Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Tragic Death of the Flip

pogue.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#51

Post by njharman »

tomsaffell wrote: post #10
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.

2 one-way connections == 1 two-way connection. Both sides just need flip and something to view it on. Even if that something was gold plated it would be cheaper than "enterprise" conferencing systems.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#52

Post by mayukh »

The story of the flip is fascinating. It was launched at the perfect time : camcorders were expensive and difficult to use. Hardware was cheap, youtube was growing like crazy and here came the flip that took advantage of all these trends to create a product that became a super hit. But it had a short shelf life with the launch of the iphone 3gs and other smart phones that could essentially do the same thing. To me the flip is a great example of a company that identified a profitable niche took advantage of industry trends and made max $$ in the few years that it was around. Too bad, cisco you were too late to the party.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#53

Post by whatusername »

njharman wrote: post #50
tomsaffell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but they didnt have to spend $200 on a new device to do it - they just used the camera built into their $400 laptop

This is not about the 2million people who already do this. It's about the 2billion that don't and don't have a $400 laptop.

But those 2billion don't have wifi or a $200 camera.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#54

Post by dagw »

tomsaffell wrote: post #12
hammock wrote: post #5

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 frien…

FlipLive is kinda awesome, but as you said... when you’re in a Wi-Fi hot spot ... Personally, I cannot think of too many occasions where the average person is: 1)in range of wifi, 2) has something worth sharing with an audience who are available there and then, 3) wouldnt rather use Skype video conferencing so as to get two-way communications. There are a few, but I'm not sure there's enough.

My phone is a wifi hot spot, and is always within range.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#56

Post by Luyt »

marze wrote: post #15

I wonder what the practical consequences are for the decision maker(s) who wasted $650M corporate funds buying then dumping Flip?

I think they'll get a fat $2M bonus this year, for their strategic insight that Flip technology should be incorporated in Cisco.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#57

Post by ZeroGravitas »

hammock wrote: post #14
tomsaffell wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FlipLive is kinda awesome, but as you said... when you’re in a Wi-Fi hot spot ... Personally, I cannot think of too many occasions where the average person is: 1)in range of wifi, 2) has something worth sharing with an audience who are available there and then, 3) wouldnt rather use Skype video conferencing so as to get two-way communications. There are a few, but I'm not sure there's enough.

More than 40 hours of video uploaded to youtube every second of every day. A good portion of it is people just sitting in their bedroom talking about all the stupid shit they just bought at Target. And if they could record and upload in one easy step, that's a huge market right there.

My $100 Android phone has a record button in the Youtube app.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#58

Post by Retric »

joebananas wrote: post #21

I don't see what's so tragic about the death of a consumer device that don't really sell.

It was the Market leader with 35% of the camcorder market.

Anyway, they killed the product in the most expensive way possible. If they wanted to save money they could have just cut the R&D budget, reduced production and quietly sold off their inventory. Instead they waited until a few weeks before introducing the product before killing it.

PS: As to why: They make far more money pretending that video conferencing is difficult. N flip phones + N laptops (which people already have) + wifi = 2, 3, or 4 way videoconferencing on the cheap.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#59

Post by kwantam »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34
bpeebles wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is something very shady about the whole thing. I have worked in video (production) for most of the last decade and the flip was the hottest thing to hit camcorders since the invention of mini-DV. Phones and digicams also do video, but do not compare well for a variety of reasons. Flip hit a certain sweet spot that other products do not, and was poised to continue capitalizing on it. You pull the plug on a produ…

    You pull the plug on a product when you start losing
    money on it, not because you can see marginal net going
    to zero several years in the future. I would very much
    like to know the inside scoop on this one.
While this seems logical, it's not true. Many companies have margin targets that their executives are heavily incentivized to meet.

I've personally seen situations where lucrative (50+% margin) sales opportunities were given a no-bid because despite being extremely profitable, it would hurt the executives' bonuses. I've also seen entire product lines dismantled despite substantial revenue (and profit) contributions because they were "hurting the company's operating margin."

Executive compensation is a strange and often stupid beast. It's not at all surprising to me that something like this could happen.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#60

Post by absconditus »

hammock wrote: post #5

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 frien…

You mean like a webcam?
Post reply on HN