Very cool concept though.
I hope they have some patents on it or they will be seriously undercut.
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.
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.
Agree that lower pricing would help though. Perhaps hoping that early adopters can pay off things like the plastic molds, phone apps, and design.
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. :)
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