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

Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

blogs.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#71

Post by bsder »

jacquesm wrote: post #53
silverpikezero wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FPGAs may have opened up options for prototyping, yes. However they have done nothing whatsoever for production. It's economically infeasible to productize and FPGA based product since the only ones worth using are all ~$10k per unit, with price breaks only available to 1M unit quantities. It is also almost entirely impossible to commercialize any design with an ASIC, since it takes a minimum of $10-20M to design it…

Sure, but in the past you would not have gotten to 'demoable product' which is a key post to pass on the road to serious funding in the hardware arena.

Huh? What hardware industry have you been in?

If it's a hot hardware area (past hot areas: graphics chips, microprocessors, WiFi chips, OC-768 networking chips, ...), nobody will wait for the FPGA prototype. You get funding, you go to VLSI and maybe you produce an FPGA board for validation along the way. Probably not since what you're doing is probably too complex for a single FPGA anyway.

Otherwise, your volume is too small and the FPGA IS your product.

And that's only if you can't somehow make it run on a microprocessor.

The only place I've ever seen an FPGA validation board was with RF startups in the cellular space. And, even then, it was way back when the protocols were much simpler.

tl;dr If your demo doesn't run on a microprocessor (or SoC), it doesn't exist.

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#72

Post by diydsp »

rasz_pl wrote: post #52
leoedin wrote: post #8

The reason that a larger number of hardware startups have recently appeared is quite simple - these are mostly actually software companies. Modern hardware that a startup might produce - IoT stuff, small computers etc - are essentially bare-minimum hardware wrappers around black-box chips. The complexity of developing hardware is driven by the number of discrete components used. Every additional resistor is a resisto…

>The complexity of developing hardware is driven by the number of discrete components used. No its not. Most components are practically free #1, placing them is also very cheap #2. Hardware is not expensive because of _hardware_ costs. Its expensive because of engineering, prototyping, and latency of development. /1 single/two digit cents. Except for specialized parts. For example hiend precision resistors, supercaps…

Offtopic, but I'm glad I discovered that Saleae scope. I haven't found any other economical way to sample a number of analog inputs in parallel. $219 for 8 analog inputs over USB is great value and I just ordered one. I didn't even bother looking for any of the supposed clones. I only wish I could afford $599 for the 16 analog inputs, but the value prop. isn't as great.

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#73

Post by josephjrobison »

leoedin wrote: post #8

The reason that a larger number of hardware startups have recently appeared is quite simple - these are mostly actually software companies. Modern hardware that a startup might produce - IoT stuff, small computers etc - are essentially bare-minimum hardware wrappers around black-box chips. The complexity of developing hardware is driven by the number of discrete components used. Every additional resistor is a resisto…

This is so true! Ever since I was a kid I've wanted a security camera to play spy. I'd look at them at Fry's or Amazon or wherever, but there were so many varieties an no clear winner.

Then came Dropcam with sexy packaging, a simple price, and ... well-made software with a subscription model. Next, they're snapped up by Google for $555 million. Would they have been acquired if they only did the hardware and nothing else?

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#74

Post by exelius »

knz wrote: post #66
exelius wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that there are no benefits, but there's not a driving need that these products you describe solve that makes up for the additional cost and complexity that implementing them provides. What's the value proposition? If it's "just cool", then there probably isn't one. 1) There are real benefits with Nest since it can reduce energy consumption. Also, Nest isn't really a whole lot more expensive than other thermo…

Re automated lights and the garage door. I have a SmartThings hub and a number of associated motion sensors and z-wave power outlets. I also have young kids so am often up at odd hours. Being able to automate turning on and off certain lights based upon motion is fantastic when you are stumbling around a house half asleep. I've also got my garage door hooked up to it and love being able to let someone in if I am not…

Oh I never said these things aren't useful; but there is still not a market need for them. In your case, you had a specific problem that you wanted to solve, and you solved it. Another solution could have been to install a few night lights around your house. Until IoT solutions are simpler and cheaper than their analog alternatives, I think IoT is going to have a hard time gaining traction.

I also suspect you enjoy configuring this stuff, which isn't a surprise considering this is HN :)

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#75

Post by jacquesm »

bsder wrote: post #71
jacquesm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in the past you would not have gotten to 'demoable product' which is a key post to pass on the road to serious funding in the hardware arena.

Huh? What hardware industry have you been in? If it's a hot hardware area (past hot areas: graphics chips, microprocessors, WiFi chips, OC-768 networking chips, ...), nobody will wait for the FPGA prototype. You get funding, you go to VLSI and maybe you produce an FPGA board for validation along the way. Probably not since what you're doing is probably too complex for a single FPGA anyway. Otherwise, your volume is t…

Simply stuff where FPGAs would have been a god-send if they had existed. In fact, we probably could have run mid-sized production runs using FPGAs without the need to go to ASIC, that's nice for consumer stuff where manufacturing cost is the major driver but for specialty hardware targeted at industry the manufacturing cost of an individual unit is much less important than what it does. The margins are such that capability at any cost is acceptable. Provided you can prove that it can be done (hence my earlier comment).

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#76

Post by jkestner »

mcmancini wrote: post #70
jkestner wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Packaging is best thought of as another hardware product itself. Form and function have to be design-gineered, and materials and parts and assembly have to be corralled into a schedule and budget. The idea that software is eating hardware, while true on some level for some class of products, is also what leads to lots of startups with solid software backgrounds offering a beautifully designed product that suffers fro…

Packaging is hard. I'd like to additionally nominate cables (as in wire harnesses) and strain reliefs to the list of things that make my life miserable.

Oh, yeah - hardware wears down over time in ways that software doesn't. Closest thing might be having to support new OSes, but that's not the same as failure when doing the exact same thing you always do in the same configuration.

Which leads to increased replacement costs. Other fun costs to account for in the physical world: loss rate in transit, defect rate in manufacturing, inventory costs.

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#77

Post by dba7dba »

bsder wrote: post #68

Not until software lottery tickets quit returning 10x+. Who, in their right mind, would invest in hardware? NRE kills--especially in mechanical engineering which actually seems to be regressing. Machining companies now charge a fortune for things which my grandfather used to do by hand in his garage in about an hour. Not to mention how long it takes to get an injection mold (14 weeks is not uncommon). For the price o…

I agree. Software is easy to work with because you can reboot. With manufacturing, you can not.

I heard a quote from someone discussing war.

When a war is about to break out 1) amateurs start talking about strategy. 2) Professional start talking about logistics.

Google can be a milti billion firm because they can go from 1 to 10 (in customer #, capacity) easily. With manufacturing, that's just physically impossible.

And physics doesn't lie.

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#78

Post by wpietri »

exelius wrote: post #56
clarky07 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comes off as the famous (apocryphal) patent quote from around 1900. "Everything that can be invented has been invented" I think a lot of people (myself included) think there are lots of potential benefits to a smart house. I don't think we're there yet. Most of what exists now isn't very user friendly, and most don't have easy setups so the things that are out now are unlikely to have huge hockey stick growth. H…

It's not that there are no benefits, but there's not a driving need that these products you describe solve that makes up for the additional cost and complexity that implementing them provides. What's the value proposition? If it's "just cool", then there probably isn't one. 1) There are real benefits with Nest since it can reduce energy consumption. Also, Nest isn't really a whole lot more expensive than other thermo…

I agree with you in general; right now we're in this phase of "WiFi all the things!" that is suspect. Which ones stick and which ones don't is going to be hard to say. But I suspect a lot of things will soon seem like those 70s-era whole-home audio systems: quaint in a why-did-they-do-that way.

But I think lighting will be different. My personal bet is that for lights, the driving benefit is health. I automated my lights this fall [1] and I've been very happy with it. I have a substantially more regular sleep schedule, and bad sleep has a number of bad health impacts. We're now seeing more research on how screens are disruptive, too. My basic conclusion is that humans aren't really responsible light-switch users. Now instead of my controlling my lights, thelighting is controlling me. Which is how it worked for most of human history.

I don't think many people will retrofit lighting systems right away; it's painful and expensive. But I can certainly see high-end homes selling smart lighting as an add-on. $40/switch seems like a lot, but $275k vs $276k seems pretty small. I expect that plus the 5% of people crazy enough to do it themselves will be enough to keep companies like Philips producing and experimenting.

[1] https://github.com/wpietri/sunrise

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#79

Post by wpietri »

striking wrote: post #2

I am a broken record. So many brilliant people (RMS comes to mind) have fallen into the trap of thinking that hardware dev for general computing (not including rocketry and other such hardware) is so inexpensive that it's going to be super easy. But that's not the case [1] because hardware is a totally different beast than software. It won't be any more open, or any less expensive; at least, not for a long time. [1]:…

I just happened to visit two different hardware companies today. One is 60 years old, one about 2. The people at both these companies are practically peeing their pants with glee over how much better things are. Iteration has gotten radically less expensive.

I agree that open-source hardware is not nearly as easy as open-source software. But I think it's definitely going to be both more open and less expensive.

Re: Sam Altman: Why Hardware Could Yield the Next $10B Startups

#80

Post by clarky07 »

Fradow wrote: post #65
clarky07 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comes off as the famous (apocryphal) patent quote from around 1900. "Everything that can be invented has been invented" I think a lot of people (myself included) think there are lots of potential benefits to a smart house. I don't think we're there yet. Most of what exists now isn't very user friendly, and most don't have easy setups so the things that are out now are unlikely to have huge hockey stick growth. H…

Everything you described already exist, and is available to mass market. The fact that you don't have any (and anyone I know of either, to be fair, apart from lights in a few places), speaks a lot about how much the market is ready for this.

Actually it speaks to the fact that I'm currently renting. If my house was finished, I would in fact have most of them.
Post reply on HN