13 ms·

YC for Hardware

445 points by sama 12y ago

pcmonk 12y ago
I'm a bit out of the loop on hardware startups, but has YC funded many successful hardware startups? The only one I've heard of is Pebble. Lowering the barrier to hardware startups is an awesome thing, of course. Hardware has a greater potential to directly impact lives at this point than software. There's tremendous software power locked up in the small, awkward-to-use computing devices we call phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and servers.
- jasondc 12y ago
  Boosted Boards is another one: http://boostedboards.com/ http://boostedboards.com/
- beambot 12y ago
  Pebble, Boosted, Cruise, Double Robotics, Pantelligent, Thalmic, UPower, Helion, Terravion, SoundFocus, SwapBox, Amulyte, Coin, IxiPlay, TrueLink, Estimote, Senic, ... <there are more>
  - apendleton 12y ago
    Not to nitpick, but at least some of these arguably haven't gotten far enough along yet that they can reasonably claim to be "successful." Thalmic is just getting early products to market, Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor, etc.
    - acgourley 12y ago
      I'll just point out that going into the 3rd or 4th year of YC's existence, everyone was asking this about the software companies they were funding.
      - w1ntermute 12y ago
        And I'll just point out that blind extrapolation from one vertical to a completely different one is usually a poor predictive strategy.
      - redthrowaway 12y ago
        It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. It's still very much an experiment at this point, and "it was once an unknown for software companies" doesn't imply that hardware companies will achieve similar success with the YC model.
        jeorgun 12y ago
        Sure, but it does mean that "few successful companies so far" shouldn't be taken as a death knell for YC's forays into hardware. By fairly direct analogy, the majority of startups not making a profit in their first month will fail, but the majority of successful startups weren't making a profit in their first month.
        redthrowaway 12y ago
        Sure, that's a fair statement. I'm not saying that the lack of success so far is a knock against YC for hardware startups. Rather, the similar lack of success for software startups in YC at the same stage of development, and the subsequent success they did enjoy, is not a point in favour of YC's suitability for hardware startups. Hardware and Software startups are sufficiently different in their needs and life cycles that it would be specious to use the success of a particular program for the one as indicative of its suitability for the other. Similarly, the sorts of b2c startups that YC typically funds are sufficiently different from b2g startups like Palantir that I don't think you could claim Palantir would have benefitted from YC based solely on the experiences of b2c startups.
        bootload 12y ago
        "... It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. ..." That is true. A better way to think of it, might be as an experiment. Do you remember when YC was started funding startups? The tech group-thought at the time: a toy, a joke, nothing serious, never to gain traction.
    - chrisBob 12y ago
      I thought the goal of a startup was funding. Who needs commercial products?
    - lbearl 12y ago
      >> Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor I agree with your point, but at the same time it is somewhat amazing that we live in a world where a company can get VC funding to even make an attempt on something as ambitious as fusion.
      - frozenport 12y ago
        Or perhaps it will be remembered as wasteful during the next bust.
    - paul 12y ago
      Hundreds of millions of dollars in sales doesn't count as success? Which non-yc hardware companies started in the last several years would you count as successful?
      - bravo22 12y ago
        Thalmic has hundred of millions in sales!? or were you referring to another one from the list?
      - larrys 12y ago
        It might. But profitability is important as well. Not a comment on any particular company but the idea that a company that has millions in revenue but no profits (and is floated by investors) is successful is not absolute.
    - meowface 12y ago
      >at least >some >arguably >far enough along >yet I don't mean to insult you or criticize your post in any way, partly because I agree with you, but that is a lot of qualifiers for one short sentence. Diplomatic tones require them though, I suppose.
- fudged71 12y ago
  BufferBox
  - bravo22 12y ago
    In all fairness they weren't really a hardware company. Their "hardware" was off the shelf. They sold the service, not the hardware.
    - paul 12y ago
      Actually, no, they were building their own boxes.
      - bravo22 12y ago
        I did not know that. I assumed they got them from an OEM, considering they are so cheap and readily available. Even if they were building their own sheet metal lockers, I still don't think they were a "hardware" company. They had a great service and that's what they were selling.
        paul 12y ago
        They had to integrate the electronics as well. The most successful hardware companies (e.g. Apple) are building integrated systems including software and services.
        bravo22 12y ago
        I don't disagree with assertion about Apple and similar companies but they end up selling you a physical hardware product. Bufferbox offered a service and didn't sell you a product therefore I don't think they were "hardware" company. The hardware was means to an end. I don't think it lessens what they did. It was a good service. Walmart has a large IT infrastructure, with sys admins and in-house developers. They also manage a lot of buildings, and warehouses. I wouldn't consider them an IT company, a property management company, or a logistics company.
- spike021 12y ago
  I believe FiveStars is another hardware one, if you count NFC cards (or whichever tech they're using) as hardware.
- edmack 12y ago
  Bellabeat
dthal 12y ago
>and we don’t shy away from expensive hardware--we’ve funded companies building things like nuclear reactors and rockets, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to succeed How does this make sense for YC to do?
- taylorwc 12y ago
  I'd guess that it's part of a diversified approach. Yes, they are capital intensive, but YC isn't the one who will be investing the hundreds of millions, and if one of these is successful, then I'd say it's likely to be hugely successful and a worthwhile return for YC.
minimaxir 12y ago
Wait, why is Tilt on the list of startups helping out with hardware expertise? Aren't they a crowdfunding company? https://www.tilt.com https://www.tilt.com
- npkarnik 12y ago
  A lot of the very recent, surprising successes in hardware (Oculus, Pebble) were crowdfunded (specifically for those, Kickstarted). I would go as far to say that using a premier crowdfunding platform to test the market may be the best, lowest risk way to validate a hardware idea. Or at least crowdfunding lowers the barrier for hardware success from "damn near impossible" to "really really hard."
  - zmitri 12y ago
    Exactly correct. Side note for companies like Indiegogo, success at attracting device makers to use their platform is key to their growth. At CES alone they have something like 14 booths.
- taylorwc 12y ago
  Indeed. But crowdfunding has opened up a new channel for hardware startups: preorders. It makes developing a hardware product, which used to be very difficult and take a lot of up-front investment, much more accessible. It's still difficult (see all of the infinitely-delayed crowdfunded projects), but has been getting steadily easier over the past few years. Crowdfunding serves as nondilutive financing to the startups and can also signal market validation to future investors. It is a very important part of the chain.
- ajaymehta 12y ago
  Less with hardware-specific expertise, more with crowdfunding, pre-sales, and bringing a product to market. Many highly-successful new hardware project launches have been powered by Tilt over the past year, to name a few: Navdy, Lytro Illum, Whistle GPS, and Eero (yesterday). (These were all on the Tilt/Open platform: https://open.tilt.com/ https://open.tilt.com/)
- lacixodarap 12y ago
icki 12y ago
From first paragraph: Bolt’s partners and engineering stuff *i think you meant staff
lnanek2 12y ago
Interested hardware startups should be sure to check out Wearable World as well: http://www.wearableworld.co/ http://www.wearableworld.co/ They have a similar focus on hardware, great numbers re the percent of each class that gets funded, and have had some big successes like the Skully AR-1 intelligent motorcycle helmet: http://www.skully.com/ http://www.skully.com/ WW recently toured the AQS facility in Fremont where a lot of well known products are being made like Makerbot and the Lift Labs tremor defeating spoon, and class members get frequent introductions to everyone from investors to Perkins offering billing for law services only on funding. It has been a pretty kickass program so far.
TheMakeA 12y ago
Are any of these resources available for anyone who isn't already a YC founder? Does that make sense? Wouldn't it be valuable to give interested folks who aren't yet in YC a place to do their prototyping, get discounts, and help, and then use it as lead gen for the next batch? Think of all the companies that could exist but don't because they don't have access to these resources.
- dthal 12y ago
  That makes complete sense, especially since you are not going to get in to YC as a hardware startup without a functioning prototype.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - cpach 12y ago
    Why not? I’m pretty sure Helion (helionenergy.com) doesn’t have a working prototype.
- bravo22 12y ago
  What YC is doing is bundling discounts on PCB prototyping, and 3D printed parts. The rest of the offerings are further down the stack (testing, RF, etc.) so the only thing you would be missing as a non-YC company trying to build a prototype to get into YC is discounts. If you are hand assembling your prototypes then you only have PCB fabrication costs, which for a 2 to 4 layer board should be about $500 max for your protos (1 week turn). That should be doable for most start-ups, even if they need 3-4 spins.
  - mwoodworth 12y ago
    They also are working on getting the tools that you need to design your prototype. Like Upverter (YCW2011) (https://upverter.com/ https://upverter.com/) for designing your PCB.
    - 12y ago
anujdeshpande 12y ago
I read it twice to see if there was any mention of the word 'Shenzhen'. It's difficult to not keep that in the loop, for a hardware startup anywhere in the world. Even SF.
- hugs 12y ago
  I make robots in Chicago and sell them on Tindie. My top two competitors are in Finland and Japan. Yes, I hear Shenzhen is crazy awesome, but try not to let location dominate your world view of what is easy or difficult. Making a good hardware product is difficult, no matter where you make it.
  - codemac 12y ago
    > try not to let location dominate your world view of what is easy or difficult Didn't YC move?
    - anujdeshpande 12y ago
      True that. Cambridge,MA initially.
    - hugs 12y ago
      Yes. Of course, I wish YC would take my advice, too! ;)
  - anujdeshpande 12y ago
    I know what you mean. I make development boards(Tah) out of India. But I understand that most of what I use comes some way or the other from Shenzhen. A lot many times there are things that I am using which probably are outdated in China. Relevant article by bunnie : http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297
  - rasz_pl 12y ago
    >I make robots in Chicago and sell them on Tindie sounds very scalable
yousifa 12y ago
This is wonderful! Can't wait to see what future batch companies look like
swamp40 12y ago
Are there any new advantages or opportunities for Bolt portfolio companies?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- physcab 12y ago
  Thats horrible, but I don't see where it says Lockitron. If you thought Lockitron Bolt, I think thats different from the Bolt they were talking about.. https://www.bolt.io/ https://www.bolt.io/
  - mrchess 12y ago
    You are correct. I though Bolt == Lockitron Bolt. I did not realize they are two different companies. I will delete the original comment since it is inaccurate.
Eleutheria 12y ago
I'd like to see electric buggys for under $5K. That would be really disruptive. https://imgur.com/UlrV8FT https://imgur.com/UlrV8FT
aceperry 12y ago
Sounds great! Question I have is, are these services only available to yc companies? What about startups that are not a part of yc?
oldpond 12y ago
No mention of open hardware. Definitely a market there.
NextPerception 12y ago
As a mechanical engineer who works in this area and already follows hacker news due to colliding interests, this is very exciting.
trsohmers 12y ago
Is there any interest in (fabless) semiconductors? Traditionally thought as ridiculously capital intensive, there are a lot of new developments that have brought the time and costs involved down dramatically... My experience trying to fundraise for one shown there are a lot of misconceptions and (10-15 year) old ideas in the silicon valley investment space regarding fabless semi.
- super_sloth 12y ago
  Very interesting.. Do tell. What kind of misconceptions are there and how have they changed? I still labour under the assumption that NREs make doing anything like that _extremely_ expensive.
  - trsohmers 12y ago
    NOTE: I am the founder of REX Computing (check my submission & comment history for more info), and thus a bit biased for this. The standard thing I have heard from VC's that don't know anything about semiconductors (Or have not been involved in it in this century): "It will cost $100 million and take 3 years to have your first silicon. You have a 50% chance of even making it that far, and even then you only have a 10% chance of success (e.g. making any sales)" So basically, the VC assumption is that it is a minimum $100 million and 3 years to see ANYTHING come out of it... and even if you get to silicon, there is only a 10% chance you'll be able to sell it. This is ridiculously pessimistic if you actually have a real design innovation. Some of the new developments: New tools: High Level Synthesis an "Hardware construction languages" (such as Chisel... http://chisel.eecs.berkeley.edu http://chisel.eecs.berkeley.edu) radically bring RTL development time down. My team (consisting of just two of us) were able to complete the RTL of our new processor core in under 4 months (working on the weekends)... and that includes a lot of redesign and working on things other than the RTL itself. Chisel also brings the testing/verification time down significantly, as it can auto-generate Verilog optimized for either VLSI or FPGAs, and a high speed cycle accurate C++ simulator of the chip that is ~10x faster than the industry standard Verilog C Simulator. Even though Chisel really is this amazing, virtually no one outside of UC Berkeley knows about it. 2. FPGAs have gotten a lot better... I can say the synthesis tools still suck, but in terms of speed and testing ablility, you can test your chip on very cheap (Ours is $300) FPGAs these days. 3.Shuttle run/Multi project wafer services... a "block" (6 mm^2) on TSMC 28nm process is $90,000... and you get 100 chips back. A 16 core version of our chip is just two of these blocks. 4. Older process nodes are getting cheaper. Most fabs in the US are not going below 65nm or 45nm, and need to keep full utilization of their fabs. There are a lot of deals that can be had on these smaller fabs which are perfect for prototyping... A similar block size can be as cheap as $3 to 5k. 5. Moore's law dying is one of the best things that can happen to the industry. Instead of the ridiculous investment getting to the next process node, the fabs can invest in making the current process better and cheaper. This will bring down the cost of very good, proven processes (like 28nm, and potentially 14/16nm in ~3 to 5 years), making fabrication even cheaper and more widely available. I'm happy to answer any questions! EDIT/TLDR: Based on my own startup's current plan and estimates, it is possible to prototype (get 100 chips back) an entirely new processor architecture for under $2 million, and it is possible to go into mass production with that design for $10 to $15 million.
cpg 12y ago
This adds to the already exciting hardware situation. I'm interested in the personal media/storage/app server space! If you are hardware startup founder material and are interested, please get in touch.
robwormald 12y ago
This can't come soon enough. I'm helping out on a hardware 'startup' (though I guess we don't really use that term) - coming from software its an incredibly challenging realm to work in. Simply getting a functional prototype without easy access to a 3d printer, $$$ in compiler licenses for BT stacks, freakin custom batteries, etc etc. Our thing: https://www.fitguard.me/ https://www.fitguard.me/
- FD3SA 12y ago
  Hi Rob, just saw FitGuard for the first time and it's a phenomenal idea. I'd recommend getting in touch with motorcycle helmet manufacturers (particularly MotoGP and WSBK sponsors) because concussions are a huge issue in motorcycle racing. As your site states, concussion severity is very abstractly diagnosed without data, and your product can make a big difference. The doctor has a tough time deciding whether the athlete is fit to race if he's had a crash and a concussion, and it ultimately comes down to a qualitative decision made by the rider and doctor. Data can definitely help save lives here. If I have time for the track this season, I'll definitely sign up as a tester. I've never had a concussion, but I sure as hell would want to know how fast my head decelerates after a crash before getting back on the bike. Good luck, and cheers on a great idea.
  - robwormald 12y ago
    Can't take credit for the idea, one of the founders is a Rugby player and had his clock cleaned on the field one too many times. Data is my thing - there's a number of these types of products out there (Shockbox et al), the issue is that they all keep the algorithm quite close to their chest (fairly, I suppose!) My role (in addition to helping out with the hardware) is the ecosystem around it. It's BLE capable, so while we can't make a diagnosis (all kinds of legal issues there), the hope is to aggregate impact data, improve the detection algorithm and be able to feed it back to the device as it improves - We're currently using a TI MCU that allows us to OTA update from the app.
- aknalid 12y ago
  Neat. What kind of a sensor is it using? Also, why IG instead of Kickstarter?
spiritplumber 12y ago
Do I qualify? http://www.robots-everywhere.com http://www.robots-everywhere.com The article is scant on details about who do I talk to.
jfb 12y ago
I would love to start a hardware startup (I even have an idea!) but I have no idea how to assess the feasibility of my idea, or how to hire h/w engineers. And it's not a billion dollar idea, so maybe it's not in the YC wheelhouse, but I sure as hell think it'd be fun.
zhanjie 12y ago
Appreciate！I’m doing a hardware startup now,and I believe some areas in YC's RFSs will be solved better with a software&hardware model.
anujdeshpande 12y ago
An interesting thing that YC could do for hardware startups is provide discounted copies or license servers for some of the most commonly required but exorbitant softwares : Altium, Solidworks, Autodesk inventor among others.

445 points by sama 12y ago

I'm a bit out of the loop on hardware startups, but has YC funded many successful hardware startups? The only one I've heard of is Pebble. Lowering the barrier to hardware startups is an awesome thing, of course. Hardware has a greater potential to directly impact lives at this point than software. There's tremendous software power locked up in the small, awkward-to-use computing devices we call phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, and servers.

jasondc 12y ago
Boosted Boards is another one: http://boostedboards.com/ http://boostedboards.com/
beambot 12y ago
Pebble, Boosted, Cruise, Double Robotics, Pantelligent, Thalmic, UPower, Helion, Terravion, SoundFocus, SwapBox, Amulyte, Coin, IxiPlay, TrueLink, Estimote, Senic, ... <there are more>
- apendleton 12y ago
  Not to nitpick, but at least some of these arguably haven't gotten far enough along yet that they can reasonably claim to be "successful." Thalmic is just getting early products to market, Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor, etc.
  - acgourley 12y ago
    I'll just point out that going into the 3rd or 4th year of YC's existence, everyone was asking this about the software companies they were funding.
    - w1ntermute 12y ago
      And I'll just point out that blind extrapolation from one vertical to a completely different one is usually a poor predictive strategy.
    - redthrowaway 12y ago
      It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. It's still very much an experiment at this point, and "it was once an unknown for software companies" doesn't imply that hardware companies will achieve similar success with the YC model.
      - jeorgun 12y ago
        Sure, but it does mean that "few successful companies so far" shouldn't be taken as a death knell for YC's forays into hardware. By fairly direct analogy, the majority of startups not making a profit in their first month will fail, but the majority of successful startups weren't making a profit in their first month.
        redthrowaway 12y ago
        Sure, that's a fair statement. I'm not saying that the lack of success so far is a knock against YC for hardware startups. Rather, the similar lack of success for software startups in YC at the same stage of development, and the subsequent success they did enjoy, is not a point in favour of YC's suitability for hardware startups. Hardware and Software startups are sufficiently different in their needs and life cycles that it would be specious to use the success of a particular program for the one as indicative of its suitability for the other. Similarly, the sorts of b2c startups that YC typically funds are sufficiently different from b2g startups like Palantir that I don't think you could claim Palantir would have benefitted from YC based solely on the experiences of b2c startups.
      - bootload 12y ago
        "... It doesn't follow from YC's success with software companies that the model will be similarly successful for hardware companies. ..." That is true. A better way to think of it, might be as an experiment. Do you remember when YC was started funding startups? The tech group-thought at the time: a toy, a joke, nothing serious, never to gain traction.
  - chrisBob 12y ago
    I thought the goal of a startup was funding. Who needs commercial products?
  - lbearl 12y ago
    >> Helion hasn't yet built a commercial fusion reactor I agree with your point, but at the same time it is somewhat amazing that we live in a world where a company can get VC funding to even make an attempt on something as ambitious as fusion.
    - frozenport 12y ago
      Or perhaps it will be remembered as wasteful during the next bust.
  - paul 12y ago
    Hundreds of millions of dollars in sales doesn't count as success? Which non-yc hardware companies started in the last several years would you count as successful?
    - bravo22 12y ago
      Thalmic has hundred of millions in sales!? or were you referring to another one from the list?
    - larrys 12y ago
      It might. But profitability is important as well. Not a comment on any particular company but the idea that a company that has millions in revenue but no profits (and is floated by investors) is successful is not absolute.
  - meowface 12y ago
    >at least >some >arguably >far enough along >yet I don't mean to insult you or criticize your post in any way, partly because I agree with you, but that is a lot of qualifiers for one short sentence. Diplomatic tones require them though, I suppose.
fudged71 12y ago
BufferBox
- bravo22 12y ago
  In all fairness they weren't really a hardware company. Their "hardware" was off the shelf. They sold the service, not the hardware.
  - paul 12y ago
    Actually, no, they were building their own boxes.
    - bravo22 12y ago
      I did not know that. I assumed they got them from an OEM, considering they are so cheap and readily available. Even if they were building their own sheet metal lockers, I still don't think they were a "hardware" company. They had a great service and that's what they were selling.
      - paul 12y ago
        They had to integrate the electronics as well. The most successful hardware companies (e.g. Apple) are building integrated systems including software and services.
        bravo22 12y ago
        I don't disagree with assertion about Apple and similar companies but they end up selling you a physical hardware product. Bufferbox offered a service and didn't sell you a product therefore I don't think they were "hardware" company. The hardware was means to an end. I don't think it lessens what they did. It was a good service. Walmart has a large IT infrastructure, with sys admins and in-house developers. They also manage a lot of buildings, and warehouses. I wouldn't consider them an IT company, a property management company, or a logistics company.
spike021 12y ago
I believe FiveStars is another hardware one, if you count NFC cards (or whichever tech they're using) as hardware.
edmack 12y ago
Bellabeat

dthal 12y ago

>and we don’t shy away from expensive hardware--we’ve funded companies building things like nuclear reactors and rockets, which will require hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to succeed How does this make sense for YC to do?

taylorwc 12y ago
I'd guess that it's part of a diversified approach. Yes, they are capital intensive, but YC isn't the one who will be investing the hundreds of millions, and if one of these is successful, then I'd say it's likely to be hugely successful and a worthwhile return for YC.

minimaxir 12y ago

Wait, why is Tilt on the list of startups helping out with hardware expertise? Aren't they a crowdfunding company? https://www.tilt.com https://www.tilt.com

npkarnik 12y ago
A lot of the very recent, surprising successes in hardware (Oculus, Pebble) were crowdfunded (specifically for those, Kickstarted). I would go as far to say that using a premier crowdfunding platform to test the market may be the best, lowest risk way to validate a hardware idea. Or at least crowdfunding lowers the barrier for hardware success from "damn near impossible" to "really really hard."
- zmitri 12y ago
  Exactly correct. Side note for companies like Indiegogo, success at attracting device makers to use their platform is key to their growth. At CES alone they have something like 14 booths.
taylorwc 12y ago
Indeed. But crowdfunding has opened up a new channel for hardware startups: preorders. It makes developing a hardware product, which used to be very difficult and take a lot of up-front investment, much more accessible. It's still difficult (see all of the infinitely-delayed crowdfunded projects), but has been getting steadily easier over the past few years. Crowdfunding serves as nondilutive financing to the startups and can also signal market validation to future investors. It is a very important part of the chain.
ajaymehta 12y ago
Less with hardware-specific expertise, more with crowdfunding, pre-sales, and bringing a product to market. Many highly-successful new hardware project launches have been powered by Tilt over the past year, to name a few: Navdy, Lytro Illum, Whistle GPS, and Eero (yesterday). (These were all on the Tilt/Open platform: https://open.tilt.com/ https://open.tilt.com/)
lacixodarap 12y ago

icki 12y ago

From first paragraph: Bolt’s partners and engineering stuff *i think you meant staff

lnanek2 12y ago

Interested hardware startups should be sure to check out Wearable World as well: http://www.wearableworld.co/ http://www.wearableworld.co/ They have a similar focus on hardware, great numbers re the percent of each class that gets funded, and have had some big successes like the Skully AR-1 intelligent motorcycle helmet: http://www.skully.com/ http://www.skully.com/ WW recently toured the AQS facility in Fremont where a lot of well known products are being made like Makerbot and the Lift Labs tremor defeating spoon, and class members get frequent introductions to everyone from investors to Perkins offering billing for law services only on funding. It has been a pretty kickass program so far.

TheMakeA 12y ago

Are any of these resources available for anyone who isn't already a YC founder? Does that make sense? Wouldn't it be valuable to give interested folks who aren't yet in YC a place to do their prototyping, get discounts, and help, and then use it as lead gen for the next batch? Think of all the companies that could exist but don't because they don't have access to these resources.

dthal 12y ago
That makes complete sense, especially since you are not going to get in to YC as a hardware startup without a functioning prototype.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cpach 12y ago
  Why not? I’m pretty sure Helion (helionenergy.com) doesn’t have a working prototype.
bravo22 12y ago
What YC is doing is bundling discounts on PCB prototyping, and 3D printed parts. The rest of the offerings are further down the stack (testing, RF, etc.) so the only thing you would be missing as a non-YC company trying to build a prototype to get into YC is discounts. If you are hand assembling your prototypes then you only have PCB fabrication costs, which for a 2 to 4 layer board should be about $500 max for your protos (1 week turn). That should be doable for most start-ups, even if they need 3-4 spins.
- mwoodworth 12y ago
  They also are working on getting the tools that you need to design your prototype. Like Upverter (YCW2011) (https://upverter.com/ https://upverter.com/) for designing your PCB.
  - 12y ago

anujdeshpande 12y ago

I read it twice to see if there was any mention of the word 'Shenzhen'. It's difficult to not keep that in the loop, for a hardware startup anywhere in the world. Even SF.

hugs 12y ago
I make robots in Chicago and sell them on Tindie. My top two competitors are in Finland and Japan. Yes, I hear Shenzhen is crazy awesome, but try not to let location dominate your world view of what is easy or difficult. Making a good hardware product is difficult, no matter where you make it.
- codemac 12y ago
  > try not to let location dominate your world view of what is easy or difficult Didn't YC move?
  - anujdeshpande 12y ago
    True that. Cambridge,MA initially.
  - hugs 12y ago
    Yes. Of course, I wish YC would take my advice, too! ;)
- anujdeshpande 12y ago
  I know what you mean. I make development boards(Tah) out of India. But I understand that most of what I use comes some way or the other from Shenzhen. A lot many times there are things that I am using which probably are outdated in China. Relevant article by bunnie : http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297 http://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  >I make robots in Chicago and sell them on Tindie sounds very scalable

yousifa 12y ago

This is wonderful! Can't wait to see what future batch companies look like

swamp40 12y ago

Are there any new advantages or opportunities for Bolt portfolio companies?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

physcab 12y ago
Thats horrible, but I don't see where it says Lockitron. If you thought Lockitron Bolt, I think thats different from the Bolt they were talking about.. https://www.bolt.io/ https://www.bolt.io/
- mrchess 12y ago
  You are correct. I though Bolt == Lockitron Bolt. I did not realize they are two different companies. I will delete the original comment since it is inaccurate.

Eleutheria 12y ago

I'd like to see electric buggys for under $5K. That would be really disruptive. https://imgur.com/UlrV8FT https://imgur.com/UlrV8FT

aceperry 12y ago

Sounds great! Question I have is, are these services only available to yc companies? What about startups that are not a part of yc?

oldpond 12y ago

No mention of open hardware. Definitely a market there.

NextPerception 12y ago

As a mechanical engineer who works in this area and already follows hacker news due to colliding interests, this is very exciting.

trsohmers 12y ago

Is there any interest in (fabless) semiconductors? Traditionally thought as ridiculously capital intensive, there are a lot of new developments that have brought the time and costs involved down dramatically... My experience trying to fundraise for one shown there are a lot of misconceptions and (10-15 year) old ideas in the silicon valley investment space regarding fabless semi.

super_sloth 12y ago
Very interesting.. Do tell. What kind of misconceptions are there and how have they changed? I still labour under the assumption that NREs make doing anything like that _extremely_ expensive.
- trsohmers 12y ago
  NOTE: I am the founder of REX Computing (check my submission & comment history for more info), and thus a bit biased for this. The standard thing I have heard from VC's that don't know anything about semiconductors (Or have not been involved in it in this century): "It will cost $100 million and take 3 years to have your first silicon. You have a 50% chance of even making it that far, and even then you only have a 10% chance of success (e.g. making any sales)" So basically, the VC assumption is that it is a minimum $100 million and 3 years to see ANYTHING come out of it... and even if you get to silicon, there is only a 10% chance you'll be able to sell it. This is ridiculously pessimistic if you actually have a real design innovation. Some of the new developments: New tools: High Level Synthesis an "Hardware construction languages" (such as Chisel... http://chisel.eecs.berkeley.edu http://chisel.eecs.berkeley.edu) radically bring RTL development time down. My team (consisting of just two of us) were able to complete the RTL of our new processor core in under 4 months (working on the weekends)... and that includes a lot of redesign and working on things other than the RTL itself. Chisel also brings the testing/verification time down significantly, as it can auto-generate Verilog optimized for either VLSI or FPGAs, and a high speed cycle accurate C++ simulator of the chip that is ~10x faster than the industry standard Verilog C Simulator. Even though Chisel really is this amazing, virtually no one outside of UC Berkeley knows about it. 2. FPGAs have gotten a lot better... I can say the synthesis tools still suck, but in terms of speed and testing ablility, you can test your chip on very cheap (Ours is $300) FPGAs these days. 3.Shuttle run/Multi project wafer services... a "block" (6 mm^2) on TSMC 28nm process is $90,000... and you get 100 chips back. A 16 core version of our chip is just two of these blocks. 4. Older process nodes are getting cheaper. Most fabs in the US are not going below 65nm or 45nm, and need to keep full utilization of their fabs. There are a lot of deals that can be had on these smaller fabs which are perfect for prototyping... A similar block size can be as cheap as $3 to 5k. 5. Moore's law dying is one of the best things that can happen to the industry. Instead of the ridiculous investment getting to the next process node, the fabs can invest in making the current process better and cheaper. This will bring down the cost of very good, proven processes (like 28nm, and potentially 14/16nm in ~3 to 5 years), making fabrication even cheaper and more widely available. I'm happy to answer any questions! EDIT/TLDR: Based on my own startup's current plan and estimates, it is possible to prototype (get 100 chips back) an entirely new processor architecture for under $2 million, and it is possible to go into mass production with that design for $10 to $15 million.

cpg 12y ago

This adds to the already exciting hardware situation. I'm interested in the personal media/storage/app server space! If you are hardware startup founder material and are interested, please get in touch.

robwormald 12y ago

This can't come soon enough. I'm helping out on a hardware 'startup' (though I guess we don't really use that term) - coming from software its an incredibly challenging realm to work in. Simply getting a functional prototype without easy access to a 3d printer, $$$ in compiler licenses for BT stacks, freakin custom batteries, etc etc. Our thing: https://www.fitguard.me/ https://www.fitguard.me/

FD3SA 12y ago
Hi Rob, just saw FitGuard for the first time and it's a phenomenal idea. I'd recommend getting in touch with motorcycle helmet manufacturers (particularly MotoGP and WSBK sponsors) because concussions are a huge issue in motorcycle racing. As your site states, concussion severity is very abstractly diagnosed without data, and your product can make a big difference. The doctor has a tough time deciding whether the athlete is fit to race if he's had a crash and a concussion, and it ultimately comes down to a qualitative decision made by the rider and doctor. Data can definitely help save lives here. If I have time for the track this season, I'll definitely sign up as a tester. I've never had a concussion, but I sure as hell would want to know how fast my head decelerates after a crash before getting back on the bike. Good luck, and cheers on a great idea.
- robwormald 12y ago
  Can't take credit for the idea, one of the founders is a Rugby player and had his clock cleaned on the field one too many times. Data is my thing - there's a number of these types of products out there (Shockbox et al), the issue is that they all keep the algorithm quite close to their chest (fairly, I suppose!) My role (in addition to helping out with the hardware) is the ecosystem around it. It's BLE capable, so while we can't make a diagnosis (all kinds of legal issues there), the hope is to aggregate impact data, improve the detection algorithm and be able to feed it back to the device as it improves - We're currently using a TI MCU that allows us to OTA update from the app.
aknalid 12y ago
Neat. What kind of a sensor is it using? Also, why IG instead of Kickstarter?

spiritplumber 12y ago

Do I qualify? http://www.robots-everywhere.com http://www.robots-everywhere.com The article is scant on details about who do I talk to.

jfb 12y ago

I would love to start a hardware startup (I even have an idea!) but I have no idea how to assess the feasibility of my idea, or how to hire h/w engineers. And it's not a billion dollar idea, so maybe it's not in the YC wheelhouse, but I sure as hell think it'd be fun.

zhanjie 12y ago

Appreciate！I’m doing a hardware startup now,and I believe some areas in YC's RFSs will be solved better with a software&hardware model.

anujdeshpande 12y ago

An interesting thing that YC could do for hardware startups is provide discounted copies or license servers for some of the most commonly required but exorbitant softwares : Altium, Solidworks, Autodesk inventor among others.