At a local-level, each sensor builds a background model, which we diff against & combine w/ inference outputs for detections (background modeling helps reduce our false-positive rate). At a global level, we continuously push new pre-trained models over-the-air. These are built using 3rd party data sources (so not sourced from the sensors themselves).
Retail analytics are a potential use-case, but we've decided to focus on space-optimization for buildings because we believe it's an underserved market relative to the opportunity. There are a lot of established companies doing footfall analytics for retail (using things like WiFi, BLE, door-counters, thermal images, analytics on video surveillance data, etc.).
As for sensor coverage, we cover about 1k sqft per sensor (it'll vary a bit depending on mounting height - higher mounting equates to a wider area of coverage)
Great question - we believe there are a lot of potential add-on modules, especially around building control. One that is gaining a lot of interest recently is using people-counting data to more precisely control HVAC systems (most systems today rely on simple motion sensing for control).
Modulating heating / cooling based on the exact count can help cut energy consumption, sometimes by as much as 30% for commercial buildings.
ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency) recently put out a proposal for such a system - you can read more here if you're interested:
I was talking with a maintenance supervisor for a large facility and he was saying that they were able to modify the amount of make-up outside air cycled into a facility based on occupation (think O2 depletion, lol). Is that something you folks have run into? Seems like if you could avoid exhausting a couple (hundred?) thousand cubic feet of cooled air per hour, you could save a good bit of money.
ByteLight is building a combined hardware/software platform for delivering contextual mobile computing experiences. Our core technology modulates LED lights to transmit data to smartphones, using the existing cameras as the receiver. We're partnering with major lighting manufacturers to embed our solution into their fixtures, turning the light into the equivalent of a GPS satellite indoors.
You’ll be joining at an exciting time. Indoor location is a rapidly evolving market that is poised for major growth over the next 5 years. We’re in the process of deploying the first major installations of LED indoor location technology, with Fortune 100 customers. We just moved into a brand-new office in Boston’s Innovation District. And we’re building a world-class team of engineers to join us on our mission to put ByteLight into every lightbulb.
We’ve raised over $4M in capital, with backing from Flywheel Ventures, Motorola Solutions Venture Capital, and VantagePoint Capital.
We have multiple positions open, including:
-Full Stack Engineers
-Senior Ruby/Rails Developers
-Embedded Systems/Wireless
-Mobile Engineers
-Algorithms/R&D
If you’re interested, please email me dan@bytelight.com, or jobs@bytelight.com
Hardware needs pre-funding more than anything. The article is opening up a discussion for alternative models that work better than Kickstarter.
The problem with Kickstarter's approach is that oftentimes, the reality of the product is divorced from the perception of the product. There are countless examples of high profile hardware products that failed to deliver on expectations. That hurts the Kickstarter brand.
Kickstarter can't be expected to guarantee projects. It's too costly. And it opens them up to liability.
I'm not suggesting that self-starter is the final version of this model. It's an evolutionary process - and an opportunity for a new startup with a different approach.
If this were true, would we not see more truly hardware startups in existence? There are countless hardware products that have demand, yet go unfunded or are not attractive to VC's because of the large upfront costs or various market / IP concerns. Ever tried to develop and then manufacture an ASIC before?
Hardware is just that, "hard". Crowd funding, or crowd "pre-ordering" is just one approach to give these types of companies a fighting chance at marketing and developing a product. If it were not for the lack of project accountability and poor hardware track record, I think Kickstarter would be a very good solution towards some of these issues.
Unfortunately until this changes, I think backers might have a better chance at the casinos. At least you have fun losing your money there (usually)!
I think there are plenty of reasons one does not see more hardware startups, but I would argue that 'lack of funds' is more likely being used as an excuse to mask deeper problems.
One can expect bad things in any venture where the development costs exceed the expected return. If anything, this would be an argument for general purpose computing and not shouldering the cost of developing an ASIC.
If you would like to see a Kickstarter with better project accountability and a hardware focus I suggest looking at Christie Street: https://christiestreet.com
Indoor positioning using LED lights. Our market is in enterprise (not the home).
We're using selfstarter to experiment if there's enough demand for individual developer/hacker kits. It's not economical for us to sell small orders unless they're batched together.
You've got a nice site but I think the product is not useful enough. You've got to install those bulbs and any enterprise I've been in uses fluorescent lights and not the classic fittings. I couldn't even use those in my home.
If you want a mobile device to locate itself indoors, why not use WiFi? Probably the entire place is flooded with access points already.
Kickstarter has been responsible for funding Oscar nominations, museums, and countless creative projects. Their 2012 summary is full of stunning success stories.
The goal of this post is to kickoff a discussion about alternative crowdfunding models that work better for hardware startups. It's clear that Kickstarter is moving away from these and focusing on creative.
This is we like the selfstarter model. Backers don't get charged until the product is ready. And project creators are incentivised to use efficient techniques that get their product to market quickly.
There are flaws with this too, which I touched upon in the post. I think this is an opportunity.
s/Backers/"People who just pre-ordered something that doesn't exist yet"
I thought the whole point of Kickstarter was to "kickstart" your project with an infusion of cash allowing you to quit your job/outsource more work/whatever to get to market?
Yes - but it doesn't work for hardware. It leads to projects failing to deliver on their expectations. Failures hurt the Kickstarter brand. They know that. Which is why they're moving away from hardware.
The "kickstart" part is what's missing with the selfstarter approach. We're funded so we didn't have this problem.
Maybe a new model could be a hybrid of incubator and crowdfunding. You apply with an idea. The incubator provides some up-front capital to get you started. They have expertise in hardware mentoring. Logistics, manufacturing, customer support, IP, warranties etc.
The incubator could build a brand and network of supporters, but be purely focused on cultivating innovative consumer product ideas and getting them to market.
Hardware incubator sounds like a really good idea.
Many people are not interested in funding hardware projects at all - hardware just has a lousy reputation.
But having a hardware incubator means you concentrate expertise in all the stuff that's traditionally thought to be hard about hardware. Things like suppliers and distribution and stock control and sub-contracting etc etc.
I believe there's an opening for a crowdfunding model focused purely on hardware startups. Perhaps some of you are already working on it.
App.net, Lockitron and most recently Lumawake helped kick this off, with selfstarter. We contributed some changes back to help push it along: https://github.com/lockitron/selfstarter
There are flaws with this approach (no third party payment verification, no established network of donors). Which leaves room for further improvement.
Kickstarter is clearly focused on creative (which they're doing incredibly well with). The 2012 Kickstarter summary didn't mention any of the massive hardware projects.
I'm curious, what made you go with Lockitron's model? We've been working very hard on our cf product - IgnitionDeck, and would love to get into your head about how/why you chose that over other solutions.
I've been following the space pretty closely and I agree that there's a ton of opportunity. I'd love to pick your brain over beers - where are you guys located?
