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

81–90 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#81

Post by Casseres »

bambax wrote: post #65
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…

Yes. Also, the video about the product https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsT5xvoaHBo was kind of disturbing, talking about "those we love". To the people you love, you don't send a code or some app or procedure. You greet them at the door. If you need to send people a code to enter your property, you're not loving them, you're running a business. Which is fine -- just don't pretend it has anything to do with "love". Or…

Love ≠ Trust

For example if I love a junkie, I wouldn't want to enable that person to easily enter my house to steal something to pawn for drugs.

Re: So Close

#82

Post by simonebrunozzi »

Can we use titles that are more self-explanatory? "So close" doesn't mean anything, and it forces me to take a peek at the article.

E.g. "how smart-lock startup Otto almost became a success, but eventually failed"

Re: So Close

#83

Post by mikeash »

solarkraft wrote: post #72
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I asked a question instead of just saying the price was dumb. Did I, in fact, miss some aspect of this thing that makes it worth $700? If so I’d like to know specifics, not guesses. I’m not assuming anything, I’m wondering what makes it so much more expensive than other products in this space, since the article (and the “Introdicing Otto” article I also found) don’t explain it at all.

Expensive cars aren't usually worth their prices either. Maybe they tried to pull a similar thing.

The manufacturer will at least attempt to justify the price based on what’s better about the car.

Re: So Close

#84

Post by mikeash »

nkkollaw wrote: post #79
greenleafjacob wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never locked yourself out?

Sure, but what if the thing breaks or the batteries run out and similar?

A typical smart lock still supports a physical key, so you have a backup method of access. It looks like this particular one does not, though.

Re: So Close

#85

Post by Stratoscope »

mikeash wrote: post #51
andrepd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well apparently this one has "a new, exciting and addictive (?) user experience".

Wow, they really said “addictive.” Maybe this acquisition fell through because the acquirer finally came to their senses.

And this: "Not to be outdone, the software team challenged themselves to complete the full user experience so that our customers would fall in love with the way they engaged the product and actually experience joy as they used it."

Re: So Close

#86

Post by abawany »

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...

I thought the same until I stayed at a HomeAway property where they used the electronic locks. They defined an entry PIN for me for the duration of the stay, presumably revoking it after I was gone. This enabled me to come and go without worrying about their keys, and without them needing to change the locks after I was gone. While the lock was quite finicky, it worked well enough for the purpose that I surmised for it.

Re: So Close

#87

Post by a13n »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #82

Can we use titles that are more self-explanatory? "So close" doesn't mean anything, and it forces me to take a peek at the article. E.g. "how smart-lock startup Otto almost became a success, but eventually failed"

Who are you asking? The article's author?

Re: So Close

#88

Post by jjoonathan »

brucephillips wrote: post #56
mcny wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for pointing this out. For those reading, an archive now exists https://archive.fo/CJF9r the original comment is at https://medium.com/@ben_73928/as-one-of-the-team-members-let...

> CEO and investment team ignored the negative aspects of the $700 lock and didn’t see that the competition would be able to provide the same features (and more) at less than 1/2 the price. If Ben realized this, he should have never worked at this company in the first place. It sounds like it was a failure of a product strategy.

A $700 lock is a product offering, not a product strategy. A strategy could have been "start with a $700 offering at the top of the market and work down," but that's not something they tell you on the way in, and even if they do, it's no guarantee that the execution will/won't work.

Re: So Close

#89

Post by danso »

mcny wrote: post #17
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…

Thank you for pointing this out. For those reading, an archive now exists https://archive.fo/CJF9r the original comment is at https://medium.com/@ben_73928/as-one-of-the-team-members-let...

Some tweets from Christmas Day : https://mobile.twitter.com/clickyspinny/status/9451788438908...

> @joshelman do something. Help us. Two days notice before a holiday with no compensation for the fact that not a soul hires during these weeks. You have the $ to pay severance when you terminate 70 people. So you decided on letting us all get screwed. You need to help us.

Re: So Close

#90

Post by angel_j »

What a garbage post from a garbage project that wasted lots of time.

Locks keeps honest people honest, they don't stop a determined burglar. A digital, key-less system with new gears to move the same deadbolt, is providing zero innovation, b/c it's still just a little deadbolt securing all ~inch of door-perimeter to the frame (unless I missed something and they also re-invented the door hinge).

So much business BS in this post, too. Like claims of a new UX! As if the process of unlocking is the "experience" factor of importance! And the part about wanting to create an "addictive experience"! About a door lock! And the part about "we created a culture of innovation"!!! What inflated garbage!

Post reply on HN