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

101–110 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#101

Post by DoreenMichele »

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?

My assumption: the general audience here. When someone submits an article, they are supposed to use the actual title of the piece, unless (insert list of provisos). In practice, if there is a problem with the name, one can alter it before submitting.

Re: So Close

#102

Post by lqet »

The amount of pompous wording in this article is simply unbearable. They are describing an electric door lock, right?

It seems fitting that the first name "Otto" is informally used in German to describe a person of little practical avail.

Re: So Close

#103

Post by nicodjimenez »

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…

In this culture of "everyone's a winner" sometimes people can't accept failure. Entering acquisition talks is a dangerous move because you totally lose your focus, it sounds like these guys just got sloppy in their decision making and paid the ultimate price. The people blaming the acquiring company on the comments at the bottom of the article, as if they committed some kind of grave injustice by not bailing out the company, make me sick.

Re: So Close

#104

Post by unicornporn »

slackingoff2017 wrote: post #99
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…

But why? Keys work pretty well. But then, people buy IOT toothbrushes. So perhaps there would've be a market of idiots waiting in line.

Re: So Close

#105

Post by textor »

Hard to put into words how reassuring it is to see so many sane, grounded and critical reactions (both here and on hackernoon) instead of gullible hackneyed accolades that the author's tone implicitly demands. I feel like thanking everyone for calling him out, but this is a bit tasteless.

I wonder, though, if Sam himself believes his narrative. Startup CEOs tend to be borderline delusional in their optimism, one could even argue this is a job requirement. Still. Is there a subtler interpretation, such as this being a smart cover-up for personal irresponsible enrichment, or does he really think they did their best?

Re: So Close

#106

Post by ams6110 »

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.

So you still need to carry keys around. Or at least hide the backup key somewhere.

Re: So Close

#107

Post by ridgeguy »

No opinion on the product, market, etc. But two business lessons:

Never sign a 'no-shop' agreement unless the other party covers your burn rate during the no-shop period. Burn gets paid weekly, one week in advance. A missed burn payment auto-terminates the no-shop in seven days. This protects your enterprise and screens against tire-kickers.

Never assume a deal is done until the check or EFT clears. Doesn't matter how good the vibes feel. I lost a $10M scale-up round when (Big ChipCo) pulled its "solid commitment" less than 24 hours before the signing meeting. I do feel your pain.

Re: So Close

#108

Post by hoodoof »

When making a deal, don't agree to stop all negotiations with other parties.

One of the very most important properties of a deal is competition.

A sense of competition ensures deals move along in a timely manner and push the value of the deal and keep everyone's options open.

If a company ever wants you to stop negotiating with all other parties, say "YES, when you've put the sale price in our bank account, until then, we are dealing with other parties too".

And if they refuse to deal because of this point, then it's not a real deal anyway so walk away and save yourself the price that this company paid, which is total.

Re: So Close

#109

Post by bambax »

Casseres wrote: post #81
bambax wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Love == Trust -- or we really disagree about love, so much in fact, we might as well use different words.
Post reply on HN