I mostly feel bad for them. I generally hate pile ons on principle and HN tends to be nasty about anything new even when it is wildly successful so nastiness here is no signal (and hardware is hard, it's good for people to try new things, etc.). AI is a new capability and there is an opportunity for new hardware that can use it.
That said, the Humane marketing reminded me of Magic Leap and I find it irritating. Particularly the big build up to what was going to be 'new information' and then it was an ad with no information. When the marketing is so divorced from what's delivered I think people are often nastier about it.
The irony to me is that in a lot of ways they're trying to be Apple, but without Apple's strategic thinking - it's more cosplaying Apple. Ben Thompson had a good write up today in Stratechery that touched on some of this: when the iPhone came out it worked with Mac and windows - the dominant computing platforms of the day! They didn't try to immediately create a standalone device from the get go and they had iterated on a narrow use case with the iPod for several years already to perfect some things.
Also - people love their phones! They may make overtures otherwise, but observe their behavior.
This is a lot more akin to what rewind aka limitless is doing. Start small/focused with a good product that solves a well tested use case while working with the existing platform (mobile) then leverage that to grow and build an ecosystem as you go.
There's so much about the Humane product that is strategically poor/user poor: a separate phone number, terrible battery, the extreme cost, etc. etc. even if the product actually worked (it doesn't) it's strategically DOA.
You don't get to mars by starting a company and building a mars rocket - you have that as the end goal and a path to get there that requires doing a ton of other stuff first so you have a shot at achieving that goal.
Any company that achieves great things builds a machine to build the machine - otherwise you just get a expensive art project if the product even works at all.
Still they did build and ship something and I like their industrial design so they deserve kudos for that. Plus I like to see people experiment so it's good when people try even if they fail, but I don't think it's helped by pretending something isn't a failure.
> The irony to me is that in a lot of ways they're trying to be Apple, but without Apple's strategic thinking - it's more cosplaying Apple
I hope this is the main lesson people will take from Humane. Not the "scam", "AI hype", "laser bullshit" angles. The top execs fundamentally deluded themselves into thinking that "the process is the product". During their stealth startup years their marketing was almost entirely "we're from Apple, we're perfectionists, we believe tech should feel like magic". They did Jony Ive-style videos. They talk about "intent", "craftsmanship", "design". And now they're adopting the reality distortion field. But they're merely cosplaying Apple, without the substance. They made a "less-intrusive" smartphone-killer that relies on the most intrusive input method ever! No product-market fit, no viable go-to-market ($700 + $24/mo).
It's Helene Deutsch's "as-if personality", but as a startup. The execs confuse appearances with reality. Liz Holmes copied the clothing, they're copying "the philosophy", but misunderstood its essence. They're almost Shakespearian characters, but the employees should leave now before it meets a tragic end.
That said, the Humane marketing reminded me of Magic Leap and I find it irritating. Particularly the big build up to what was going to be 'new information' and then it was an ad with no information. When the marketing is so divorced from what's delivered I think people are often nastier about it.
The irony to me is that in a lot of ways they're trying to be Apple, but without Apple's strategic thinking - it's more cosplaying Apple. Ben Thompson had a good write up today in Stratechery that touched on some of this: when the iPhone came out it worked with Mac and windows - the dominant computing platforms of the day! They didn't try to immediately create a standalone device from the get go and they had iterated on a narrow use case with the iPod for several years already to perfect some things.
Also - people love their phones! They may make overtures otherwise, but observe their behavior.
This is a lot more akin to what rewind aka limitless is doing. Start small/focused with a good product that solves a well tested use case while working with the existing platform (mobile) then leverage that to grow and build an ecosystem as you go.
There's so much about the Humane product that is strategically poor/user poor: a separate phone number, terrible battery, the extreme cost, etc. etc. even if the product actually worked (it doesn't) it's strategically DOA.
You don't get to mars by starting a company and building a mars rocket - you have that as the end goal and a path to get there that requires doing a ton of other stuff first so you have a shot at achieving that goal.
Any company that achieves great things builds a machine to build the machine - otherwise you just get a expensive art project if the product even works at all.
Still they did build and ship something and I like their industrial design so they deserve kudos for that. Plus I like to see people experiment so it's good when people try even if they fail, but I don't think it's helped by pretending something isn't a failure.