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

111–120 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#111

Post by majos »

JepZ wrote: post #110

Why are there so many (large) companies calling themselves or their product Otto? A probably incomplete list: - http://www.otto.com - https://www.ottomotors.com - http://www.otto-company.com - https://www.meetotto.com

Presumably for the "auto" homophone?

Re: So Close

#112

Post by CydeWeys »

unicornporn wrote: post #104
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a few obvious use cases I can think of:

1. If you forget/lose your keys. If you still have your phone with you, then you can use that to unlock it, or if you set up a passcode ahead of time, you can use that too.

2. If you're having someone over and you're OK with them letting themselves in since it'd be inconvenient for you to meet them to let them in.

I've had both of these situations happen to me. Granted, the solution shouldn't cost $700, but a lock you can open with your phone and also email/text someone a time-limited passcode for is useful.

Re: So Close

#113

Post by 35bge57dtjku »

bambax wrote: post #109
Casseres wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That might be why there are 2 different words for those 2 things.

Re: So Close

#114

Post by anonfunction »

bambax wrote: post #109
Casseres wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s an interesting definition of love. May I ask if you have kids?

For me, love is multi-faceted and can’t be defined as a single attribute like trust. People love food that literally kills them. You don’t always get to choose whom or what you love.

Re: So Close

#115

Post by JohnJamesRambo »

Wow you made a digital door lock, it doesn't need all this purple prose. It's debatable whether what you made is superior to a 97 cent key from Walmart. You would think you landed on the moon!

Re: So Close

#116

Post by rosegarden »

there's a ton of focus on the price, but they could have easily priced it at $499 or $399 and ended up in the same situation. the acquisition was going forward even at that product price. It clearly wasn't the price that was the issue. They were pre-revenue and the acqusition fell through - that's a very vulnerable spot for a start up.

Re: So Close

#117

Post by garganzol »

Why not bootstrap it if the product is ready? Sell 100 of locks and boom you have some money to produce and sell another 200. Rinse and repeat.

I bet there is a bigger issue down the rabbit hole.

Re: So Close

#118

Post by not_kurt_godel »

unicornporn wrote: post #104
slackingoff2017 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a keyless, non-IoT deadbolt (number pad with access code). It's hugely more convenient and more pleasant to use than traditional keys. One of those things that you don't really realize until you have one. I never worry about having house keys. I can pop in and out of the house on short jaunts with much less friction. I can give people access to my home without coordinating handing over keys. I don't have to go through the clumsy and annoying process of getting keys out, sticking them in the lock, turning them, turning them back, taking them out, and putting them back in my pocket just to walk through a door. It seems trivial but it really does noticeably improve quality of life.

Re: So Close

#119

Post by rosegarden »

the focus on price is misleading. they could have priced their product at $399 and still be in the same situation. they were in a financing window - so they needed the cash - and it became an acquisition. They had no hedge just in case. Lots of lessons to be learned and the CEO clearly sparked a conversation.

Re: So Close

#120

Post by mb_72 »

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…

Yep. Who or which user 'falls in love' with a lock (with reference to the lead line of the article) anyway? Sounds like there is some serious reality distortion going on.
Post reply on HN