Bit of a rant - Product Development

Sin_Chase · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:37

So the other day I was listening to Radio 1 as normal and they were discussion gadgets. Up came this dog/cat collar camera taking device that takes pictures at a set interval so you can "See your pets secret life". Pretty simple idea, I am sure it has been done before but everything can be improved upon, right? Well, seems not in this companies case.

The product is called the Pet's Eye View and with the technology we have today you would think it would be pretty good for anyone with an inclination to see pictures of where their pet has been. Not for me, but whatever.

So here is what made me raise an eyebrow. It takes up to 40 images. 40. That is not only poor, it's a joke. The salt in the wound is the resolution is 640x480.

For a device that costs £40 that is absolutely shocking. The thing must have 16-32MB of flash memory on it TOPS and a cheapo sensor for 640x480 images. It's probably not worth more than a fiver for its functionality. It would have cost peanuts to add more memory for a suitable amount of capacity and while 640x480 is not stellar you could have had a decent amount of shots stored.

It riles me up a bit that absolutely no product development must have occurred on the hardware and 75% of it it probably went into "Fully featured" software that in all essence is probably not that great either.

Bit of a pointless rant but I needed ot get it out of my system

ntg · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:44

LizardKing · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:49

Low volume sales + development costs = high retail price

Its not that its expensive, its other company's that can churn out and sell 100's of items so cheap that makes it seem expensive.

reflux · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:51

It's a gimmick, that's why it's expensive.

Sin_Chase · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:52

LizardKing said:
Low volume sales + development costs = high retail price
Its not that its expensive, its other company's that can churn out and sell 100's of items so cheap that makes it seem expensive.

What development? It's a time lapse digital still camera that they probably bought as a wholesale unit from some eastern mass producer and chucked inside their own casing.

I am well aware of the tat that gets sold and the price is not really what I have beef with but its 2009 and 40 640x480 images is so far below tat that it is unreal!

LOAM · 7 Dec 2009 at 14:56

£40 to see 40 pictures of my cats ass, under our bed and on the window sill, sounds like a great deal, where do I sign up ?

HamZilla · 7 Dec 2009 at 17:14

upskirt pics from a cat's viewpoint? Sounds like a bargain for those fetishists who like to imagine they are animals.

SiriusB · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:03

In reality the number of pictures hardly matters when you just know 90% are going to be of the floor or the cat's chin.

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:25

Ok, YOU make a better specced one, for the same or less and we'll see how you get on. If you are right you will make a nice profit.

Sin_Chase · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:42

whitecrook said:
Ok, YOU make a better specced one, for the same or less and we'll see how you get on. If you are right you will make a nice profit.

It's not a spaceship.

It's flash memory and a CMOS.

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:42

LOAM said:
£40 to see 40 pictures of my cats ass,

You're Doin' It Wrong.

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:43

Sin_Chase said:
It's not a spaceship.

It's flash memory and a CMOS.

If it's so simple then you do it. Build a prototype and cost it up by volume.

Sin_Chase · 7 Dec 2009 at 18:47

whitecrook said:
If it's so simple then you do it. Build a prototype and cost it up by volume.

I am surprised they do not pay more for getting memory in such a small size. It is simple, why would I do it when I do not need to nor have a desire too?

It is obviously overpriced by many many factors so why are you even hinting that the company is RIGHT on the edge of profitability with it like being able to take more than 40 images is a deal breaker.

Is it going to be profitable for me, with zero contacts, fabrication facilities and marketing to do? Not really. is it for a company which no doubt makes a crap tonne of other products in the same kind of family? Yeah.

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 19:02

Sin_Chase said:
I am surprised they do not pay more for getting memory in such a small size. It is simple, why would I do it when I do not need to nor have a desire too?

It is obviously overpriced by many many factors so why are you even hinting that the company is RIGHT on the edge of profitability with it like being able to take more than 40 images is a deal breaker.

Is it going to be profitable for me, with zero contacts, fabrication facilities and marketing to do? Not really. is it for a company which no doubt makes a crap tonne of other products in the same kind of family? Yeah.

And what do you think costs more to make:

1. a camera that takes 40 pics at 640 by 480 and requires only a small amount of mem and a cheap camera.

2. a camera that takes 400 pictures at 2000x3000 and requires a large amount of memory and a higher quality camera

Which one do you think would make the most profit for the company if you manufactured and sold them.

Sin_Chase · 7 Dec 2009 at 19:04

ORLY? Thanks for the basic business lesson.

The point was 40 images on a 640x480 reoslution is a shockingly low amount of memory. That is 40 minutes of runtime on its lowest time interval setting.

Are you not appreciating that it is an imaging device in 2009 that has less than 32mb of memory with zero expansion? Yes it's somewhat of a gimmick (and expensive one at that) and yes it's nothing more than a bit of fun but seriously, 40 images?

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 19:10

Sin_Chase said:
ORLY? Thanks for the basic business lesson.

The point was 40 images on a 640x480 reoslution is a shockingly low amount of memory. That is 40 minutes of runtime on its lowest time interval setting.

Are you not appreciating that it is an imaging device in 2009 that has less than 32mb of memory with zero expansion? Yes it's somewhat of a gimmick (and expensive one at that) and yes it's nothing more than a bit of fun but seriously, 40 images?

Dude,. It's a piece of cheap crap. If the company had made it hold any more images, it would cost them more money and they would make less money. They don't care about the things you seem to care about. All they care about is the bottom line. it's as simple as that.

whitecrook · 7 Dec 2009 at 19:12

Sin_Chase said:
I am surprised they do not pay more

paying more than the min required is bad, mmmkay?

It is obviously overpriced by many many factors so why are you even hinting that the company is RIGHT on the edge of profitability

i'm not.

Is it going to be profitable for me, with zero contacts, fabrication facilities and marketing to do? Not really.

It quite possibly could be. There's hundreds of companies in china that will fab / assemble all that stuff for you if you supply the designs.

kylew · 7 Dec 2009 at 19:22

whitecrook said:
You're Doin' It Wrong.

Just have a think about what cats do? They like to lick themselves a lot.

Ann4369 · 8 Dec 2009 at 07:34

Sin_Chase said:
What development? It's a time lapse digital still camera that they probably bought as a wholesale unit from some eastern mass producer and chucked inside their own casing.

I am well aware of the tat that gets sold and the price is not really what I have beef with but its 2009 and 40 640x480 images is so far below tat that it is unreal!

Maybe you're right, but many eastern producer also produce lots of high-end products, I'm a Chinese girl and I guess I know better than you.

Ziggy · 8 Dec 2009 at 07:41

If this actually worked I would love it. I would love to know where my cats go.

But you would probably have to strap it to the top of their head for it to work.