Jewelbots – A Friendship Bracelet You Can Code
jewelbots.com
jewelbots.com
Unfortunately, we don't live in that world yet (and it could be a while off) In the meantime, I can now buy a product that:
1. Encourages my girls to get into STEM. 2. Is not a hard sell.
My girls are socialized to like girly stuff. I am only partly responsible for this - the outside pressures and influences on my children are huge and very hard to resist.
So you could argue that this product is a compromise, but it's one I'll gladly make.
There is a segment of the population that is physically one gender but feels they are actually the other. If we weren't that different, nobody would go through the massive physical alteration.
The size of the population that has gender dysphoria is irrelevant.
The reason for this is that they're (a) always the same and (b) always degnerate. (a) makes threads unsubstantive and (b) makes them uncivil. Civil, substantive conversation is the whole idea of HN threads—however rarely we may actually achieve it—so you could hardly do anything that more violates the site's values, even if you didn't mean to. Not meaning to makes it more insidious in a way.
I'm a pretty "masculine" (for a lack of better expression) guy who likes a fair amount of girly stuff. My best friend is a girly girl who's in STEM and she's brilliant at her job.
If your girls want to be girly, there's nothing wrong with it! I don't understand the recent "trend" of people being against girly girls or or boyish boys. People will choose to be what best suits them. And if your girls decide they don't want to be girly at one point in their life, also great.
I wouldn't deprive anyone of this.
I tried Arduino and Scratch but that it was scratch with minecraft made all the difference. Each kid has their own selves and likes. Sometimes they are similar and others they are opposites and we as parents flounder and stay up late wondering if we are doing the right things for our kids all the time. I like this product but I couldn't shell out $100 on Friendship bracelets.
Thinking back though, one gadget I remember being very appealing to kids of both sexes was Tamagotchi. It would be cool if someone made a more customizeable/programmable/less annoying version those in a wearable format.
Boys also love playing with Jewelbots, but there are already a lot of coding toys aimed at boys!!! Our market primarily identifies as female, but we'll broaden down the road.
For example, I know that when I was a kid I hated that any trip to McD's included me awkwardly going up to the front counter to exchange for the "boy" toys because I thought windup toys were more fun than dolls or pink bracelets or whatever. My favorite toys were things like beyblades, zoids, k'nex you know, things that I could build with and would move.
I was never not a girl for finding toys marketed to boys as more fun. I just knew that the toys that were in the "boys" section were more stimulating to me (and my sister felt the same too). I was lucky enough to have parents who didn't care, but some do and it just creates a cycle where girls say they prefer things that are targeted to girls (as opposed to the large number of toys that are only marketed to boys), and market researchers see that success and double-down, just making more stereotypically "girly" toys that sell to that defined market segment instead of making more gender-neutral toys with more inclusive ads (because they're afraid that advertising to girls will scare off boys).
So that's my concern here. I'm glad that girls and boys alike love jewelbots already, but do fear that explicitly saying that they are "for girls" will implicitly give credence to the idea that other toys are "for boys". As engineers we should not promote the idea that science toys without sparkles or pink on them are for boys, it should just be for kids. It limits the range of creative exploration available to girls who are trying to learn both science, and who they are and what conforming to social pressure allows if you tell them that they need to like girl oriented toys b/c everything else is for boys.
That means that it's less likely for girls to get exposed to them overall, because media aimed at them is different, teacher's behavior towards them is different, even their own parents' behavior towards them is different.
I get that marketing "for girls" might give credence to the "for boys" marketing... but if you look at the jewelbots page, the only point that is explicitly "girls" is the fact that the kids in the pictures are girls.
Everything else has been brought in by us. The "jewel = girls" aspect, the "friendship bracelet = girls" aspect... though some other media is even more pointed at that. Bit mixed feelings about it. I feel like it's trying to operate within the weird gender divide that exists in our society
But you're right that the crux of my argument hangs on explicit "for girls" implying other toys as "for boys"
The reason I interpreted the "for girls" thing as explicit because: 1. When I first clicked the link, the HN title did say "for girls" in the title. It was edited by the time I had submitted my comment. 2. The GMA quote featured on the page advertises it as "One of the Smartest Gadgets for Girls" 3. The quote saying " Jewelbots serves girls. The future scientists, lawyers, mothers, doctors, and engineers of the world." at the bottom of the page. 4. The creator saying that other code toys were aimed at boys (which I agree could be a comment on the adverstising, but I took as a comment on the design of the toys).
Because I took "for girls" as an explicit design consideration for the reasons above, I also assumed that the "jewel" and "friendship bracelet" aspects were design choices to explicitly appeal to girls, rather than just parts of the toy that girls happen to like more than boys on average.
I would be happy to be wrong on this though. I just struggle to see how this changes the narrative of science/engineering toys for girls needing to be overtly feminine-themed while most functionally equivalent toys without those aspects are assumed to be for boys. Perhaps I'm not in tune with the market well enough, but I struggle to identify equivalently overtly-masculine themed coding toys from companies who say their mission is to help boys.
>They're just marketed to boys.
To me that is the definition of aimed at. Designed for stereotypical boy activities, marketed to boys. What does it mean to you?
We are here to change the number of coders that identify as female. In order to do that, we talked to a lot (over 200!) of kids that identify as female and built what they asked us to build.
You can read more about our reasoning here: https://medium.com/jewelbots-weblog/what-if-we-could-build-m...
and my view on femininity here: https://medium.com/thelist/papas-please-let-your-babies-grow...
Thank you for your feedback and thoughts, these conversations are super important if we are going to change the number of women in computer science.
Imagine if it evolved differently based on how you programmed it and other virtual pets you encountered.
Could be really fun, but I understand if you have too much on your plate as is!
One interesting aspect that GoldieBlox's research mentioned was that they found girls became more engaged when there was a story with a purpose (e.g. help this puppy) or opportunity for story-telling.
This made me wonder if there would be potential for combining an already popular electronic toy concept (virtual pets) with a programming environment that was also a story-telling environment. The behavior of the pet would be determined by a state machine generated from the story.
For example:
Hello my name is [Oinky].
When I am [tired] I [sometimes] want to [play].
When I am [hungry] I [always] want to [eat].
I ended up getting a bit distracted by the more generic question of how to produce a platform of enclosures & electronics that would enable people to prototype hand-held Arduino-based devices. (And then other things.) But I still think the idea is worth exploring.
Some online notes on these two projects:
* http://www.labradoc.com/i/follower/p/project-pet-designer-to...
* http://www.labradoc.com/i/follower/p/project-arduino-enclosu...
Offers of investment and/or consulting welcomed. :D
(With regard to a non-gendered Computer Science curriculum "Computer Science Unplugged" might be of interest: http://csunplugged.org/ )
[0] https://arduboy.com [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDXsLxPPB88
Also, if you haven't already, you might be interested in researching Dr. Janese Swanson the founder of the "GirlTech" toy company (from mid-90s to early 2000s, I think) and maybe even trying to get in contact with her as she might have some valuable insight/opinions/contacts from her own experience for you.
I always appreciated the perspective that Pam Fox shared in her "I’m A Barbie Girl In A CS World" presentation:
* https://www.slideshare.net/wuzziwug/im-a-barbie-girl-in-a-cs... * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIhPYefRndc
How's your experience of the Nordic nRF51822 been? My impression has been that they have some great technology but their tooling/SDK support doesn't seem to put much weight on easing transition from one SDK/IC version to another.
Just look at the early days of computers, it was a womans job :-)
Aren't "aimed at boys" and "marketed to boys" pretty much the same thing?
I am open minded. I've met and worked with women who are just as strong or stronger than men.
I don't understand how we can simultaneously argue that men and women are fundamentally different but should also be made to be the same.
Back to the thread, why wouldn't a boy want to play with this new toy? Or wear pink?
We have lots of users that identify as male. Boys love Jewelbots, two weeks ago at an event a boy came up to me after to tell me "this was more fun than coding Minecraft". Best compliment in a while.
One would be less interesting than the other. Here is why.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/the-astonishin...
Not sure I get the whole identify as a boy in this context.
The reasons I asked was because it was claimed that many of those who use it identify as boys.
Maybe I am alone in thinking this is an important distinction but none the less I find it pretty relevant to what to make out of it in the grander scheme of this discussion.
this was the comment I was referring to.
"Boys and girls are wired differently" seems like an eminently plausible statement -- it applies to the rest of our bodies, so why not to our brains? I don't think it can be rejected out of hand without a solid argument (or reputable studies) to the contrary.
The teacher made a nonsense, and unscientific claim. Do you have citations to back up your "argument", or are you just trolling?
That premise, while perhaps controversial in some corners, seems essential problematic than the conclusion it was offered to support (which it doesn't.)
Yeah because its the coding part which makes it interesting to most boys.
It's like if you created a GI Barbie character (which is basically a Barbie doll with a gun) then boys would love it too, that doesn't necessarily mean that they love Barbie, they just love a different aspect of it.
Although I do agree that Jewelbot (by integrating elements girls would like with coding) can get them excited into coding.
Also see Adafruit's products, they are electronics and DIY supply company run by mostly women and they do super cool things things which are interesting to girls. My favorite one was when they embedded a NFC token on their nail using nail polish, and then program it to unlock their phone by just holding it.
While an oversimplification, this seems to be generally true; females are biologically different than males and those differences seems to have psychological/behavioral manifestations.
Its still difficult to isolate socialization effects from biological ones, but the indications seem to be that there are real, biologically grounded differences.
> and therefore "we need to teach girls to be more like boys."
Wait, what? Wouldn't that be a reason to stop trying to do that, at least where those biological grounded differences have strong effects?
One of her specific examples was "because of that different wiring, boys will typically try to win a game, but many times girls will not try to win, because, for example, winning might hurt the other player's feelings."
All I could say in response was, "well, I'm a guy, and to me it sounds like those girls are thinking at a higher level -- who cares about winning some artificial game, if it's going to hurt another person." And that's where the bulk of the conversation ended.
I struggle to find the right path when discussing gender -- especially about kids.
You have to assume they did some research and that's what girls want.
There seems to be a popular notion that "feminine" traits are innate and universal to people with a "feminine identity", rather than the product of culture with socialization that treats female people consistently differently than male people from birth. However if you think about things that prepare someone for technical success, so-called "feminine" traits like caring about your appearance more than is actually necessary (makeup and jewelry serve no real purpose and take time and money) or being uncomfortable with conflict (bias for cooperation vs competition, people seeing assertive women as aggressive) are not good things that will help you be equal to or surpass your male peers in technical pursuits.
I can understand why it's uncomfortable to imply that the concept of "femininity" is not a positive one when it comes to tech (the creator of this probably disagrees with my assesment). But I hope we can continue to question the validity of "feminine" social constructs while also creating products like this, which bridge the gap after socialization has taken its toll.
https://medium.com/thelist/papas-please-let-your-babies-grow...
That all being said, I don't knock anyone as an individual for liking what they like. I also recognize that there are reasons for the disparity of women in tech other than gender role conformity due to socialization. It's just one I think deserves more credit than it gets.
There is a lot of "toxic femininity" I'm with you on that.
Yep, just because this product doesn't fix all society's problems related to pushing gender norms on children doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Or they did some research and that's what potential members of the target audience who aren't already buying into existing products of the same type aside from consideration of the gender-orientation of marketing want.
That those people are largely girls is, well, kind of beside the point: why compete in a crowded market when by marketing in a particular way you can compete in a more open niche.
I know people who will buy a random pink toy from the girls' toy aisle if they need a present for a girl, regardless what it is. Its pink, so it must be appropriate for a girl. The present giver feels like they did their job.
I think the mere existence of feminine coding toys will increase the chances of girls ending up with any sort of coding toy, which is the goal, right?
Actually think in this space the norm is actively going gender neutral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HKzQ00MZMs (Jun 2016)
However, the copy below is a little off-putting.
>Jewelbots patent pending bluetooth connection takes friendship to the next level by responding to your besties whenever you are together.
a) What's the patentable invention here? If it's a programmable watch or something like that, I'd be very scared. b) Your target audience should be encouraged to share and experiment, which is the opposite of what the currently broken patent system does.
I'm not complaining about the fact that you have patents as much as the advertising that you hold them.
As far as advertising, I get that. Feedback received. Thanks.
It's worse. The rounded rectangle patent was a design patent, by the wording used above I'm guessing they're after a utility patent.
What?? So you took an open standard (BLE) others have made available for you that is designed for such applications in mind, stuffed it into generic item (bracelet) and want to patent it? So if I wanted to make BLE connected socks I owe you royalty? Sorry, but in such case, I sincerely hope your patent will be thwarted.
The way out for you would be to use one of the license texts which include a patent grant in addition to copyright license; e.g. either the GPLv3 or Apache 2 licenses.
Of course, if you do that, one could well ask what you wanted the patent for in the first place.
I know some people on the team, they're great. But I also have a long history of working with microcontrollers in a semi educational setting (http://nodebots.io) and these are by far the least frustrating way to use wireless anything I've come across.
Marketing team really dropped the ball on this one.
Brief tagline "Friendship bracelet. That you can code" to pique your interest.
Then a user story showing how someone actually used it.
I'm sure it can be improved significantly, but I feel the idea behind pitching why you would want to buy it (it's a friendship bracelet that does cool things like light up the same color when you're together) as opposed to its capabilities is not necessarily that far off the mark for a product of this nature (e.g. the Apple Watch landing page as of right now doesn't describe anything about what the Watch can do...it's just selling the fact that it's a watch).
"When Nyla got Jewelbots for her birthday she gave the second one to Wenhao, a girl in her class."
"Nyla and Wenhao's Jewelbots light up blue when they are together (Blue is Wenhao's favorite color)"
"They make a secret language just for their Jewelbots. Sending one buzz means "look behind you!"."
"Using the power of STEM, Nyla and her friends make games and custom friend animations by writing code and uploading it to their Jewelbots!"
That pretty unambigiously describes a piece of programmable jewellery to me. It's doing it in a more story-driven way than presenting a bulleted list of specs, but given the target audience that makes sense. Having read that page I'm really not even slightly confused about what it is.
Jewelbots can be programmed just like an Arduino using C++. Real code! Because we believe that kids are super smart (Also, I starting writing C++ at 11).
Kudos for not patronizing them with some awful imitation of flow programming or some neutered scripting language.
Talking to my male peers, I learned that most of them started coding when they were Tweens, largely because they wanted to make games or found an open source project they loved. Jewelbots are designed to be the same for girls. So far so good!
Were she older, I would absolutely be making sure these got on her radar so I could gauge her interest. Nothing so crass as _showing her_ of course.
I love the risk you're taking here: not only a hardware startup, but also one where success is predicated on passing the cool filter of tween girls. There is something delightfully subversive in marketing C++ programmable jewelry to young girls; it's like a 'fuck you' to Lego Friends. I really want this to succeed. Good luck.
I think it’s great for a certain crowd, but this could be quite frustrating for many pre teens and ultimately put them off of casual coding.
Besides, kids aren’t exactly leaping at micro controllers. And why should they? Software programming is applicable to more and more prospective jobs every year.
> I think it’s great for a certain crowd, but this could be quite frustrating for many pre teens and ultimately put them off of casual coding.
> Besides, kids aren’t exactly leaping at micro controllers. And why should they? Software programming is applicable to more and more prospective jobs every year.
>why you need to insert a space between angle brackets when composing templates,
You don't have to anymore ;)
But is C++ really the first/best/only programming experience? Why would what be the right choice? UX absolutely just as important for developers as is is for ordinary users.
I imagine the user experience unfolding for my 11 year old daughter, ideally there is as little friction as possible from brcelet in hand to making code run. We want to minimize frustrations in order to maximize time spent doing and creating.
I’m not afraid 11 year olds will lack the ability to use C++, I’m afraid of it not being the way that’s most fun and engaging. And I certainly don’t mean dumbed down. Engineers at any age get more enjoyment from having the best tool for the job.
Arduino got where they are in part by having a rather nice IDE for a microcontroller, a nice simplified version of C++ (the Arduino language, which I assume can be used here) that eliminates a lot of the complexity and made it very simple to get started, and a nice easy pattern to upload / compile / test.
Personally, I'm not aware of a better choice out there in the microcontroller world. And it looks like the setup makes it easy (2 lines of code) to turn on / off LEDs or buzzers.
What's nice about using Arduino as well, is that the ecosystem of Arduino is very large. So it's not that much of a step up from here to other hardware projects. It's also not a huge leap from Arduino C to the many other C and C-like languages out there as well.
The drama in a young teen's life seems to know no limits. It's all very important to them, at least for the moment. As a parent, you're sort of obligated to take it Very Seriously.
These are just one more thing to be taken Very Seriously.
I do find it amusing that marketing has decided to latch onto STEM for young ladies. It's a noble goal, but I'm not sure trinkets are the way to go about it.
Sort of related: I'm a bit proud that my daughter is an MD, but my only help, aside from paying for it, was just offering to support her, regardless of her career choices - and trying to keep a good sense of humor.
While probably sexist to note this, my son and his friends didn't seem to have nearly the same drama. I'm not sure what the difference is but it certainly was both real and notable. I'm also sure it isn't universal.
This is an untrue stereotype. I would argue that this stereotype, teen girls are unnecessarily and overly dramatic, is one of the same stereotypes that dissuades girls from coding in the first place.
If this is two bands that are interconnected that could get expensive.
Me: 'How long do you think you kept friendship bracelets for?'
Her reply: 'Maybe two weeks. I still have one from [redacted] somewhere.'
As I said, it surely isn't universal but she and her friends all fit that pattern. It didn't keep her from STEM, she's an MD.
That's not out of the norm; roughly half of medical students are women: https://www.aamc.org/data/facts/
The "shortage of women in STEM" mostly refers to engineering and computer science.
· Ask HN: Know of any non-digital toys/games that teach, for 6-10 year olds? | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14942570 (Aug 2017, 71 comments)
· Elementary School Coding & Robotics Resources | https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r1b2CM1uTdST47IbWa7zlZYm... found on: Project Bloks: Making code physical for kids | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11986593 (Jun 2016)
· http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ReviewLittleBitsGadgetsAndGizm... (Jan 2016) <- links to 3 previous posts with additional recommendations
· Teaching a 3-Year-Old to Program Without a Computer Screen (Cubetto - https://www.primotoys.com/) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10586661 (Nov 2015, 35 comments)
· DragonBox: Secretly teach algebra to your children | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9469364 (May 2015, 100 comments)
· Osmo (iPad app with add-on hardware) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7784243 (May 2014, 104 comments)
· Turn anything into a videogame controller, even a banana (https://makeymakey.com/) | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3971869 (May 2012, 25 comments)
Robot Turtles (http://www.robotturtles.com/) makes a good jumping-off point for further research as it is a favorite in this category: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=robot%20turtles&sort=byDate&ty...
--
PS. volunteer application re-opens Feb 2018: https://www.tealsk12.org/
pair volunteer CS professionals across the US with classroom teachers
If my "girl" was still 13 she and her friends would want to have these.
Very cool concept though.
I hope they have some patents on it or they will be seriously undercut.
Agree that lower pricing would help though. Perhaps hoping that early adopters can pay off things like the plastic molds, phone apps, and design.
That being said, however, I think they should figure out a way to get the multi packs able to be purchased by multiple groups of parents. This looks like great fun for a group, and sad on its own, but parents probably don't want to buy expensive-ish toys for their kids friends.
Then again, the easy thing to do here would probably be to have each one come with a few one time use coupon codes to give to their friends parents. "Recruit a friend into your squad and get 30$ off" etc.
The site makes it appear as if your device is running a microcontroller, AVR or similar. The Apple watch is a full on ARM processor running an operating system.
But perhaps you meant something else by the statement? I'd be curious to know what all is inside.
Edit: Poking around your github repos, it appears the device has a Nordic nRF51822, basically an SoC with an Arm Cortex M0 microcontroller plus a Bluetooth module.
I get hung up on strange addition in pricing.
1 for 69
2 for 99 = 69 + 30
3 for 129 = 69 + 30 * 2
10 for 430 = 129 * 3 + 30 + 13
69 + 30 * 9 = 339 != 430
I think it's important for this to be pointed out because I feel such comments are (1) ill-informed; (2) disrespectful; and, (3) encourage poor thinking around pricing strategies.
(1) Depending on the model, on its own the Nordic MCU is, say, ~$US2.60 @ Qty 1,000. Add a vibration motor for ~$US2 @ Qty 1,000 (Yeah, mechanical parts can be expensive relative to electronic parts). Add, say, 3 WS2812B RGB LEDs for $1.00. A total of $5.60--no battery, no PCB, no support components, no Bluetooth antenna, no charging circuitry, no enclosure, no packaging. And these things are going on a kid's arm--you don't want to be skimping on quality.
And, that's just the Bill of Material.
No assembly costs, no production test jigs, no wastage, no certification/safety costs, no shipping costs, no warehousing costs. (To say nothing of software development costs, marketing, supply chain management etc etc.)
If we're going from a cost-based pricing model then back-of-envelope calculations generally suggest 2 x BOM for wholesale price and 2 x wholesale price for retail price (i.e. 4 x BOM). And, even if we don't plan for retail sales now, if we don't factor it in, we can't just double our price later.
So, even at the extremely unlikely BOM cost of $10, the minimum a startup should be considering selling at would be $40. Oh, actual BOM cost is closer to $15? That's an immediate jump to $60 RRP.
And that's only scratching the surface of the costs involved, I recommend the following if you want more details:
* https://blog.bolt.io/will-your-hardware-startup-make-money-6... * https://learn.adafruit.com/how-to-build-a-hardware-startup?v... * https://blog.bolt.io/hardware-by-the-numbers-part-2-financin... * http://www.labradoc.com/i/follower/p/notes-creating-hardware...
(Also, by way of comparison, the original Pebble launched for between $99-$150 how much difference in complexity/cost do you imagine between the two? I would say primarily the screen--and the Pebble was their second watch product. Another useful comparison: the standard Arduino Uno.)
(2) This product isn't just "a few RGB LEDs, microcontroller and a buzz motor"--not only is that not the entire BOM, what the device itself is (ignoring software and educational support material) is a robust, durable, small wearable device targeting children with an appealing enclosure, Bluetooth connectivity and the ability to upload programs. And dismissing the engineering effort required to produce any product, let alone an electronic wearable for children is, I believe, disrespectful of those developing it.
(3) For a new product, in most cases, trying to minimize retail price to make it appealing is a poor strategy for stimulating demand--it creates unrealistic expectations, sends poor quality/value signals, assumes all costs are known quantities and potentially threatens the very existence of the company.
For a not insignificant portion of the early target market with disposable income to spend on a new "educational toy" the difference between $40 and $70 is barely noticeable--so why would a startup make their life significantly more difficult by cutting their own throats on price. A company that doesn't sell their product at a sustainable price isn't doing their customers any favors.
If they start out with a bare minimum price a company also can't discount--an act which can stimulate demand at the correct stage of the product life/sales cycle.
Now, if the objection is that a product is unaffordable, that's an entirely different topic. And, yes, any low volume, educational toy product will be unaffordable to a large segment of the population but that's not a reason for a company to price their product non-sustainably.
Instead, a company that cares about such things can work to reduce/optimize production costs on subsequent models, offer discounts in special cases or create programmes to enable people unable to afford their products to purchase or be gifted them.
And, in this particular case, it's not like we're talking pouches of citrus pulp here...
Anyway, have a free rant--it's excellent value for money.
Making anything is hard enough and pricing an educational toy is a fraught enough exercise for people who actually care without having to also deal with uninformed, unrealistic & unreasonable criticism of it.
Also, patents cost time & money to obtain and to defend--they're not a panacea.
Thanks for reading. Have a nice day. Maybe make an LED blink, I recommend it. :)
Anyway, one point the FAQ doesn't seem to cover is how is this thing powered and how long does a charge last? Can it beep and hum and do the things it does, for at least a full day?
[1] https://www.gearbest.com/smart-watch-phone/pp_507114.html
One of the use cases she mentions is "...4 buzzes means the guy you like is nearby...".
I don't think I reasonable person would get this from the quote you posted. Does it even appear in any of the material on the site? Or was it an off the cuff example in an interview? Regardless, I'm unclear on why this is offensive, can you elaborate?