×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Samsung Buys Kickstarter-Funded Internet of Things Startup For $200MM

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the keeping-up-with-the-Googses dept.

Businesses 107

jfruh writes: In September of 2012, SmartThings took to Kickstarter with the promise of delivering an "Internet of things" package to backers, including a hub device that would control various home gadgets via the user's smartphone. They aimed to raise $250,000. They got $1.2 million. And now they've been bought by Samsung for a reported $200 million, as the South Korean electronics market tries to get a foothold into this emerging market.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

puntuation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678237)

maybe it's just me but I thought Samsung had bought kickstarter. I'd say

Samsung Buys Kickstarter Funded "Internet of Things" Startup For $200MM

Re:puntuation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678575)

It's just you.

Re:puntuation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47680697)

The hyphen in Kickstarter-funded makes that phrase work as an adjective (and therefore, it can't be the object of the sentence on its own, it's just modifying a noun, "Startup"). If the headline read "Samsung Buys Kickstarter, Funds "Internet of things" Startup", then I'd agree with you.

Peak Hype (1, Offtopic)

biodata (1981610) | about 4 months ago | (#47678261)

This must be what Gartner meant

Re:Peak Hype (0)

zlives (2009072) | about 4 months ago | (#47678573)

they have gone plaid?

Like swimming in an ocean of buzzwords (2, Funny)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 4 months ago | (#47678271)

Practically the only thing it's missing is commentary about 3D printers.

Re:Like swimming in an ocean of buzzwords (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678633)

Future Headline: 3D Printers collaborate on Internet of Things via the Cloud

BINGO!

Re:Like swimming in an ocean of buzzwords (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679307)

My cloud-connected 3d printer just recently started printing an internet of things, all by itself.

The things are mostly dildos, "fuckoff" stencils and, strangely, shower curtain rings.

$200MM (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678287)

What's $200MM? Is that 200 million million dollars? 200 millimeter dollars?

Re:$200MM (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47678357)

I think it's a Slashdot editor trying to spin 500rpm in an office chair and publish articles at the same time.

Re:$200MM (1)

OakDragon (885217) | about 4 months ago | (#47680377)

I think it's a Slashdot editor trying to spin 500rpm in an office chair and publish articles at the same time.

Or 500RPMM.

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47681093)

This is Soulskill we're talking about. Chances are he hit that button by mistake with his elbow, both hands too busy holding DICE's dick steady so that the rest of them can suck it more effectively.

Re:$200MM (5, Funny)

fisted (2295862) | about 4 months ago | (#47678371)

It's obviously $200 worth of M&M's

Re:$200MM (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678493)

I didn't post the original comments, but MM is fairly common in finance to indicate Million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MM
- Million in some financial contexts

Re:$200MM (4, Funny)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 4 months ago | (#47679235)

My balls it is. The only place I've ever seen it as such is on slashdot, and here twice.

Re:$200MM (3)

jeffmeden (135043) | about 4 months ago | (#47679357)

My balls it is. The only place I've ever seen it as such is on slashdot, and here twice.

Want to see it in action? Look no further than the home page of the world's sixth largest bank:
https://locator.chase.com/ [chase.com]

Hover over "Business" and "Commercial" and you will note that their definition of those two classes relies on the MM suffix. I don't blame you for never having even imagined a context where millions of dollars was relevant, but you will find that it's a big world out there.

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47681129)

Oh wow you are so much cooler than anyone else.

Re: $200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47682769)

A big world full of self important twats judging by your posts.

Re:$200MM (1)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about 4 months ago | (#47679633)

My balls it is. The only place I've ever seen it as such is on slashdot, and here twice.

It's from the french ... you know, mille == 1,000. so mille mille == 1,000 x 1,000. (So I guess a billion would be MMM etc).

Re:$200MM (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#47682293)

It's from the french ... you know, mille

I knew Millie. She was Irish.

(So I guess a billion would be MMM etc).

Except for Millie, who would call MMMM a billion (million million).

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678697)

MM = Mega Money :)

Re: $200MM (1)

relisher (2955441) | about 4 months ago | (#47678765)

I'm pretty sure MM stands for Monopoly Money. IoT obviously doesn't deserve REAL money so this is what they get...

Re:$200MM (1)

landoltjp (676315) | about 4 months ago | (#47678965)

BEfore 1976, M in docuents and reports was used to represent thousands (1,000s). With Metric (SI) adoption, that was replaced with K for the most part. and M was for million (1M equiv. 1 Million), as we're used to today.

But "back in the day", you'd see "MM" used to refer to Millions. It still shows up in company stock reports from time to time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

Re:$200MM (1)

anarcobra (1551067) | about 4 months ago | (#47679477)

I keep seeing that K is for 1000, but as far as I know that's simply not true. It's just people using some broken version of metric prefixes. k = kilo and K is Kelvin specifically to avoid confusion if you are using the metric system. Having m for mili and meter is bad enough.

Re:$200MM (1)

sexconker (1179573) | about 4 months ago | (#47680389)

I keep seeing that K is for 1000, but as far as I know that's simply not true.
It's just people using some broken version of metric prefixes.
k = kilo and K is Kelvin specifically to avoid confusion if you are using the metric system.
Having m for mili and meter is bad enough.

No no no. Metric and SI are totally logical and have no ambiguity!
I'd explain why but it's currently 17.85 and I only have 1.2 decaminutes to get to my next meeting.

Re:$200MM (1)

anarcobra (1551067) | about 4 months ago | (#47680601)

It may not be completely logical to have kilo as one of only 3 multiples of ten that does not use a capital letter, but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.

Re:$200MM (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 4 months ago | (#47681341)

but there is no ambiguity in the standard for which symbol stands for kilo.

However, there is considerable confusion over which symbol stands for "mega". I see people talking about mHz all the time, and when I point out that they are off by 9 orders of magnitude their eyes just glaze over.

Also networking companies who advertise 12mbps.

Re:$200MM (1)

anarcobra (1551067) | about 4 months ago | (#47682289)

That's all very true. But that's just people using the metric prefixes incorrectly. I just wanted to point out that 1000 = k, since the OP I replied to said that the metric system replaced M with K.

$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679451)

M = mille = 1000
MM = mille mille = 1000*1000 = 1000000

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679583)

It's apparently a European thing to repeat letters in pluralized abbreviations. In this case, for "millions". That's why the United States is always EEUU in Spanish textbooks. Because it's the Estados Unidos. I still think it's goofy do so represent millions that way in this day and age (especially since M is also conveniently the SI unit for one million), but then there are still people out there who consider a billion to be 1E12, and a trillion to be 1E18.

And as with most submissions, the submitter did that, possibly copying verbatim from the linked article. Slashdot "editors" rarely actually edit submissions, so it stayed in.

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679659)

> What's $200MM? Is that 200 million million dollars? 200 millimeter dollars?

MM is a bastardized roman numeral for 1 million: M = 1000 so MM = 1000 * 1000.

Re:$200MM (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47683135)

I believe it's the empirical dollar measurement i.e. 'Multi Miles'. I'm a professional I know these things!

Enquiring minds want to know (1)

GbrDead (702506) | about 4 months ago | (#47678429)

How much is 200 mm in dollars?

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (1)

SQLGuru (980662) | about 4 months ago | (#47678481)

A stack of dollars (implied ones) that is 200 millimeters high.

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | about 4 months ago | (#47678539)

Dunno. Millimeters are real.

I remember a quote which says that a good analogy of the housing crisis was "We stopped building because we ran out of millimeters".

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (1)

Megane (129182) | about 4 months ago | (#47679605)

That's not millimeters. Both Ms are in caps, so it's actually 200 mega miles. I bet those guys can get a lot of free flights with that many frequent flyer miles!

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (3, Informative)

GNious (953874) | about 4 months ago | (#47678577)

1 dollar bill is 0.10922 mm thick (or 0.0043 inches)
A 200 mm stack of 1 dollar-bills would come to 1831 dollars, assuming there is no space between the notes, and that the notes themselves are in near-pristine condition.

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678649)

You think you are funny but this is standard business abbreviation for million.

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (1)

wannabgeek (323414) | about 4 months ago | (#47679185)

But why is it mm (or is it MM)? why not just M?

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 4 months ago | (#47679683)

Because in finance they already used M to mean 1000, a la "Mille".

Example [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Enquiring minds want to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679999)

That was answered before you posted your question

http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]

I'm interested in this sort of thing for my house (4, Informative)

rthille (8526) | about 4 months ago | (#47678457)

But I'm sure as hell not going to run my door locks over wireless with some consumer product that's produced as cheaply as can be for the mass market.

On the other hand, I know that roll-it-yourself security is almost always broken.

So, I deal with having to reach into my pocket to get my keys, and turn on lights with a switch rather than automatically.

Somehow I survive.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678615)

turn on lights with a switch

Motion sensors are fairly inexpensive....

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678651)

turn on lights with a switch

Motion sensors are fairly inexpensive....

The still cost a dozen times what a plain ol' SPDT wall switch costs. Also there is the annoyance of those occasions when you didn't want the lights to flip on automatically and wipe out your night vision.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

rthille (8526) | about 4 months ago | (#47680917)

Looks like home depot has a PIR sensor switch (which we'll have to put in the new bathroom due to CA's Title-24) for $19.97, but a 10 pack of normal switches for $5.90...
A bit of a step up in price there.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#47678701)

But I'm sure as hell not going to run my door locks over wireless with some consumer product that's produced as cheaply as can be for the mass market.

So, I know "hackers" are scary and everything... but you do realize that, rather than hack your network, they can pick up a rock from by your bushes, break the glass on the door, then reach in and manually unlock it... right? It's a lot less effort.

For the past 6000 years or so, the best made security system ever devised has remained the same: A big dog.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 4 months ago | (#47678827)

So, I know "hackers" are scary and everything... but you do realize that, rather than hack your network, they can pick up a rock from by your bushes, break the glass on the door, then reach in and manually unlock it... right? It's a lot less effort.

Sure, but not nearly as quite. As for me, I have double-key dead bolts on all my exterior doors (and don't keep the key in the lock - as I know some people actually do) so simply reaching in and unlocking the door would be problematic.

Obviously, breaking a window and climbing in through that is still another non-stealthy option.

Re: I'm interested in this sort of thing for my ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47681869)

Double locked deadbolt on entry door is against code.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 4 months ago | (#47681999)

A lock will not stop a determined intruder. But then, unless you are being targeted, they'll just move on to the next target (kinda like the flashing LEDs in car doors)

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679249)

Actually, any dog will do.

When I was growing up, there were 5 families on my block who had dogs (Long Island, NY if anyone wants to know). There were a total of 12 houses on the street. Some dogs were big (ie: german shepards) while others had small dogs (yorkie, dachsund, etc)

One night,7 houses got hit by burglers. Only the houses without dogs were hit. NONE of the houses with dogs were touched.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679437)

"burglers"? Surely you meant "buglers"? How did they cope with all the noise?

You American idiot.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

Admiral_Grinder (830562) | about 4 months ago | (#47680449)

On the other hand, the house nearby mine was hit recently. They had a dog, the burgler had food it liked. While it is "reality tv" that show about breaking into houses and then fixing the security issues used the same trick for dogs.

Re: I'm interested in this sort of thing for my ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47682801)

So what made you decide to post anonymously then reply to yourself while signed in? That desperate for attention are you?

Incidentally it's burglars, not "burglers." Stupidity gave you away. Best of luck pretending to be your own conversation partner in the future, you poor, lonely little wanker.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 4 months ago | (#47682791)

I had a lab-dashound cross (no idea how that happened - we got him from the pound). He was only a little bigger than a pure dashound, but had the bark of a fully grown lab. Someone tried to burgle our house one night and got the fright of their life as the sound of a large dog came at them from below their line of sight.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

Xeth (614132) | about 4 months ago | (#47679425)

Smashing with a rock looks suspicious, and almost anyone that sees you do it will call the police. If you've got a fully-wired home, and an attacker compromises it, they can find out exactly when you're not home (from automated lights and climate control settings), unlock the door, and walk out with whatever high-value items they think they can get away with.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

rthille (8526) | about 4 months ago | (#47680839)

We have two big dogs, and I'm not really worried about a break-in, but I still don't feel comfortable ceding my coming and going to a for-profit company with unknown security practices.

If I were really worried about a real break in, I wouldn't have had the alarm system ripped out during the remodel...

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

31415926535897 (702314) | about 4 months ago | (#47678741)

How do you keep your keys from scratching your smartphone?

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679587)

I'm not sure what your point is, but you can't scratch a modern smart phone screen with keys. You could back in the bad old days of polycarbonate screens. But these days you need silica sand to scratch most phone screens.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

rthille (8526) | about 4 months ago | (#47680845)

Different pockets.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

bjwest (14070) | about 4 months ago | (#47680975)

How do you keep your keys from scratching your smartphone?

Don't keep them in the same pocket?

I hold my phone in my left hand because I'm right handed, so I keep it in my left pocket. I use my keys with my right hand, so they stay in my right pocket. Up until I got my first cell phone small enough to fit in a pocket comfortably, my left pockets (both front and rear) remained unused.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (1)

androidph (3631653) | about 4 months ago | (#47681191)

How do you keep your keys from scratching your smartphone?

If your phone is new and probably made with Gorilla glass, it won't scratch it. I tried scratching my old Samsung Galaxy S2 with a key, screwdriver and a knife and found out I was duped into buying those screen protectors.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679897)

I have a security door, which is basically an armored screen door, that has a lock & deadbolt in it. Those are keyed. The front door itself it managed by Iris, Lowe's version of home automation & security. Keys work too, but I can leave the screen unlocked and only lock the interior door to allow access for, say, the dog walker when the wife and I travel, using a timed passcode.

Damned handy.

Re:I'm interested in this sort of thing for my hou (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47681937)

and i bet you don't have any windows.

I'm going to trademark the Next Big Thing (4, Insightful)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about 4 months ago | (#47678483)

The Internet of People!

After all, if Cloud Computing is just Client/Server with a new shiny, and the Internet of Things is just like the old "stuff connected via the internet", maybe someone will give ME a couple of hundred million.

Re:I'm going to trademark the Next Big Thing (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | about 4 months ago | (#47680661)

It's already called "Crowdsourcing."

Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678603)

Between this and the Oculus I just really don't feel like I feel sound in Kickstarting any sort of hardware these days. The reason I kickstart a project is so someone can get their idea to market without having to sell out to a large corporation. Certainly not to fund the R&D phase so a big multinational can waltz in and scoop up a finished product.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (3, Informative)

LabRatty (96497) | about 4 months ago | (#47678835)

OR delivered exactly what they said they would, and only a couple of months late which is good going for something 10x oversubscribed. These muppets are still failing to deliver items to many backers 2 years later. Not really in the same category. Additionally, if you think any hardware startup capabable of a global market is not going to get bought out soon after early development that is somewhat naive. On top of that OR had already pulled in 75-90 million or so of VC and would have needed to get 2-3 times more for a full budget to compete with the number of competitors who started popping up. How much of the orginal stock do you think they would have still held by then anyway? not much.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 4 months ago | (#47682819)

If they're making hardware, they need to get bought out to fund the supply chain if they're going to be selling in quantity. In the traditional funding model, the early investors in a company are well rewarded for their backing when something like this happens. In the kickstarter model, they're lucky if they get a sample of the product 2 years late.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (4, Informative)

Solandri (704621) | about 4 months ago | (#47679129)

This is the problem I have with the current crowdfunding options like Kickstarter. All the risks of providing venture capital, none of the benefits. They're being pitched as if you're pre-buying a product the company will make once it receives enough funding. But really what you're doing is providing them venture capital [wikipedia.org] . Normally when you provide venture capital, you get partial ownership of the company. (Not all kickstarters work this way - e.g. artists who agree to draw pictures for funding. But as you point out, the companies pitching hardware do.)

I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person. People complain that the rich just keep getting richer. Well, judiciously investing venture capital is one of the ways they do that. The nature of the business is that startup companies aren't gonna waste their time on you waving around your $20 investment, while someone with a $2 million bankroll will be wined and dined. Crowdfunding could really change this IMHO. Startups may not care about your $20 investment, but a hundred thousand people wanting to invest $20 each and they'll be interested. At least it'll be a helluva lot more productive than getting low- and middle-income people to play the lottery. (The low- to middle-income folks currently unable to provide venture capital are frequently the customers of the products it produces. So they should on average pick good product ideas, making it positive sum, whereas lotteries are zero or negative sum.)

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679217)

Mod parent up! I'm starting to see real problems with this crowdfunding model.

One of the reasons people were so pissed at OR was that if the crowdfundies (crowdfunders? I dunno) had the same benefits as a typical investor (percentage of stock, etc) then the sale to FB would have made them all a little bit of money. Instead, they got a t-shirt. All the risk, none of the reward.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47679483)

I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person.

They obviously could do it, but they won't. They rather prefer the common person stay common, and not rich.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (5, Insightful)

dbc (135354) | about 4 months ago | (#47680183)

Who modded this insightful? Geez.. here are some clues:

#1: Sorry, when you risk what amounts to lunch money, that is not the same as venture capital risk. Nobody cares about lunch money. Somebody still cares about the $2 million round A money going down the toilet. VC's are judged on performance across a portfolio.

#2: Kickstarter isn't venture capital. You are promised a product, not a piece of the company. Get over it.

#3: Startups don't wine and dine anybody. They shamelessly beg with their hand out. VC's buy the would-be founders cheap lunch, literally, while they listen to the pitch, if you get that far.

#4: You have no idea what the rules and regulations are around "qualified investors". Legally, having more than 30 or so investors is a nightmare that no start-up can manage and still get work done. No startup can afford enough lawyers to do the SEC work needed to have more than a few "qualified investors".

#5: Kickstarter money is not the same as VC money because VC money comes with advice and connections. A VC needs to bring more than "dumb money" to be useful to a startup. Your $20 is worse that VC "dumb money". It is clueless money with wildly distorted expectations.

Kickstarter has changed the VC model, but not the way you think. Kickstarter is the new test market. It is how you show the VCs that your idea has traction, and to get the idea out in front of people to get it noticed. A successful kickstarter is the way you get somebody on Sandhill Road to buy you a sandwich while you pitch.

So the fact that you are disappointed that you didn't get a piece of the company for your lunch money that you spent shows that you really, really, don't undertand Kickstarter's place in the world. Your $20 is just you at the mall taking the "Pepsi Challenge". Your $20 is a market research data point. Which I, personally, find very motivational and empowering. Kickstarter is filled with ideas that I find exciting, and that I would really like to see happen. By pitching in $20, it is a way to show the people with enough money to make it really happen that it is something that I would like to see happen. That is your role as a Kickstarter patron. You are cheering for your team. Anything else you get out of it (like a product delivered only a few months late) is entertainment.

You want to be a VC? Do it the old fasioned way. Launch a successful startup, then take a few million of your own dollars and several million more dollars from some insurance companies, and use the expertise and contacts that you aquired doing your own start-up and help other people do the same thing. Oh... you haven't done a successful start up of your own yet? Luckily, you can still *drive* on Sand Hill Road, even if no one will give you an office there.

Actually, every VC I have ever met (and I've met a lot) has been very friendly, listens very well, and is extremely engaged in learning. But... they don't waste any time on the clueless. The best way to get a VC's interest and hold it is to teach them something they didn't know before. You need to learn the realities of the VC business before you start thinking you are ready to participate.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47683379)

#4: You have no idea what the rules and regulations are around "qualified investors". Legally, having more than 30 or so investors is a nightmare that no start-up can manage and still get work done. No startup can afford enough lawyers to do the SEC work needed to have more than a few "qualified investors".

So the fact that you are disappointed that you didn't get a piece of the company for your lunch money that you spent shows that you really, really, don't undertand Kickstarter's place in the world.

Kickstarter demonstrates why #4 is a very, very bad idea. Yes, I've watched "It's a Wonderful Life". Don't care. Losing money because of a bank run or the misperceived value of your house dropped in half doesn't matter all that much in actual results.

There is no moral, logical, or philosophical reason why a guy with $20 in his pockets can't be a VC. There are assholes defending the 0.01% however:

You want to be a VC? Do it the old fasioned way. Launch a successful startup, then take a few million of your own dollars and several million more dollars from some insurance companies, and use the expertise and contacts that you aquired doing your own start-up and help other people do the same thing. Oh... you haven't done a successful start up of your own yet? Luckily, you can still *drive* on Sand Hill Road, even if no one will give you an office there.

Even with semi-sarcasm you sound like a damn a-hole.

Actually, every VC I have ever met (and I've met a lot) has been very friendly, listens very well, and is extremely engaged in learning. But... they don't waste any time on the clueless. The best way to get a VC's interest and hold it is to teach them something they didn't know before. You need to learn the realities of the VC business before you start thinking you are ready to participate.

Wealthy people can't afford not to be pleasent unless that is what got them wealthy. Regardless, this is about HOW TO BE A VC not how to fellate one.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47680323)

I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person.

It's a great idea but don't try it in the USA - the SEC specifically forbids this.

People complain that the rich just keep getting richer.

Right, that's the desired outcome of the SEC.

At least it'll be a helluva lot more productive than getting low- and middle-income people to play the lottery.

Those are designed to make the poor poorer whist enriching the governments. They also work as intended.

the customers of the products it produces. So they should on average pick good product ideas, making it positive sum, whereas lotteries are zero or negative sum

Exactly - we can't have that now - it makes for very poor herd management costs.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (1)

LessThanObvious (3671949) | about 4 months ago | (#47680767)

The issue I think with crowdsourcing where the contributors were investors is that it complicates everything. It isn't easy to legally sell investments in privately held companies to those who aren't "accredited investors". http://www.sec.gov/answers/acc... [sec.gov] I

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware (1)

jrumney (197329) | about 4 months ago | (#47682835)

I'm not positive, but I think SEC regulations intended to protect old grannies' pensions from high risk schemes get in the way of what you are asking for. To make high risk venture capital investments you need to be an institutional investor or high net worth individual with experience in the field. Kickstarter avoids being an investment to get around this. Kickstarter makes sense for startups that never intend to grow beyond serving a hobbyist community, individual artists, craftsmen or engineers and the like. It is just greed to use it for starting a company that intends to grow to global scale and sell out like this.

So how SOL are the people who backed this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678711)

Seriously, how SOL are the people that backed this. Will it now no longer work on anything but Samsung devices?

Re:So how SOL are the people who backed this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678789)

What, don't you want TouchWiz everywhere?

Home Automated Living Has Been Out for 20 Years (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47678857)

Wow, so a company repackages a 20 year old product (Home Automated Living or any X10 automation equivalent) in a shiny plastic box and was able to convince someone to pay 200 million dollars for the unfinished idea? I should rummage through my junk drawer and find something else people have apparently forgotten already exists to "invent".

Re:Home Automated Living Has Been Out for 20 Years (1)

braden87 (3027453) | about 4 months ago | (#47679035)

Smart Things doesn't use X10.

Great (3, Funny)

Frankie70 (803801) | about 4 months ago | (#47678897)

So are all the people who funded this company through Kickstarter going to get a cash share or just part of the stock?

Re:Great (1)

braden87 (3027453) | about 4 months ago | (#47679017)

Kickstarter is not an investment platform. It's a donation platform.

Re:Great (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47679163)

You mean ripoff platform. It's certainly not donation... they should own a percentage of the company just like angel investors who give seed capital.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47680565)

No, you agree to donate and in return you get anything from a virtual pat on the back to some trinket to some limited edition babble or maybe even a chance to do a meet and greet with the people behind the project. I've never seen a KickStarter offer shares in the start up. Maybe you think it's a rip off but in that case just don't give them any money. Problem Solved!!!!
 
Oh, I see you're on of those FOSS cheerleaders... you think paying for anything is a ripoff. I see the problem now.

Re:Great (2)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47680995)

I'm guessing you know absolutely nothing about startups. In tech startups, the creators (people with the ideas and/or technology) obtain capital from investors called angel investors. These angels are first in the series of many types of investors that fund the startup (other types of investors include venture capitalists and the stock market). Depending on the amount invested and the risk, the investor demands a certain percent of the company ownership.

As an example, a tech startup raises $2 million from an angel investor in exchange for giving 10% of company ownership to the angel investor. However, when the tech startup raises the same $2 million from crowd funding, it gives 0% ownership to the people who risked their money for at best 0% rate of return. That's the ripoff! Do you get it now?? People who invest in startups should demand a chunk of the company no matter how small that chunk.

Now imagine you invested $500 in a crowd funded (total $20 million) company that subsequently sells to a bigger company for $2 billion. Don't you think, the startup owes you tens of thousands of dollars for risking your money?

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47681695)

Don't you think, the startup owes you tens of thousands of dollars for risking your money?
 
Um, no. Because I wasn't investing in a company. I wasn't buying shares. I was giving them money and in return they promise to offer up some item to me. It's a fund raiser, not an investment venture.
 
How are you so fucking stupid that you don't see the difference between the two?
 
Oh, that's right... you're an open source faggot.

Re:Great (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 4 months ago | (#47681751)

I was giving them money and in return they promise to offer up some item to me.

Maybe that's enough for dumb fucks like you. But others, like me, want to own a part of the company we paid for.

Your deal sounds like this to me: "I will offer you $100 for an item worth $100. And if you don't deliver the item to me, it's okay, I'm screwed. If you make billions on the back of my investment (even if I don't use that word), that's okay too. You deserve all the profits and I'm owed nothing, even though I took a risk investing my money in your risky company."

Yeah, that's really smart.

Re: Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47682825)

Shouldn't you be off writing whiny diatribes about "Micro$haft?"

GNU: Good for Nothing Users

Re:Great (1)

neo-mkrey (948389) | about 4 months ago | (#47679113)

HAHAHAHA!! Thank you for providing me with my biggest laugh of the day.

Re:Great (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679631)

So are all the people who funded this company through Kickstarter going to get a cash share or just part of the stock?

They receive neither. The inventors receive $200 million dollars and the initial Kickstart investors will receive a coupon.

How much do the backers get? (1)

houghi (78078) | about 4 months ago | (#47679195)

Is it pure risk for the backers? e.g. if they make a product, they get something they bought, but if the product flops, they loose their money.
And now if the product makes a fortune, they only get their product they bought.
In other words, is kickstarter just a pre-order sales website?

Re:How much do the backers get? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679243)

>"... they loose their money."

Those backers were definitely loose with their money.

Re:How much do the backers get? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 4 months ago | (#47679629)

Is it pure risk for the backers? e.g. if they make a product, they get something they bought, but if the product flops, they loose their money.
And now if the product makes a fortune, they only get their product they bought.
In other words, is kickstarter just a pre-order sales website?

It's zero risk for the kickstarter backers. There is zero chance they will lose more than they pledged through kickstarter.

Product? They didn't buy any product. Kickstarter has been quite clear, it is not a pre-order service. Anything offered in return for a kickstarter pledge is essentially a thank-you gift. Like all gifts, you're shouldn't demand one or complain when you don't get one.

If a kickstarter campaign fails (that is, raises the requested funds, but never manages to complete the product), the backers get nothing and have no recourse. I don't see how it would be any different if the campaign succeeds, as it did in this case. (Other than for P.R. reasons)

So back to the question of risk, once the campaign reached its funding goal, that money pledged was gone. Not a risk, but a certainty. It's like asking, what is the risk if I drop $5 into a Salvation Army bucket? No risk--you're just out $5.

So what does this mean for an API? (1)

BrianSoCal (1519721) | about 4 months ago | (#47679251)

I haven't heard of this product before, but it looks very interesting. I was looking at a few months ago what appears to be similar - a ISY994i to control Insteon automation products. All I want is something that has an API or is somewhat open ended so I can program my own stuff for it. ISY994i has it's limitations, but supports a lot of hardware (sensors, etc). Sooo... does this mean Samsung will lock it down so it can only be accessed through it's own app on a Samsung phone or through a Samsung TV or, god forbid, their smart watch (or w/e)? I would much more like it if Google bought it (although I know the advertising/privacy concerns) - at least it would most likely be more open. I'm waiting to hear how Samsung will essentially kill it off for people like me or will they make it better??

Re:So what does this mean for an API? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679517)

Cynical much?

WTF is the extra 'M' for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679337)

Why not go the whole hog and call it $200MMM!!!

MMM... tasty...

Fucking idiots. Who the hell is writing these summaries?

Re:WTF is the extra 'M' for? (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | about 4 months ago | (#47679743)

People who aren't USAsians who know that MM means 1000 * 1000 which is French for 1,000,000

Moronic summary writer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47679489)

"as the South Korean electronics MARKET tries to get a foothold into this emerging market."

That's a lot of markets! Seriously, who the hell wrote the summary?

to counter Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47682071)

Samsung already threatened Google with their own Taizen OS. They need more power as Google is investing big in the internet of things and smart device API's too, so Samsung are countering them for additional future threats which they can and most probably will follow through with if needs be.

If the SmartThings people have class... (1)

PapayaSF (721268) | about 4 months ago | (#47682217)

If the SmartThings people have class, they'll take a small portion of their windfall and pay back every Kickstarter donor 150%, or maybe 200%.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?