Thanks! That's a super helpful list of compatible endpoints. One thing we've discovered is that sometimes it can be a bit of a pain to find the right API, find the OpenAPI schema URL, and then figure out the right auth / get a token. We're thinking through how to make that discovery process easier.
Another related issue we've seen is that sometimes a service will expose hundreds of endpoints... and you really only need a couple of them. Is there a better way to manage that?
So yeah, tool discovery and authentication are two things we're definitely trying to improve upon.
This is awesome. The lack of common API in IoT can be quite frustrating. I see this similarly to Twilio abstracting away the nuances of every Telco and making it all API accessible. You would have guessed that IoT vendors would have figured this out, but alas, we are here.
Thank you for building this!
Particle.io
It used to be called Spark Devices. They successfully shipped the spark core, then Root Ventures led their series A (we were called Lion Wells back then)....i know, so many name changes!
As the founder of one of the hardware focused firms listed (ROOT/VENTURES -- http://root.vc) I couldn't be happier that the crew at bolt.io wrote this article.
I'm also a huge fan of HN, so if anyone has specific questions to ask about the VC approach to hardware, lets hear em.
Hi there, I've been active in my own thread asking a couple questions relating to a consumer device that I wish to pursue. It's one of several things I've worked on, so I'd like to use this opportunity to toss out a question of sorts:
For one project, an influence has been the Bloomberg Terminal. The concept relates to aggregating large amounts of publicly accessible data, using a proprietary system of sorting and arranging, and then present the customer with a batch (folder?) of useful information relating to their business pursuits. It's kind of like a business intelligence / lead generation platform, but that's simplistic and misses the value of the concept.
Now, how this relates to hardware! As a musician I'm very familiar with the iLok USB-key concept used for certain software suites (some of which have gone cloud-based). This also gets back to the Bloomberg Terminal. Would pursuing a "Subscription Service Requiring Desktop Box/Key" type design be an initial Negative or Positive?
I do feel like this isn't exactly a hardware question, but with the amount of data and investment that would be involved to build the system in mind, having a physical, subscription component seems practical. I suppose that's about the extent I can describe at this point without getting explicit about how it works, what it works with, and who the target audience is/will be. My apology if it came out as a bunch of jibberish. Please feel free to ask for clarification or point out examples similar or drastically different. Thank you for your time!
Ok. I think I understand.
I'm gonna step right out there and show my bias. I absolutely HATE the iLok. I bought myself a laser cutter for my wedding (she got a ring, i got a 90watt), and it came with an iLok for the horrible software that the chinese company built. It just takes up a USB port i could otherwise use.
That being said, its a great tool for very big, old software companies that have to protect from pirating.
I think that you have an entirely different play at hand. Because you are building a platform, you dont care if people pirate. What you just want to be sure of is that people aren't sharing logins. Soooo....just make the logins tie to personal info. Back in the day, when I used to send sensitive PDFs, I would just make the password on the PDF the recipients last 4 of their SSN. I could basically guarantee they wouldnt send the PDF around. The equivalent in your situation is to use Oauth with something like LinkedIn or Google. For the users to share your account, they would need to create an fake LinkedIn or Google account...and if you system is all about lead generation, that becomes crippling.
Overall, i dont care about iLok vs another form of protection. For me, the most important thing you are thinking about is can you create an amazing amount of value for your customer. Can you get them hooked, and improve their (business) life. If you can, then you can put a dollar amount on that improvement. I used Bloomberg terminals many moons ago, and it was not the best software in the world, but the data was immensely valuable. So we paid.
Great response and thanks for your time and input. You're not stepping on my toes noting a dislike of the iLok - it actually finished off my interest in ProTools and sent me deep into Ableton Live years ago. I think you definitely grasp what I'm going for in concept, and parlayed that into useful guidance.
As you mentioned about Bloomberg, it's the data that's primarily of value, and from what I've experienced, the communications platform limited access via other terminals are two driving factors for why they're used.
Your point about value to the customer is good for me to keep in mind. The whole idea I have is an intersection of publicly available financial information, marketing, government business, and with a scope of service that would span over several months to possibly more than a year. It could be enhanced by arragements for data sharing with certain established industry players (ex: Thomson Reuters). I'm reluctant to call it an SaaS platform, but maybe I should just frame it as such for practical reasons.
On a different note, how interested would you be in a concept for a recreational personal flight device?
It's what I'm going to submit for the Intel Curie contest, but that's like a TV show thing and could go sideways on me. I'm pretty proud of my R&D thus far on the concept and would probably like the challenge of putting together a pitch for it (that I could also use in my contest entry). Just curious!
Ben wrote about Kickstarter traction != product-market fit. What're your thoughts on this? What would you want to see from a startup that has a somewhat successful crowdfund campaign before you would invest?
I agree that its not a forgone conclusion that kickstarter traction == product market fit....but if your KS campaign is well executed, it could be.
Essentially, i see KS as much more of a community builder and low cost testing grounds for market development.
A really great KS campaign can tell a great story of audience discovery through advertising purchases. For example, when we launch Spark (now Particle), we thought it would be hardware hobbyists. After looking through the list of backers, we found out that it was actually professional engineers, looking for a good wifi solution for prototyping. Had we focused on shipping before talking with our audience, we would have put our energy into the wrong place.
With Prynt for example, we found a specific demographic (young female) was the best click thru we had...this changed our collateral and retail conversations.
Then there is the question of what qualifies as a "successful campaign"? If you sell your product at a loss (I can point to some examples) and sell over a million, i dont know if i consider that a success. Whereas, Particle has done multiple 600k plus campaigns. For a consumer product that might be OK, but for a developer kit, that represents a massive amount of LTV.
All in all, i would say that I dont invest entirely based on a kickstarter campaign (and most often commit before the campaign happens) but the more data the better, and the more action the team has done, the better to learn their behaviors.
As a hardware investor (founder of Root Ventures, mentioned in the article), I'd be careful to differentiate between funds raised from investment vs kickstarter or crowdfunding. At the most basic level, $'s raised via kickstarter should sit on your balance sheet as a liability. There is an expectation that you will deliver product equaling the amount you raised. Of course there are margins baked into the product price, but VC money is truly there for business development. We have invested in several very successful companies who have had millions of dollars in successful campaigns on kickstarter. Each and every time, the KS money is earmarked for delivering the promised product (tooling, Mfg, shipping), while the VC money is used to build a company (recruiting, office space, salaries, travel).
What stage do you typically invest at? pre-Kickstarter? post-Kickstarter? pre-manufacturing prototype? Working prototype? How about hardware startup accelerators, how should a startup choose between talking a VC or an accelerator and at what stage?
Ok. I'm gonna try some stream of consciousness answering...
I always need to see someone having done some difficult technical development. As an engineer myself, it makes my job so much more fun (i do code/design review with every startup i invest in!). Seeing a team build a prototype shows another level of commitment. I've built hardware, so i know how much more time/effort/money it takes over a software wireframe...It also minimizes one of the risks of the startup. Can the team build what they say they can build? I see 3 primary risks of building a startup; technical, team, and market. My goal is to invest when as many of those are solved, but completely understanding that because i am a seed stage investor, will never see all 3 de-risked before i invest.
Some of my investments were during a kickstarter (Prynt and Particle fka Spark.io)
Others I invested pre-kickstarter (Shaper -- shapertools.com)
And others are not meant for crowdfunding (Plethora, Momentum Machines)
The question of an accelerator vs going direct to VC is a different story. I see accelerators helping a tremendous amount with first time hardware entrepreneurs...and since the hardware startup space is so new, thats almost everyone! However, there are experienced hardware founders, and I have definitely invested in teams that have not gone through accelerators (Plethora -- seasoned entrepreneurs, DFX Machina -- Senior ex-Apple founders)
Overall, its never to early to speak with a VC or accelerator. We are here to support the ecosystem. That means inspiring potential founders to go for it, and help educate those inspired to take the rights steps, and avoid the mistakes of others.
> Seeing a team build a prototype shows another level of commitment. I've built hardware, so i know how much more time/effort/money it takes over a software wireframe...
A wireframe is not the same as a hardware prototype. The similar analogy would be a functioning product, which in software is also difficult to do well. Functioning means it solves a need better than existing solutions, which requires research, experience, insight, and technical knowhow.
Furthermore, building a functioning software product that is well-engineered to scale (as opposed to a hacked out MVP) is, in my personal experience, rare. Very few "engineers" are able to.
I agree. Perhaps using wireframes was not the best analogy. I studied computer science and spent quite a few years as a developer, both inheriting code bases, and building my own, so i do appreciate code thats built to scale! (though to be honest, mine rarely was...)
Some VCs do not recommend companies to go thru the crowdfunding route early on because of the distraction involved. I wonder if you would share your thoughts on what kind of companies should or should not try crowdfunding.
