Live data from Hacker News

YC for Hardware

blog.ycombinator.com

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: YC for Hardware

#82
post #78
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't mill any serious PCBs. Not for prototype and certainly not for production. What about vias, or soldermasks?! That machine is great for CNCing plastics and metals however.

Why not? I've used milled PCBs for commercial prototypes as they're an order of magnitude cheaper than a fab given the turnaround time. You can get down to 0.5mm pitch easily. You don't get soldermasks and vias are normally riveted (good enough). For most people, two layers is enough and if you can design the board well you shouldn't need much routing on the second layer.

What commercial products are you using that you don't do multilayer boards? Nothing that involves RF, or fast buses.

Re: YC for Hardware

#83
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. It's still very much an experiment at this point, and "it was once an unknown for software companies" doesn't imply that hardware companies will achieve similar success with the YC model.

Sure, but it does mean that "few successful companies so far" shouldn't be taken as a death knell for YC's forays into hardware. By fairly direct analogy, the majority of startups not making a profit in their first month will fail, but the majority of successful startups weren't making a profit in their first month.

Sure, that's a fair statement. I'm not saying that the lack of success so far is a knock against YC for hardware startups. Rather, the similar lack of success for software startups in YC at the same stage of development, and the subsequent success they did enjoy, is not a point in favour of YC's suitability for hardware startups.

Hardware and Software startups are sufficiently different in their needs and life cycles that it would be specious to use the success of a particular program for the one as indicative of its suitability for the other. Similarly, the sorts of b2c startups that YC typically funds are sufficiently different from b2g startups like Palantir that I don't think you could claim Palantir would have benefitted from YC based solely on the experiences of b2c startups.

Re: YC for Hardware

#84
post #2

I'm a bit out of the loop on hardware startups, but has YC funded many successful hardware startups? The only one I've heard of is Pebble. Lowering the barrier to hardware startups is an awesome thing, of course. Hardware has a greater potential to directly impact lives at this point than software. There's tremendous software power locked up in the small, awkward-to-use computing devices we call phones, tablets, lapt…

Bellabeat

Re: YC for Hardware

#85

Wait, why is Tilt on the list of startups helping out with hardware expertise? Aren't they a crowdfunding company? https://www.tilt.com

As others have noted, the pre-order route is often the best go to market strategy for new hardware companies, even if they have already raised a round. The buzz, evangelist community they build, feedback they receive, and the social proof they gather is often of a more lasting benefit than the pure pre-sales revenue. As others have already noted, Tilt has powered many of the recent massive hardware product launches that are going live on their own sites. More examples on https://open.tilt.com/preorders

Re: YC for Hardware

#86
post #78
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't mill any serious PCBs. Not for prototype and certainly not for production. What about vias, or soldermasks?! That machine is great for CNCing plastics and metals however.

Why not? I've used milled PCBs for commercial prototypes as they're an order of magnitude cheaper than a fab given the turnaround time. You can get down to 0.5mm pitch easily. You don't get soldermasks and vias are normally riveted (good enough). For most people, two layers is enough and if you can design the board well you shouldn't need much routing on the second layer.

If your board is that simple then why not use a perfboard or a breadboard!?

You can get two layer boards for $25-$40 depending on size in two three days, in US from many sources such as Pentalogix.

Re: YC for Hardware

#87
post #79
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What YC is doing is bundling discounts on PCB prototyping, and 3D printed parts. The rest of the offerings are further down the stack (testing, RF, etc.) so the only thing you would be missing as a non-YC company trying to build a prototype to get into YC is discounts. If you are hand assembling your prototypes then you only have PCB fabrication costs, which for a 2 to 4 layer board should be about $500 max for your…

there are certainly cheaper options if you're willing to wait just a bit longer for example OSH Park, $5 Sq/in for 3 copies 12 Day turn around.

Agreed. That is a good one.

I was thinking of more complex board, with non-standard finish and soldermask.

Even Pentalogix in Oregon offers 2-4 layer boards for about $25-$40 in two or three day turns.

Re: YC for Hardware

#88

Is there any interest in (fabless) semiconductors? Traditionally thought as ridiculously capital intensive, there are a lot of new developments that have brought the time and costs involved down dramatically... My experience trying to fundraise for one shown there are a lot of misconceptions and (10-15 year) old ideas in the silicon valley investment space regarding fabless semi.

This technology exists? If it does I'm super interested.

If you have a link to a source that explains how this works that would be awesome.

Edit: I misinterpreted the definition of fabless. This comment makes no sense.

Re: YC for Hardware

#89

Is there any interest in (fabless) semiconductors? Traditionally thought as ridiculously capital intensive, there are a lot of new developments that have brought the time and costs involved down dramatically... My experience trying to fundraise for one shown there are a lot of misconceptions and (10-15 year) old ideas in the silicon valley investment space regarding fabless semi.

Very interesting.. Do tell. What kind of misconceptions are there and how have they changed? I still labour under the assumption that NREs make doing anything like that _extremely_ expensive.

NOTE: I am the founder of REX Computing (check my submission & comment history for more info), and thus a bit biased for this.

The standard thing I have heard from VC's that don't know anything about semiconductors (Or have not been involved in it in this century): "It will cost $100 million and take 3 years to have your first silicon. You have a 50% chance of even making it that far, and even then you only have a 10% chance of success (e.g. making any sales)"

So basically, the VC assumption is that it is a minimum $100 million and 3 years to see ANYTHING come out of it... and even if you get to silicon, there is only a 10% chance you'll be able to sell it. This is ridiculously pessimistic if you actually have a real design innovation.

Some of the new developments: New tools: High Level Synthesis an "Hardware construction languages" (such as Chisel... http://chisel.eecs.berkeley.edu) radically bring RTL development time down. My team (consisting of just two of us) were able to complete the RTL of our new processor core in under 4 months (working on the weekends)... and that includes a lot of redesign and working on things other than the RTL itself. Chisel also brings the testing/verification time down significantly, as it can auto-generate Verilog optimized for either VLSI or FPGAs, and a high speed cycle accurate C++ simulator of the chip that is ~10x faster than the industry standard Verilog C Simulator. Even though Chisel really is this amazing, virtually no one outside of UC Berkeley knows about it.

2. FPGAs have gotten a lot better... I can say the synthesis tools still suck, but in terms of speed and testing ablility, you can test your chip on very cheap (Ours is $300) FPGAs these days.

3.Shuttle run/Multi project wafer services... a "block" (6 mm^2) on TSMC 28nm process is $90,000... and you get 100 chips back. A 16 core version of our chip is just two of these blocks.

4. Older process nodes are getting cheaper. Most fabs in the US are not going below 65nm or 45nm, and need to keep full utilization of their fabs. There are a lot of deals that can be had on these smaller fabs which are perfect for prototyping... A similar block size can be as cheap as $3 to 5k.

5. Moore's law dying is one of the best things that can happen to the industry. Instead of the ridiculous investment getting to the next process node, the fabs can invest in making the current process better and cheaper. This will bring down the cost of very good, proven processes (like 28nm, and potentially 14/16nm in ~3 to 5 years), making fabrication even cheaper and more widely available.

I'm happy to answer any questions!

EDIT/TLDR: Based on my own startup's current plan and estimates, it is possible to prototype (get 100 chips back) an entirely new processor architecture for under $2 million, and it is possible to go into mass production with that design for $10 to $15 million.

Re: YC for Hardware

#90
This can't come soon enough. I'm helping out on a hardware 'startup' (though I guess we don't really use that term) - coming from software its an incredibly challenging realm to work in.

Simply getting a functional prototype without easy access to a 3d printer, $$$ in compiler licenses for BT stacks, freakin custom batteries, etc etc.

Our thing: https://www.fitguard.me/

Post reply on HN