Huckleberry wrote: I would like to work for a company that lets it's engineers run the show... but only the biomedical and space exploration **and defense industry** fields can sustain that level of cost to product ratio :)
FTFY
Huckleberry wrote: I would like to work for a company that lets it's engineers run the show... but only the biomedical and space exploration **and defense industry** fields can sustain that level of cost to product ratio :)
FTFY
Sky_Render wrote:Huckleberry wrote: I would like to work for a company that lets it's engineers run the show... but only the biomedical and space exploration **and defense industry** fields can sustain that level of cost to product ratio :)FTFY
No! This is not "letting engineers run the show", this is "I don't know how to design things well enough to actually be produced".
This reminds me of a lesson from HS auto shop:
What's harder to design? A water pump for an F1 engine, or for a production econo-car?
The answer of course is the part for the econo-car, but many students couldn't comprehend that.
tuna55 wrote: Complexity does not equal engineering, it's actually the opposite. The items which are the best engineered are often so simple that you wouldn't even think of them as having been designed.
Amen, brother.
HappyAndy wrote: This reminds me of a lesson from HS auto shop: What's harder to design? A water pump for an F1 engine, or for a production econo-car? The answer of course is the part for the econo-car, but many students couldn't comprehend that.
I don't think one is particularly harder than the other. They're different problems with different constraints, but optimizing those constraints is just as important and just as hard. The F1 pump needs to last a couple dozen hours and be absolutely as light as possible. The econo-car one needs to last 100,000 miles and be absolutely as cheap to manufacture and install (at the factory) as possible.
Engineering is about solving the right problem. It's often possible to lower per-unit cost by making a large up-front investment, and if you're making a lot of parts then that's the right answer. Casting metal and injection molding plastic require expensive tooling to set up, but you can crank out parts very cheaply after that. Machining parts is expensive per-unit, but the up front costs are in the CNC machine, which is general purpose and can be applied to many projects.
Clearly the Juicero guys weren't solving the right problem. Perhaps this would have been appropriate as a prototype machine and they never managed to turn the crank to make a production-level one. It seems likely that their business model calls for making money on the packs rather than on the machine, so maybe this isn't even as crazy as it sounds on a short-term basis.
Wait - so their business model was to sell you packages of pulp, that you then squeeze to get the juice?
Why not just sell the juice?
I'm so confused...
Also - internally, that thing looks a LOT like the liquid handling robotics that I work with. Which are not exactly consumer friendly in terms of cost, or ease of use...
cmcgregor wrote: Wait - so their business model was to sell you packages of pulp, that you then squeeze to get the juice? Why not just sell the juice? I'm so confused... Also - internally, that thing looks a LOT like the liquid handling robotics that I work with. Which are not exactly consumer friendly in terms of cost, or ease of use...
I suspect their business model was to sell $800 juice machines to coporations to put next to the $800 espresso machine in their break rooms, so that they could sell $50 crates of juice packs on an ongoing basis to those same corporations.
The squeezing by hand thing is irrelevant, IMHO. You can make espresso by hand too, but people still buy machines to do it for them.
Wall-e wrote: I'd rather have a good Blender
I have that blender (purchased used off craigslist). It's berkeleying awesome. Now I don't have to tolerate berry seeds in my smoothies. 
In reply to cmcgregor:
One of the odd things about much venture capital funded stuff in Silicon Valley is how it the business model does not pass the most basic "But,... Why?" sniff test. Part of it anyway is that they allot and allot of money, and fund many ventures and have built into their VC model a very low expectation of any particular one working out, so it is spaghetti on the wall. And 120 mil is nothing in the general scheme of things. Uber does not pass my sniff test never did never will because the big auto makers make the very complex hardware and supply chain and have fulfillment channels in place, and able to finance their customers purchases. Uber has a cute app a bad rep yet has raised and continues to raise billions. IMHO the reason is that if they can pull it together long enough to go public, amateur investors will go nuts because they use Uber, the VCs and founders make a bunch of money, and when Uber goes away it matters not as it was a 'success' for them.
In reply to Shaun:
Sometimes I think the business model isn't "sell widgets at $x to people at %y profit" it's "How can we fund-raise our way into retirement and drop the stinking heap of a company that results before everyone realizes that we're all idiots?"
You edited me nicely!
tuna55 wrote: In reply to Shaun: Sometimes I think the business model isn't "sell widgets at $x to people at %y profit" it's "How can we fund-raise our way into retirement and drop the stinking heap of a company that results before everyone realizes that we're all idiots?"
I think you two have it figured out.
I tried typing out a long post that clarified my position on the pulp packets - but I think a confused, "huh?" type sound may sum it up best.
In reply to tuna55:
And yet someone people can't see through that scheme.
I snorted yesterday when I saw Uber was going to offer a cross-city helicopter service. My first thought what shiny happy people are going to risk their lively hood forever to maintain the helicopters for such a E36 M3 bag company? I sure as hell wouldn't want anything to do with them and I'm out of that game now.
Oh and on a side note of Uber, because I hate them so much, I saw a few months ago that ex-Uber employees are being asked by new employers to please prove they're not raging shiny happy people if they're seeking employment.
Nothing like getting blackballed because your boss was a dick.
The business model was to sell expensive, prepackaged fresh fruit to people who are willing to pay a premium for prepackaged fresh fruit. It would theoretically work the same way as the Keurig system which is raking in billions with a b. I don't really think it matters if they sell a poorly thought out prototype as long as they get their cash stream started (expensive fruit deliveries).
Uber's core idea of a revenue stream from cars that already exist is brilliant. The secondary idea of paying the drivers less than minimum wage is genius. I wish I had thought of that one. I don't really get why Uber needs 8 billion dollars to run a taxi service. They could stop where they are now and be profitable forever. On the other hand, if I had near perfect GPS data from millions of car trips, I would probably spend money on it too.
In reply to tuna55:
It's another huge bubble going on right now. "We're actually losing piles upon piles of money each year, but look at the umpteen billion users on our app so we're worth billions! If we could just figure out a way to skim a little money off of each one..."
In reply to ojannen:
Except that Uber is somehow still hemorrhaging 2 billion dollars a year. Not what I'd call a sound investment.
Bonus points they also managed to piss off Google by allegedly stealing their intellectual property for driverless cars.
Juicerios plan is exactly the same as Kureigs. It remains to be seen if it'll pan out or not.
In reply to Furious_E:
Or BS millennial investment banker math trimmed and distorted to sell the concept of a technology to an older generation who has no idea how to value startups that do not produce tangible goods.
I have an issue with the Silicon Valley Venture Capital culture if no one can tell.
Uber loses heaps of money and subsidize every ride thus bleeding 2 Billion a year. Their avoidance of insurance regulation common sense, the 'clever' use and lack of vetting of 'contractors', pissing off government, all while having a relentlessly arrogant sexist brazenly stupid ceo has generally caught up with them. If they stop now they are dead, they need to pretend they have big future stuff cooking.. Helicopters for all!!. And I bet Volvo is no longer part of that delusion and regrets having any association with them (How about this Idea?!!! Lets illegally 'drive' (semi?) autonomous (but not really) defiantly Volvos (that staid SAFE Brand that took a few decades to build) around San Francisco where everyone is streaming their lives real time and crash into stuff and blame the 'contractors'.) Keuia is not for me but it makes complete sense, happy feeling disposables + coffee = $$. By all means buy Uber when it goes public.
ojannen wrote: The business model was to sell expensive, prepackaged fresh fruit to people who are willing to pay a premium for prepackaged fresh fruit. It would theoretically work the same way as the Keurig system which is raking in billions with a b. I don't really think it matters if they sell a poorly thought out prototype as long as they get their cash stream started (expensive fruit deliveries). Uber's core idea of a revenue stream from cars that already exist is brilliant. The secondary idea of paying the drivers less than minimum wage is genius. I wish I had thought of that one. I don't really get why Uber needs 8 billion dollars to run a taxi service. They could stop where they are now and be profitable forever. On the other hand, if I had near perfect GPS data from millions of car trips, I would probably spend money on it too.
Uber is a profoundly evil company, I'm not sure if that's a liability or an asset but it sure makes me not like them. They methodically besiege cities with lobbying and lawsuits to expand into them without getting their asses sued off. Behind the scenes, they keep things running with ideas straight out of a cyberpunk novel. Look up their "Grayball", "Hell" and "God mode" programs. And their office culture is perhaps stranger than fiction.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
WOW!
ojannen wrote: The business model was to sell expensive, prepackaged fresh fruit to people who are willing to pay a premium for prepackaged fresh fruit. It would theoretically work the same way as the Keurig system which is raking in billions with a b. I don't really think it matters if they sell a poorly thought out prototype as long as they get their cash stream started (expensive fruit deliveries).
The idea of taking a commercial press + needing NO cleanup and "simplifying" it to a home product was interesting. I wonder if anyone even considered NOT going commercial grade, or if they were thinking - Tesla-like, that the early, pricy, halo product, would fund the development of mass market stuff.
You guys nailed it so hard! I still can't believe the level of brains that hang out on this board.
I run my own (very small) product development company in Silicon Valley specializing in medical device and consumer product design and I've been through the startup/VC funding cycle several times both with my own previous startups and with client's companies.
Tuna55 and Shaun's analysis is so good I'm going to be sending my clients links to this thread.
Shaun wrote: I would venture a guess the whole more money that brains effort hired out the engineering of the 'juicer' to frog or IDEO or some other design/engineering house that essentially bill hourly and are really really really good at billing hourly. It is cheaper that way because then there are less people to slice the soon to be GINORMIOUS PIE with via stock options, less people to fire later, less for others, because the idea is so special and the spreadsheet say the upside is endless. Bigger than the outer reaches of any known Excel spreadsheet even.
I completely agree. To add my 2 cents to this, I would say that sometimes startups don't have the option of doing the design completely in house because it is dang near impossible to hire good hardware designers (mechanical engineers) into a crazy startup like that in the Bay Area.
Problem #1 is that there are more companies than competent people.
Problem #2 is that the experienced people don't buy the spreadsheet hype.
So going to an outside design and engineering firm (or just individual designer) can be a good option BUT the startup has to have at least one experienced internal person to both manage the firm and keep them reigned in AND fight the engineering battles internally with the business and marketing sides of the startup.
Given that, external firms can produce simple, elegant designs. It just doesn't happen very often.
codrus wrote: I suspect their business model was to sell $800 juice machines to coporations to put next to the $800 espresso machine in their break rooms, so that they could sell $50 crates of juice packs on an ongoing basis to those same corporations. The squeezing by hand thing is irrelevant, IMHO. You can make espresso by hand too, but people still buy machines to do it for them.
That, or these look like they might have made sense for some sort of franchise operation with mall kiosks or push carts, something which would be run by a minimum wage hireling and needed to keep running day in and day out while the parent company makes the real money on crates of juice packs and licensing fees. As a home juicer, it makes zero sense; it's built more like the machinery that builds German cars than the cars themselves. All those machined aluminum parts make sense if you are building a prototype - or if you are building a bit of factory equipment where there may be a worldwide demand for twenty of these devices - but make zero sense for a consumer appliance.
In defense of Silicon Valley! Not allot of folks know that many many medical device innovations and the procedures that go along with them originated there, and that before web 1.0 hardware companies other than those that made computers like semi conductor, many smart areas of defense, and many other areas did lots of very good stuff. There was allot of hardware engineering infrastructure and people there- places that sold all sorts of used R&D this n that, manufacturing equipment, lab equipment, 'used' metal yards, and everyday office and nuts and bolts business equipment. I do not know how much of that persists- I moved to PDX 10 years ago.
madpanda wrote:Shaun wrote: I would venture a guess the whole more money that brains effort hired outhe engineering of the 'juicer' to frog or IDEO or some other design/engineering house that essentially bill hourly and are really really really good at billing hourly. It is cheaper that way because then there are less people to slice the soon to be GINORMIOUS PIE with via stock options, less people to fire later, less for others, because the idea is so special and the spreadsheet say the upside is endless. Bigger than the outer reaches of any known Excel spreadsheet even.I completely agree. To add my 2 cents to this, I would say that sometimes startups don't have the option of doing the design completely in house because it is dang near impossible to hire good hardware designers (mechanical engineers) into a crazy startup like that in the Bay Area. Problem #1 is that there are more companies than competent people. Problem #2 is that the experienced people don't buy the spreadsheet hype. So going to an outside design and engineering firm (or just individual designer) can be a good option BUT the startup has to have at least one experienced internal person to both manage the firm and keep them reigned in AND fight the engineering battles internally with the business and marketing sides of the startup. Given that, external firms can produce simple, elegant designs. It just doesn't happen very often.
You'll need to log in to post.
