Slashdot Mirror
The Inside Story of the Lily Drone's Collapse (wired.com)
New submitter mirandakatz writes: Lily Robotics had everything: Two charismatic young founders; millions in funding; and a product that promised to change the world -- or, at the very least, transform photography. But over 60,000 customers are still waiting for their Lily Drones, and the company is now being sued by the San Francisco District Attorney's office for false advertising. As it turns out, Lily Robotics never actually had the right tools to create the product it was selling -- and it all came crashing down. At Backchannel, Jessica Pishko has the untold story of how such a promising company went so wrong.
From the report: "The magic of the Lily Drone was in its concept: It was a product you could unpack and throw -- so easy, Antoine Balaresque, the cofounder and CEO of Lily Robotics, wrote in emails, that even an old person could do it. But translating that idea into a tangible product proved difficult, and the storytelling that made the Lily Drone so tantalizing to consumers ultimately factored into its downfall. In one of his presentations, Balaresque presented a PowerPoint slide with the sentence, 'Humans have a fundamental need to put themselves in the center of stories.' It appeared to be a quote he made up, but the idea that human nature needs stories is fundamental. Stories are how we make sense of our lives. But while a good story can get you funding and acclaim, ultimately it isn't enough."
From the report: "The magic of the Lily Drone was in its concept: It was a product you could unpack and throw -- so easy, Antoine Balaresque, the cofounder and CEO of Lily Robotics, wrote in emails, that even an old person could do it. But translating that idea into a tangible product proved difficult, and the storytelling that made the Lily Drone so tantalizing to consumers ultimately factored into its downfall. In one of his presentations, Balaresque presented a PowerPoint slide with the sentence, 'Humans have a fundamental need to put themselves in the center of stories.' It appeared to be a quote he made up, but the idea that human nature needs stories is fundamental. Stories are how we make sense of our lives. But while a good story can get you funding and acclaim, ultimately it isn't enough."
I was fascinated by Enron and read all about its downfall. I'm sure this history is ripe for repetition at least a few thousand times over.
These idiots need to get over their cult of personality world view.
This company did not have everything, it had a few good ideas and the willingness to lie through their teeth about their ability to deliver on that.
Having two 'charismatic young founders' doesn't give you much. A few flashy ideas and the ability to spin a good story even if you have to lie through your teeth is not the basis of a good business.
The primary failure here is the failure of these young charismatic founders to have been responsible for their actions.
But apparently we are supposed to feel bad for them and pay them on the head and tell them to keep up the good work, maybe next time it will go better.
Who cares about the people who lost millions.. After all.. The American dream!
So this company was funded purely on a 'story' no 'working prototype' at all...only after they get a piss pot of money do they even try to figure out how to build it simply to discover the 'tools' (e.g. 'technology' didn't exist)...wow, anyone investing in this shouldn't get their money back as far as I'm concerned.
All you need now is a snazzy video with a prototype that at least *appears* to work and boom, millions in funding to burn through until you finally have to admit you can't deliver, and the balloon pops.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
this isn't an accounting scam.
this is just lying about tech that you lie that you have and then asking money from people. this is a pretty old scam.
they are most often nowadays sold with personality cult and shit like that. for example the ceo might(usually does) say stuff like that "because i'm not an engineer i'm not limited by what they think as possible".
the amazing thing is that people give money to these things, solar roadways, ultrasonic charging etc.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Surely the correct way to go about this is:
1. Idea for product.
2. Design product.
3. Build product.
4. Test product.
5. Sell product.
6. Profit.
with repeats on 3 & 4 as required.
Any operation that puts 5 before 3 & 4 must be considered suspect.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
there's 1000's ready to dump $1000's or even their life's savings on a pump and dumps.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Looks to me as if you invested based on emotional appeal rather than anything substantive, such as a proof of fucking concept, which these bozos couldn't fucking produce.
If you really got a refund, then you should really, REALLY be counting your lucky stars.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm still waiting for mine!
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
Lily Robotics had everything: Two charismatic young founders; millions in funding; and a product that promised to change the world
Sounds like everything you need to run a good scam.
In the real world what matters is people who get shit done. The rest are just sales.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ideas are a dime a dozen, as we say in game development. It is quite easy to have an idea, and for a few cool millions, you can find or hire a graphics designer who will turn it into a great presentation, video, etc.
Too few people these days look for execution of ideas. How is it that you can get any funding at all without even a prototype?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The name was a hint on the potential L+i = Ly. Or spelled correctly "lie" . Investors were forewarned just poor reading comprehension, fees for a lesson in business or so the founders hoped. The money invested better have been spent on practical development vs luxuries for the founders which should be pursued for recovery.
is that it's all about giving money to people whose only proven talent is making slick videos and maybe a semifunctional prototype. Very few have the business chops turn their idea/prototype into a commercial product.
Two charismatic young founders
There are a few unicorns, but usually this is a risk factor. Most successful businesses are founded by people in their 40's and 50's.
Reading the summary, I see "risk, risk, risk, risk, risk", and the results are what most investors would expect.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Meh, I'm sure there will be a much cheaper Chinese one made soon. Small camera drones are getting pretty cheap, and the algorithms to control it are all open source. You could probably build yourself one for less than half the price they were charging. Perhaps less than a quarter if you used a cell phone to do the command and control.
How casually condescending. Twenty years ago it might have been "Even a woman"...
It's bitztream: the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating, Qualcomm-hating, Firefox tabs-hating Slashdot troll!
I think it was mostly a risky idea and poor skills at managing a business.
Their idea was too risky for a real VC to take on so they got funding from people who just threw money at things without checking the details. A VC would have enforced a reporting and monitoring structure to see product feasibility. Probably also hired some experts for guidance and navigation.
The idea was nice and the tech not impossible. The cash flow management appears to be shortsighted and irresponsible. There also seems to be little results and goal based decision making.
As for the people who lost money, I hope they don't get it back. A good cheap lesson taught to the general population. Returning the cash just encourages more stupidity and doesn't drive the lesson home.
People who don't have cash to throw around shouldn't throw it around. Don't take high risk investments and then complain when they fall through. There are plenty of lower risk investments, just don't complain that it didn't make enough or has too much regulations.
What I want to know is how DJI is able to crank out products left and right and companies like Lily and 3DR get borked? I find this very concerning that to all intents and purposes DJI owns this market now and that gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want regardless of what the customers want e.g. borking your expensive machine because they think you shouldn't be flying where you want or more importantly need to fly.
I'm less interested in these MacGyver UAV platforms with all kinds of loosely integrated stuff hanging all over them than I am with a clean yet totally open-source design. 3DR was headed in the right direction but DJI ate stole their lunch money.
If I can't buy it on Amazon, or at a Walmart, or Best Buy....FORGET IT. This VC crap is just another way most of the time to sucker fools out of their money.
That post probably drove a huge number of those original sales .
Maybe in an alternate universe where Slashdot was still relevant. Funny joke nonetheless.
From TFA: "An engineer who led the software development team insisted on revamping the drone software to be his own original invention, several engineers told me. (The prototype had been made with open-source software.) The engineering team rebooted and the drone prototypes stopped flying. Production was set back about six months."
How many times have we heard this story? Company has something kind-of working. Engineer thinks he can reinvent wheel. Massive effort to rewrite code. Underwhelming, underperforming result.
4. ???
5. Profit! :^)
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
There are drones galore everywhere produced en masse. With and without cameras. Not a new tech. I build a few myself with $100. The follower feature may be more technically challenging (2 GPSes and good comms between the subject and a drone) but nothing that could not be overcome.
TLDR;
What was so special about Lily?
What really made Lily fail?
4wdloop
Computers are not real products? Ok, Ezekiel better head back to the farm.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
NO they fucking DIDNT, they had faked video of a concept of an idea of something that maybe was possible to built.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
What's it called?
Monorail!
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
If I hadn't already been snarking on this post, I'd have modded this up
You points would be totally wasted on this troll - just look at all its past abusive posts.
Witness BitZtream getting pwned!... twice.....three times!
How's life in the hypocrite lane?