The Flying Lily Camera Drone is Dead, Buyers Will Be Refunded (mashable.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Flying Lily Camera Drone is Dead, Buyers Will Be Refunded (mashable.com)

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Thursday January 12, 2017 @04:00AM from the failure-101 dept.

The Lily Camera drone, which could begin recording as soon as you threw it into the air and would follow your movements automatically, has failed to materialize. The startup, which took pre-orders worth more than $34 million for its drone camera said Thursday they are shutting down the company and will issue refunds. From a report: The Lily company faced "many ups and downs" last year, the company said, adding that they couldn't secure financing for manufacturing and shipping the first batch of units. The Lily cameras were originally started to begin shipping in February 2016, but the co-founders said "software issues" resulted in a delay in the shipment. Later in October, the team gave people another chance to purchase the device, adding that stores will re-open in 2017. As of last month, the company hadn't shipped a single unit.

88 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

should have crowd funded it by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:08 · Score: 0

then they could just keep the money!
this gives me an idea by FudRucker · 2017-01-12 04:08 · Score: 1

get a startup going with a clever idea, use a GoFundMe or some sort of Kickstarter financing website to collect funds for my clever idea project, dont build anything and collect millions of dollars, after the money sits in a bank for a while make a press release that the project failed and investors have to send a self-addressed stamped envelope for a refund, send all those that send a SASE a refund, keep the rest of the money plus the interest it made while sitting in the bank which could be many thousands of dollars

--
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
1. Re:this gives me an idea by Holi · 2017-01-12 04:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Next time you have an idea to defraud people, you probably shouldn't post it on a public forum. Just pm it to me and I'll let you know how effective it was.
  
  --
  Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
2. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you writing about it instead of doing it?
3. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Because they're not a sociopath.
4. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, good luck getting any interest that matters from a bank account with less than a billion dollars. Try this in some parts of the world and you'll actually lose money.
5. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  get a startup going with a clever idea, use a GoFundMe or some sort of Kickstarter financing website to collect funds for my clever idea project, dont build anything and collect millions of dollars, after the money sits in a bank for a while make a press release that the project failed and investors have to send a self-addressed stamped envelope for a refund, send all those that send a SASE a refund, keep the rest of the money plus the interest it made while sitting in the bank which could be many thousands of dollars
  And with the refund check include the website URL for the Chinese company that saw the product idea and is already selling it for a lower price. Everyone is happy.
6. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  If it's such a terrible idea why do so many businesses do it? Gift cards, rebates, etc are all basically what the parent suggests, short term withholding of money often with hoops that people have to jump through to get their money back from the business in question. The only conceivable reason for this behavior would be trying to make money off of the funds somehow (either bank interest or some kind of short term investment) and to try to discourage people from retrieving their money.
7. Re:this gives me an idea by No+Longer+an+AC · 2017-01-12 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  And send all the refunds in the form of checks from a company with a really suggestive offensive name and see if anyone dares cash it:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  (might not be appropriate for workplace viewing - clip from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels)
8. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:25 · Score: 0
  
  $34m at 3% interest for a year is like $35k, so it isn't horrible but I believe stores make more money on abandoned balances than interest.
9. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:29 · Score: 0
  
  Ally has 1% right now. There's a few others.
  So that's $10k per $1M.
10. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's not so much about bank interest as it is about getting your cash now, for a promise that in the future you will be able to purchase goods worth the "value" of that cash (minus the retailer's profit, of course).
  Also, if you hang on to the gift card for a while the value lost to inflation and rising prices may be many times higher than the amount the retailer would earn in interest. You get to eat that. And they get their profit in hand before you've even bought anything!
11. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  While you point (abandoned balances make them more than interest) is possible your failure at math makes it hard to credit your opinion (3% of 35m is 87.5k a month).
  According to trade mags 10% are not used in the first 2 months, 1% are not used in the first year. Lets use your 3%/year interest as what they make and that the distribution is linear between data points. So from months 1-2 you will have an average of 45% of the money, the interest would be .225%. Over the next 10 months you would average 5% of the money or about .125%.
  So, presuming nobody ever uses their gift card after 1 year you are correct. I can find no information on usage after a year so it would be interesting to see.
12. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  In addition you can Ponzi scheme it, start another GoFundMe/Indiegogo/Kickstarter, use some of the money from that to refund the people from the last failed project.
13. Re:this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 09:03 · Score: 0
  
  3% of 35m is 87.5k a month
  Slightly higher if you don't spend the interest immediately - you're forgetting compound interest.
14. Re: this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Get a list of 5000 people, split them into two groups tell one half team A will win a game a d team B the other half.
  Discard the half you are wrong for and split the good half in two. Tell them the same thing. After several rounds you have a small group of people who think you can accurately predict sports team outcomes. Offer them $10,000 to know the outcome of the next game.
15. Re: this gives me an idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-13 01:23 · Score: 0
  
  The only problem with this idea of yours is that the real gambling value lies in knowing the exact scores of the game, not just knowing the winner.
16. Re:this gives me an idea by FudRucker · 2017-01-15 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  as a warning, i dont do those things. rather i want people to be aware those things do happen, if i can think of them just think of the ideas real criminals come up with.
  
  --
  Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
17. Re: this gives me an idea by johnsnails · 2017-01-15 14:35 · Score: 1
  
  But there is still money on picking a winner.
Well better than some other startups. by foxalopex · 2017-01-12 04:11 · Score: 1, Insightful

Despite them not succeeding, you have to give them credit for at least refunding folks compared to other epic failures on Kickstarter. In the last year, we've also seen the number of consumer drones skyrocket leading to more "accidents" so maybe the market is starting to saturate.
1. Re:Well better than some other startups. by David_Hart · 2017-01-12 04:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Despite them not succeeding, you have to give them credit for at least refunding folks compared to other epic failures on Kickstarter. In the last year, we've also seen the number of consumer drones skyrocket leading to more "accidents" so maybe the market is starting to saturate.
  This is why, in my opinion, Kickstarter, et al., should be investment based (i.e. shares). At least then you could write off losses due to failure on your tax return. What they could do is issue you shares and then provide an option to turn in those shares for the product when it ships or keep them in case the company succeeds. Of course, doing it this way would incur all kinds of legal costs, force them to make the books public, and complicate things. Which is probably why they don't do it.
2. Re:Well better than some other startups. by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2017-01-12 05:02 · Score: 2
  
  Recent regulation was changed to allow for "crowdfunding" startups this way, where you can actually get shares of the business this way. I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet, though I understand the option is legally available now.
3. Re: Well better than some other startups. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:03 · Score: 0
  
  Unfortunately it is still illegal to crowdfund company ownership. The SEC has been working on rules to allow it, but nothing has been approved. So sites like KS are relegated to donations or payments for product or service.
4. Re:Well better than some other startups. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Too many idiots would demand their money back when investment is a risky venture in the first place.
5. Re:Well better than some other startups. by drinkypoo · 2017-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Despite them not succeeding, you have to give them credit for at least refunding folks
  Once they have actually refunded folks, they can have credit for it. So far they've just taken some people's names, and said they would refund them.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Well better than some other startups. by kbonin · 2017-01-12 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  All the constraints the SEC put on it preclude it from being of much use - https://www.sec.gov/info/small...
7. Re:Well better than some other startups. by TWX · 2017-01-12 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the plot for Mel Brooks' The Producers essentially revolves around this sort of thing and that Brooks and company didn't originally invent the idea themselves, I'm not exactly surprised that it's difficult to set up schemes with small-time investment. Even if everyone is above-board there are too many risks, and it would be prime grounds for dishonest people to defraud those who are least financially able to fight back against it.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
8. Re:Well better than some other startups. by OverlordQ · 2017-01-12 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  https://equity.indiegogo.com/
  
  --
  Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
9. Re:Well better than some other startups. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  It works just fine as-is for me. But I only buy into campaigns for fully-defined products from companies and individuals with a proven track record producing similar products. It's a good way to properly scope your production volume on niche products. Funding R&D this way is just stupid.
10. Re:Well better than some other startups. by JoeMerchant · 2017-01-12 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think Sondors might be following this model for their e-car startup:
  https://www.startengine.com/st...
  The founder has basically declared that his idea, name and expertise is worth $36M and he's asking the world to please give him an initial round of $1M cash to start development, in exchange for shares.
11. Re:Well better than some other startups. by Pinky's+Brain · 2017-01-12 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Only the rich are allowed to do private investments outside of the stockmarket, peons not allowed.
I wonder if the TextBlade is next by I'm+just+joshin · 2017-01-12 04:15 · Score: 1

I've had it with these "Revolutionary" companies & their vaporware.
1. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2017-01-12 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is why people should be very wary of crowdfunding because so many of the crowdfund campaigns are exactly that. So much bullshit. There's quite a few legit companies that do get started this way but enough failures that people shouldn't be backing projects as carelessly as they do.
2. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by arth1 · 2017-01-12 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  One of the problems is that people believe they are buying stuff, placing an advance order due at order time. What they do is backing an idea that may or may not pan out. Many of us are fine with that concept, but some have a hard time accepting it.
  It could have turned out better (good product), or it could have turned out worse (no refunds). Contributing should imply that you are aware of and truly accept all those eventualities.
3. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by xSauronx · 2017-01-12 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  my GF and I were wary but split the early preorder price of $500 to get in on this. we were just barely willing to lose 250 each if they bailed on the project.
  considering the last update we had was an address confirmation and a blurb that they planned to ship december 2016/jan 2017 we were hopefuly that wed have a unit in this week or next, not a cancellation email :-/
  
  --
  By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
4. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by thomn8r · 2017-01-12 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Like Theranos? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
5. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by Pinky's+Brain · 2017-01-12 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  I'm on board with that just as soon as money for a forensic accountant is sequestered from the initial funding in case it fails. With Kickstarter taking on partial liability and prosecute on our behalf if the accountant finds malfeasance on a failed project. Until that time the only way to play it is to see kickstarting as entering into a contract to deliver a product, so there is at least some stick to beat them with if they are scammers.
  To treat project starters as you suggest in the current system is sheer madness and an invitation to scammers.
6. Re:I wonder if the TextBlade is next by arth1 · 2017-01-13 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  To treat project starters as you suggest in the current system is sheer madness and an invitation to scammers.
  So? Let the scammers come. Do a little research before you donate, so you don't give to scammers.
  If they do anything illegal, the law is the right venue.
But I thought we were past the Luddite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:16 · Score: 0

stage of waiting for old school factories full of boring and depressing ... parts... and badly-dressed engineers and technicians??
We can all 3D print this drone at home, right?
Because it's the future and stuff and computers got better?
1. Re:But I thought we were past the Luddite by TWX · 2017-01-12 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  *grin*
  
  I assume that you're intentionally begging the question to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation, but to answer the question anyway, flat-out, 3d printing does not offer the materials properties or speed and low-cost needed to mass-produce. It's simply inefficient to use 3d printing for volume, and the kinds of things that can be made are limited in scope. It's cheaper and the results are better to produce 100,000 plastic parts using a metal mold and injection process than it is to 3d print them.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:But I thought we were past the Luddite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  I can feel your bitterness from here. I smell it. Smells of stale coffee and human feces. What happened to you?
3. Re:But I thought we were past the Luddite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  And I think you must either have had a stroke or have a very powerful case of Asperger's if you can't tell mocking glee from bitterness.
4. Re:But I thought we were past the Luddite by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 11:07 · Score: 0
  
  " flat-out, 3d printing does not offer the materials properties or speed and low-cost"
  But to make leaky Yoda coffee cups?
  " to mass-produce"
  That wasn't the point, I was promised that we'd each have a 3D printer (that would pay for itself in 7 months) and there would be no more mass-producing. As a matter of fact, I was told we'd all be living in 3D printed skyscrapers (after bulldozing all existing cities) driving around in 3D printed cars.
  When I questioned the technological basis for these claims it was explained to me that computers got better, therefore everything gets better at the same rate.
  And when I pointed out that the 747 first flew in 1969 and that it still flies at the same speed and altitude today, I was called a Luddite.
Too long, too late by Holi · 2017-01-12 04:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

Probably didn't help that many drones appeared on the market in the past year with the same capabilities. I can walk into a Best Buy and buy a drone that can follow and film me today.

--
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
1. Re:Too long, too late by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Best Buy is filled with drones that will follow you around automatically.
  Oh. You mean the flying ones, not the meat flesh ones.
  Nevermind. Carry on.
2. Re:Too long, too late by drinkypoo · 2017-01-12 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  I can walk into a Best Buy and buy a drone that can follow and film me today.
  Even iNav can follow you today, all they had to implement was aiming the gimbal. As such jobs go, it was trivial.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3. Re: Too long, too late by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  You can't throw those drones and they need traditional controllers, but they have manufacturing advantages which lily had zero.
  And the traditional drone manufacturers just copied the features lily invented and got it to market faster. Similar ecosystem as Apple's or Intel's.
  Dji. Yuneec. Autel. Walkera... Will continue to get cool ideas from groups like lily and dominate the market until a new player can execute.
lolz by SuperBanana · 2017-01-12 04:28 · Score: 1

"they couldn't secure financing for manufacturing and shipping the first batch of units"
If only we had a way to provide funding for products? We could set up websites that enabled people to post commercially unviable ideas, collect sales in advance, and then bullshit for two years about why they haven't shipped, promised features have been removed, etc.

--
Please help metamoderate.
1. Re:lolz by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  If only we had a way to provide funding for products?
  We have, it's called stock.
2. Re:lolz by shaitand · 2017-01-12 04:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So what exactly did they do with the $34 million dollars? That seems like a substantial amount of funding just to ship a first round of a basic electronics product.
3. Re:lolz by drinkypoo · 2017-01-12 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  So what exactly did they do with the $34 million dollars?
  If they're actually refunding people, then they still have the money, and the answer is "fuck all".
  If people don't actually get their refunds, the answer lies somewhere betweeen "aeron chairs" and "hookers and blow".
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
4. Re: lolz by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  30, 125k/yr engineers and VPs....
  34mil for 4 yrs sounds about right....
5. Re:lolz by Kjella · 2017-01-12 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  So what exactly did they do with the $34 million dollars? That seems like a substantial amount of funding just to ship a first round of a basic electronics product.
  Well first of all it said $34 million worth of preorders, doesn't mean they made a full deposit like say for the Tesla Model 3 there's a $1000 depoit for a $35000 car. And even so it's not a Kickstarter, they're not supposed to use this for R&D and say whoops sorry, we used up the money but it didn't work out. They probably took preorders to gauge interest and get investors, for whatever reason it didn't work out - that they couldn't get funding is a red herring, if you got a product and customer ready with a healthy profit margin there's always someone willing. What's more likely is that it was a huge startup cost and risk of losing big nobody wanted to pay. Or that they couldn't deliver the features they promised at the price point they promised.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
nice by AndyKron · 2017-01-12 04:28 · Score: 1

Nice scam, man
Oh please by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-12 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

"The startup, which took pre-orders worth more than $34 million..."
FFS, you had $34 million dollars in your pocket and couldn't ship one fucking product?
They should rename themselves, "Hopeless Lamers Inc" and their company motto should be, "We Can't Do Shit".

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
1. Re:Oh please by chispito · 2017-01-12 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  FFS, you had $34 million dollars in your pocket and couldn't ship one fucking product?
  They could either arrive late with a crappy product or give people (some?) money back so they could just buy a Mavic like everyone else. Which would you choose?
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
2. Re:Oh please by Ogive17 · 2017-01-12 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  Did they actually get the full money from the pre-order?
  
  Occasionally I will pre-order a game, depending on the service I am sometimes not charged until the product actually ships. I've seen other areas where you only put a deposit down on the pre-order and pay the balance when it ships.
  
  Pre-orders can sometimes just be a reservation. The company could have tried using the pre-order figure to help get someone to make the product. Maybe the manufacturers/other investors did not trust their figures.
  
  --
  "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
3. Re:Oh please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  "Hello. Washington Redskins, go fuck yourself."
4. Re: Oh please by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  But they assembled a team of phD's and brilliant code warriors! That's gotta be worth something, right?
5. Re:Oh please by DerekLyons · 2017-01-12 06:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  FFS, you had $34 million dollars in your pocket and couldn't ship one fucking product?
  IIRC there are legal limits on when you take that money out of (what is essentially) escrow. That is, the $34 million wasn't actually in their pocket and they (legally) couldn't put it in their pocket until they had a product to ship. That's one of the reasons why Kickstarter brands products to be delivered in the future as 'rewards' rather than 'pre-orders'. (Which doesn't stop people from seeing or using those rewards as pre-orders though.)
6. Re:Oh please by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-12 07:24 · Score: 2
  
  They could either arrive late with a crappy product or give people (some?) money back so they could just buy a Mavic like everyone else. Which would you choose?
  For starters I'd choose not to plow my money into anything they ever did again.
  Bottom line: Give me $34 million dollars and I'll ship a working product. FFS, they could have bought COTS gear and added their own special sauce to make it work.
  I don't know the first fucking thing about making a drone that follows you around but give me $34 million dollars and I could fucking well make it happen. This is NOT a $34 million dollar problem; this is maybe a $1 million dollar problem, and that includes the hookers and blow.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
7. Re:Oh please by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-12 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  Did they actually get the full money from the pre-order?
  I don't know, but the headline said "...Buyers Will Be Refunded" and the story stated, "they are shutting down the company and will issue refunds", so I'm thinking they took the money upfront.
  It sounds like a colossal clusterfuck of epic proportions. I mean, this thing is a fucking toy, it doesn't have to fly to space, survive reentry, or work under battlefield conditions. It's a fucking plastic drone that follows you around.
  It was supposed to cost $799. Tell ya what- you give me just $20 million dollars in start-up funding and I'll ship a working product in under a year for $399.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
8. Re:Oh please by chispito · 2017-01-12 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Bottom line: Give me $34 million dollars and I'll ship a working product. FFS, they could have bought COTS gear and added their own special sauce to make it work.
  I don't know the first fucking thing about making a drone that follows you around but give me $34 million dollars and I could fucking well make it happen. This is NOT a $34 million dollar problem; this is maybe a $1 million dollar problem, and that includes the hookers and blow.
  The bottom line is it's not a problem of designing a $34 million quadcopter. It's a problem of designing a quadcopter and then manufacturing and fulfilling $34 million worth of orders.
  
  --
  The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
9. Re:Oh please by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-01-12 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The bottom line is it's not a problem of designing a $34 million quadcopter. It's a problem of designing a quadcopter and then manufacturing and fulfilling $34 million worth of orders.
  Bottom line: Give me $34 million dollars and I'll design, manufacture, and fulfill $34 million worth of "follow-me" quadcopter orders. And I'll do it in less than a year with a price of about $400 per quadcopter instead of $800.
  
  --
  Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
10. Re:Oh please by radarskiy · 2017-01-12 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  But you can get financing on the basis of the income stream you can show you are going to have on the basis of the pre-orders.
11. Re:Oh please by DerekLyons · 2017-01-12 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  But you can get financing on the basis of the income stream you can show you are going to have on the basis of the pre-orders.
  And if you can convince prospective lenders you can actually produce them at a cost where you'll have sufficient profit to repay them when you do receive the income. And convince the lenders that you're competent enough to do so. Etc... etc...
12. Re:Oh please by radarskiy · 2017-01-13 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Which underscores the point that the problem wasn't a lack of financing per se but a lack of a business case.
Thirty four MILLION? by Chas · 2017-01-12 05:17 · Score: 1

What was their R&D procedure?
Build a model, then a week of hookers and blow?
Fuck!

--

Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Couldn't secure financing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:22 · Score: 0

I'm confused. They had had $34 million, but couldn't secure financing for manufacturing and shipping?
If they are going to refund everyone they must still access to $34m, so why couldn't they use that to finance the manufacturing and shipping?
1. Re:Couldn't secure financing? by PackMan97 · 2017-01-12 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  My guess, they a) couldn't get the price per unit low enough and b) folks looking at them didn't see the product that was advertised and didn't want to risk sitting on a bunch of unsold or returned inventory. It's easy to see there was a market there, which is why you can now buy quad copters with the functionality promised by Lily...but just because there is a market doesn't mean the Lily team had executed well enough to bring their product to market. Clearly, they had not.
2. Re:Couldn't secure financing? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Simple, they didn't think they could make a profit on it so they're making an excuse on why they aren't going forward. Why they can't make a profit on it is the more difficult question, it could be technical (they don't have the talent), it could be legal (generic patents) and/or economics (too few customers at the eventual product price). I would bet it's a combination of the first two issues.
3. Re:Couldn't secure financing? by sexconker · 2017-01-12 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  If they are going to refund everyone they must still access to $34m, so why couldn't they use that to finance the manufacturing and shipping?
  When all logic fails, your assumptions must be incorrect. They are not going to refund everyone. I'd be surprised if more than 10% of that money was refunded.
Buyers have been *promised* refunds by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-12 05:26 · Score: 0

ftfy
Ups and downs by wonkey_monkey · 2017-01-12 05:43 · Score: 2

The Lily company faced "many ups and downs" last year
Well... you'd hope so, really, when you're developing a drone.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Happy Failed Startup from the Golden Girls by sexconker · 2017-01-12 05:56 · Score: 1

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.
And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.
couldn't find money by bobmajdakjr · 2017-01-12 06:03 · Score: 1

34 million... couldn't find money...
Producing at scale by blueshift_1 · 2017-01-12 06:12 · Score: 1

Like so many of the kickstarters that blow up like this, they cannot scale at the price point they've set. When you a set a price you have to consider all of the R&D, Production Startup, Import and still leave room in for delays. Many times it's better to just make a few boutique items for people who really want your product, than to price it for the masses and it quickly becomes unrealistic. There's a reason drones of this type were quite a bit more expensive than the lily (especially the early backer price).
I *almost* bought into this by TigerPlish · 2017-01-12 07:03 · Score: 1

I almost bought into this. Sounded like just the tool to record form and technique for later analysis without the need to have someone film you -- and from a higher POV.
My instinct said "Wail until shipment." Glad I listened.

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
1. Re:I *almost* bought into this by sunderland56 · 2017-01-12 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  I *tried* to buy into this, but their lame web site didn't let me. I inquired via their "contact me" link, and got nothing in return. Given those two bad signs, I gave up.
  If you are a technology company that can't build a web site and can't monitor an email address, your inability to ship a product is hardly surprising.
"Investors" Had No Clue What Is Possible TODAY by eepok · 2017-01-12 07:53 · Score: 1

It kills me. There are so many vaporware projects out there that banked entirely on peoples' lack of understanding of where tech has advanced and where they hope it will be tomorrow.

When I saw the advertisement for this drone, my immediate thought was, "No. They don't have something that can do that. And they won't deliver something that can do that in a year." I'm not a pessimist. I just understand, like most Slashadotters, what is possible today vs. what is possible with Google's money vs. what is possible with a few guys' passion. There was no reason to believe that this project could be completed. Vaporware.

Same goes for Solar Roadways (http://www.solarroadways.com/). People LOVE the idea of our massive road and highway system generating massive amounts of energy from the sun. These people say they know how to make it happen and that they're starting to get funding and permission to test it. But, again, almost everyone on Slashdot can attest to the currently insurmountable issues of durability, transparency, friction, wiring, cost, etc. Vaporware.

Let's look at Google's recently cancelled "solar-powered, autonomous gliders beaming internet to the masses" idea. Who here thought that was going to come to fruition? Anyone? I sure hope not. Vaporware.

What annoys me most is that in-between vaporware and delivery. Where there's so much hype, rational demand, and funding but the obstacles are so huge, that we know the promises can't ever be met within the time-frame promised, but oooooh, we want to believe! I'm talking about genuine autonomous vehicles. The tech isn't here yet. We all see the potential. We know the tech will be here, but it's *not* here. Still the hype says, "The future is now! We're just working out some kinks and, oh, you know these silly lawmakers and safety experts!" People talk about autonomous vehicles flooding the American roads in the next couple years. And, really, it's just to get more investment capital. Within the next couple years, I know we'll see much more automated driver assist in vehicles (auto-braking, proximity alerts, etc.), but I have absolutely zero expectation of being able to, within the next couple years, hail a car, have it show up at my home, take me to an address I specify, and do so safely, affordably, without a driver, and without massive liability on me.
Partial refund by manu0601 · 2017-01-12 14:16 · Score: 1

I doubt they can do full refund since they operated one year without earning a single dollar.