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

Taking over a Dead IoT Company

blog.kchung.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 213 posts

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#11

Post by hahla »

ColdHeat wrote: post #6

Hello, author here. Happy to answer any questions! My apologies for the downtime, I wasn't expecting much traffic today since I submitted the post to HN yesterday but I've started scaling my server now!

Love this story. I did something similar with a website. Previous owner took it down, bought the domain from him and it organically grew to over 1m users per month with the same exact functionality.

I wouldn't discount your ability to bring this back to market. Would consult a lawyer to see what implications taking over the branding and APIs have. But clearly this has a big market.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#12

Post by luma »

icapybara wrote: post #4

Nice analysis. I think the author really hit on the key problem: expensive BOM due to poor engineering choices.

The entire project looks like the result of a high school student's first Instructables. It's hilariously under-engineered and it's clear that these folks had absolutely no idea of how to build a product, IoT or otherwise.

Hint: if your product plans involve a raspberry pi, you probably fucked up.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#13

Post by twawaaay »

I think RPi in this thing says it all. It screams it was built by somebody that does not know how to develop a physical product for mass market.

There are only three parts in this product that should have any significant cost to them:

* the display itself,

* the wooden enclosure,

* the packaging the product comes in,

If there are switches, potentiometers or encoders I am really partial to well working ones and these are not so cheap. It is nice to have but at least they make the product feel more expensive so it is not a total waste.

Everything else can be done dirt cheap. I don't think chinese are the best way to learn product design but they are pretty darn good at saving every last penny (or yuan in their case). I found it illuminating to study some of the devices of chinese origin (as opposed to ones that are only manufactured in China).

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#14

Post by ColdHeat »

ivraatiems wrote: post #10
ColdHeat wrote: post #6

Hello, author here. Happy to answer any questions! My apologies for the downtime, I wasn't expecting much traffic today since I submitted the post to HN yesterday but I've started scaling my server now!

I just want to say that I love that you did this. You have great skills and you used them for good. I've never seen such a clearly white-hat hack :) People's stuff will work again thanks to you and you should feel great about it!

Thank you for the kind words! Made my morning!

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#15

Post by canucklady »

luma wrote: post #12
icapybara wrote: post #4

Nice analysis. I think the author really hit on the key problem: expensive BOM due to poor engineering choices.

The entire project looks like the result of a high school student's first Instructables. It's hilariously under-engineered and it's clear that these folks had absolutely no idea of how to build a product, IoT or otherwise. Hint: if your product plans involve a raspberry pi, you probably fucked up.

I think dunking on the rpi is harsh - if it allows you to prototype and get your small-volume product out the door quickly, there's lots of other areas you could optimize the BOM first. Better to make a product with 75% gross margins as a single dev in 6 months than a product with 80% gross margins with a team of 6 in a year. Of course, they also overhired and wasted money on other BOM components

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#17

Post by [deleted] »

twawaaay wrote: post #13

I think RPi in this thing says it all. It screams it was built by somebody that does not know how to develop a physical product for mass market. There are only three parts in this product that should have any significant cost to them: * the display itself, * the wooden enclosure, * the packaging the product comes in, If there are switches, potentiometers or encoders I am really partial to well working ones and these…

[deleted]

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#18

Post by not_the_fda »

twawaaay wrote: post #13

I think RPi in this thing says it all. It screams it was built by somebody that does not know how to develop a physical product for mass market. There are only three parts in this product that should have any significant cost to them: * the display itself, * the wooden enclosure, * the packaging the product comes in, If there are switches, potentiometers or encoders I am really partial to well working ones and these…

You would be surprised at how often people with no experience try to build a physical mass market product that nothing more than an RPi in a box. And they often go under because the BOM is too high and the software is garbage.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#19

Post by csunbird »

ColdHeat wrote: post #6

Hello, author here. Happy to answer any questions! My apologies for the downtime, I wasn't expecting much traffic today since I submitted the post to HN yesterday but I've started scaling my server now!

Love the story! At one point, you are asking about the purpose of the giant hole in the backside of the display: The most plausible explanation is that, it is to allow air circulation within the device to prevent overheating.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#20

Post by sokoloff »

canucklady wrote: post #15
luma wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The entire project looks like the result of a high school student's first Instructables. It's hilariously under-engineered and it's clear that these folks had absolutely no idea of how to build a product, IoT or otherwise. Hint: if your product plans involve a raspberry pi, you probably fucked up.

I think dunking on the rpi is harsh - if it allows you to prototype and get your small-volume product out the door quickly, there's lots of other areas you could optimize the BOM first. Better to make a product with 75% gross margins as a single dev in 6 months than a product with 80% gross margins with a team of 6 in a year. Of course, they also overhired and wasted money on other BOM components

If your product needs to output HDMI, I can easily see an argument for using a Pi. If your product needs a couple GPIOs to drive an LED matrix? Using an RPi is pretty difficult to justify. You're likely going to spend more on the SD card for the Pi than you would on more suitable microcontroller (which can still be easily programmed and, in my experience, has a better [or at least no worse] story for GPIOs than the Pi)
Post reply on HN