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

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#61

Post by lurker19 »

tomsaffell wrote: post #19
hammock wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

A camera is significantly easier to handle than a laptop, when filming anything other than the seated user position in front of the laptop.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#63

Post by dean »

eyeareque wrote: post #18
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…

While that is nice, couldn't (and isn't) this possible on any smart phone with 3G/4G and a video camera?

Yes, but most people don't have smart phones.

From the article: "Of the one billion cellphones sold annually, a few million are iPhones. The masses still have regular cellphones that don’t capture video, let alone hi-def video. They’re the people who buy Flip camcorders."

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#64

Post by dean »

Retric wrote: post #58
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…

"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."

You're probably right. Maybe Cisco realized they were in an Innovator's Dilemma situation and they are just trying to delay the disruptive innovation, and its attendant lower margins, by buying the Flip and killing it.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#65

Post by anigbrowl »

kwantam wrote: post #59
anigbrowl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting to learn; I had not realized compensation incentives could have such a distorting effect.

Re: The Tragic Death of the Flip

#66

Post by GFischer »

The article starts on a false premise:

"The masses still have regular cellphones that don’t capture video, let alone hi-def video"

I happen to live in South America, and.. surprise, surprise.. everybody (that wants one) has a cell phones with video capabilities. They're beyond crappy, sure.

The 2nd most sold cell phone in Argentina and Uruguay by mid-2010 was the Nokia 5130, and it does video (Video recording at up to 176 x 144 pixels and up to 15 fps):

http://www.gsmarena.com/nokia_5130_xpressmusic-2569.php

The year before, the 2nd biggest seller was the Nokia 5200, which also does video (it sold millions of units here, was the most desired by teenagers, and even I had one :) ).

There are also millions (in units sold) of Chinese knock-offs you in the 1st World don't know exist, with video capabilities, built in TV tuner, dual SIM and more. I've seen them all across South America, from Peru to Paraguay to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.

The top seller was the Nokia 1208, just because it's the cheapest and simplest, but most of the other entries also do video (The Sony Ericsson W205 A, Samsung GT E2120, LG KP 570 and the other Nokias). No iPhone in the top 10 sellers.

The second point they make is I suspect wrong as well: "They’re the people who buy Flip camcorders". I had never seen or heard about Flip before its death.

Main source (Spanish):

http://fortunaweb.com.ar/cuales-son-los-10-telefonos-celular...

Post reply on HN