i thought apple would have a more "global" view of a consumers home needs they would have an opportunity to really lock in people with macs...iphone....server....streaming....backup
I thought the idea of the iFund is to help small developers get their software on the iPhone and to encourage new ideas not existing ones!
The idea is to make money. They aren't going to fund "developers" who have no clear direction, or who have poorly thought out plans. They also have to show that they will actually be able to produce their apps.
If you're a guy with no business experience, and no professional programming experience either, with just some vague idea, what's the chance of being funded? Very little.
And thats the way it should be.
It doesn't mean that you have to be a big business, just that you have to look as though you won't be putting the money into a black hole. You need a real business plan, plus that well thought out idea, and can show the ability to follow through.
You also have to make a good presentation.
This also doesn't mean that only a handful of those 1700 applications will be accepted either. Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through 1700 business plans and developmental ideas?
Home automation is still an idea without a market. The number of people who could really take advantage of this are infinitesimally small. Not the big winner I was expecting. For simple TV/entertainment center control, it would be fine.
I wonder. The X10 control system has been around for decades. It may not be well known, but many manufacturers supply products which would indicate that it's pretty viable.
My main question here, is how many appliances would work with this. most remotes work with either infra-red, or radio.
Both WiFi and BT are still very new to this. One of the most popular areas for home control is still the AV system, and as far as I know, there is very little that works with WiFi or BT there.
I would just love it if one of the new iPhone features was an infa-red control output. But, what's the chance of that?
The idea is to make money. They aren't going to fund "developers" who have no clear direction, or who have poorly thought out plans. They also have to show that they will actually be able to produce their apps.
You're so dead right on these business and technical issues... now you just need to integrate that logic into your social and political positions. Now, don't get sore!
So you guys are adhering to the monopoly principal? One to rule them all?
What ever happened to competition where the best app wins?
Is it just cheapness ruling here?
One thing I've been afraid of, with Apple controlling which apps get to be sold, is that we will have that very thing. One app per function. I would just hate to not see apps vying with Google, or Apple.
I want as many apps available to do that same thing as there are developers with ideas. Who knows which app will be the one you want until it's available?
Why is there this assumption that Google maps is the be all and end all? Maybe it's a really crummy app, but you don't know it, because there's nothing else available for the iPhone yet.
Besides, people are different, some people might like the way one app does something, while others hate it, and prefer the way another does it.
Imagine, for you game players out there, if there was just one game out in each category, with no new ones in sight. After all, one game should be enough, as long as the company gives an upgrade once a year, or so.
You're so dead right on these business and technical issues... now you just need to integrate that logic into your social and political positions. Now, don't get sore!
Heh, heh. Guess they're waiting for round 2 pitches.
While many can be dismissed in five minutes, others will take days to vet. They have just so many people. While $100 million sounds like a lot of money, that doesn't mean that more than a dozen, or so, people are actually assigned to the project on a permanent basis.
What is their operating budget for this fund? That's what matters here. I'll bet it isn't that high.
So you guys are adhering to the monopoly principal? One to rule them all?
What ever happened to competition where the best app wins?
Is it just cheapness ruling?
Heavens no! I'm guessing my use of the trademarked term Bonjour implied that, but I didn't think Zeroconf or the RFC number would be well known enough. It seems Zeroconf is free for all, which may have been done to initiate this sort of connected system. With Zeroconf any centralized system and capatible apps could work together. Since wires are clumsy it seems that it is the cheapest and simplest HW and network solutions I've seen.
I'd never suggest one system to rule them all. Even with a bias toward one tech without competition progression will be slower. I certainly don't want that.
Heavens no! I'm guessing my use of the trademarked term Bonjour implied that, but I didn't think Zeroconf or the RFC number would be well known enough. It seems Zeroconf is free for all, which may have been done to initiate this sort of connected system. With Zeroconf any centralized system and capatible apps could work together. Since wires are clumsy it seems that it is the cheapest and simplest HW and network solutions I've seen.
I'd never suggest one system to rule them all. Even with a bias toward one tech without competition progression will be slower. I certainly don't want that.
Ok, good. Because I was getting the feeling from the first bunch of posts that the trend was to say that for the mapping app that's being funded (for example), that it wasn't needed at all because we have Google Maps, and anyway, why would anyone want to pay for something already on the phone?
But isn't the idea. If all of this can be done through your iPhone (which everyone is going to have anyway) and the proposed software then won't the cost become negligible? Instead of the custom built extremely expensive house system that Nasser wrote of, you will be able to have the same thing at software pricing on your iPhone. What may be an infinitesimal minority of people may become a real market if the cost factor disappears.
A lot of the cost is tied up in the hardware that is necessary to physically control the systems/devices/appliances.
What is actually going to turn your dishwasher/washing machine/dryer on? Mine certainly doesn't have any wireless capabilities, and I'm reasonably sure it has no remote switching capability.
By what mechanism are your lights going to turn on when you are within 100m of your house? The only way my lights get turned on is with a physical switch. Im guessing Id have to hard wire in some sort of remotely controlled or at least electronic switch.
And similarly, what is going to switch your room heater or air con on? What is physically going to open your blinds? What is going to turn your garden taps/fountain on? etc etc etc.
Regardless of the software or remote activation system (ie. the iPhone app), the amount of hardware investment in control systems it generally beyond the means of most. Yes you can get appliances that can be remote switched via certain mechanisms, but until they are the norm or at least significantly cheaper, home automation is going to require a lot more than just a software app and your Airport.
Ok, good. Because I was getting the feeling from the first bunch of posts that the trend was to say that for the mapping app that's being funded (for example), that it wasn't needed at all because we have Google Maps, and anyway, why would anyone want to pay for something already on the phone?
That really bothered me.
What I saw was people wondering whether it has sufficient benefit over what's already there. Like it or not, similar software needs something really special to be viable against competition that's already installed.
In another sub-discussion, you mentioned X10. Have you tried it? I have and I wasn't impressed.
If the iFund has any intelligent people, for their first round picks they should just fund existing companies with actual users (what a concept) who only lack the funding to take their product to the next level. After an initial round of guaranteed success, they could take greater risks on unproven companies and concepts.
Don't they already have that sort of experience? These aren't run by people new to VC, are they? Not only that, their focus is on iPhone, there aren't a whole lot of commercial apps for the iPhone with paying users right now.
I don't really see the need for venture capitalist funding in the first place. For starters does it really take much funding, if any to actually develop iPhone apps in the first place? Many developers will be doing it out of their homes, in their spare time. You don't need offices, staff, or even any kind of real setup, since Apple will be doing the hosting and order processing.
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. And because of the minimalist nature of the iPhone (screen size, memory, CPU, storage, etc), there won't be the huge difference you get with, say, a program like Photoshop compared to Gimp. I don't forsee many programs that will generate a lot of revenue, except for mini versions of established programs (Quicken, MS Office) that offer tight integration with the desktop versions. And those companies don't need funding. I could see some games becoming big sellers, but again many will come from well established companies that doesn't need funding. There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
A lot of the cost is tied up in the hardware that is necessary to physically control the systems/devices/appliances.
What is actually going to turn your dishwasher/washing machine/dryer on? Mine certainly doesn't have any wireless capabilities, and I'm reasonably sure it has no remote switching capability.
By what mechanism are your lights going to turn on when you are within 100m of your house? The only way my lights get turned on is with a physical switch. Im guessing Id have to hard wire in some sort of remotely controlled or at least electronic switch.
And similarly, what is going to switch your room heater or air con on? What is physically going to open your blinds? What is going to turn your garden taps/fountain on? etc etc etc.
Regardless of the software or remote activation system (ie. the iPhone app), the amount of hardware investment in control systems it generally beyond the means of most. Yes you can get appliances that can be remote switched via certain mechanisms, but until they are the norm or at least significantly cheaper, home automation is going to require a lot more than just a software app and your Airport.
These devices are out there already, and, you are right, they are very expensive. Prices of items like this fall as they gain more and more acceptance. The first iPods were 5GB and cost $499 (I think), but a current nano with 4GB and better in almost every other way is now $149. Prices on these remote control outlets out to go from ~$40 to the ten dollar range.
As far as heating and AC are concerned, you will change the thermostat settings remotely.
Nevertheless, home automation today looks like personal computers did in the mid seventies: expensive and impractical. Look what Apple did for the universal acceptance of personal computers everywhere. I think they can do similarly for home automation.
Comments
I thought the idea of the iFund is to help small developers get their software on the iPhone and to encourage new ideas not existing ones!
The idea is to make money. They aren't going to fund "developers" who have no clear direction, or who have poorly thought out plans. They also have to show that they will actually be able to produce their apps.
If you're a guy with no business experience, and no professional programming experience either, with just some vague idea, what's the chance of being funded? Very little.
And thats the way it should be.
It doesn't mean that you have to be a big business, just that you have to look as though you won't be putting the money into a black hole. You need a real business plan, plus that well thought out idea, and can show the ability to follow through.
You also have to make a good presentation.
This also doesn't mean that only a handful of those 1700 applications will be accepted either. Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through 1700 business plans and developmental ideas?
Home automation is still an idea without a market. The number of people who could really take advantage of this are infinitesimally small. Not the big winner I was expecting. For simple TV/entertainment center control, it would be fine.
I wonder. The X10 control system has been around for decades. It may not be well known, but many manufacturers supply products which would indicate that it's pretty viable.
My main question here, is how many appliances would work with this. most remotes work with either infra-red, or radio.
Both WiFi and BT are still very new to this. One of the most popular areas for home control is still the AV system, and as far as I know, there is very little that works with WiFi or BT there.
I would just love it if one of the new iPhone features was an infa-red control output. But, what's the chance of that?
The idea is to make money. They aren't going to fund "developers" who have no clear direction, or who have poorly thought out plans. They also have to show that they will actually be able to produce their apps.
You're so dead right on these business and technical issues... now you just need to integrate that logic into your social and political positions.
I would just love it if one of the new iPhone features was an infa-red control output. But, what's the chance of that?
Probably not very good. Perhaps a job for iPod Touch 2.0.
So you guys are adhering to the monopoly principal? One to rule them all?
What ever happened to competition where the best app wins?
Is it just cheapness ruling here?
One thing I've been afraid of, with Apple controlling which apps get to be sold, is that we will have that very thing. One app per function. I would just hate to not see apps vying with Google, or Apple.
I want as many apps available to do that same thing as there are developers with ideas. Who knows which app will be the one you want until it's available?
Why is there this assumption that Google maps is the be all and end all? Maybe it's a really crummy app, but you don't know it, because there's nothing else available for the iPhone yet.
Besides, people are different, some people might like the way one app does something, while others hate it, and prefer the way another does it.
Imagine, for you game players out there, if there was just one game out in each category, with no new ones in sight. After all, one game should be enough, as long as the company gives an upgrade once a year, or so.
Agreed. Wholeheartedly.
You're so dead right on these business and technical issues... now you just need to integrate that logic into your social and political positions.
Sheesh!
I'm a compassionate capitalist.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to go through 1700 business plans and developmental ideas?
Hmmm....... in the case of a hi-profile VC company such as KPCB, (3 mins per ptich)*(1700 pitches) = 5100 mins = a little less than nine 10-hour days!
Sheesh!
I'm a compassionate capitalist.
Hmmm....... in the case of a hi-profile VC company such as KPCB, (3 mins per ptich)*(1700 pitches) = 5100 mins = a little less than nine 10-hour days!
Probably closer to six months, from the limited experience I've had.
Hmmm....... in the case of a hi-profile VC company such as KPCB, (3 mins per ptich)*(1700 pitches) = 5100 mins = a little less than nine 10-hour days!
Heh, heh. Guess they're waiting for round 2 pitches.
Heh, heh. Guess they're waiting for round 2 pitches.
While many can be dismissed in five minutes, others will take days to vet. They have just so many people. While $100 million sounds like a lot of money, that doesn't mean that more than a dozen, or so, people are actually assigned to the project on a permanent basis.
What is their operating budget for this fund? That's what matters here. I'll bet it isn't that high.
So you guys are adhering to the monopoly principal? One to rule them all?
What ever happened to competition where the best app wins?
Is it just cheapness ruling?
Heavens no! I'm guessing my use of the trademarked term Bonjour implied that, but I didn't think Zeroconf or the RFC number would be well known enough. It seems Zeroconf is free for all, which may have been done to initiate this sort of connected system. With Zeroconf any centralized system and capatible apps could work together. Since wires are clumsy it seems that it is the cheapest and simplest HW and network solutions I've seen.
I'd never suggest one system to rule them all. Even with a bias toward one tech without competition progression will be slower. I certainly don't want that.
Heavens no! I'm guessing my use of the trademarked term Bonjour implied that, but I didn't think Zeroconf or the RFC number would be well known enough. It seems Zeroconf is free for all, which may have been done to initiate this sort of connected system. With Zeroconf any centralized system and capatible apps could work together. Since wires are clumsy it seems that it is the cheapest and simplest HW and network solutions I've seen.
I'd never suggest one system to rule them all. Even with a bias toward one tech without competition progression will be slower. I certainly don't want that.
Ok, good. Because I was getting the feeling from the first bunch of posts that the trend was to say that for the mapping app that's being funded (for example), that it wasn't needed at all because we have Google Maps, and anyway, why would anyone want to pay for something already on the phone?
That really bothered me.
But isn't the idea. If all of this can be done through your iPhone (which everyone is going to have anyway) and the proposed software then won't the cost become negligible? Instead of the custom built extremely expensive house system that Nasser wrote of, you will be able to have the same thing at software pricing on your iPhone. What may be an infinitesimal minority of people may become a real market if the cost factor disappears.
A lot of the cost is tied up in the hardware that is necessary to physically control the systems/devices/appliances.
What is actually going to turn your dishwasher/washing machine/dryer on? Mine certainly doesn't have any wireless capabilities, and I'm reasonably sure it has no remote switching capability.
By what mechanism are your lights going to turn on when you are within 100m of your house? The only way my lights get turned on is with a physical switch. Im guessing Id have to hard wire in some sort of remotely controlled or at least electronic switch.
And similarly, what is going to switch your room heater or air con on? What is physically going to open your blinds? What is going to turn your garden taps/fountain on? etc etc etc.
Regardless of the software or remote activation system (ie. the iPhone app), the amount of hardware investment in control systems it generally beyond the means of most. Yes you can get appliances that can be remote switched via certain mechanisms, but until they are the norm or at least significantly cheaper, home automation is going to require a lot more than just a software app and your Airport.
Ok, good. Because I was getting the feeling from the first bunch of posts that the trend was to say that for the mapping app that's being funded (for example), that it wasn't needed at all because we have Google Maps, and anyway, why would anyone want to pay for something already on the phone?
That really bothered me.
What I saw was people wondering whether it has sufficient benefit over what's already there. Like it or not, similar software needs something really special to be viable against competition that's already installed.
In another sub-discussion, you mentioned X10. Have you tried it? I have and I wasn't impressed.
If the iFund has any intelligent people, for their first round picks they should just fund existing companies with actual users (what a concept) who only lack the funding to take their product to the next level. After an initial round of guaranteed success, they could take greater risks on unproven companies and concepts.
Don't they already have that sort of experience? These aren't run by people new to VC, are they? Not only that, their focus is on iPhone, there aren't a whole lot of commercial apps for the iPhone with paying users right now.
Success isn't guaranteed.
Probably closer to six months, from the limited experience I've had.
Nah, that is way too long. It is much shorter than that with companies such as KPCB (but more than 10 days, I'l grant).
Second, won't most apps be free? Even if a paid app becomes popular, there will be a rush of free clones diluting its value. And because of the minimalist nature of the iPhone (screen size, memory, CPU, storage, etc), there won't be the huge difference you get with, say, a program like Photoshop compared to Gimp. I don't forsee many programs that will generate a lot of revenue, except for mini versions of established programs (Quicken, MS Office) that offer tight integration with the desktop versions. And those companies don't need funding. I could see some games becoming big sellers, but again many will come from well established companies that doesn't need funding. There will be some breakthrough indie titles no doubt, but how likely is the VC going to distinguish these?
A lot of the cost is tied up in the hardware that is necessary to physically control the systems/devices/appliances.
What is actually going to turn your dishwasher/washing machine/dryer on? Mine certainly doesn't have any wireless capabilities, and I'm reasonably sure it has no remote switching capability.
By what mechanism are your lights going to turn on when you are within 100m of your house? The only way my lights get turned on is with a physical switch. Im guessing Id have to hard wire in some sort of remotely controlled or at least electronic switch.
And similarly, what is going to switch your room heater or air con on? What is physically going to open your blinds? What is going to turn your garden taps/fountain on? etc etc etc.
Regardless of the software or remote activation system (ie. the iPhone app), the amount of hardware investment in control systems it generally beyond the means of most. Yes you can get appliances that can be remote switched via certain mechanisms, but until they are the norm or at least significantly cheaper, home automation is going to require a lot more than just a software app and your Airport.
These devices are out there already, and, you are right, they are very expensive. Prices of items like this fall as they gain more and more acceptance. The first iPods were 5GB and cost $499 (I think), but a current nano with 4GB and better in almost every other way is now $149. Prices on these remote control outlets out to go from ~$40 to the ten dollar range.
As far as heating and AC are concerned, you will change the thermostat settings remotely.
Nevertheless, home automation today looks like personal computers did in the mid seventies: expensive and impractical. Look what Apple did for the universal acceptance of personal computers everywhere. I think they can do similarly for home automation.