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

231–240 of 274 posts

Re: So Close

#231

Post by Nullabillity »

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…

Besides, a lock seems like the last place I would possibly want to power something by battery...

Re: So Close

#232

Post by danso »

_aarti wrote: post #214
twblalock wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think both people would be worth listening to. The one who was there for three months would probably have a very different perspective on the corporate culture and management, by virtue of not having worked there long enough for those things to seem normal. This is the same reason some com…

Right, and I would agree with you - we had outside consultants who worked alongside us, in iOS, in Firmware, in Cloud, in EE, in Security. We all worked as a team to put the last finishes on the product. Also, there were a lot of new employees as well. The whole SW QA team was hired this year. We did not know about insolvency - no one did - except the leadership team, or many would have raised concerns or left. Maybe…

He doesn’t blame malice, he blames negligence and greed.

Re: So Close

#233

Post by zero_intp »

jamestimmins wrote: post #157

These responses contain a lot of condemnation (based mainly on price) of a product that these people have never used. Building a premium first product to fund further development is a common approach (think Tesla), as is creating a premium niche in an otherwise commoditized market (Apple). While it does sound like costs/scope got out of control, please remember that price is oftentimes determined fairly far down the…

People are less pissing on the grave of the failed attempt than pissing on the feet of a seemingly delusional or irresponsible founder. The medium post fails at any semblance of self-awareness.

Re: So Close

#234

Post by smackfu »

dang wrote: post #165
stevemk14ebr wrote: post #20

This title needs fixed. I had no idea what I was clicking on

On HN not every title needs to explain itself immediately. It's good for users to have to work a little. With this type of post-mortem post in particular, there's a tradition of elegaic titles, and it seems fair to give poetic license to the author under such circumstances.

It doesn’t help that the url doesn’t give any clue either. If this post was on their domain, then that would probably give enough context.

Re: So Close

#235

Post by ryanbrunner »

coldtea wrote: post #44
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…

> 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.

The thing is, the definition of a great product is one that solves a user's need. While people may have problems with the internet-connected door locks they have now, I'm pretty confident their issue isn't with the deadbolt mechanism, which is as close to a solved problem as you can get.

The market for people who care that their door locking mechanism is as precise as a Swiss watch is so vanishingly small, it feels almost self-evident that there's not a viable business there.

Re: So Close

#236

Post by dfcowell »

adamweld wrote: post #91
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…

Why is what you have not a "small business?" Is that phrase just not sexy enough?

Being a stable bootstrapped small business is more worthy of respect than being an unstable underfunded startup, in my opinion.

Re: So Close

#237

Post by beobab »

t3chn0SchO0lbus wrote: post #218
nedwin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paying off student loans, medical bills, emergency car repairs... basically anything that might deplete an emergency fund or where you might have dipped into this on the assumption your job wasn’t about to be made redundant.

Children.

Are you calling these people children, or suggesting that children eat up emergency funds? I suspect the latter.

Re: So Close

#238

Post by bronson »

wdewind wrote: post #159
jjoonathan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 This is absolutely the kind of thing you should be asking about and they should be telling you on the way in. As an early stage startup employee you are basically an investor. You should deeply understand how the businesses you are joining are going to work, and if the…

I have been lied to on the way in. You hear about all this incredible stuff coming down the pipe that just needs a little more work. After a few months you figure out that that cashflow was 1/10th of what was implied and the pipe is dry.

Re: So Close

#239

Post by _aarti »

peoplewindow wrote: post #223
jamestimmins wrote: post #157

These responses contain a lot of condemnation (based mainly on price) of a product that these people have never used. Building a premium first product to fund further development is a common approach (think Tesla), as is creating a premium niche in an otherwise commoditized market (Apple). While it does sound like costs/scope got out of control, please remember that price is oftentimes determined fairly far down the…

Yes, but ... surely questions should have been asked at the point where they raised $45 million? It's a lock. Has there been any ordinary door lock in history that cost even a fraction of that to develop? I don't think this can just be blown off by saying "hardware is hard". People have been making locks for millenia. It is objectively not hard. Hotels and offices routinely have cryptographic unlock keycard systems t…

They chose to do it their way and not make incremental improvements. It's America - Land of dreams - right?

Re: So Close

#240

Post by ryanbrunner »

solarkraft wrote: post #72
mikeash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I asked a question instead of just saying the price was dumb. Did I, in fact, miss some aspect of this thing that makes it worth $700? If so I’d like to know specifics, not guesses. I’m not assuming anything, I’m wondering what makes it so much more expensive than other products in this space, since the article (and the “Introdicing Otto” article I also found) don’t explain it at all.

Expensive cars aren't usually worth their prices either. Maybe they tried to pull a similar thing.

Expensive cars are "worth" their prices as a status symbol though (as silly as you may find that, I think it's undeniable that's most of what's supporting high sticker prices on cars). A door lock doesn't have that advantage, save maybe a quick "let me show off my cool gizmo" thing at a party or something.
Post reply on HN