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

161–170 of 213 posts

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#161

Post by bshep »

tyingq wrote: post #157
bshep wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can use a colorlight card to control the panels, they can be had for $15 and connect to the nerwork using gigabit ethernet ( must be gigabit ). You then send then data using the windows software or you can use a Pi/computer running FPP software to send whatever you want. This would reduce cost to: 2x panels 1x colorlight card 1x power supply Misc cables / case Edit: The card can handle an 8x8 matrix of panels ( I…

Interesting. Can you interact in a sort of live/api way, or is it limited to writing configuration and "launching" it? Edit: Ahh, that's a great option...assuming that reverse engineered way to send frames is stable, etc.

So the configuration is a one time thing to set the card parameters, you shouldn’t need to touch it once its setup for your panels and layout. As far as I know it can only be done using their widows app.

The display is done by sending the card network frames ( someone did a reverse engineering of the protocol, i dont know the details ). You can send the display anything you want.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#162

Post by belval »

pettycashstash2 wrote: post #97

Wait, you are open sourcing code that you did not write but reverse engineered? It that legal?

In the absolute no this is not legal, but in practice for a company that has been dead for a while after scamming a lot of people I wouldn't be overly concerned of legal repercussions.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#166

Post by spfzero »

icapybara wrote: post #4

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

I wonder whether this particular unit was representative of the production target build. Maybe it was an early prototype? Certainly after 250K revenue (if you believe that number) there was funding for a design rev.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#167

Post by kjagiello »

tyingq wrote: post #32
sokoloff wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 P…

It's difficult to drive these LED matrix devices from a typical MCU, especially with chained panels, lots of LEDS, etc. Either due to the ~10Mhz+ output needed, or the memory to hold all the pixel data. Consider, for example, that each of the two panels in this sign has 32x64X3 (6144) leds. You have to send on/off for all of those, and then control brightness for each color by using PWM...meaning half-red brightness…

RP2040 is a pretty fitting MCU for this use case thanks to its PIOs coupled with DMA. It got me some impressive refresh rates on a 64x32 HUB75 display – over 2 kHz in 24 bit color mode. The lack of networking capabilities out of the box is a bit of shame though.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#168

Post by michaelmior »

ahaucnx wrote: post #147

Very interesting read. Based on our experience developing and manufactoring air quality monitors, making a customized PCB should be done as early as possible in the developing process. With easy to use editors (e.g. easyEDA) and cheap and fast PCB production/assembly (even for small quantities), there is no reason to use overized MCUs/mini computers like the Pi and expensive modules e.g. from Adafruit. Also, BOM comp…

> there is no reason to use overized MCUs/mini computers like the Pi and expensive modules

There is if you don't have the expertise. Of course, arguably if that's the case, you shouldn't be developing such a product anyway. But as the post detailed, by switching to a Pi Zero and removing the Adafruit HAT, the BOM costs would already drop significantly. I think if you're smart about it, you absolutely can build a viable product this way. Certainly not as profitable, but possible.

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#169

Post by walrus01 »

Any idea what these LED matrix signs cost as the raw unit, ready to integrate with your own thing for a DIY project?

Does the cost scale somewhat linearly with number of LEDs or horizontal x vertical resolution in pixels?

Re: Taking over a Dead IoT Company

#170

Post by AceJohnny2 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #134

This was really interesting - a well deserved spot at the top of the front page. It's rare to see an article that combines the technical and business analysis so well. It's amazing to me how quickly the company loaded itself up with staff. Being kinda familiar with ESP32 development, I thought at the beginning that the company would have 4-6 people - 1-2 technical, 1-2 production, 1 business/sales/marketing, 1 admin.…

> It seems like they opted to target the luxury nostalgia market with the $600 price point rather than a more value-driven $300

But they were not aiming at the $600 price-point. That's just the estimated price-point that OP estimated from the BOM. They were actually selling at much cheaper than that, which probably contributed to their collapse.

Post reply on HN