Cisco To Shut Down Flip Video Business; Will Give Pink Slips To 550 Employees | Hacker News Reader

Cisco To Shut Down Flip Video Business; Will Give Pink Slips To 550 Employees

techcrunch.com

94 pointsbossjones63 comments

I really think the GoPro killed them. If I want good quality video, I need something better than a Flip. If I need a durable, small, device for getting some OK video, I'll get a goPro. If I need OK video quality and don't care about durability, I'll use my smart phone.

When I'm out skiing, I see half the teenagers with GoPro's mounted on their helmets, their ski poles, chest harnesses etc video taping each other hitting jumps to put it up on youtube. When I'm at a car race, half the guys have GoPro's mounted on their rollcage. Flip just kind of missed the niche.

GoPro and Flip were never competitors. If Flip got killed by anything, it's by smartphone.

Mmmm...I think it's more likely all the smartphones out there that now have decent enough video capabilities for most people.

Yes, sounds like phones ate the low end of the market and goPro ate the high end. Left Flip with nothing.

For most people, yes. I think the all-in-one packages of phone, mp3 player and camera has put a dent in the bottom line of any low-end single-use device. I bought a Kodak Zi8 back in '09 and to be honest I've only really used it once. The camera on the iPhone can't compete with it, but for a multi-purpose device I'd much rather have a GoPro. I guess Flip failed to take notice that a niche was driving the market.

I have a Zi8 which I haven't used in a long time and didn't use that much when I had it. Now I take video with my iPhone4 all the time.

I had the Zi8 too. The iPhone 4 shoots better video in my experience, and allows me better ability to review / edit / share on the fly.

I'm a Cisco employee and own a GoPro but not a Flip. :-P

That said, the two devices are really aimed at different niches. The GoPro is pretty useless for point-and-shoot. It has no preview screen, and the viewfinder is pretty crummy. You basically point it in the right general direction, and hope for the best.

OTOH, the Flip is too expensive and fragile (and possibly too big) for the use cases you describe. Amazon has tons of complaints about the Flip's waterproof case being less than waterproof.

I've never heard of GoPro before, if skiing and racing cars are your markets I don't think it's competing with Flip.

I think Flip actually lost the fight against PRO-ish (high-end) photo cameras, now they're cheaper, smaller and shot video just perfect, I have seen many youtubers using those instead of Flip (what I believe was their market, home videos).

Check it out (Gopro): http://www.amazon.com/GoPro-HD-HERO-960-Camera/dp/B003YMN3O6...

Compare it to this (the flip): http://www.amazon.com/Flip-UltraHD-Video-Camera-Generation/d...

The gopro is a really great little camera, and it's actually pretty cheap.

People mount these to RC aircraft, or to the side of their motorcycle, or the front of their surfboard, or, anything...

The fact that you've never heard of it isn't an indication that it wouldn't be a competitor to the flip, it's just an indicator that gopro hasn't decided to advertise to you yet.

In my opinion, the gopro is the hands-down better of the two cameras.

They just seem to have entirely different purposes. GoPro looks really good for doing POV work. But, flip seems to be better for standing and filming something. I am a swing dancer and people seem to always use a Flip (or a cell phone) when recording themselves or others.

So GoPro may be the better camera but that doesn't mean it is appropriate for every situation just as the Flip is not appropriate for every situation.

I can vouch for this. "Extreme" sports practitioners are divided into two groups: those who own a GoPro, and those who covet them.

Now if only GoPro would produce a lens that could focus properly underwater I think all of my scuba diving friends would buy one.

I think the Kodak Playsport is a better comparison: http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/PLAYSPORT_Vid... It shoots 1080p @30fps or 720p @60fps, supports SD memory, is waterproof, and has similar price point (slightly more expensive w/ SD card).

Did the HD video capability of mobile phones (e.g. iPhone 4) kill the Flip? If so, this has happened before; Pure Digital's first product was a cheap point-and-shoot camera that you'd take in for processing, but it was also beaten by the rise of (equally poor quality) cellphone cameras.

Interesting take-away from a user experience perspective. A dedicated device that is famously easy to use, still loses out to more complicated devices that do everything.

History of Pure Digital and Flip:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/19/flip-video-wrong-wrong-wron...

> "A dedicated device that is famously easy to use, still loses out to more complicated devices that do everything."

There's something of a gadget axiom in there. Casual users are, by definition, not interested in the fiddly bits. Thus they value the results over the process, the tools or the craft. Thus they are most-willing to abandon a dedicated device for a good-enough multifunction, if for no other reason than to cut down on extra gadgets for endeavors they don't have a deep interest in.

I think you might be off on 'complicated' though. Note that Flip didn't have any real competition until the latest versions of modern pocket-OSes brought (comparative) simplicity to video. 'Feature-phones' were packing video capabilities for pretty much all of Flip's rise to prominence.

It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in.

> It's the two-tap "upload to youtube/vimeo/facebook" that did them in.

Great point. For sharing, connecting to a computer via USB isn't nearly as nice as tapping a couple of buttons. (But Flip was easier to point and shoot. No hunting for the photo app, loading it, switching to video, etc.)

re: gadget axiom - I've also heard about the "pocket exception": Devices with many functions lose out to specialized devices - except when the device can fit in your pocket. (Sorry, can't find the source.)

Imagine if they had bothered to put an ethernet jack on it, or wifi in it, or made it time-lapse capable out of the box. Or made the whole thing USB-stick-sized. There are so many things you can do with cheap cameras that you can't do with an expensive camera phone - the problem here is a total lack of vision.

(and yeah, I'm aware of IP cams, and their wretched ActiveX-only interfaces, and their price range, and they don't fill the spaces I'm talking about).

I agree, they could have gone in a lot of directions with an inexpensive camera. I guess the problem was that Cisco wanted the mainstream market - and they weren't going to go after the various niche markets like: timelapses, infrared, fast shutter cams (e.g. skateboarding tricks), sport cams (e.g. mountain biking, longboarding)...

Or maybe Cisco didn't want any competition for their line of rather plain, low-quality home security IP cameras.

I'm glad I got my flip before they shut it down! It's been a tremendous asset in catching all my daughter's big moments so far. The value for me is in how quickly it boots up and starts recording, the fact that it's on a completely separate battery to my phone, has a good picture, steady cam and plays nice with iPhoto. It also came with a nice little tripod that we set up at christmas/birthday to catch the opening of presents. Whilst one could certainly solve the problem with a smart phone I've enjoyed having a dedicated device for all this.

EDIT: accidentally submitted half finished last sentence then went through a train tunnel hence delay in completion :)

I'm glad I did too—I've had one since 2009, and it's been one of those delightful and unexpected gadgets. The video quality is still far higher than my iPhone.

This is particularly distressing because, even though phones might make Flip cameras irrelevant in the future, they haven't yet. Buying Flip only to shut it down seems cruel and stupid.

I wonder if the executives who spent $590 million on Pure Digital will also get a pink slip?

I know someone who was involved in that deal, and I remember hearing that the Flip folks were very happy to sell because they knew iPhone was about to add video support.

Did that acquisition EVER make any sense?

The acquisition made sense if they wanted to diversify into the consumer space. What did NOT make sense was the astronomical pricetag of $590 million. How many flips + services would need to be sold to generate $590 mil in revenue?

So they acquire talent + brand for a large part of $590 million ? seems pretty expensive.

well the logic was the following (I'm assuming): video requires tons of bandwidth, more video out there means more bandwidth requirements. Where are cisco's cash cows? in routers/exchange devices.

Arguably all that video would have been created anyway.

well maybe, maybe not. the idea was to be at every point in the bandwidth creation/consumption stream.

Never. I wonder why these mega-corps make these acquisitions if they always kill the product after some time.

Pure Digital CEO Jonathan Kaplan left cisco over two months ago.

I meant the people from Cisco responsible for the deal.

knowing the old cisco that's very doubtful, but maybe this new "we have to do a whole lot very fast or we're screwed" cisco will handle it as one would expect.

Really? We're surprised by this?

Camera phones with video recording capabilities are almost ubiquitous. More then that, they're cheaper and solve the primary usage case better then the portable Flip cameras do. Flip cameras provided better quality portable video and now that embedded mobile technology has caught up to that quality, justifying the price to carry around another device is difficult.

Camera phones probably made it inevitable. But Cisco certainly accelerated matters.

I got a Flip camera phone 3 or 4 years back for Christmas. Great impulse buy. I think there was only 1 model. Less than $100. Didn't use it that much but still loved it. Girlfriend, too. Great for trips.

Loved it so much that when it crapped out, we decided to get a new one this year, even though we both have good smartphones. Now there were 2 or 3 models of Flip. None less than $150. I just wanted what I had before. Simple, cheap, works.

I think I got a discounted one on Amazon for a little under $150. Get it in the mail. Doesn't work out of the box. Neither Linux nor Windows computer recognizes it. Won't charge. After an hour on the phone with a woman in the Philippines, we finally got it charging. First time we try to use it, it just shuts down. It was on the next flight back to Amazon.

There was still a market for the old Flip: me. Cisco screwed the pooch on this.

Agreed. We got one from our ISP when we signed up for fiber. Not sure I would actually buy one, given that my wife has an iPhone, but the Flip has been very useful.

The iPod touch even has pretty good recording features and the ability to take photos, which Flip cameras cant.

After having seen a still from an iPod touch, I'm not entirely sure that's an actual advantage over the Flip.

The popularity of apps like hipstamatic, instagram etc. has somewhat mitigated the desperate need for high quality on these devices. If not in all demographics, i'd hazard a guess in those that would otherwise be most vocal about it.

I guess Cisco realized that they couldn't sell licensing entitlements to consumers. "If you can afford it, it's not Cisco."

The Flip's strength is it's simplicity. Sorry, but I don't buy the idea elsewhere on this thread that Camera phones (w/ video recording) or GoPro's have captured this market. Yes, they both cover some of it, but lets face it we're the geeks - we're likely to spend money on the latest gadget.

The use case I want to suggest is my parents (in their early 60's). They both have cell phones, but they are not smartphones (they're as likely to get an iphone/android device as they are to go base jumping). They got a Flip about 2 years ago and have recorded over 1,000 hours of their grandkids (my kids) on it so far! It's easy to keep in a pocket or a bag, there's an on/off switch and a big red button to record, and of course it easily plugs in to their laptop (mom) / PC (dad). It had made a massive difference to them, and I think they're more likely to record stuff on the Flip than to take a picture of it :-)

Sad to see the Flip go.

Smartphones don't have to be directly comparable to the specialist device in order to make them uneconomic. Even if they're only 50% as good, for people that own one, they're essentially free. So for a lot of folks who might have gotten a Flip but didn't really have a pressing need for one, they're now going to just limp along with the non-dedicated device and save $100. Suddenly your market is 25-50% smaller and you can't sell at as low a price any more... so you raise your price and make your market even smaller, or get out of that business.

I own 2 flips and I love the simplicity, I share it with my kids and extended family for all occassions.

Cisco is positioning itself as enterprise networking company.

They should not kill the Flip business, selling it is a good option.

As the article says: "In a world where consumers can now record and stream video directly from their iPhone, Android or BlackBerry phone, Flip’s video camera business is no longer novel or useful."

I would much rather record video with a Flip camera than my Android phone. The Flip is instantly ready to record when I turn it on, and it boots in at most 3 seconds. There is very little delay between stopping and starting, so I don't miss what's going on if I pause/restart to create a new file. My Epic takes several seconds just to load the camera app, several seconds more plus a stupid "MMS vs. normal" question to switch to video, and has an annoying UI.

I think the real issue is that the phone video experience will continue to improve, so the market for a dedicated video device is decidedly more about prosumer features than gee-why-not convenience.

i.e. the Flip still has a niche today, but it's clear that the story doesn't end well

How does the iPhone's camera app compare? I've got a Droid, and I concur with your "this camera app sucks" assessment, but I hear that others are better.

In fact, my crappy flip phone's camera app booted up much faster, so it really might just be the Android camera app being not so good. Hopefully that will get some love in the future, because I typically don't bother with mine.

I've never been "inside" the loop on one of these decisions and I find them fascinating. If you've bought a company and you can't make it work, and it has to go, it would seem you have three options:

1) Sell off the assets, let the people go, and sub lease the space.

2) Sell the team and its products to another company.

3) Divest yourself of the company and assets by selling it back to the original founders.

You're going to write off your purchase regardless and for a company like Cisco it will comfortably keep them from paying tax in the US for a year or two perhaps.

But lets say you sell it back to the original (if they are around) management team. How would you structure such a deal? If you were one of those managers what would you need to ask for? Clearly you need some working capital because you'll have material in inventory and in the pipeline. You need to retain the manufacturer contracts (or a modified contract if they are more generic) and you need some space to hold the team.

Seems like option #1 is quick, painful (you lay off 550 people in this example) and you have a lot off excess material to dump / dispose at a loss.

I tried to buy one of my patents back from Sun (they were never going to use it) and that was a complete waste of time. So I wonder how one evaluates the impact to the business of these choices. Anyone here been in that situation and chosen option 2 or 3 ? Did it work out? Not? Did you wish you had chosen option 1 ?

Flip built an interesting product, but it just doesn't offer anything anymore.

I came close to buying one a number of times, but never pulled the trigger because it would have been another device to carry and I wasn't sure how much I'd really use it.

Now, both my phone and my iPod Touch offer everything the Flip did, and I'm already carrying them around with me.

I got the Kodak video cameras:

Playsport - waterproof Playtouch - for non waterproof and editing video

Love them both - I have two smartphones and do take pics and record video too - but for taking video or pics of my babu, recreation, or just fun - the dedicated device is actually really useful. Sure, when I'm out and about I record on my smartphone and send the video up to Facebook, but for anything business related or just seriously good video quality and long recording times, I'm back to my Kodaks.

The Kodak's are far better than my Flip by the way, for quality and reliability. So I'll keep my Kodak cameras for those purposes and it's nice not having an incoming call interrupt my recording.

As you say - we are tech geeks. Krschultz is wrong, nobody but the small community of us geeks care about these cameras. It's the smartphone that killed the pocket video market.

mostly unrelated: why is your name green?

I believe new user accounts are now green.

So, Cisco guys aren't really the toast of engineering hiring on HN? No,"If you are an affected,motivated Cisco employee,ping me" posts? Interesting...

I use 3 Flip cameras to create a video podcast for my church each week. I'm not going for great quality, I'm going for good enough with a simple form factor and and ease of use. This is really disappointing and after what they did to Linksys I'll reconsider any product that I use or am looking at using after Cisco buys them ...

Flips are a pretty great tool in an informal educational setting where you wanna just hand some one a dumb simple device with a record button. I understand that this was never a big enough market to sustain the product, but the ed. world will mourn the loss of these devices.

Wow, flip appeared and disappeared fast. I wonder how the camcorder makers feel.

The product lasted 5 years (though with a name change).

Even when the Flip was hot (I got one for Christmas a few years ago), the thing felt like a cheap toy. Once smartphones with decent video capabilities came out, it REALLY felt like a cheap toy.

Woah, couldn't they at least try to sell it?

You would imagine they would try to sell it off.

They may have already and failed.

And they were so close. If only they could have worked out the missing piece...

HINT: SD Card support.

Are there any alternatives that let you custom design the camera?

i'm quite surprised about john chambers resolve and speed of execution here. too bad for the 550.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com