.
- Thread starter Kreeeee
- Start date
They've pretty much got what they deserved. Did the entire funding budget get spent on marketing a non-existent product, or just 90% of it? The design was flawed right from the beginning, and the proposed cost was even more ridiculous as a result.
It's hard to do that when the company has no money to refund with. That's the risk with crowd funding projects.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
Just knew something like this would happen, no doubt someone got money out of it.
Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
Posted from Overclockers.co.uk App for Android
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 1,170
- Location
- Greater London
This is why I always pay by credit card. Shame I was hoping to get one in my size one day.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,515
Crowdfunding donations only got it started. The article talks about actual investors, here (Intel Capital), suggesting they were calling the shots instead of the designers. Usual story.
So what was flawed about the design and why do they deserve to burn?
So what was flawed about the design and why do they deserve to burn?
Where did this fantasy come from? No one said they deserve to burn, but it's not a surprise it failed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,515
I do most sincerely apologise... I did not mean literally burn. I was speaking figuratively, with a 'crash and burn' sort of sentiment indicating the general impending failure of the company... sorry to have caused you such offence...!!
As to the aspects of my comment itself, I was more concerned with why they "deserved" to fail, as per Abyss's remark:
Two separate points from my perspective. I was really interested in the concept and so followed it pretty closely.
Firstly, they marketed heavily to a global audience and took pre-orders globally. Then they restricted their beta-testing program to the US only, and it was then discovered that the beta testing program was actually just another marketing exercise using what appeared to be pre-selected riders. If I remember correctly there was also a good deal of confusion and misinformation as to the actual safety standards of the helmets.
Secondly, the design is flawed as it is wholly integrated and parts cannot be transferred in any to another helmet. Helmets may need to be replaced ahead of component parts, or vice versa, yet this was not possible. Drop your helmet and need to replace it on safety grounds? You would need to replace all of the vision components too even if they were working perfectly. Remember, this is a very expensive helmet (don't even get me started on the US / UK pricing difference and their European shipping costs).
The design needed to be modular, and they really needed to partner up with existing manufacturers. There were clearly some fantastic engineers working on this project but they've been incredibly poorly led. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but it seemed doomed to fail for these reasons. There's plenty of talk now about how they just need another $5 million to get production back on track and fund the cheaper 2.0 version of the helmet, but investors have been throwing money at Skully for years and months now on the back of the same "we just need a bit more and we can deliver".
$1,500 is a huge amount to gamble on what has largely turned out to be vapourware (fewer than 100 units may have actually been delivered), but they poured huge resources into hyping and marketing the product even, as now becomes apparent, using funds of pre-orders to do so.
A real mess, but a real shame too. This is exciting tech and I hope it gets delivered by a business that's better led and is more sustainable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,515
'S'all good, chap!
Yeah, I gave up following when I saw the intended retail price!
Good points, though and I would agree that the management reaped what it sowed.
Again, agreed wholeheartedly!
Sounds like every project we've had here at work!
Are you still talking about Skully, or have you moved on to Star Citizen?
Indeed - It's not the first time I've seen this kind of product, by a long shot. That suggests it's a perfectly workable concept which just needs a decent company to make it happen, make it practical and efficient, and make it affordable.
It's a bit like VR, really - They said we'd never get decent consumer-level units...