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

Dead Startup Toys

deadstartuptoys.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 211 posts

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#161

Post by dwheeler »

blihp wrote: post #117
mushufasa wrote: post #38

Did One Laptop per Child truly fail as a startup? It was always a nonprofit, so of course it didn't make money. While the technology was lacking in many respects, it did serve a lot of children at the time, and proved the market that Chromebooks came to later dominate with a similar approach (linux-based OS with minimal resources at $100-300 price point).

It did fall short of what they wanted to deliver as a device probably because it was far too ambitious... but they accomplished quite a bit due to that ambition. Consider that it was conceived of in a time before inexpensive laptops were available. In 2005, a low-end laptop still cost well over $1000. Things like a Chromebook, netbook, Raspberry Pi etc. didn't exist yet. If anything, the OLPC probably got companies t…

I agree. OLPC wasn't a failure in the same sense as the others. They created laptops, they got used, and a lot of people did learn a lot. It didn't succeed to the level they hoped, but that's true for almost all projects. It's easier to be critical in retrospect. OLPC did succeed in making the world a better place, and that's to be commended.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#162

Post by Camillo »

mushufasa wrote: post #38

Did One Laptop per Child truly fail as a startup? It was always a nonprofit, so of course it didn't make money. While the technology was lacking in many respects, it did serve a lot of children at the time, and proved the market that Chromebooks came to later dominate with a similar approach (linux-based OS with minimal resources at $100-300 price point).

OLPC straddles the line between startup and social program. Given that it wasn't actively harmful [citation needed], it actually managed to produce the laptops, and they had some non-zero if modest utility, we'd have to place it in the upper ranks of the latter category. Even if it had zero impact, that would merely place it in the modal group [0], nothing to be ashamed of!

[0]: see the Iron Law of Evaluation.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#163

Post by throwawayboise »

I thought this was going to be about the office toys from dead startups. I don't know how it is now but in the first dot-com boom in the late 1990s we had all kinds of kids toys like scooters, nerf guns, all over the office. Even then I thought it was sort of ridiculous to see grown adults playing with that stuff at work. In retrospect it should have been a big warning sign that none of this was going to last.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#164

Post by adamcharnock »

justin wrote: post #68

I made a video of these toys, which were hilarious to play with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhJye7Xfmys

My mind is blown by the effort that has gone into a product (even if it is only a mock-up) that celebrates failed products.

I just went on a very enjoyable rant about this which included the phrases, “what’s wrong with people?!” And “just create something of value!”

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#165

Post by olejorgenb »

kmeisthax wrote: post #42
axiosgunnar wrote: post #2

Is „one laptop per child“ really as bad as the other vaporware/fraudware in the list?

Not necessarily. The list is actually two different categories mixed together: 1. Products which failed because they were targeting their niche poorly (e.g. Juicero, OLPC) 2. Products which failed because they were outright scams (e.g. Theranos, Coolest) However, I do think the failure of OLPC is still interesting enough to deserve a mention on this list. With OLPC in particular they were trying to be like three diff…

Juicero: Did they really have the technology to get you *fresh* juice from those packs?

> ... and had a limited lifespan of about 8 days

Ah, so maybe semifresh then. What's the advantage of the packs then? I can buy such juice at the supermarket, no?

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#166

Post by Biganon »

forgetfulness wrote: post #40

It's missing "Pryme Vessyl", the "smart cup" that tracked your water intake and told you when to drink water. You know, just in case you lose the sense of thirst for some bizarre reason.

If you only drink when you're feeling thirsty, you're probably not drinking enough. Not saying this product is the way to go though.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#167

Post by duxup »

sophacles wrote: post #97
duxup wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was a neat one. I never thought it would go anywhere because who would buy hardware just for that? But I did kinda admire that they tried. One of those 'oh man great idea ... oh no I don't think it will ever work' kinda situations. It was very much a fun early mass consumer days of the internet kinda shot in the dark / fun to me.

In retrospect I see it as ahead of it's time. The idea of "place a computer readable label on things to send you to a special website (etc)" is still alive and used today in the form of QR codes. The hardware problem ended up solved by convincing everyone to carry a computer in their pocket and image recognition, but the central idea is pretty much unchanged.

That's a good observation. The custom hardware solution as the smartphone has enabled so much.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#168

Post by lupire »

johnnyfived wrote: post #155
dotBen wrote: post #56

Seems prudent to point out this isn't the product of a disgruntled's weekend project with fancy webdesign. This is a product from MSCHF which is a $100M+ startup [1] (feels like they're getting a bit of an astroturfed free ride of prime PR on HN because folks may not realize who is behind this) [1] https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/279769-42

Who's the target audience for this crap? A bunch of Hacker News-esque weekend projects that get a bunch of PR from Vice, WSJ, Verge, etc. every time they release something. Just seems like a team of copycats stealing hackathon ideas, giving them a slight twist, then calls it art and journalists fall all over themselves for it. You won't see these publications writing about similar projects on HN, because they're not…

It's VC funded (for some bizarre reason) Silicon Valley late-stage Burning Man appropriation of counter culture.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#169

Post by lupire »

garmaine wrote: post #154
Trufa wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every child in the Uruguayan public system got his/her laptop, I don't know at a global scale but it gave access to the internet/technology to thousands of children that would otherwise wouldn't have. So calling it a total failure seems off to me.

By all accounts they were not really useful, broke easily, and couldn't be repaired in the field. Many countries backed out of their commitment once they tried out their samples. Those which took delivery ended up not integrating them into curriculum because they didn't deliver on their promise. It did kickstart the "netbook" form factor, which ended up replacing most OLPC use cases. So not a total failure from a tec…

It didn't kickstart netbooks, which predate OLPC XO by a decade and were far less experimental designs.

Re: Dead Startup Toys

#170

Post by chirau »

Symbiote wrote: post #99
tinco wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it, and netbooks as a hardware category, failed, it was because in the end they turned out to not have been worth it. I used a netbook happily for about a year or two, it cost ~$400 if I recall correctly, and afterwards I donated it to my sister who I think used it for a while as well. That's at least $150/yr for a low end product fun but uncomfortable product. After the netbook I upgraded to a Macbook Pro that wa…

Didn't netbooks as a category just merge into cheaper laptops? I doubt they were unprofitable for the manufacturers. I'll bet the children in Africa etc with the OLPCs used them for several years. They can't switch to a MacBook.

They didn't really do much in Africa eventually, if anything at all.
Post reply on HN