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

YC for Hardware

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 132 posts

Re: YC for Hardware

#91

Post by trsohmers »

trishume wrote: post #88
trsohmers wrote: post #74

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.

What technology are you referring to, specifically? Most large semiconductor companies these days are fabless (Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA), or just license their designs/IP (ARM, Imagination, Rambus). Fabless is not really a new thing, it's just a lot cheaper than most people imagine.

Re: YC for Hardware

#92

Post by pj_mukh »

bravo22 wrote: post #57
paul wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had to integrate the electronics as well. The most successful hardware companies (e.g. Apple) are building integrated systems including software and services.

I don't disagree with assertion about Apple and similar companies but they end up selling you a physical hardware product. Bufferbox offered a service and didn't sell you a product therefore I don't think they were "hardware" company. The hardware was means to an end. I don't think it lessens what they did. It was a good service. Walmart has a large IT infrastructure, with sys admins and in-house developers. They als…

This is a tough call but Walmart's IT services is a core technology they own but its not customer facing at all. Bufferbox on the other hand had this customer facing hardware. In fact that hardware was a core component of their user experience. They could royally muck it up. They didn't. Kudos to them.

Re: YC for Hardware

#93

Post by trishume »

trsohmers wrote: post #91
trishume wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What technology are you referring to, specifically? Most large semiconductor companies these days are fabless (Qualcomm, AMD, NVIDIA), or just license their designs/IP (ARM, Imagination, Rambus). Fabless is not really a new thing, it's just a lot cheaper than most people imagine.

Derp, just got around to googling fabless semiconductor. I had assumed fabless meant a way of creating integrated circuits without expensive silicon processing facilities, clean rooms, etc...

I imagined something like 3D printing/laser cutting for silicon chips.

Re: YC for Hardware

#94

Post by FD3SA »

robwormald wrote: post #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/

Hi Rob, just saw FitGuard for the first time and it's a phenomenal idea.

I'd recommend getting in touch with motorcycle helmet manufacturers (particularly MotoGP and WSBK sponsors) because concussions are a huge issue in motorcycle racing. As your site states, concussion severity is very abstractly diagnosed without data, and your product can make a big difference. The doctor has a tough time deciding whether the athlete is fit to race if he's had a crash and a concussion, and it ultimately comes down to a qualitative decision made by the rider and doctor. Data can definitely help save lives here.

If I have time for the track this season, I'll definitely sign up as a tester. I've never had a concussion, but I sure as hell would want to know how fast my head decelerates after a crash before getting back on the bike.

Good luck, and cheers on a great idea.

Re: YC for Hardware

#95

Post by aknalid »

robwormald wrote: post #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/

Neat. What kind of a sensor is it using? Also, why IG instead of Kickstarter?

Re: YC for Hardware

#96

Post by bravo22 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #92
bravo22 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with assertion about Apple and similar companies but they end up selling you a physical hardware product. Bufferbox offered a service and didn't sell you a product therefore I don't think they were "hardware" company. The hardware was means to an end. I don't think it lessens what they did. It was a good service. Walmart has a large IT infrastructure, with sys admins and in-house developers. They als…

This is a tough call but Walmart's IT services is a core technology they own but its not customer facing at all. Bufferbox on the other hand had this customer facing hardware. In fact that hardware was a core component of their user experience. They could royally muck it up. They didn't. Kudos to them.

Maybe not their IT service, but their logistics and building operations certainly are.

I agree with your points regarding BufferBox, but I wouldn't say they are a hardware company producing a hardware product that you can sell to a customer. They were in an entirely different space, with very different set of challenges.

The YC post concerned companies that sell hardware to end users. Further, the initial post in this chain was someone asking if YC has had other hardware companies beyond Pebble. I don't think BufferBox is in that category.

Re: YC for Hardware

#97

Post by pj_mukh »

bravo22 wrote: post #96
pj_mukh wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tough call but Walmart's IT services is a core technology they own but its not customer facing at all. Bufferbox on the other hand had this customer facing hardware. In fact that hardware was a core component of their user experience. They could royally muck it up. They didn't. Kudos to them.

Maybe not their IT service, but their logistics and building operations certainly are. I agree with your points regarding BufferBox, but I wouldn't say they are a hardware company producing a hardware product that you can sell to a customer. They were in an entirely different space, with very different set of challenges. The YC post concerned companies that sell hardware to end users. Further, the initial post in thi…

Hmmmm. The difference between hardware a user buys and takes home versus hardware a user uses to engage a service seems very slight no?

Re: YC for Hardware

#98

Post by madengr »

trsohmers wrote: post #74

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.

Cadence is only $1E6 maintenance/seat/year?

Re: YC for Hardware

#99

Post by meowface »

apendleton wrote: post #19
beambot wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pebble, Boosted, Cruise, Double Robotics, Pantelligent, Thalmic, UPower, Helion, Terravion, SoundFocus, SwapBox, Amulyte, Coin, IxiPlay, TrueLink, Estimote, Senic, ...

Not to nitpick, but at least some of these arguably haven't gotten far enough along yet that they can reasonably claim to be "successful." Thalmic is just getting early products to market, Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor, etc.

>at least

>some

>arguably

>far enough along

>yet

I don't mean to insult you or criticize your post in any way, partly because I agree with you, but that is a lot of qualifiers for one short sentence. Diplomatic tones require them though, I suppose.

Re: YC for Hardware

#100

Post by bravo22 »

pj_mukh wrote: post #97
bravo22 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe not their IT service, but their logistics and building operations certainly are. I agree with your points regarding BufferBox, but I wouldn't say they are a hardware company producing a hardware product that you can sell to a customer. They were in an entirely different space, with very different set of challenges. The YC post concerned companies that sell hardware to end users. Further, the initial post in thi…

Hmmmm. The difference between hardware a user buys and takes home versus hardware a user uses to engage a service seems very slight no?

I think there is a large difference. It requires a different skillset to manufacture 1000 of something that consumers will buy vs manufacturing customer touch points that are owned, and serviced by the company.

Your manufacturing pipeline, volumes, service issues are all very different. So as great as BufferBox was I don't think they were a hardware company and certainly not for the purposes of this thread. I am not discounting their abilities or what they made but based on my experience they are apples and oranges.

Most of the problems kickstarter companies run into are unique supply chain, and manufacturing issues that BufferBox wouldn't have had to deal with.

Additionally, a big part of what BufferBox offered would have been in their app, and website. A locker that you can remotely lock and unlock is not difficult from an electronics point of view and had been around before.

Post reply on HN