20 ms·

Headsets Delayed into 2024

165 points by chungus 3y ago

karmakaze 3y ago
I haven't been following SimulaVR and do see the appeal of an all-in-one platform. The costs of quality and performance do add up and I can't justify to myself investing in it. I would much prefer to separate the HMD like something closer to the Bigscreen Beyond form-factor and a CPU/battery that's independently upgradeable and not supported by my neck.
- kanetw 3y ago
  Yeah, understandable. For us it's a deliberate design decision to minimize the amount of moving parts (=hassle, things to get tangled in, etc.)
  - drcode 3y ago
    I bought in on the presale, and have been very happy with how you guys have been approaching this project. It's obviously an uphill battle to release this device, but I love the ambition and lack of compromise you guys have in creating a new form factor. I think you are likely too early to market, making it a hard sell for a mass market in the short term. If you can survive long enough I think you can do well, however.
dcow 3y ago
On a positive note, given a16z's feedback, I'm sure they can find another firm/partner that would be willing to back them at this stage. They are definitely in a hard position, though. Reading this I doubt I'd put money in as a consumer until they have the capital to execute. Sounds like they really need 3-5MM to hit their objectives even though they only say 1.2MM. I've also seen a16z invest in far less (pitch decks and hand-wave demos). So my read on the feedback is they've made too much progress on one front (enough to show a16z that they're not a compelling seed investment) but not enough progress on the other front (enough to warrant a PMF A round). Doesn't seem like the most fun spot to be in, and I know how hard this part of the stretch is. Good luck!
- kanetw 3y ago
  We've tightened up the numbers a bit, but it's pretty close to a honest amount. 4m would put us well into profitable S1 production + enough runway to develop the next iteration territory. > I've also seen a16z invest in far less (pitch decks and hand-wave demos). So my read on the feedback is they've made too much progress on one front (enough to show a16z that they're not a compelling seed investment) but not enough progress on the other front (enough to warrant a PMF A round). Doesn't seem like a fun spot to be in. That's how I feel as well, given feedback from other VCs we've applied at. Amplify told us roughly "too big for a seed, too small for a series A" after five meetings or so.
  - dcow 3y ago
    Bummer I missed the SAFE round. I would consider chipping in as an investor even though I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing a preorder as a consumer. Wonder if you can structure your next round to include spots for people that missed the train...
    - kanetw 3y ago
      We're still accepting SAFEs. Contact georges@simulavr.com for details.
michaelbuckbee 3y ago
I don't know if this is strictly a "rule" but from the places I've worked, it's been the case that given the capital/batch/order constraints of hardware, it's very difficult to make break even on less than 10,000 units.
- kanetw 3y ago
  With our current design, we break even at about exactly 1k units.
criddell 3y ago
> While we expect consumers to be really excited about a VR takeoff in 2024 My guess is that there will indeed be a lot of excitement in 2024 (at least in Apple land) and then it's going to drop off again in 2025. That's not necessarily a terrible thing though. Meta has sold something like 25 million headsets. The market is already bigger than many people realize and maybe it's big enough. It doesn't need to 10x and if it did, there's more than a small chance that kind of growth would end up being bad thing. Maybe a16z not biting means enshittification has been delayed.
- georgewsinger 3y ago
  Agreed that VR gaming is bigger than most people realize, but VR for productivity (to replace PCs & laptops) is still an untapped market. VR pixel density is now within one doubling of "human eye resolution", so it seems like now's the time for VR to be useful for this use case. Apple's headset is really cool, but is being built over iOS for 2D apps, so isn't realistically going to replace someone's laptop as their primary computing device.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677
  - criddell 3y ago
    It’s not for me, but I’m still rooting for you. It feels like something that should exist.
MagicMoonlight 3y ago
[flagged]
- mellosouls 3y ago
  This seems like an admirably honest, reflective and eloquent report of a pain point in a tough new field. I don't see the need for the sneery dismissal. I hope they get the support they need and succeed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- turbobooster 3y ago
  [dead]
ajdude 3y ago
Like I mentioned in a related thread [1], I really want to see simulavr succeed. They started working on this stuff before anyone else did but one of my worries is that Apple and other big names are going to come in and establish the VR Computing market before the Simula one is launched. [1] SimulaVR: Headsets Delayed (simulavr.com) 8 points by Philpax 1 day ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37559316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37559316
- georgewsinger 3y ago
  Appreciate your support. From our perspective, the Apple headset is more an "iPad replacement" than a "laptop replacement".[1] The Vision Pro is based on their iOS (iPad/iPhone) ecosystem for their 2D apps, so you won't be able to use powerhouse office apps. It seems instead more geared towards the passive consumption of information, entertainment, and casual gaming, whereas we're trying to build something that can realistically replace a (Linux) laptop. I'm not sure what Apple is thinking strategically, but they're structurally incentivized to cannibalize their iPad sales over their macbook sales (since their iPads are their weakest product in their lineup in terms of sales). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677
  - papa_bear 3y ago
    For me personally, it’s appealing that it just provides a mirror to my existing MacBook. It gives me more flexibility on when to use glasses vs laptop screen, like if I need to take notes in a meeting/lecture hall.
  - CharlesW 3y ago
    > The Vision Pro is based on their iOS (iPad/iPhone) ecosystem for their 2D apps, so you won't be able to use powerhouse office apps. Creators can use the Vision Pro as their Mac's display, and/or run Office directly on Vision Pro. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-vision-pro-can-be-used-as-a-mac-display-heres-how-it-works https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-vision-pro-can-be-used-... https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23749947/apple-vision-pro-headset-microsoft-word-excel-teams https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23749947/apple-vision-pro-...
m3kw9 3y ago
Hey, nicely designed. A bit of a retro look but not tacky. I like the niche market you are aiming for (Linux hacker) and the work look impressive. I sound like an investor evaluating but I have no scratch to give. Just here to give encouragement and will root for your success
p1esk 3y ago
The specs seem meh, at a price comparable to the Apple headset. I'm sorry to be blunt but how could it possibly be successful?
- ekianjo 3y ago
  If you are not the size of Apple you dont need to have massive market success to be successful
- 1123581321 3y ago
  It's going to be more of a general computer than Apple's. There is a market for that, like how System76 and Framework sell laptops even though Macbooks exist and are arguably nicer for the money.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    The market for the entire VR industry is not that great to begin with. Apple might change this eventually or it might not. I just don't see how a small player today could hope to succeed where all existing big players struggle and even Apple might fail. Also, I'm guessing it's much easier to put together a laptop from off-the-shelf components than to create a VR headset.
    - 1123581321 3y ago
      It's significantly harder to make the headsets. They wouldn't need to place this complicated order with Sharp, for example. But, it's also why reason they have an opportunity as a new manufacturer and have taken orders at a premium price. They need to ship this and grow to place successive parts orders, but I'd think they could sustain the business at a few thousand sales annually. That's already a small percentage of the VR market and awareness should grow significantly next year.
      - p1esk 3y ago
        But who exactly would want to buy it? I make good money as a software developer, but there's no way I'd drop 3 grand on some unproven beta quality headset with modest specs just to see how well it could serve as a laptop + 4k monitor replacement. I could see myself potentially paying that much for a 2nd or 3rd generation Vision Pro, provided everyone raves about the experience, but even then, I'd double check the return policy.
Zetaphor 3y ago
As someone involved in both the crypto and the VR space, why were the first testers crypto people rather than VR people? It would have been a much easier pitch to those of us who already understand the caveats of this technology at present state, and we're already believers in the idea. Many VR people are using their current generation HMD's for productivity already despite the downsides. It seems like it would have been a more obvious route to the type of people who are most likely to be your early adopters, and additionally avoids associating your operation with crypto which still carries a stigma. I have a lot of respect for Vitalik, but I'd much rather hear the opinion of someone like Thrillseeker for a device like this.
- wslh 3y ago
  > As someone involved in both the crypto and the VR space, why were the first testers crypto people rather than VR people? Because the Metaverse mantra is more linked to crypto than the VR space.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    Simula wants nothing to do with the metaverse, so I'm not sure what you're getting at: https://simulavr.com/blog/we-dont-want-the-metaverse/ https://simulavr.com/blog/we-dont-want-the-metaverse/
    - wslh 3y ago
      Well, the comment from George here makes the topic a little gray since the peole mentioned talk about crypto and about Metaverse, whatever it is.
      - Zetaphor 3y ago
        I can't speak about Thor as I don't know who that is, but Vitalik has never been an open supporter of the metaverse fad. He's one of the people in the space who are too busy being focused on improving the core technologies to pay attention to meaningless marketing hype. Don't confuse builders for influencers.
treprinum 3y ago
2448x2448 per eye display resolution is unfortunately not sufficient for a real desktop work. I doubt Apple's 3k will be sufficient either. Linux seems cool though and it's essentially a NUC wrapped around one's head.
- 1MachineElf 3y ago
  I may be sufficient. SimulaVR has put in work early on to improve the experience. One example is font smoothing you can see in their demos.
- regularfry 3y ago
  It is, though. I do real desktop work on a pair of XReal Airs and they're 1920x1080x2. Besides which, being able to pan your vision around virtual monitors will make the resolution go a lot further.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    That's because the FoV of the Xreals is much lower so the PPD is higher. For the simula that won't work.
- BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
  You would be surprised. VR/AR can present 2D surfaces that appear to have a much higher resolution than what the LCD should be able to do natively. Because you (ideally) have two eyes (cameras/view frustums) and they're always moving slightly, the virtual canvas is sampling the source texture's pixels slightly different per eye and per frame (e.g. at 90Hz or higher). Between the images your eyes see and the high-frequency changes always happening, your brain pieces together all of the detail.
yieldcrv 3y ago
too late
rebeccaskinner 3y ago
I remember running across simulavr a couple of years ago, and after Apple's announcement I went to check out what they are up to. I hope they get the funding they're looking for, because this is a product I'd love to see exist in the market.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
elif 3y ago
I learned my lesson about gofundmysalary years ago but still would consider giving this company an order if they gave even the slightest impression that they were doing the kind of radiation testing that the lawyers are surely forcing the big players to undertake. Four figure drop for an open source darling project? Maybe.. but it is too big of an ask for me to strap a bunch of dev boards and desktop components to my cranium.
Zetobal 3y ago
The only thing I read out of this is that they have no idea for the interface side of things. The dismissal of critique by "we will fix it later, it's easy" never bodes well especially in regards to ui/ux and Linux.
- kanetw 3y ago
  No, we fully agree it's a hard problem. Which is why we wrote functional software first, and then went into hardware when the existing hardware couldn't support our use cases. There's problems with the software that need to be solved before we ship, but it's not with the UI side of things. That's not to say that the UI is perfect (it really isn't), but it's functional and more importantly: can be changed at any time, unlike hardware.
  - Zetobal 3y ago
    If you have hardware and shitty software the only thing that will happen is that your users will be disappointed. You can't change the first reviews or hand-ons "any time". It's a one-shot.
    - fintip 3y ago
      these aren't normal users. linux users choose what others may see as sub-par UX every day because we value other things. and they'll fix it themselves; it's not an apple-style top-down relationship, and I expect it'll iterate fast.
janosdebugs 3y ago
I'm not sure I'm reading these numbers correctly, but is the project selling the units basically at material costs and taking a huge hit on everything else? What am I missing?
- georgewsinger 3y ago
  Nope, you've got it right. We're selling at a loss up until roughly the ~1,000th unit shipped. More specifically: if we ship 125 units, we lose roughly ~$5K per headset. If we ship 250 units, we lose roughly ~$2K per headset. If we ship 1,250 units, we're operating at a slight profit with a couple of years of runway. If we ship 10,000 units, our margins approach 45% (at least on our pure hardware offering; we'd like to layer in some software offerings as well). Unfortunately, the most costly part of the project is the very beginning. But we think these sales targets are doable if we're able to get our operation off the ground (with customers able to see shipped units being used to replace laptops in the wild).
  - janosdebugs 3y ago
    Forgive my bluntness, I know next to nothing about manufacturing: are you able to scale up to 10k units at linear cost?
    - fintip 3y ago
      I would assume it actually becomes reducing cost, if anything?
      - janosdebugs 3y ago
        Not sure, if you need to hire more people... again, I know nothing about manufacturing.
    - kanetw 3y ago
      The key factor is how fast units need to ship. In general, the scaling is sub-linear due to 1. reduced per-component costs (volume discounts) 2. less administrative/engineering overhead (ie the salaries/one-off costs get divided among more units) 3. more optimized assembly processes Assembly labor expenses are directly proportional to how many units need to ship per timeframe. If an assembly worker can assemble 10 units a day, you're shipping 200 units/month. So you can ship 1000 units in 5 months or hire 5 people and ship 1000 units in 1 month.
flarg 3y ago
Hardware is either niche and unachievable or commodity and widely available. Maybe you could consider pivoting to software for widely available non mainstream headsets until you make enough to fund the dedicated hardware.

165 points by chungus 3y ago

I haven't been following SimulaVR and do see the appeal of an all-in-one platform. The costs of quality and performance do add up and I can't justify to myself investing in it. I would much prefer to separate the HMD like something closer to the Bigscreen Beyond form-factor and a CPU/battery that's independently upgradeable and not supported by my neck.

kanetw 3y ago
Yeah, understandable. For us it's a deliberate design decision to minimize the amount of moving parts (=hassle, things to get tangled in, etc.)
- drcode 3y ago
  I bought in on the presale, and have been very happy with how you guys have been approaching this project. It's obviously an uphill battle to release this device, but I love the ambition and lack of compromise you guys have in creating a new form factor. I think you are likely too early to market, making it a hard sell for a mass market in the short term. If you can survive long enough I think you can do well, however.

dcow 3y ago

On a positive note, given a16z's feedback, I'm sure they can find another firm/partner that would be willing to back them at this stage. They are definitely in a hard position, though. Reading this I doubt I'd put money in as a consumer until they have the capital to execute. Sounds like they really need 3-5MM to hit their objectives even though they only say 1.2MM. I've also seen a16z invest in far less (pitch decks and hand-wave demos). So my read on the feedback is they've made too much progress on one front (enough to show a16z that they're not a compelling seed investment) but not enough progress on the other front (enough to warrant a PMF A round). Doesn't seem like the most fun spot to be in, and I know how hard this part of the stretch is. Good luck!

kanetw 3y ago
We've tightened up the numbers a bit, but it's pretty close to a honest amount. 4m would put us well into profitable S1 production + enough runway to develop the next iteration territory. > I've also seen a16z invest in far less (pitch decks and hand-wave demos). So my read on the feedback is they've made too much progress on one front (enough to show a16z that they're not a compelling seed investment) but not enough progress on the other front (enough to warrant a PMF A round). Doesn't seem like a fun spot to be in. That's how I feel as well, given feedback from other VCs we've applied at. Amplify told us roughly "too big for a seed, too small for a series A" after five meetings or so.
- dcow 3y ago
  Bummer I missed the SAFE round. I would consider chipping in as an investor even though I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing a preorder as a consumer. Wonder if you can structure your next round to include spots for people that missed the train...
  - kanetw 3y ago
    We're still accepting SAFEs. Contact georges@simulavr.com for details.

michaelbuckbee 3y ago

I don't know if this is strictly a "rule" but from the places I've worked, it's been the case that given the capital/batch/order constraints of hardware, it's very difficult to make break even on less than 10,000 units.

kanetw 3y ago
With our current design, we break even at about exactly 1k units.

criddell 3y ago

> While we expect consumers to be really excited about a VR takeoff in 2024 My guess is that there will indeed be a lot of excitement in 2024 (at least in Apple land) and then it's going to drop off again in 2025. That's not necessarily a terrible thing though. Meta has sold something like 25 million headsets. The market is already bigger than many people realize and maybe it's big enough. It doesn't need to 10x and if it did, there's more than a small chance that kind of growth would end up being bad thing. Maybe a16z not biting means enshittification has been delayed.

georgewsinger 3y ago
Agreed that VR gaming is bigger than most people realize, but VR for productivity (to replace PCs & laptops) is still an untapped market. VR pixel density is now within one doubling of "human eye resolution", so it seems like now's the time for VR to be useful for this use case. Apple's headset is really cool, but is being built over iOS for 2D apps, so isn't realistically going to replace someone's laptop as their primary computing device.[1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677
- criddell 3y ago
  It’s not for me, but I’m still rooting for you. It feels like something that should exist.

MagicMoonlight 3y ago

[flagged]

mellosouls 3y ago
This seems like an admirably honest, reflective and eloquent report of a pain point in a tough new field. I don't see the need for the sneery dismissal. I hope they get the support they need and succeed.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
turbobooster 3y ago
[dead]

ajdude 3y ago

Like I mentioned in a related thread [1], I really want to see simulavr succeed. They started working on this stuff before anyone else did but one of my worries is that Apple and other big names are going to come in and establish the VR Computing market before the Simula one is launched. [1] SimulaVR: Headsets Delayed (simulavr.com) 8 points by Philpax 1 day ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37559316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37559316

georgewsinger 3y ago
Appreciate your support. From our perspective, the Apple headset is more an "iPad replacement" than a "laptop replacement".[1] The Vision Pro is based on their iOS (iPad/iPhone) ecosystem for their 2D apps, so you won't be able to use powerhouse office apps. It seems instead more geared towards the passive consumption of information, entertainment, and casual gaming, whereas we're trying to build something that can realistically replace a (Linux) laptop. I'm not sure what Apple is thinking strategically, but they're structurally incentivized to cannibalize their iPad sales over their macbook sales (since their iPads are their weakest product in their lineup in terms of sales). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36326677
- papa_bear 3y ago
  For me personally, it’s appealing that it just provides a mirror to my existing MacBook. It gives me more flexibility on when to use glasses vs laptop screen, like if I need to take notes in a meeting/lecture hall.
- CharlesW 3y ago
  > The Vision Pro is based on their iOS (iPad/iPhone) ecosystem for their 2D apps, so you won't be able to use powerhouse office apps. Creators can use the Vision Pro as their Mac's display, and/or run Office directly on Vision Pro. https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-vision-pro-can-be-used-as-a-mac-display-heres-how-it-works https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-vision-pro-can-be-used-... https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23749947/apple-vision-pro-headset-microsoft-word-excel-teams https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/5/23749947/apple-vision-pro-...

m3kw9 3y ago

Hey, nicely designed. A bit of a retro look but not tacky. I like the niche market you are aiming for (Linux hacker) and the work look impressive. I sound like an investor evaluating but I have no scratch to give. Just here to give encouragement and will root for your success

p1esk 3y ago

The specs seem meh, at a price comparable to the Apple headset. I'm sorry to be blunt but how could it possibly be successful?

ekianjo 3y ago
If you are not the size of Apple you dont need to have massive market success to be successful
1123581321 3y ago
It's going to be more of a general computer than Apple's. There is a market for that, like how System76 and Framework sell laptops even though Macbooks exist and are arguably nicer for the money.
- p1esk 3y ago
  The market for the entire VR industry is not that great to begin with. Apple might change this eventually or it might not. I just don't see how a small player today could hope to succeed where all existing big players struggle and even Apple might fail. Also, I'm guessing it's much easier to put together a laptop from off-the-shelf components than to create a VR headset.
  - 1123581321 3y ago
    It's significantly harder to make the headsets. They wouldn't need to place this complicated order with Sharp, for example. But, it's also why reason they have an opportunity as a new manufacturer and have taken orders at a premium price. They need to ship this and grow to place successive parts orders, but I'd think they could sustain the business at a few thousand sales annually. That's already a small percentage of the VR market and awareness should grow significantly next year.
    - p1esk 3y ago
      But who exactly would want to buy it? I make good money as a software developer, but there's no way I'd drop 3 grand on some unproven beta quality headset with modest specs just to see how well it could serve as a laptop + 4k monitor replacement. I could see myself potentially paying that much for a 2nd or 3rd generation Vision Pro, provided everyone raves about the experience, but even then, I'd double check the return policy.

Zetaphor 3y ago

As someone involved in both the crypto and the VR space, why were the first testers crypto people rather than VR people? It would have been a much easier pitch to those of us who already understand the caveats of this technology at present state, and we're already believers in the idea. Many VR people are using their current generation HMD's for productivity already despite the downsides. It seems like it would have been a more obvious route to the type of people who are most likely to be your early adopters, and additionally avoids associating your operation with crypto which still carries a stigma. I have a lot of respect for Vitalik, but I'd much rather hear the opinion of someone like Thrillseeker for a device like this.

wslh 3y ago
> As someone involved in both the crypto and the VR space, why were the first testers crypto people rather than VR people? Because the Metaverse mantra is more linked to crypto than the VR space.
- lolinder 3y ago
  Simula wants nothing to do with the metaverse, so I'm not sure what you're getting at: https://simulavr.com/blog/we-dont-want-the-metaverse/ https://simulavr.com/blog/we-dont-want-the-metaverse/
  - wslh 3y ago
    Well, the comment from George here makes the topic a little gray since the peole mentioned talk about crypto and about Metaverse, whatever it is.
    - Zetaphor 3y ago
      I can't speak about Thor as I don't know who that is, but Vitalik has never been an open supporter of the metaverse fad. He's one of the people in the space who are too busy being focused on improving the core technologies to pay attention to meaningless marketing hype. Don't confuse builders for influencers.

treprinum 3y ago

2448x2448 per eye display resolution is unfortunately not sufficient for a real desktop work. I doubt Apple's 3k will be sufficient either. Linux seems cool though and it's essentially a NUC wrapped around one's head.

1MachineElf 3y ago
I may be sufficient. SimulaVR has put in work early on to improve the experience. One example is font smoothing you can see in their demos.
regularfry 3y ago
It is, though. I do real desktop work on a pair of XReal Airs and they're 1920x1080x2. Besides which, being able to pan your vision around virtual monitors will make the resolution go a lot further.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wkat4242 3y ago
  That's because the FoV of the Xreals is much lower so the PPD is higher. For the simula that won't work.
BHSPitMonkey 3y ago
You would be surprised. VR/AR can present 2D surfaces that appear to have a much higher resolution than what the LCD should be able to do natively. Because you (ideally) have two eyes (cameras/view frustums) and they're always moving slightly, the virtual canvas is sampling the source texture's pixels slightly different per eye and per frame (e.g. at 90Hz or higher). Between the images your eyes see and the high-frequency changes always happening, your brain pieces together all of the detail.

yieldcrv 3y ago

too late

rebeccaskinner 3y ago

I remember running across simulavr a couple of years ago, and after Apple's announcement I went to check out what they are up to. I hope they get the funding they're looking for, because this is a product I'd love to see exist in the market.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

elif 3y ago

I learned my lesson about gofundmysalary years ago but still would consider giving this company an order if they gave even the slightest impression that they were doing the kind of radiation testing that the lawyers are surely forcing the big players to undertake. Four figure drop for an open source darling project? Maybe.. but it is too big of an ask for me to strap a bunch of dev boards and desktop components to my cranium.

Zetobal 3y ago

The only thing I read out of this is that they have no idea for the interface side of things. The dismissal of critique by "we will fix it later, it's easy" never bodes well especially in regards to ui/ux and Linux.

kanetw 3y ago
No, we fully agree it's a hard problem. Which is why we wrote functional software first, and then went into hardware when the existing hardware couldn't support our use cases. There's problems with the software that need to be solved before we ship, but it's not with the UI side of things. That's not to say that the UI is perfect (it really isn't), but it's functional and more importantly: can be changed at any time, unlike hardware.
- Zetobal 3y ago
  If you have hardware and shitty software the only thing that will happen is that your users will be disappointed. You can't change the first reviews or hand-ons "any time". It's a one-shot.
  - fintip 3y ago
    these aren't normal users. linux users choose what others may see as sub-par UX every day because we value other things. and they'll fix it themselves; it's not an apple-style top-down relationship, and I expect it'll iterate fast.

janosdebugs 3y ago

I'm not sure I'm reading these numbers correctly, but is the project selling the units basically at material costs and taking a huge hit on everything else? What am I missing?

georgewsinger 3y ago
Nope, you've got it right. We're selling at a loss up until roughly the ~1,000th unit shipped. More specifically: if we ship 125 units, we lose roughly ~$5K per headset. If we ship 250 units, we lose roughly ~$2K per headset. If we ship 1,250 units, we're operating at a slight profit with a couple of years of runway. If we ship 10,000 units, our margins approach 45% (at least on our pure hardware offering; we'd like to layer in some software offerings as well). Unfortunately, the most costly part of the project is the very beginning. But we think these sales targets are doable if we're able to get our operation off the ground (with customers able to see shipped units being used to replace laptops in the wild).
- janosdebugs 3y ago
  Forgive my bluntness, I know next to nothing about manufacturing: are you able to scale up to 10k units at linear cost?
  - fintip 3y ago
    I would assume it actually becomes reducing cost, if anything?
    - janosdebugs 3y ago
      Not sure, if you need to hire more people... again, I know nothing about manufacturing.
  - kanetw 3y ago
    The key factor is how fast units need to ship. In general, the scaling is sub-linear due to 1. reduced per-component costs (volume discounts) 2. less administrative/engineering overhead (ie the salaries/one-off costs get divided among more units) 3. more optimized assembly processes Assembly labor expenses are directly proportional to how many units need to ship per timeframe. If an assembly worker can assemble 10 units a day, you're shipping 200 units/month. So you can ship 1000 units in 5 months or hire 5 people and ship 1000 units in 1 month.

flarg 3y ago

Hardware is either niche and unachievable or commodity and widely available. Maybe you could consider pivoting to software for widely available non mainstream headsets until you make enough to fund the dedicated hardware.