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

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#141

Post by austenallred »

exergy wrote: post #133
austenallred wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, fuck this attitude. Trying to recreate something each of us uses every day and make it delightful is a completely worthy goal. To say that a “keyless lock” isn’t a new user experience makes zero sense whatsoever - it’s a new UX by definition. The fact that it wouldn’t stop a SWAT team from breaking the door down is beside the point - they never claimed it would, and that wasn’t the goal. Why is their pa…

Irreverently, fuck this attitude instead. Silicon valley is chock full of know-nothing delusionals who love the smell of their own farts a little too much. People who're convinced that their idiotic pilgrimage towards delivering a "magical" "experience", while completely divested from common sense and lacking any semblance of an answer to "but why?", will nevertheless change the world and "delight" users. Fuck all of…

> Silicon valley is chock full of know-nothing delusionals who love the smell of their own farts a little too much.

And Hacker News is full of people who lob bombs at everyone who tries and fails because it makes them feel superior for never having tried, all the while vastly underestimating the difficulty of building something meaningful.

Most efforts at building something great fail, so it’s easy to shit on everything and be right 90% of the time and think you’re a genius. The thing that makes Silicon Valley work is that the times when you’re are what really matter. If you say Facebook is overvalued at $3 Billion (as most of HN agreed) you could easily be wrong not just 1x, but 100x.

The world would be much better off with more people trying and failing while using hyperbolic language than having more trolls throwing parties on their graves. There’s absolutely no shortage of the latter.

Re: So Close

#142

Post by kevinburke »

fencepost wrote: post #127

My immediate reaction on reading it was "Whoever they were talking to wasn't serious about buying them but was serious about killing them." There's a reason why a lot of acquisition deals include a "breakup fee" like the one that allowed T-Mobile to buy a bunch of spectrum. I also can't imagine a $700 lock unless I'm desperately trying to keep my collection of Juiceros safe, but I'm not really their target market. Li…

Your reaction does not reflect the reality of the situation

Re: So Close

#143

Post by dawhizkid »

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…

Having used Face ID on the iPhone X for 2 months now I would be more surprised if we didn’t open doors with our faces in a few years.

Re: So Close

#144

Post by jamestimmins »

siddharthdeswal wrote: post #136

It's good this happened, else we'd have another Juicero on our hands. Ridiculous price, beautifully over engineered product, a slight update to a centuries old problem, but at least they didn't get the opportunity to burn up as much investor money as Juicero.

That said, most people use locks multiple times a day (and keep keys with us at all times), whereas we rarely drink juice. Juicero was a high cost solution for a relatively uncommon use case. This appears to be a high cost solution for a common one. It's possible that it was overpriced, but the idea of paying $600+ for a phone would have seemed nuts years ago as well.

It's easy to say something has a ridiculous price, but there are plenty of products that have launched with a high price and 1) redefined a category as something where premium is worth paying for, and 2) used a premium first product to pay for development of a cheaper model afterwards.

Re: So Close

#145

Post by siddharthdeswal »

austenallred wrote: post #122
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…

Respectfully, fuck this attitude. Trying to recreate something each of us uses every day and make it delightful is a completely worthy goal. To say that a “keyless lock” isn’t a new user experience makes zero sense whatsoever - it’s a new UX by definition. The fact that it wouldn’t stop a SWAT team from breaking the door down is beside the point - they never claimed it would, and that wasn’t the goal. Why is their pa…

I want to point out that they weren't necessarily building a great lock.

The "great product" bit seems to be the usual consumer startup rhetoric by the CEO, which many people fell for.

I can confidently say that it is marketing rhetoric because a similar example already exists in the world: car locks.

I still drive a car where you have to manually insert the key and turn it to open the door.

I've also driven cars where the locks are remote controlled.

I've also seen cars where you press your thumb to the lock to unlock it.

There's nothing "great" about any of the above after the first two or three uses.

Re: So Close

#146

Post by fuJiin »

exergy wrote: post #133
austenallred wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Respectfully, fuck this attitude. Trying to recreate something each of us uses every day and make it delightful is a completely worthy goal. To say that a “keyless lock” isn’t a new user experience makes zero sense whatsoever - it’s a new UX by definition. The fact that it wouldn’t stop a SWAT team from breaking the door down is beside the point - they never claimed it would, and that wasn’t the goal. Why is their pa…

Irreverently, fuck this attitude instead. Silicon valley is chock full of know-nothing delusionals who love the smell of their own farts a little too much. People who're convinced that their idiotic pilgrimage towards delivering a "magical" "experience", while completely divested from common sense and lacking any semblance of an answer to "but why?", will nevertheless change the world and "delight" users. Fuck all of…

These know-nothing delusionals who love the smell of their own farts likely made both the hardware and the software you used to read that article, as well as everything you are using now using to post your message, on a site run by other know-nothing delusionals.

So yeah. Fuck them and their attitude. How dare people try anything.

Re: So Close

#147

Post by mikeash »

austenallred wrote: post #122
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…

Respectfully, fuck this attitude. Trying to recreate something each of us uses every day and make it delightful is a completely worthy goal. To say that a “keyless lock” isn’t a new user experience makes zero sense whatsoever - it’s a new UX by definition. The fact that it wouldn’t stop a SWAT team from breaking the door down is beside the point - they never claimed it would, and that wasn’t the goal. Why is their pa…

I’m all for reinventing the wheel to make it better. It rarely works out, but when it does it’s well worth it. But if you can’t even describe what makes your wheel better, what are the odds it’s actually better?

Re: So Close

#148

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

Stuff like this--naive "CEO" making rookie decisions--happens all the time so I'm not surprised.

However, I really don't understand what made him think it's OK to celebrate the failure going out, with such an idiotic blog post, pretending that everything is OK. That's the thing that makes people angry about stuff like this.

If you failed, just acknowledge it and move on. Better yet, don't even proudly write a medium post about how it's not your fault. It's your fault if you're the CEO, period. Feel sorry for those who you've hurt while you're riding around in your Tesla.

I knew this would be just another bullshit "incredible journey" article even before reading it, just based on the title.

Why are there so many bullshitter founders nowadays? There used to be days when people used to actually feel some shame when they fail their startups.

Re: So Close

#149

Post by _aarti »

twblalock wrote: post #138
_aarti wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The employee never worked on the actual product. He joined as a contractor 1 month before launch to work in the IT department on the website. He had been with the company only 3 months. So, I disagree with his comments about the product. His points about management should be taken into consideration. The shutdown was mismanaged. The core engineering team had folks with 3+ years working on Mechanical, Electrical, Firm…

So what if he wasn’t there the entire time? Why are you trying to attack his credibility?

I mean - think about, would you listen to someone who had given 3+ years of blood/sweat to a company and product vs 3 months.

The shutdown was mishandled, we all felt the pain. Most of all the contractors and I wish I could pay them. I would if I had the money. But I am also looking for a job.

Re: So Close

#150

Post by codinghorror »

bambax wrote: post #128
anonfunction wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> May I ask if you have kids? Yes you may. I have 3 (8-9-12). I don't "trust" them to not eat candy that I said they shouldn't eat, but I do trust them not to kill me in my sleep -- which is what trust is about (IMHO). In fact I think I trust them more than I love them, and I love them a lot. But sometimes I'm upset with them. Being upset or angry doesn't affect trust. Trust is a kind of binary quality that is either…

Look up the marshmallow experiment.
Post reply on HN