So Close • Hacker News Board

Re: So Close

#191

Post by amarkov » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 3:50 AM UTC

goatherders wrote: post #75

Lots of people making the points that occurred to me so I'll avoid repeating those. But does anyone have any insight into what data (if any) supported a $700 device that no one seems to have asked for?

A $700 lock isn't meant to be even an MVP. It's public proof that you're doing something, and a test that your production pipeline can generate reasonable quality products.

The strategic vision for these kinds of startups is that the industry is super far behind the times, and billions of dollars can be captured by just trying to innovate. Remember that Keurig was originally a $900 coffeepot.

Re: So Close

#192

Post by _aarti » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 3:54 AM UTC

solarkraft wrote: post #67

john_moscow wrote: post #53

>Our signed agreement restricted our ability to solicit other bids or fundraise and targeted a close on December 11th, 2017. It is hard for me to understand the logic of doing that at the end of your runway, without a backup plan and without agreeing on a compensation in case the deal falls through. Unless you are deliberately trying to crash the company and blame someone else for it. So looking more into this, is it…

It seems that they focused on perfection (security, UX) way over a low price and by own claims people were actually willing to buy. Still not sure how they managed to burn through that much money developing it. The IT security parts are likely already available for free as well. Maybe inviting a mechanical watch guru to review their design in person and having the whole team watch him doing it is a good example of th…

The product was built in China on the same lines that build the iPhone with the same detail. Manufacturing quality hardware is capital intensive, Finding people who can support that level of engineering is capital intensive, Hiring security engineers is capital intensive, they chose to go all in.

The company was not wasting money. I have worked in Silicon Valley startups with lavish spending. This was not one of them. There was no free food, no wine/beer on tap, no lavish parties, no free memberships to the equinox.

Re: So Close

#193

Post by kevinburke » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 3:57 AM UTC

chatmasta wrote: post #184

kevinburke wrote: post #130

I worked on Otto's server side software as a contractor for five months. The company had some servers written in C and exchanging messages using a custom binary protocol, designed for millions of transactions per second, when they needed only 2-3tps, readability, and the ability to make fast changes. We rewrote those servers in Go, found and fixed consistency errors in them, and actually got to the point where you co…

Sorry. That sucks. But why did you spend so long working without getting paid?

They had net 30 terms on the contract and I didn’t think anything of it. That meant I didn’t find out until six weeks after when they missed a payment and then shortly after that shut down the company.

Obviously I won’t agree to net 30 again.

Re: So Close

#194

Post by yawaramin » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:12 AM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #182

yawaramin wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, I bet you they would find sympathy here if they launched, competed, and couldn't find a toehold. That would have been an honourable exit. But the way they went out here, after burning through $45m in investment funds and mismanaging a potential sale, then trying to imply blame on the would-be buyer--this doesn't look good at all. Edit: example of HN crowd sympathetic to a postmortem https://news.ycombin…

What shows us it was mismanaged? How do we know the acquiring company didn’t cold feet and bail after the founders had run out of options to hedge? You can’t raise a round with an acquisition pending, so you kind of have to put yourself in a precarious position. Perhaps they could have done something else, but hindsight is 20/20.

A few things:

- They didn't pay contractors for months of work

- They gave no hints to anyone that they were running out of funds

- They agreed to stop looking for acquisitions while in discussions, without requiring a bailout penalty clause in exchange

- $45m for a lock? Where the heck did it all go? Elon Musk's initial investment in Tesla was $6m in 2004.

Re: So Close

#195

Post by chucky_z » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:19 AM UTC

brucephillips wrote: post #129

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely that several of these employees are legitimately broke (for reasons beyond their control, not because they're bad at adulting), but they conceal it. Signs of weakness harm your negotiating position.

Honest question: What normal circumstances would lead to anyone making six figures being broke that doesn't involve bad adulting?

Not having much of a savings, and moving to the bay area after getting a bay area job with a bay area salary (wow!!), only to realize that you also need to pay for bay area rent (WOW!!!).

If said person has animals, children, or a spouse it becomes even more complicated.

Re: So Close

#196

Post by greglindahl » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:49 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #161

greglindahl wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not what Tesla has ever done. Only a small fraction of people pay a large deposit for super-premium cars that come out first, and the rest pay a limited deposit. On the other hand, just about every Kickstarter ever has a ton of people who've paid in full. Yet these Kickstarters frequently fail, because it takes a lot more money than entrepreneurs expect to ship a quality product.

Tesla took in $250 million of full-price preorders for their next-gen Roadster, which is years away from production. The comment you replied to didn’t imply that Tesla does this with every car.

The next-gen Roadster has 2 preorder levels, one that's full price for an early car, and another for 1/5 the amount that's farther back in the queue.

Tesla has done the same system with every car they've launched.

My purpose was to explain what Tesla actually does. I was not implying that the previous poster was wrong.

Re: So Close

#197

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 4:51 AM UTC

zemvpferreira wrote: post #77

coldtea wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? If you don't intend on making just a "damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth", of which there are many, but a great one, then very possibly yes.

Many great hardware products and companies have been built on budgets a fraction of $45M. Even the Apple 1 was an ugly hodge-podge of parts. If you want to build pyramids, it's best figure out how to build sand castles before.

[deleted]

Re: So Close

#198

Post by retreatguru » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 5:00 AM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #49

ricardobeat wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It reminds me of Juicero. The mechanism was total overkill -- it was actually very well engineered and machined as though cost was no object. They would have taken a loss selling them even at $699. The mechanism of a deadbolt is pretty simple. Other smart lock companies do fine with simple mechanisms. The way to differentiate a product in that space is ease of use and battery life, not by needlessly over-complicating…

From their website: “Freed of keys, you might just have more time and opportunity to explore life’s possibilities.”

C’mon really?

Similar to Juicero they could have gone to market with a simpler and less over engineered product and have a viable company but leadership had their heads in the clouds. He even starts the article with how amazing the Swiss watch engineer respected their work - as if that matters in the door lock market.

From the article: “... our customers would fall in love with the way they engaged the product and actually experience joy as they used it.”

I’m having a hard time visualizing myself experiencing joy unlocking a door.

Re: So Close

#199

Post by amazingman » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 5:16 AM UTC

brucephillips wrote: post #129

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely that several of these employees are legitimately broke (for reasons beyond their control, not because they're bad at adulting), but they conceal it. Signs of weakness harm your negotiating position.

Honest question: What normal circumstances would lead to anyone making six figures being broke that doesn't involve bad adulting?

This question makes it hard to believe you’re of adult age. Just about any adult should be able to imagine reasonable circumstances in which they could make “six figures” and still struggle to (e.g.) make rent.

Re: So Close

#200

Post by _aarti » Tue, Jan 02, 2018, 5:18 AM UTC

dingo_bat wrote: post #189

jamestimmins wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> and keep keys with us at all times Except this lock also has a key. It's the $1000 smartphone you carry everywhere. That is prone to running out of charge, getting stolen, getting broken, not being in range of a signal, etc. The whole idea was bullshit from the get-go.

> The whole idea was bullshit from the get-go.

The market says otherwise - Amazon is all over this at the moment, so is Nest.