts.

Re: So Close

#46

Post by coldtea »

valuearb wrote: post #33
tlb wrote: post #6

Ouch. A sadly common outcome of talking to corp dev. http://paulgraham.com/corpdev.html Agreeing to no-fundraising and exclusivity clauses during a long due diligence process really puts your head in their vise. And once it's there, people within the acquirer will start saying, Hey, we could built this ourselves! Let's run the clock out and kill the competition.

They were trying to sell a $700 custom designed lock based on its “user experience”. How much sense do you think this management team had?

>They were trying to sell a $700 custom designed lock based on its “user experience”.

And they were succeeding. That was not their problem. And the average penny pinching Joe wasn't their target at first anyway.

You'd be surprised what people buy, and how many buy it, for way more than $700. Even smartphone covers.

Re: So Close

#47

Post by bdcravens »

anigbrowl wrote: post #40
bdcravens wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guidelines say to not editorialize titles, and stick with original, but I agree. Putting short summary in parentheses would help (like "So Close (Otto postmortem)")

That guideline needs to go. HN submitters often summarize the content of an article more appropriately for other readers than the original writer does. Often the newsworthiness of an article isn't apparent for one reason or another. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out that this was a story of a promising hardware startup that ran out of operating cash during acquisition negotiations.

I think it just shouldn't be so strictly enforced, and allow for an objective summary, while still enforcing rules against clickbait/editorializing. On Reddit a headline that says "USD losing steam" would be changed to "Fiat crashing hard - Bitcoin is the salvation!" which is what the HN rule wants to prevent.

Re: So Close

#48

Post by brucephillips »

> I define startups as companies that don’t have control of their own destiny because they rely on investor cash infusions to operate.

By this definition, Microsoft wasn't a startup.

Re: So Close

#49

Post by twblalock »

ricardobeat wrote: post #26
twblalock wrote: post #10

If I understand the sequence of events properly, the company entered acquisition negotiations and agreed not to solicit other bids during that time. When the acquisition fell apart, the company was out of money and had to stop operations. If that's correct, it seems to me like it's something they should have known in advance -- if they knew they would be out of money by the end of the year, why would they enter acqui…

Those were exactly my thoughts upon reading it. “Four weeks from generating revenue” and then sudden death because of a failed acquisition sounds like awful planning for a well-funded startup. Also, it’s a damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth. Do you really need $45M and designing new mechanical systems from scratch to make it work? I’m sure their team did amazing work but all of it sounds incredibly head…

It reminds me of Juicero. The mechanism was total overkill -- it was actually very well engineered and machined as though cost was no object. They would have taken a loss selling them even at $699.

The mechanism of a deadbolt is pretty simple. Other smart lock companies do fine with simple mechanisms. The way to differentiate a product in that space is ease of use and battery life, not by needlessly over-complicating a part that the users won't see.

Re: So Close

#50

Post by coldtea »

mikeash wrote: post #14

Is (was?) there something more to this product that I missed, or is it really a $700 smart lock?

In the same sense of "is there anything to this SUV that I missed, or is it really a $70K car?".

Quality and reliability matter, and not all locks are made the same. If a run-of-the-mill smart lock goes for $200, and if you can even buy lightbulb systems that go for the same or more, it's not really difficult to imagine a $700 smart lock if it's advanced enough.

Especially since most of those $200 smart locks are usually utter crap.

Heck, people pay way $500 (and way more) for plain old secure doors. Why does everyone assume such a project should target average Joes at first?

Post reply on HN