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

91–100 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#91

Post by adamweld »

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…

From the blog post:

>I define startups as companies that don’t have control of their own destiny because they rely on investor cash infusions to operate. When asked, “How’s business?”, I always replied “I don’t have a business yet, we’re still a startup.”

I despise this definition. I have grown my hardware startup sustainably while pursuing an engineering degree and maintaining full control of the company. I may soon look for VC funding, I may continue to use revenues and personal savings, but nothing will change my responsibility for my business' future.

The fact that you've had money invested into your startup means you have increased control of your destiny, not the opposite. Use that money shrewdly and build a product people want, and you will succeed. That Otto was able to burn through $45 Million in funding without shipping a product makes me believe that poor management and product strategy is behind their failure, not bad luck as the article would ask you to believe.

Re: So Close

#92

Post by markbnj »

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…

They must have wanted that deal pretty bad. At the very least they should have demanded a break-up fee in return for agreeing to forgo all other attempts at finding an investment partner. The acquirer might very well have refused but that would have been good information to consider.

Re: So Close

#93

Post by ams6110 »

danso wrote: post #89
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...

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.

Okay, there's possibly some reason for sympathy here. But how much were these 70 people being paid? How much did they save? How many of them could have been in a position to have a month or more of cash saved as an emergency fund? It's smart in any situation to save for a rainy day but especially so when you're working for a startup.

Re: So Close

#94

Post by brucephillips »

jjoonathan wrote: post #88
brucephillips wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Whether you want to call it an offering or a strategy, Ben doesn't claim that the failure was due to any aspect of the business model other than a) price, and b) competitive risk. Both of these were risks that existed (I assume) at the time he joined the company. So he can't blame management for failing to assess these risks any more than he can blame himself.

Re: So Close

#95

Post by nkkollaw »

mikeash wrote: post #84
nkkollaw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope.

Re: So Close

#96

Post by brucephillips »

ams6110 wrote: post #93
danso wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, there's possibly some reason for sympathy here. But how much were these 70 people being paid? How much did they save? How many of them could have been in a position to have a month or more of cash saved as an emergency fund? It's smart in any situation to save for a rainy day but especially so when you're working for a startup.

It's unlikely any of the employees are truly broke, they're just (rightfully) complaining about not getting a reasonable severance.

Re: So Close

#97

Post by phnofive »

a13n wrote: post #87
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?

Site administrators, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=dang

The HN team does a pretty good job of cleaning up uninformative link titles such as this.

Re: So Close

#98

Post by csytan »

This is not surprising to me. I've worked in this space, and I think consumer hardware startups are just incredibly hard. I just finished my stint at one (https://www.electricobjects.com/) last year after we failed to raise series B.

Why are consumer hardware startups hard?

- Consumers have high expectations and want high quality products from the get go.

- Quality products are incredibly capital intensive, resulting in much shorter runways.

- Building a quality product often times means partnering with an expensive design firm + hiring the engineering talent to back it up.

- Margins are much lower than a typical SAAS. This makes it less appealing for VCs than a pure software play.

- Scaling hardware is harder than scaling software. Lead times are long. The right decisions have to be made ahead of time. Any missteps or problems with your suppliers will delay your launch. If this happens around Black Friday / Christmas -- it's a big deal.

- Not only do delays impact your sales, they will also delay fundraises for much needed cash infusions.

Re: So Close

#99

Post by slackingoff2017 »

angel_j wrote: post #90

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…

I think the cost honestly killed them. If they would have just bolted a SoC and decent software onto a mostly existing lock, they could have sold the thing for $50 more than a regular lock and still made money.

Their desire to build everything from the ground up is stupid. The physical door lock has been optimized for thousands of years by countless companies. The only way you're gonna make it any better is with new technology, so take a regular lock and bolt ur magic sauce onto it!

Re: So Close

#100

Post by unicornporn »

angel_j wrote: post #90

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…

> And the part about wanting to create an "addictive experience"! About a door lock!

It actually made me LOL. Sounds like someone read https://www.amazon.com/Hooked-How-Build-Habit-Forming-Produc... and tried to apply gained knowledge to a door lock.

Post reply on HN