How Not To Launch a Gadget

An anonymous reader writes "Starfish sells itself with this slogan: 'The next biggest thing is the next smallest thing: The world's first ever interactive iPhone and iPad mirroring device on your wrist.' The reality is that building products is hard. Building products with amazing feature sets is harder still. And, as the old saying goes, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. From the article: 'On Thursday morning when the show floor opened, Starfish’s booth was completely empty—no product, no marketing materials, not even any people. Come Friday, various permutations of representatives appeared at the booth intermittently. ... Saturday arrived, but the watch didn’t, at least not at first. After hourly promises of its imminent arrival, a single prototype of the Starfish watch appeared sometime before 1 p.m. My colleague Dan Moren got to the booth before I did, and the Starfish device wasn't working then. It had apparently worked, briefly, in some sense of the word "worked," when a reporter for TUAW visited the booth. ... The sole representative at the booth when I returned wouldn't give his name. What information he did give me didn’t mesh with what [the CEO] had told TUAW. ... "Why did he send you to man the booth if you can’t answer questions about the watch?" I asked the rep. "I’m done talking to you," he said, as he moved to position himself directly in front of my face. His expression had gone from brusque to combative. "Did you hear me? I’m done talking to you." My accompanying colleagues and I took the unsubtle hint. We left the booth.'"

Comments

Fake Product, Real News?

[DavidClarkeHR]

Unfortunately, so many companies have bought into the idea that hype - any hype - will lead to funding, which will lead to product development .... which will lead to the product that was being hyped.

And we keep falling for it ... *sigh*

Captain Obvious strikes again

[girlintraining]

Having people who have terrible people skills represent your interests usually ends badly. Just ask the LAPD. Or [hated political group]. If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it. This isn't rocket science...

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[Macgrrl]

If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.

Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[PessimysticRaven]

If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.

Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

If it weren't for the fact that it works, it wouldn't be perpetuated.

Lowest common denominator love socially-acceptable bags of fat.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to break it to you, but sex sells. Always did, always will.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[squiggleslash]

Quite, nerds would never show an interest in a computer game or new electronic gadget unless there's a young woman in a short dress in front of it.

It's a wonder anyone ever visits websites that aren't porn really.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[girlintraining]

Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

Speaking as a woman in IT, I don't mind. Girls demoing products are not even in the same league as me; They're not going back to work as network admins, programmers, etc. They're there to look good and by extension make the product look good. To me, it's no different than being a cheerleader for a sports team. Would I do it? Probably not. Am I going to judge another woman who does? No. I've met enough aggressive feminists in college that bitch and moan about the objectification of women and get angry when I point out they're just enforcing a different set of values on others. Whether it's a bikini or a burka, the message is the same: You have to conform to others' ideas about your femininity. And that's not cool. If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves... and if they want to be a cheerleader for Tech Product X, I say, "you go girl." Just don't ask me to do the pom-pom thing... it's not my thing.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[Belial6]

It is a small vocal set of women that don't like scantily clad women almost as much as men do. By using booth babes, you attract both genders.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[postbigbang]

Yes, but one of the genders is ready to kick your podiums over, throw coffee into your routers, and strangle various exhibitor functionaires with Cat6 after they set fire to your expensive literature.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[tsa]

Which is exactly the reason why we don't see scantily clad males in booths. They scare away your clientele.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

You understand that you are a guy, right?

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[dcollins]

Of course it's about a paycheck, any idiot knows that. So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck? If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[TheGratefulNet]

Just don't ask me to do the pom-pom thing... it's not my thing

that must be the other poster, then; that goes by the handle 'girlInATrainingBra'.

(not kidding)

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[vux984]

If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck?

No not me personally, but as a society yes, that's precisely what we do. For example, we set safety regulations even though there are plenty of people who would take a job that did not meet those safety standards. Should we let companies exploit that too?

We also prohibit many forms of sexual harassment now that many women used to endure. I suppose they were they just "expressing their femininity" when they chose to continue to work feed and support their families instead of making a stand about what they wouldn't tolerate in the workplace.

Recently some countries are starting to regulate models to promote better body image for regular women, and prevent the models themselves to subject themselves to starvation and other self abuse to attain the "desired weight".

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[wvmarle]

Scantily clad women are a staple of car shows and tech shows. Both have a mostly male attendance. Most of the tech/electronics related trade shows that I have been I think there were far more women working in the booths than that there were women amongst the visitors.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[girlintraining]

Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

Yes. Let's not let them talk about it. There's a woman here telling you that you're wrong, therefore she must be crazy and thus ignored. Listen asshat, when I say defining it, I didn't say it's easy. I didn't say that it was right. I didn't even comment about the social acceptability of it. What I said was: It's up to me to say what it means. And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you. If I decide it means putting on a burka and hiding my face and body from the world, screw you too. In fact, if I decide it means nothing at all, you guessed it: Screw you.

Your opinion, sir, is simply not relevant. If a woman has the choice, then she is free. It is when we stop having choices that there's a problem, and your attitude, expressed by putting it down to "as a society" to avoid taking responsibility for it, is what causes the capacity to choose to diminish. Women have bodies. They're not shapeless automatons, but beautifully curved, soft, and all of that. And why shouldn't they be allowed to revel in that?

It only becomes a problem when other people's sick notions of what 'normal' should be draws others into the kind of behaviors you describe. And nobody is immune to that, not even you, Mr. I-Ask-Myself-Every-Morning-Who-The-Tiger-Is. We all have to deal with our own body image issues, men, women, human. That's just how it is.

But as long as you have the freedom to choose how you face those circumstances, it's all good. When you start demanding others not have those freedoms because you feel you're "saving them from themselves", well then Sir, you are part of the problem.

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that women should have the freedom to use their appearance and sexuality how they please, and I wouldn't go up to a model and tell her she's doing something wrong. However, I still think it's fair to call for the tech industry to stop hiring models to advertise their products. It might seem like there is a contradiction here, but it's because of the distinction between the morality of individual rights and the morality of cultural trends.

There are plenty of things in life that are not individually morally wrong, but when present in general trends, can cause a lot of damage. To give you a really basic example, consider a joking insult about your weight. If you had a single friend who occasionally joked that you're fat, (but you joked back that she's ugly), it would probably be okay. If every single person you met joked that you're fat, you'd probably get a complex. Likewise, a single flame over the Internet doesn't really mean anything, but when an Internet mob forms, even tough-guys crumble and cry. The issue of racism and art is full of examples like this. There are a vast array of films, songs and music videos which, when taken in isolation, are perfectly fine. Take Jackie Brown for example. Spike Lee thought that film was racist, and Tarantino naturally disagreed. They were both correct. On the one hand, Jackie Brown has no racist intent, it joyfully plays with the tropes of blacksploitation cinema, and only uses slightly cartoonish characters as a way to evoke the films it references and entertain the audience in the same way those movies did. On the other hand, Samuel L. Jackson's character embodies a trope that enforces a negative stereotype about black people. He is a barely fleshed out racist cartoon character. Taken individually the movie isn't particularly racist. However, when you look at hollywood movies as a whole, you can't help but notice that "ghetto" mannerisms almost always appear on a violent or stupid character.

It's the same thing with getting female models to advertise products. Paying women to look attractive isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I certainly don't feel like it should be banned in a free society. However, I feel like the commercial exploitation of desire belongs in places like the fashion and sex industries, where there is a decent reason for them to be there. It doesn't belong in the tech industry. I would like companies to stop using models to advertise their products. And I would like for individuals to respond to that kind of advertising more reasonably. Instead of allowing themselves to be sexually manipulated, I would like people to look on this kind of advertising as unprofessional and desperate.

Really, in terms of legal rights and gender issues, things are pretty good. However, there's still a host of battles to fight over cultural norms. These battles are much harder, because you can point to a trend and say "this is wrong", and people can look at each individual case and say "well there's nothing particular wrong about this one" and other people can say "stopping people from doing this would be wrong" and they'd all be right. Worse still, you will get people who campaign about cultural trends using absolute moral terms, which actually damages their own cause. Aggressive feminists have done this to you over the issue of objectification. You now think of objectification as a non-issue, even though it is still a real problem. Would you really not prefer it if female sexuality was used a bit less in advertising, if movies had more genuinely smart or complex female characters or if there were fewer computer games where men are covered from head to toe in armour and women look like two beach balls on a matchstick in a shiny bikini? In an ideal world, art containing hypersexual female objectification would still exist, but it would be kept away from developing minds and would be balanced out by hypersexual male objectification and more complex realistic representations of women.

Honestly, I wish more smart people were able to see that there are s

Re:Captain Obvious strikes again

[squiggleslash]

There's never been some golden age where everything on TV was awesome. And there are some superb shows on TV right now, from Breaking Bad to Person of Interest. In fact, I'd say some of the best television ever made has been produced in the last decade or so in the US.

Another Kickstarter failure

[DogDude]

Surprise, surprise. It was funded, at least in part, by Kickstarter. Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding. The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest, so they ultimately end up on Kickstarter, begging for handouts from the clueless general public. Of course, some Kickstarter projects are run by intelligent, capable people who use Kickstarter because some kind of principles that they may have, but the vast majority of the projects are there because the owners didn't have any other options.

Personally, I see it as a real karmic kick in the ass to the people starting these "projects" every time one falls over. Inevitably, they're people who think they've got the next idea for the next big Apple accessory, but they pooh-pooh the mundane details of engineering, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution, all of which they look down their noses at (an attitude often espoused by Slashthink, too). As an actual business owner, that provides actual services for people, and deals with actual, physical products, I have to smile every time I see one of these holier-than-thou fools fall flat on their proverbial faces because they can't figure out the nuts and bolts of running a business.

Running a business is hard. It's very hard. Coming up with an idea for some new gee gaw is about 1% of the effort required to do something like this project. The other 99% is the fun, yet very difficult business-y stuff that these kinds of people try to ignore.

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[mcl630]

According to TFA, they are *going to* use Kickstarter to fund the project. It's not even on Kickstarter yet.

With the bad press, they'll have a really hard time raising those funds (assuming people take the 2 minutes to actually google the company before giving their money).

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[LordLucless]

Surprise, surprise. It was funded, at least in part, by Kickstarter. Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding.

So what you're saying is the nature of the funding determines the quality of a venture? Not the product, not the experience of the people running it, the funding source. Why not check the tea-leaves or the entrails of your pet chook?

The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest

Assumption. it is not necessary to seek other types of funding before going to Kickstarter

begging for handouts

It's not a hand-out when you're getting something in return. I guess companies like Rockstar and Bioware are asking for handouts when they offer pre-orders too?

from the clueless general public

Unlike you educated business types. Glad to see elitism is alive and well.

Personally, I see it as a real karmic kick in the ass to the people starting these "projects" every time one falls over.

You enjoy seeing other people fail because they didn't sell their soul to a banker to finance a new idea. Gotcha.

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[flimflammer]

This has nothing to do with Kickstarter, yet.

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[stephanruby]

Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding. The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest, so they ultimately end up on Kickstarter, begging for handouts from the clueless general public.

Just scratch the surface a little bit, and you'll find that 99% of the kickstarters projects that get funded in the first place are started by people that already have a very large audience and an existing reputation of some kind.

Now I'm not saying that the clueless general public won't invest in those types of projects, but generally speaking, the clueless general public tend not to invest in a project unless many other people have invested in it already. That's why having a core audience that already believes in you is crucial in getting the initial momentum going. Kickstarters is definitely not as easy as you think.

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[Belial6]

As much as taking joy in other people failing makes him an ass, he did not say that the nature of funding determines the quality of a venture. He said that the quality of the venture determines funding.

Re:Another Kickstarter failure

[DogDude]

So what you're saying is the nature of the funding determines the quality of a venture? Not the product, not the experience of the people running it, the funding source.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. There are millions of businesses that have been successfully started without begging for money. I started mine with a credit card, and some personal loans. If you aren't willing to put your own personal assets on the line, and nobody else is willing to put their assets on the line, then yes, it's probably either a bad idea, or the people starting it are incompetent.

It's not a hand-out when you're getting something in return

That's normally called "selling" a product or service. Begging for money before there is a product or service and promising to deliver (maybe) is called a hand-out.

Unlike you educated business types.

It takes an extra low IQ to give money to people in exchange for a non-legally binding promise of goods or services. I'll invest in a startup, but only in exchange for interest or equity. Throwing money at strangers in exchange for nothing is not investing, and it's certainly not smart.

You enjoy seeing other people fail because they didn't sell their soul to a banker to finance a new idea. Gotcha.

Aaah, You have never started a business. If you ever had, then you'd know that banks don't give loans for startups. But, to be clear, I enjoy seeing these people fail because they generally give little to no consideration towards actually creating a viable business. I admire a person who starts a plumbing business. Or a gas station. Or a cleaning service. Or a restaurant. Or a manufacturing business. Those are all very, very difficult to do. To come up with some idea for some gadget,, beg strangers for money, and ignore the nuts and bolts of actually starting a company is easy.

Blowing smoke?

[Media_Scumbag]

A device called "starfish" turns out to be vaporware? Color me surprised.

creeper

[Georules]

Am I the only one a little concerned by how intent Lex Friedman (author of TFA) was on getting information from the representative that clearly didn't know anything. He took pictures of the booth while he waited around for the CEO to show.

Re:creeper

[hawkinspeter]

Yes, you're the only one. A booth is effectively a public face for the company/product and a representative should, by definition, represent the company/product. Taking photos of the booth isn't at all creepy - taking photos of the toilets would be creepy.

Re:creeper

[lexfri]

Well... I was doing my job, and I definitely don't feel like I harassed the guy impolitely. He told me the CEO would be return. When I came back and he said the CEO wouldn't return, I asked him why the CEO had him manning the booth if he didn't know the answers to questions folks would have about the product. That's when he threatened me. I definitely didn't take the 20/20 investigative reporter approach of trying to get a rise out of him. I actually wanted the answer to the question.

He does seem to want to MAKE the story

[Anonymous Coward]

Without being so annoying as to be told to f-off, he wouldn't have a story. So he does seem to be trying to get a reaction.

As it is, it's just a product planned for launch that wasn't ready to launch. Well that's same as usual for new products. Once you realize the guy there isn't a rep with any knowledge, hassling him for knowledge you know he doesn't have, is designed to illicit a negative response.

Perhaps it was a slow show and he had no story.

Re:Recipe for disaster ...

[egcagrac0]

You can already get "quick turn" circuit boards in a few days from real board houses.

I don't see 3D printing speeding it up any, especially when the boards produced may not be continuity tested or have 94V-0 approval.

Besides, once you make the board, it needs to be populated, soldered, functional tested, and possibly safety tested (hipot).

Slowing it down can save money - standard turn & assembly may take a few weeks, but the cost may be 1/100th of quick turn (economies of scale, no expedite charges, standard freight instead of expedited...).

Bye bye

[scotts13]

"Did you hear me? I’m done talking to you."

And thus, with nine words, a company dies. They clearly have no manufacturing capability, little-or-no software development capability, and have done no market research. The have a half-baked idea, and a part of a marketing plan. Probably saw a piece of existing hardware, and figured they could customize it to do something different - and were wrong. There have been successful products that launched way too soon, but not with THAT kind of press. Done for, now.

Re:and yet any time I mention RMS...

[Microlith]

If only people didn't do so every time a comment of his is brought up for the sole purpose of derailing any actual useful discussion. It's done deliberately to drive discussion into the ground and ensure that a possibly useful conversation does not take place simply because there are people far more concerned about spreading hatred of the man than doing something useful.

he's a spokesman and figurehead, which makes every single one of the points above completely relevant.

Only in the context of discussing him in his role of "spokesman" and "figurehead." Not "any time RMS is ever mentioned."

Re:Recipe for disaster ...

[Custard Horse]

Yes but these dice were *3D*, can you imagine such a thing? 3D gaming dice - the possibilities!

Re:Recipe for disaster ...

[Niedi]

I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed with stainless steel.

FTFY

It's a small but important distinction. The ability to print stainless steel would be revolutionary, while the ability to powder cast has been around for millennia. A hyped convolution of the mold making process is not going to change much besides the number of shitty knives and dice in pawn shop display cases.

It is indeed possible to print IN stainless steel, titanium etc.... Using a technique called selective laser sintering, fine metal powder is selectively melted/fused by a high power laser, allowing you to directly print custom parts from metal.

I see..

[slashmojo]

you've met my wife!