Pebble E-Paper Watch Raises $1M In 28 Hours | Hacker News Reader

Pebble E-Paper Watch Raises $1M In 28 Hours

kickstarter.com

167 pointsyurisagalov93 comments

The #1 "low-hanging-fruit" place to find additional revenue is from existing customers - getting people to trust your brand, enter their CC once, etc is much harder than getting them to do it a second time.

Kickstarter feels like a social-network of BUYING enthusiasts - it's a brilliant ecommerce model - get the product nodes to do your marketing for you, then enjoy the network effect of retaining those buyers as your own customers.

What's the general-case solution to technical failure of a Kickstarter project? For example, what happens if the organizers spend the money they raised to build the product, but it turns out that they underestimated the costs, and now can't deliver what they promised to give you if you pledge $x?

I ask because usually when you buy a product, it's already been made -- if a Kickstarter investment is purely a donation that's one thing, but a lot of Kickstarters seem to be a way of pre-buying something that hasn't actually been implemented yet.

I had contributed to a Kickstarter project (a piece of software) that failed to finish. Recently, the author wrote an update offering refunds (plus 5% interest) to all backers.

Personally, I consider all Kickstarter donations to be be just that, even if the reward includes some sort of 'preorder' - although saying that, I would be super disappointed if I invested $100+ in a project that then fell on its face.

I guess that the risk of investment, right?

So if this team just decided to run off with the $1.6M right now for essentially writing a page worth of text and making a couple concept videos, would there be any legal recourse for the donors? Not that I have any suspicion at all that that's what this team is doing, but Kickstarter projects in general seem like a relatively easy way for someone to make a good chunk of money for the cost of a couple hours' worth of work.

Is there really nothing more to it - donors just have to cross their fingers that the team is legit and isn't just going to run away with the money?

I thought they won't get the money until they finish the product?

As I understand it, Kickstarter projects get the money as soon as the 40 day countdown is up, but only if they get 100% funded.

For many projects the money is used to build/develop the project, so it would not be possible to withhold the money until the project is complete.

I've funded a few projects. The money goes through as soon as the funding period is over assuming the project has surpassed it's funding goal. I've funded 9 projects and received 6 rewards (just checked). Two of the last three are from the last six months and still in progress (one is an apology for being late with an excuse of the creator quitting his job and moving) and the last was a project that launched but I never received the reward on my funding level (not that I care all that much, as it was a series of letterpress postcards).

Correct - it's all trust based. For reference, here the 'accountability' section from the Kickstarter FAQ:

http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ac...

I think these 'big budget' projects are generally from groups/people that are known to communities, or have some existing goodwill. Looks like these guys had previously taken a watch to market that worked only with Blackberry devices.

Here's another example, where someone made a metal iPhone case that didn't really work since it interfered with calls. http://a.wholelottanothing.org/2012/01/lessons-for-kickstart...

Well, donors should be mindful of who they give money to. cough+Diaspora+cough

Well, donations to Disapora were never really marketed as "Pay $x, get this thing Y in return," while a lot of Kickstarter products do exactly this.

Congrats to the Pebble team! It's great to see a hardware / software startup like this one succeed. All the standard criticisms of "hey, they'll knock that off in China tomorrow" don't apply at all as integrated hardware and software isn't as easy as it seems. It's also interesting that a lot of HN users are saying "ah, I don't want another device" while the market is saying that there are a lot of people out there that want a cool iPhone integrated watch.

I'd love the idea, except that I don't want to recharge my watch like a cell phone. I'm used to my watch lasting years without changing the battery.

But if I can program my own custom watch face with a button that turns off the Bluetooth, thus extending the battery life ...

> I don't want to recharge my watch like a cell phone

Isn't that (part of) why it's got an eink display?

It does, the video says ~7 days on one charge. Not bad but not great either.

I own the original inPulse and the charge lasts about 1 day. That's the main reason why I stopped wearing it. Definitely interested in something I can let go longer with an always-on screen. I'm not a fan of thinking about my watch's charge level.

That's going to be a major hurdle for adoption among a wider audience. Not that they need it to be successful, by the way. But most people already end up charging their mobile phones everyday, then they'll have to keep remembering to charge the watch as well every week... that's not very user friendly.

If the battery lasted one month, that would probably be a good spot to be at.

I wonder if they could make an e-ink display with a layer acting as a solar panel charger at the same time. Maybe they could recharge the watch this way, continuously.

it'll be the bluetooth that's the power hog

Just plug it in when you take it off at night. That step can't be that inconvenient, can it?

I'm not sure about GP, but I don't take my watch off at night. The only time I take mine off is when water is involved (I use a cloth watchband).

However, if it only needs to be recharged every 7 days, I could recharge it along w/ my fitbit each weekend.

I only take off my watch when I shower. I even go swimming with my watch. Something like this is really slick, but I have trouble as it is remembering to charge my phone...

Obvious solution is to make a charger for the shower, similar to the ones electric toothbrushes use. Since it lasts 7 days, we can surely hope you take a shower within that time period =)

It's significantly more trouble than what you would do with most other wristwatches: change the battery once every year or three (or if you have a self winding analog watch, never do anything).

Most wristwatches don't run apps and interface with your smartphone.

The fact that it's a smart watch doesn't make charging it any more convenient. Of course, based on the kickstarter results, it's clear many people disagree with my p.o.v. ... =)

Yes it is. If you could put it on an inductive charging pad that would be fine, but I'm not going to fish around for a micro USB plug that probably has fallen behind my nightstand for the 500th time every few days.

That's a really easy problem to overcome... just get a charging station. I have this one: http://amzn.to/IzPAiz

Some others: http://amzn.to/I6TP3w http://amzn.to/I6TSw8 http://amzn.to/I6TT3c

The pain of charging something regularly aside, solve the cable problem by getting a binder clip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binder_clip - I wasn't sure what they were actually called).

Clip it to your bedside table, desk - wherever - running cables through it. Voila, no more cables vanishing: they're held close by the clip, and most should have heads too big to fall through the gap between the clip and the desk :).

USB is also a crappy way to recharge things. It takes ages for the paltry USB power to recharge my smartphone, particularly if I don't turn the screen off (phone stays awake with USB attached)

USB doesn't really have anything to do with it, it's about the devices (both the phone and the charger). The specs say an USB charger can provide up to 5A, which is more than enough to reach the battery charging limits, AFAIK.

my mistake - I thought USB was limited to 500mA. Whatever it is, my phone is annoying to charge...

There has been a big uptick in the last 12 years on rechargeable gadgets. We used to put double AA batteries in everything. The only thing that needed a charger was the gigantic Motorola MicroTAC cell phone. Nowadays, it's the opposite. I count seven of them in my house alone. The only thing I need a battery for is my television remote.

Inductive charging pads are a great idea, but you need a big vendor to make a standard one. Apple is probably the only company with large enough marketshare. If they came up with an inductive charger for their iPhones/iPads, their product would quickly become _the_ standard. Eventually Amazon would install the technology in the Kindle, Android handset makers would do it just to keep in the game. 3rd-Parties would make inductive power stations for cars, bedside tables, dressers, desks, you name it.

And I would buy at least three.

I already know where I would instantly put 2 of them and probably a third if this ever came to fruition.

They announced yesterday that as a result of water-proofing it will have a special plug.

"Pebble's USB cable is custom cable because the watch will be waterproof and can't have a big hole for the regular USB socket. We will be selling extra cables as well."

I'd rather have micro USB than waterproof, IMO.

Its true that this part seems like not a big deal. But I think with the growing number of devices in everyones arsenal, it's becoming more of a burden. I charge 2 laptops, a cell phone, and a tablet every night. A kindle every once in awhile. I'm on the fence on this one too. The product looks awesome, just wish that number(7 days) was bigger. Part of this may be just getting used to the whole concept. I'd imagine you'd get pretty reliable battery life out of this, not like a cell phone where apps consistently have the potential to suck the life out of your phone. But I definitely would of liked to see some features mentioned on this to conserve more battery when you're using it as a watch and not a smartphone buddy. Solar cells, and being able to disable bluetooth etc.

It sounds like someone should create a device to centralize power.

Charge one unit, and all the other units can pull energy from it.

Maybe there is a need for a micro-form factor rechargeable battery that can be put in electronic devices as a standard.

That would be incredible... Even if the concept of inductive chargers were taken further.

But a central power unit that worked across all devices has some major issues. If you look at something like the "Duracell Instant USB Charger", there's a few batteries like it with usb now. Looking at something like that though, I question if it's possible to make a central, charge-one-unit, device that is actually convenient/functional and makes life easier. Even though the size is down, their annoying to use. Plugging devices into it during the day on a regular basis would be suck. Unless you make some sort of inductive pants lol.

If you switch off bluetooth connectivity is it not "just" a watch with a few more features (Accelerometer)? Am I missing something?

Alternatively create an app that switches Bluetooth off at night automatically.

It's an MVP, I'm sure future versions will compensate. Anyway, flip-phone batteries can last weeks but I'm sure you still use a smartphone.

years -> days is a much bigger difference than 7 days -> 2 days

They won't compensate unless the market pushes back. If they can sell this with a 7-day life, my guess is that they will keep that battery life and use tech advances to add features. That's precisely what's happened in the smartphone market.

That's a good point. And it does look like their UI will have to be refreshed or embellished in the future to make this a better mass market product.

I'm not sure how much of a problem this will be. People have worn mechanical watches for a hundred years, and many people who could wear any watch they like choose to continue to do so. Winding is not a barrier to adoption, so why should charging be?

I suspect that watch could last maybe a few days without charging. I am quite tempted to get one however if it needs to be charged every few days it might be annoying when traveling. I already have to carry enough cables when I travel.

As a gadget freak and a hacker, I love this product. But I wonder how many people use a watch these days. Of course this is no ordinary watch, but when you have a supercomputer (in the shape of a phone) in your pocket, is it really needed? I suppose it's great for sports, but I'm not sure whether it has mass market potential (selling ~10K in a few hours is amazing, but isn't mass market yet). I'm actually on the fence with this one...

In general I think that watches will make a comeback only if they become the phone. Maybe Pebble will be well positioned to do that in the future (remember iPod -> iPhone?).

BTW It's nice to see a hardware company coming out of YC. Also nice to know that Eric is from Vancouver. Good luck Pebble! I'll buy one as soon as I stop being a starving bootstrapper.

I think the cool idea is you can get notifications/interact with your phone, without taking it out.

I find the use of cell phones as pocket watches tacky. As a grad student, I've seen many speakers come in and open a cell phone in the middle of a talk to check their time usage, which I find utterly unacceptable.

Depending on your situation, look around a bit and see who's wearing a watch. It may not be the norm anymore, but it's still not an unusual thing to do at all. If nothing else, they are a good fashion accessory.

Don't you think 'utterly unacceptable' is a just little harsh, remembering that technology, fashion, and language are not fixed things and are always changing. I think it is quite acceptable that mobile phones have replaced wrist watches. Or maybe we should go back to giving lectures in a top hat and monocle, and checking our time usage with a fob watch? ;)

It's not the change in fashion that I'm taking issue with. Standing in front of a group of people with your attention fixed on a communication device is not good presentation. If it were glancing down at a clock sitting on a podium or table, that would be fine. This is not how it happens in practice. The biggest difference between a cell phone and a watch or other timepiece on a surface is that a cell phone requires interaction to extract the time. The extent of that interaction really doesn't matter. It goes from a momentary action of pulling a phone out and pressing a wake button to a nervous speaker confounded by a single button press and a screen too dim to see without making a spectacle of the action. This is the more common of the cell phone users I witness. The trouble is that every minute thing a speaker does is on display and just as a speaker expects (or hopes for) respect from the audience, I as an audience member expect the speaker to be attentive and professional.

So can it be done gracefully without my ire? Probably. I have yet to be pleasantly surprised.

I normally wear a watch, but still use my phone's stopwatch to keep time during a talk. I find that looking at a stopwatch during a presentation requires less mental distraction than: (i) keeping track of the time at which my talk started (I am talking about conference talks where the talks usually start a few minutes later than the scheduled time), (ii) looking at the current time and calculating how much time is remaining (it usually takes less than a second, but it is more time consuming that a tap on my phone).

The trick is to disable your phone's auto lock, open the stop watch and run it. That way, you can just tap the screen (I am assuming iphone like smart phone) to see the current time. I think this can be done as discreetly as checking my watch.

The biggest advantage of using a stopwatch is that it provides evidence of how long you have been speaking for. I have had cases where the previous speaker overshot his/her time and a session chair tried to get back on time by cutting time from my talk. In such cases, I have had to point to my stopwatch to say that I still have more than five minutes left. (Usually the talks are twenty minutes, so having five less minutes is a big deal). This (a session chair punishing me for the previous speaker's tardiness) has happened twice to me in the last year.

I recently used a pointer/controller with stopwatch that seemed to be this one: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-2-4-Cordless-Presenter-Black/...

It was loaned, I had no idea it was so expensive. Good design, though. The stopwatch can be 'pumped up' in 5 minute increments to the time for one's talk. All there, nothing else to fiddle with.

It can be a communication device.

But when you look down at it to check time it is just a time-piece (like the old days).

Slight off topic, but I am always puzzled how most conference rooms fail to have a large clock at the back of the room such that a speaker can easily see how they are tracking for time.

If not at the back of the room, a large display at the foot of the stage facing the speaker - the way TED talks display the time to the speaker.

If meeting rooms can remember to embed projectors and speakers in a room, putting a clock on the back wall can't be that difficult.

It’s no different to pulling out a pocket-watch (although, granted, a pocket-watch is a little more stylish).

For me, the big win is the vibration motor - I never feel my phone when it vibrates in my pocket.

To us the iPhone is a powerful computing device. But I think the truth is that most people who buy an iPhone, are really buying a fashion item. How many apps do most people actually have installed? And how many of them do they use regularly? Not a lot.

Now, people who wear watches these days also are also doing so to be fashionable. This is why I think this has mass market potential.

Most people watch video's and surf the web even without installing apps. This takes a lot more processing power than you might think. What they don't use is the GPU, but that's a small fraction of the cost of an iPhone.

Yes yes, no one actually uses apps because the iPhone is just a fashion item.

That is why Angry Birds has sold millions and licensed their IP for physical products and a movie. That's why Instagram is a $1bn company.

Bullshit.

Neat toy, but it looks like it needs a phone to use data, install applications and so on. Personally, I'm not the type of person that wants to wear another accessory. I used to need a watch. I don't need a watch that needs a phone. Just saying.

I see this as a sample of what's to come from mobile technology. I prefer that phones evolve instead of adding a new accessory.

Sci-fi-like rant below:

I agree in that I also don't need a watch, much less a watch that needs a phone. But I imagine I will wear a watch-like device again in the future. Have you ever heard about the expression "the internet of things"? Well, it is going to happen, but we're not quite there yet [1]. And when it happens, I bet we're going to navigate trough it using watch-like devices at first [2]. It's more natural because the watch in one's wrist is much more accessible and therefore has a much lower latency then the phone in one's pocket.

Today, the precursor of the internet of things is the internet of smartphones. So Pebble uses a watch to navigate the internet of smartphones. When the internet of things finally comes, they'll be in a very nice position with experience and brand recognition.

[1] The signs are here though: arduino, raspberry pi... How long until we have a low power 5 dollars board that we can put anywhere? How about a 1 dollar board?

[2] then we'll use augmented reality glasses and finally we'll just implant chips and be ourselves part of this internet of things.

How does this compare to the Sony Ericsson Liveview? Other than this being more expensive and only having a monochrome display?

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Ericsson-Liveview-display-Android...

Battery seems to be a big point, lots of people are claiming the Sony Ericsson watch only lasts a half day to a day.

this one has an e-ink display. which is readable outside. also as a result, it has a nice battery life. It also looks NICE.

Note that it does not appear to have an e-ink display. They called it e-paper which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

The display appears to be this one: http://www.sharpmemorylcd.com/1-26-inch-memory-lcd.html or something like it.

It's transflective so you can read it outside, and inside you can use a backlight (which they list on the tech specs). It's very low power, so you can leave it on all the time. Those two things combined are why they call it e-paper.

Personally I think it is a bit confusing on their part, but I understand them wanting to get across that it's always on and visible outside. However, it does get confused with e-ink.

Their other watch (inPulse) uses an OLED display that looks similar.

the sony live view is a piece of shit. Trust me or the reviews on Amazon. It loses it's connection every minute, the battery lasts three hours, the wristband is itchy ... The list goes on.

Very intriguing but I personally can't stand watches that 'get in the way', and looking at the prototype it sure looks like this thing would get in the way a lot.

I haven't worn a watch for years, so this may be just a personal gripe.

Some would say the same thing about cars.

Or, laptops.

I just picked up the TI EZ430 dev kit, and then this hits the web. I tried for days not to back it, and then it hits HN. Oops. There goes the money, and my pride. ;) Hopefully its as awesome as it looks!

I'm wondering if their iPhone application needs to remain in foreground/active in order to receive notifications? I doubt it because it would be a quite big shortcoming but on other hand given the state of third-party 'multitasking' on iOS I'm not sure it is technically possible without it. Anybody wants to chime in?

$1M/28 hours = $850k/day

$1b/2 years = $1.4m/day

Still less than Instagram.

May be.... but most of the money in Instagram went to the VCs; here, all of it is going to the company.

Not necessarily most… The two founders owned 50% of the company so at most half.

5% to KickStarter. Which would make KickStarter a viable business. I assume 5% of all sales is to deal with cost of transactions though, maybe they have a deal with Amazon.

Maybe if they put some filters on the e-ink display it could squeeze a couple extra $100k?

Interesting. I'd buy a watch with e-ink display, front light on demand, independence of phone for basic functions and at least several weeks battery life.

I wonder how it compares to Sony's smartwatch:

http://youtu.be/d7C-XuSEBPA

also https://motoactv.com/

I've been researching both lately..

The Pebble is an E-ink display so its monochrome but lasts longer ("7+ days") while the Smartwatch is an OLED display which lasts around 5 days according to Sony.

Also, the Pebble uses buttons for navigation while the Smartwatch is "multitouch" (9 points in a 128x128 display).

The biggest difference IMO is that the Pebble supports both iPhone and Android while the Smartwatch only supports Android.

Also the Smartwatch is a bit bulkier and it sticks out more as its really thick.

If I hadn't just got a Nike Fuel band, I'd probably get one of those! Don't think I could pull off wearing both.

Do people really care more about a watch that may not even be all that practical, to give it $1 million in 1 day, than an ISP that vows to protect your privacy, or is it just because he didn't use Kickstarter (he couldn't):

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57413511-281/privacy-prote...

I wonder how many of their Blackberry watch they sold. More than this 10,000 preorders?

Inspiring. I wonder how helpful YC was to them for being largely a hardware company. Mass production and distribution must be some of the biggest challenges... maybe they can be the next Apple :)

Okay, I hate to be that guy, but I can't hold it in. These Kickstarter campaigns for iPhone accessories bother the shit out of me. See the following:

> iPhone dock: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hop/elevation-dock-the-b...

> iPod watch: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1104350651/tiktok-lunati...

> iPod speaker: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2107726947/hidden-radio-...

> iPhone tripod: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jj1/cineskates-camera-sl...

All of these projects have received hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. Notice a trend here? iProduct + Kickstarter + Aluminum(optional) = $$$. A formula for successful/massive funding. I probably have a naive view of what Kickstarter is supposed to be, but I envision it as a platform for launching innovative ideas. Sure, you can argue that these products are a few steps ahead of the incumbents, but let's be honest - they are virtually useless. They products don't leave the world in a better place. They aren't pushing any bounds. They aren't amazing. And the crazy thing is that I have never seen any of them in the wild, ever, despite being surrounded by tech savvy people, Apple fanboys, and iOS fanatics. What's up with that?

I fear that Kickstarter will become a platform to launch new iPhone accessories. But I guess that's what the world craves.

Oh, and see the most funded projects in the 'design' category:

http://www.kickstarter.com/discover/categories/design/most-f...

Obviously the products are desirable and wanted. No, they're not "changing the world", but why do they have to? They're using kickstarter as a portal to get backers to bring their product to life. They make beautiful products people want to own, that wouldn't be produced otherwise.

> They products don't leave the world in a better place.

Neither did your comment. What makes your use of HN's platform any more valid than their use of Kickstarter's? I'd say you're both entitled to do what you want. The introduction of that lens adds no value, especially because it can take a long time to determine how much people or commerce improve the world – or not.

Kickstarter's purpose, like any other company's purpose, is to serve a market. The market responded by showing large demand for these kind of projects that are being funded. If these are the kind of projects that people crave, how is that Kickstarter's fault? What do you suggest they do about it? Should they exclude these kind of projects? If so, why? Should they shut down the company? If someone credibly promised a crowd-funded cancer cure, I'm sure there'd be even bigger demand for that, but obviously that kind of thing is really hard to crowdsource.

I'm also confused: what exactly do you even mean when you say these products are useless? They may be useless to you, but clearly, hundreds of thousands (possibly millions once they reach market) of people are clamoring to get their hands on this stuff.

And YouTube is full of cat videos. They're what people want, they're not doing anyone any harm, and they're building scale to support the 1% of truly meaningful content.

In any event, have you seen the state of watches in 2012? Digital watches are basically the same as 20 years ago, and are sufficiently un-useful that most people wear analogue if anything at all. Everyone's carrying around a computer in their pocket/handbag that the watch could piggy-back off, it's time to make use of that.

"these products are a few steps ahead of the incumbents" That's how most progress actually happens. The inventors who are immortalised are usually standing on the shoulders of giants and completing the last mile.

>Pebble connects to iPhone and Android smartphones using Bluetooth.

And Android. Smartphone accessories are popular. I'd much rather have mine made by people who care and are pushing the innovation envelope than some crap at WalMart. So Kickstarter.

The world a better place? Probably not. My world a better place. Yep.

It's not an iPhone accessory. It's a wrist computer and can work with Android (actually better than iPhone), PC, Mac, Linux, etc. It's clearly a different class of product than a mere watchband.

So.... basically you're complaining that there's too much interest in accessories for some of the most popular consumer electronics devices in all of human history?

Don't be that guy. That "oh, I used to like that band, but then they got popular and sold out" guy. There's nothing wrong with people loving their idevices enough to want to spend even more money on accessories that make them better. And it doesn't take away from the rest of the market, if anything the great attention to kickstarter in general is helpful.

Kickstarter is not necessarily about "breaking bounds" or being revolutionary. It's about helping small groups of people and individuals make their dream projects reality. Sometimes those projects are merely mildly evolutionary, that's not a problem, evolutionary is just fine. Merely accelerating the pace of evolution in product design is enormously useful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com