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."

11 of 141 comments (clear)

  1. Had everything? by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:Had everything? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ideas are a dime a dozen.

      I just thought of something; a drone that can fly in the air and dive below water. Or how about one that has automatically composes and edits in dramatic music based on the camera view. Or a drone that can link up with another drone to create 3D video from weird perspectives. Or a drone with a built-in baloon so it can stay in the air much longer. Or... you get the drift.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:Had everything? by gmack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not entirely sure they were lying. I'm more than willing to bet that they honestly thought that with the right amount of money, they hire all of the right people and deliver a working product.

      Quite often I run into "ideas people" who think all problems are easily solvable and are shocked and upset when I inform them that whatever idea they have in their head will be a harder problem to solve than they think it is. My two favorite examples: stock market predictor (but you can see the graph goes up here and down there) and automatic meeting summarizer (I was working for a company that had a whole team of people smarter than me doing natural language processing at the time and he thought we could do it in a few months with 3 people)

    3. Re:Had everything? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Reminds me a little of Theranos. The quick version of the story is this:

      A college student comes up with an idea. Her professors tell her it won't work. She ignores the professors, and drops out of college and starts a company to develop the idea. People love the story of a 19 year old genius girl founding a revolutionary medical testing company, and invest heavily.

      The company continued to operate for years, and was considered to be worth billions of dollars, in spite of the fact that the technology never worked. Apparently, it wasn't even that she did a good job hiding things, it was that nobody looked too closely. They were too infatuated with the narrative. No one ever insisted on any kind of independent testing to see if the technology was real.

    4. Re:Had everything? by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But ideas are cheap indeed. Most ideas from "ideas people" are impossible/unfeasible, and it is too much refuting them all with a nice explanation of why it can't work. Hence ruder dismissals designed to keep "ideas people" away and give the impression of a hostile forum. A few of their ideas are feasible, but the reason nobody works on them is because everybody is working on some feasible idea of their own which is more interesting.

      Ideas are cheap, good ideas less so. What you really need is not to drive people away, but rather to route them to an appropriate forum for suggestions and encourage (require?) them to search for existing threads that might already include that suggestion before posting. That way, you collect the ideas and can have people comment on them, vote on them, etc.

      "Ideas people" are not special at all. All the useable ideas they come up with is stuff that devs are perfectly capable of coming up with themselves.

      Then why don't they? The thing is, I've seen lots of software that was written by developers without adult supervision, and when developers all focus on their pet features without taking into account user needs, the result is almost invariably worse for it. Those pesky ideas people are your average users. They're the people you're trying to reach with your software (typically). And the tendency to push them away rather than to organize their ideas and prioritize them is the reason that so much open source software is, frankly, crap.

      And I say that with all due respect, as I've contributed to open source software frequently in the past, and have even open sourced various things that I have written. When I read things like what you posted, my first reaction is to assume that the project is never going to go anywhere, and in a few years, will be replaced by some other project that is designed from the ground up around the features that users have been complaining about not having in the existing tools for years.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. LoL..dumb people shouldn't get their money back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:LoL..dumb people shouldn't get their money back by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Informative

      So this company was funded purely on a 'story' no 'working prototype' at all...

      They had a partially working prototype, but an inability to push it into a final product. There was also a bunch of managerial incompetence. It's interesting that the prototype that worked best was loaded with Open Source software to do the major work. It was only when the lead software "engineer" scapped it all to rewrite it himself that the product really started falling apart.

      ...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)

      This is where you give away that you didn't bother reading the article. The technology exists, but the company didn't have the ability to integrate them into the Lily.

      ...anyone investing in this shouldn't get their money back as far as I'm concerned.

      That's pretty jerkish to all the victims who lost money to those thieves.

  3. Kickstarter by lindseyp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  4. Process by YuppieScum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Process by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Informative

      In traditional development, sure. In crowdfunding, which this was, the process is generally *meant* to work like this:

      1. Idea for product.
      2. Basic design and proof of concept for product.
      3. Sell idea of product to raise funds for the next three steps.
      4. Develop and build product.
      5. Test product.
      6. Ship product to backers.
      7. Sell product to non-backers.
      8. Profit.

      Repeat steps 4, 5 and occassionally (or not so occassionally *cough* Star Citizen *cough*) step 3 as required.

      Unfortunately there are two common and related failings in this approach. Developers often skimp on stage 2 and just produce the equivalent of a glossy brochure and vague promises, which is what happened with the Lily Drone, while potential backers often fail at their due diligence (AKA they have defective bullshit detectors) at step 3 and/or commit more funds than they really should - often excessively so. That latter part is the real failing; without funds, there are no stages 4-8 and no one needs to lose any money with many crowdfunding systems. There's nothing wrong with throwing a few bucks at a long-shot project like Lily, but you need to be aware of the chances of sucess and treat it like the gamble that it is and accept that you're quite probably going to lose your money. If you're throwing a few hundred bucks at something, without any proof that the project founders can actually deliver, and especially if you can't really afford to just lose the money, then you probably need the lesson you're going to get.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Everything you need for a scam by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."