The Tragic Death of the Flip

#1

Post by jsavimbi » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 7:51 PM UTC

The Tragic Death of the Flip
pogue.blogs.nytimes.com

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#2

Post by bpeebles » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 8:55 PM UTC

This article doesn't mention it directly, but after reading the bit about the FlipLive makes this more likely to me: the wrong people in Cisco finally realized what Flip might be able to do. Which is replace Cisco's teleconferencing enterprise business. And doing so even a little bit would probably cost them a pretty penny, so they're dumping it to protect what they see as their "core" business.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#3

Post by timmaah » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 8:56 PM UTC

If the FlipLive was to debut yesterday, certainly there was inventory to back that up. What kind of lead time does production of that have? How much extra $$ did cisco blow by killing an in production product the day before it launches?

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#4

Post by pointillistic » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:08 PM UTC

The only reason Cisco bought Flip was because in theory it promised to push more bytes through the pipes and hence the routers. I don't believe the product itself had a noticeable impact on the pipes, i.e. the smartphones are not a direct competitor to Flip by they push more junk through the pipes. So in this regard the Flip became a useless distraction for Cisco.

Still why kill it? May be 550 workers are too much of the burden. This is criminal.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#5

Post by hammock » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:11 PM UTC

There’s a second part of the tragedy, too, something that nobody knows. That new Flip that the product manager showed me was astonishing. It was called FlipLive, and it added one powerful new feature to the standard Flip: live broadcasting to the Internet.

That is, when you’re in a Wi-Fi hot spot, the entire world can see what you’re filming. You can post a link to Twitter or Facebook, or send an e-mail link to friends. Anyone who clicks the link can see what you’re seeing, in real time-thousands of people at once.

---

That's awesome and so sad!

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#6

Post by GuoQiangBen » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:12 PM UTC

As someone who has had to do a lot of live streaming to the internet via webcams/camera setups the FlipLive sounds amazing. If it was really as user friendly as the traditional Flip camera (which was a great product and I'm sorry to see go) it would have gained at the very least a sizable niche following, especially with the burgeoning lifestream movement. Its a pity that this is not going to be released, but theres a great startup opportunity here for anyone looking for one.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#7

Post by hammock » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:13 PM UTC

bpeebles wrote: post #2

This article doesn't mention it directly, but after reading the bit about the FlipLive makes this more likely to me: the wrong people in Cisco finally realized what Flip might be able to do. Which is replace Cisco's teleconferencing enterprise business. And doing so even a little bit would probably cost them a pretty penny, so they're dumping it to protect what they see as their "core" business.

Sounds like an opportunity for ... dun dun-dun dun! an entrepreneur! Who wants to build a prototype with me?

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#8

Post by bpeebles » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:13 PM UTC

timmaah wrote: post #3

If the FlipLive was to debut yesterday, certainly there was inventory to back that up. What kind of lead time does production of that have? How much extra $$ did cisco blow by killing an in production product the day before it launches?

The initial reports said "Cisco said the shutdown of Flip will result in restructuring charges of up to $300 million this fiscal year". See http://www.industryweek.com/articles/cisco_closing_flip_busi... for example.

I assume that might include the money to stop production/get rid of inventory they don't want to sell/whatever.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#9

Post by bediger » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:19 PM UTC

GuoQiangBen wrote: post #6

As someone who has had to do a lot of live streaming to the internet via webcams/camera setups the FlipLive sounds amazing. If it was really as user friendly as the traditional Flip camera (which was a great product and I'm sorry to see go) it would have gained at the very least a sizable niche following, especially with the burgeoning lifestream movement. Its a pity that this is not going to be released, but theres…

Are you a "cam girl"?

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#10

Post by tomsaffell » Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 9:21 PM UTC

bpeebles wrote: post #2

This article doesn't mention it directly, but after reading the bit about the FlipLive makes this more likely to me: the wrong people in Cisco finally realized what Flip might be able to do. Which is replace Cisco's teleconferencing enterprise business. And doing so even a little bit would probably cost them a pretty penny, so they're dumping it to protect what they see as their "core" business.

There was never any risk of v1 of FlipLive cannibalizing the teleconferencing business - it was one-way only - no way for the 'viewers' to send a stream back to the publisher's camera. BTW - I wrote some of web software (the ActionScript) for FlipLive.