9 ms·

This makes me very excited but also a bit sad. I'm developing a similar product, so this is great validation. On the other hand, this is quite the competition.

by kfreds 11y ago

This makes me very excited but also a bit sad. I'm developing a similar product, so this is great validation. On the other hand, this is quite the competition. Could someone share a link to the original presentation? I'd love more technical details. Is this SDHC or SDXC compatible? If they support SDXC, how do they reconcile "fully open source" with the fact that SDXC requires exFAT which is proprietary and protected by patents? Building something like this requires an SD Slave Controller. It would be absolutely fantastic if they open source that! Fully verified and SDXC compatible? This makes me drool. Unfortunately the necessary information to implement and verify is walled behind NDAs (SD Association), unless of course you have reversed it with a logic analyzer. I don't think that's what Google has done, which makes me very curious. If the slave controller is not open source, that begs the question of how data is transferred to the RTOS. A closed source core with DMA to whatever you run on it will exclude it from certain privacy-sensitive use cases. If anyone at Google is reading this, consider using cores from cryptech.is for your crypto. You're already a funder so you might as well reuse them. If anyone is interested in what I just said and you think you can contribute I would love to talk with you. Email me at stromberg@mullvad.net.

philtar 11y ago
> quite the competition. Understatement of the century. However, I see it as great news for you. If you're far along enough, and this proves to be something people want, you're a shoo-in for a buyout. Good luck and keep up updated.
- kuschku 11y ago
  But – as shocking as this might be for some people here – a buyout might be not what people strive for. Some people just want to have their own small company, thinking more long term. Others want to actually improve the world.
  - 27182818284 11y ago
    Eh. I mean yeah there are companies designed from the ground up to be bought out in just a couple years, yes, but there isn't anything wrong with doing great work and getting bought out by people improving the world too, right? It seems like in that case you're both trying to "improve the world" and you're teaming up. In a recent episode of Silicon Valley, the billionaire president of a company said to his employees "I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place, better than we do."
  - ZoF 11y ago
    Aiming for a buyout doesn't mean you don't also want to improve the world. Your tone is pretty offensive. It would shock almost no one on this site that someone would like to build their own business without an aim to sell it or that someone would have philanthropic life-goals in general. Many business owners who are bought out turn to philanthropic pursuits now that they've become fiscally stable.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      My tone is aggressive because someone was working on a project, a larger company picks up the same idea, and the first suggestion is to give up completely, and accept to be bought out. Instead of considering any of the other options, or that the small company could actually compete with the larger company (hint: Google doesn’t operate most of their services outside of the US at all), the only real suggestion is "you’re in for a buy-out".
    - pizza 11y ago
      GP doesn't want to improve the world via philanthropic pursuits - they want to improve it by offering an alternative via something they've built. With that in mind, it seems that the suggestion that a buyout by the competition would be a better way to improve the world via (non-thought-out) philanthropy is itself a somewhat offensive suggestion.
  - pyre 11y ago
    This is true, but when one if that competition is too great, it might be a viable exit strategy to consider (rather than just closing up shop).
iaw 11y ago
Don't take this as a bad sign, just because Google is behind it doesn't mean they're devoting a lot of resources to it or that they'll hit the right mark. Build your vision and be better than your competitors.
mbesto 11y ago
For a long time Google Drive for the desktop didn't exist and a company name InSyncHQ built a desktop client. I thought for sure that spelled doom for them. Nope, they've been chugging along ever since. In fact GDrive has ceased to innovate so heavily that I've personally switched back to Dropbox. Don't let Google's involvement deter you...Google fails a lot and is not immune to the innovators dilemma. Chances are you'll find something they miss and you'll win.
- girvo 11y ago
  To this day, Insync is still infinitely better than the real client.
dm2 11y ago
I've seen that happen before with a startup, they actually shutdown just because Google launched a superior product first. Then less than 1 year later Google cancelled that project and now there is nobody to provide that service.
- electrograv 11y ago
  > Then less than 1 year later Google cancelled that project and now there is nobody to provide that service. This made me imagine some poor, bright but new-hire Google PR employee realizing this popular (and quite correct) view of Google ("CANCEL ALL THE THINGS" [1][2]) frantically trying to figure out how to actually communicate to upper management (without getting fired) the blunt truth: This ongoing strategy of announcing projects and promptly canceling them after a few years is incredibly damaging to the company. Google's "ADHD-like low attention span" to projects is anything but confidence-inspiring. :( 1. http://memegenerator.net/X-All-The-Things http://memegenerator.net/X-All-The-Things 2. HN likes numbered references and I do too
  - JesperRavn 11y ago
    No one would get fired for saying that, but (clearly) the company has decided that the current strategy is the right one. My take is that Google is less developer-friendly than Microsoft and Apple. Google does not rely on external developers as much, because so much revenue comes from web based, directly consumer facing products. Google is always trying new things, because they are looking for the next big user facing product. This might annoy developers who build against Google's APIs, but that is worth it because Google relies on users, not loyal developers. It is a fundamentally different approach from Windows or iOS.
    - wslh 11y ago
      I observed the same thing. Microsoft is the company who cares about developers more. I can tell my odd experience about Microsoft: my company reverse engineered many of its products and offered APIs around products without APIs. One day someone from QA sent us an e-mail offering help if some of these products have issues with Windows 7!
timothya 11y ago
> Could someone share a link to the original presentation? The presentation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbWQbkl8_g&t=47m23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbWQbkl8_g&t=47m23s (starts around 47:23).
ianstallings 11y ago
I had a similar thing happen when I found out one of my competition got funding from Mark Cuban and the another competitor got a pretty big round (fresh from their graduation at YC). But then I thought about it. What a wonderful validation of our idea. And we think we can do it better. Look at the angles and if you have to reshape your idea then do so. Maybe some competitive advantage you have will stick out or you'll develop it after seeing their offering. But think of this as a good thing. Investors love competition. It means there's a market.
monocasa 11y ago
Here's the RTL BTW: https://github.com/ProjectVault/orp/tree/master/hardware/mselSoC/src/systems/geophyte/rtl/verilog https://github.com/ProjectVault/orp/tree/master/hardware/mse...
- oflordal 11y ago
  The testbenches in that directory are supposedly too basic to have been used for development (a few directed test cases per module). I wonder why they wouldn't release the proper testbenches?
  - monocasa 11y ago
    Eh, a lot of industry doesn't write as many test benches as they should. I've worked for companies that have written no test benches.
tdkl 11y ago
Google doesn't make products, but tech demos. Keep on going, the world needs more of people like you.
wcummings 11y ago
Are you affiliated with mullvad?
- kfreds 11y ago
  Yes, I'm Fredrik, one of the founders.
rebootthesystem 11y ago
I would not worry one bit. I have successfully competed against multi-billion dollar companies. If you have a better product and are good at marketing there's nothing they can do to stop you. Small startups can move like Neo, while large companies can't get out of their own way.

by kfreds 11y ago

philtar 11y ago

> quite the competition. Understatement of the century. However, I see it as great news for you. If you're far along enough, and this proves to be something people want, you're a shoo-in for a buyout. Good luck and keep up updated.

kuschku 11y ago
But – as shocking as this might be for some people here – a buyout might be not what people strive for. Some people just want to have their own small company, thinking more long term. Others want to actually improve the world.
- 27182818284 11y ago
  Eh. I mean yeah there are companies designed from the ground up to be bought out in just a couple years, yes, but there isn't anything wrong with doing great work and getting bought out by people improving the world too, right? It seems like in that case you're both trying to "improve the world" and you're teaming up. In a recent episode of Silicon Valley, the billionaire president of a company said to his employees "I don't want to live in a world where someone else makes the world a better place, better than we do."
- ZoF 11y ago
  Aiming for a buyout doesn't mean you don't also want to improve the world. Your tone is pretty offensive. It would shock almost no one on this site that someone would like to build their own business without an aim to sell it or that someone would have philanthropic life-goals in general. Many business owners who are bought out turn to philanthropic pursuits now that they've become fiscally stable.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    My tone is aggressive because someone was working on a project, a larger company picks up the same idea, and the first suggestion is to give up completely, and accept to be bought out. Instead of considering any of the other options, or that the small company could actually compete with the larger company (hint: Google doesn’t operate most of their services outside of the US at all), the only real suggestion is "you’re in for a buy-out".
  - pizza 11y ago
    GP doesn't want to improve the world via philanthropic pursuits - they want to improve it by offering an alternative via something they've built. With that in mind, it seems that the suggestion that a buyout by the competition would be a better way to improve the world via (non-thought-out) philanthropy is itself a somewhat offensive suggestion.
- pyre 11y ago
  This is true, but when one if that competition is too great, it might be a viable exit strategy to consider (rather than just closing up shop).

iaw 11y ago

Don't take this as a bad sign, just because Google is behind it doesn't mean they're devoting a lot of resources to it or that they'll hit the right mark. Build your vision and be better than your competitors.

mbesto 11y ago

For a long time Google Drive for the desktop didn't exist and a company name InSyncHQ built a desktop client. I thought for sure that spelled doom for them. Nope, they've been chugging along ever since. In fact GDrive has ceased to innovate so heavily that I've personally switched back to Dropbox. Don't let Google's involvement deter you...Google fails a lot and is not immune to the innovators dilemma. Chances are you'll find something they miss and you'll win.

girvo 11y ago
To this day, Insync is still infinitely better than the real client.

dm2 11y ago

I've seen that happen before with a startup, they actually shutdown just because Google launched a superior product first. Then less than 1 year later Google cancelled that project and now there is nobody to provide that service.

electrograv 11y ago
> Then less than 1 year later Google cancelled that project and now there is nobody to provide that service. This made me imagine some poor, bright but new-hire Google PR employee realizing this popular (and quite correct) view of Google ("CANCEL ALL THE THINGS" [1][2]) frantically trying to figure out how to actually communicate to upper management (without getting fired) the blunt truth: This ongoing strategy of announcing projects and promptly canceling them after a few years is incredibly damaging to the company. Google's "ADHD-like low attention span" to projects is anything but confidence-inspiring. :( 1. http://memegenerator.net/X-All-The-Things http://memegenerator.net/X-All-The-Things 2. HN likes numbered references and I do too
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  No one would get fired for saying that, but (clearly) the company has decided that the current strategy is the right one. My take is that Google is less developer-friendly than Microsoft and Apple. Google does not rely on external developers as much, because so much revenue comes from web based, directly consumer facing products. Google is always trying new things, because they are looking for the next big user facing product. This might annoy developers who build against Google's APIs, but that is worth it because Google relies on users, not loyal developers. It is a fundamentally different approach from Windows or iOS.
  - wslh 11y ago
    I observed the same thing. Microsoft is the company who cares about developers more. I can tell my odd experience about Microsoft: my company reverse engineered many of its products and offered APIs around products without APIs. One day someone from QA sent us an e-mail offering help if some of these products have issues with Windows 7!

timothya 11y ago

> Could someone share a link to the original presentation? The presentation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbWQbkl8_g&t=47m23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpbWQbkl8_g&t=47m23s (starts around 47:23).

ianstallings 11y ago

I had a similar thing happen when I found out one of my competition got funding from Mark Cuban and the another competitor got a pretty big round (fresh from their graduation at YC). But then I thought about it. What a wonderful validation of our idea. And we think we can do it better. Look at the angles and if you have to reshape your idea then do so. Maybe some competitive advantage you have will stick out or you'll develop it after seeing their offering. But think of this as a good thing. Investors love competition. It means there's a market.

monocasa 11y ago

Here's the RTL BTW: https://github.com/ProjectVault/orp/tree/master/hardware/mselSoC/src/systems/geophyte/rtl/verilog https://github.com/ProjectVault/orp/tree/master/hardware/mse...

oflordal 11y ago
The testbenches in that directory are supposedly too basic to have been used for development (a few directed test cases per module). I wonder why they wouldn't release the proper testbenches?
- monocasa 11y ago
  Eh, a lot of industry doesn't write as many test benches as they should. I've worked for companies that have written no test benches.

tdkl 11y ago

Google doesn't make products, but tech demos. Keep on going, the world needs more of people like you.

wcummings 11y ago

Are you affiliated with mullvad?

kfreds 11y ago
Yes, I'm Fredrik, one of the founders.

rebootthesystem 11y ago

I would not worry one bit. I have successfully competed against multi-billion dollar companies. If you have a better product and are good at marketing there's nothing they can do to stop you. Small startups can move like Neo, while large companies can't get out of their own way.