> Many people write/advise that you must be “All-In” to make a business successful… that’s easy to say if you don’t have a wife, two kids, car payments and a mortgage. I wasn’t in a position to just quit my day job and commit 100% to the business, and I wouldn’t be until December 2016 (3.5 years later).
This is just refreshing to read. I don't like the product, but this was a good read and detailed explanation of the issues/problems you can find of making a physical product startup. I also enjoyed the honesty and down to earth writing of the author.
Agreed. And the fact is, most successful founders have families and mortgages. It's just that for some reason, we only like to talk about the 20 something founders that are sleeping at the office because they are so dedicated and they aren't even taking a salary because they believe in their product so much (and because mommy and daddy keep supporting them).
He also talks about putting 100 hour weeks. I cant imagine giving time to a wife, kids and self while working 100 hours a week ... this didnt really sell this as realistic to me.
I'm confused as to what he invented. Here's an advert from a year before he even formed the company advertising the exact same product: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PpNLD3TrdE
A more appropriate title might be, "Selling a Stair Climbing Dolly..." as this is mostly a story about understanding how to get in front of your target audience and sell through the right channels (Facebook, Costco, Bed Bath & Beyond, Home Depot, Lowe's, and QVC).
IMHO, one major reason for the why: payment plans for most anything they sell. I can't think of another major (online) retailer that offers this, QVC has the infrastructure and risk all sussed out. Consumers can get moderately priced ($200-$500) goods in their hands quick for a fraction of the regular price and get them locked into a subscription-style model. QVC may have a much higher return rate than other retailers, but I assume they also have a higher rate of people who keep items they may not use or like and keep paying out of laziness.
Huh. Based on the OP article -- it appears that QVC places all risk (returns) on the [consigner] (interestingly the conjunction of {contingency}+{Signor}) -- and as such it would seem this is where QVC's limited risk is found...
Basically the equivalent of todays "Gimme your content and I shall provide EXPOSURE via my instagram followers"
The only thing I saw that sorta was related to the comment you were replying to was "Our customers are affluent, educated, digitally savvy — and loyal. Over 90% of our sales come from repeat customers" other than the 90% sales figure, that's just meaningless marketing fluff, no data/figures was given to back it up. The rest was just about the logistics of selling on QVC.
Didn't see much of anything beyond a generic "educated, affluent" passing blurb regarding customers.
I was more surprised by how QVC requires vendors to pay thousands for QVC's own prep, like makeup and hair, among other things. Seems like a scam all around...except unfortunately the junk they vend seems to be selling.
This article is irrelevant because none of the claims there is made by Apple. It's what people believe. The closest claim is that Apple invented USB-C but again there is no official claim and all you have is John Gruber saying that he was told about it by someone who he won't name. In contrast, this product is literally what the manufacturer is claiming to have invented.
I'm not even sure he's good at advertising. It's all very boilerplate style. Same type of promos you would see for countless other "as seen on TV" products. But he obviously has some hustle, grit, and maybe a bit of luck.
Since both the article title and the title submitted here ("Inventing a Stair Climbing Dolly Making $583K/Month") are baity, and possibly misleading as well, we changed the title above to something more neutral. This is in the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"
Does it matter? They designed, manufactured, and launched a product that sold profitably, doing millions in revenue. They're supporting multiple people full-time.
The vast, vast majority of startups aren't inventing anything new that didn't exist before, either. You don't need to come up with a novel invention to have a successful business; it's usually sufficient just to do something at lower cost, or do marketing better.
Lying matters. We're not talking about some kind of white lie to make someone feel better either. It's lying to make money, which we should all agree is bad.
What exactly are you accusing them of lying about though? I'm not seeing a lie. It does appear that they invented the first folding 6-wheel hand truck, and have the patents to prove it.
> It does appear that they invented the first folding 6-wheel hand truck
They certainly make it appear that way, but it's a lie.
I've seen very similar dollies more than a decade ago, as did others in this thread. Their patents are either invalid or cover some minor aspect to make an impression that they invented the three wheeled stair-climbing mechanism.
> The UpCart ® line of products solve this problem with a unique line of all-terrain folding carts and hand trucks that have been engineered to reduce effort while going up and down stairs and over irregular terrain
A casual reading of this sentence leaves the reader with the impression that their carts are unique because of how they reduce the effort of going up and down stairs and over irregular terrain. This is corroborated further by other messaging such as their logo.
However, that is a lie. There have been similar other carts with exact same wheel setup.
The only unique part of their product is the folding mechanism, and they are clearly trying to project that uniqueness onto the wheel mechanism. And it will definitely work on people who have never seen such wheel setup before.
I think you're really reaching here in describing this as a lie. Their products are unique. They designed them themselves and no one else is manufacturing and selling exactly the same thing. They even have a completely unique feature set (folding + triwheels), which is more than you can say for most products.
Alternatively, sleazy marketing is in no position to define the meaning of words, even if that's most of marketing.
A cable package or car loan does not magically become a GREAT DEAL just because a billboard said so. We're just used to constant lies and aggrandizement in advertising, so all that bullshit looks normal, entirely expected now. It's still bullshit though.
People here are are completely missing the picture and focusing on whether or not the invention is completely original.
The message is, whether or not it is original (looks to be a no), is how he and his partner managed to succeed in launching the product and earning millions in revenue.
I take it that most people here aren't developing, launching, and marketing their own products and creating a company out of it, and don't really care about learning anything from the article.
People in general, but especially anonymous people on the internet are more interested in calling fraud, and telling you why you have no right to success.
I see the same thing on /r/entrepreneurs, MMA forums, YouTube comments, and here. Doesn't matter how hard you worked or how successful you are, even if you're the top fighter in the world who trained for a decade taking hundreds of blows to the head - people will make sideways excuses for themselves by shitting on you.
Meanwhile reality asserts itself and this guy and his partner has made millions by themselves and have established their own independence.
And the takeaway from HN is "My grandma used this 3 decades ago," and "I don't like the text and phrasing on his website."
Did they? I checked their YT channel and vast majority of videos have under 100 views. They might have shipped around $1 million in merchandise to retail channels, where it sits on shelves plastered with "as seen on TV" stickers.
And here is a patent application from 2005 https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070075509A1/en?invento... for the item. Doesn't look like it ever issued however, if you look at related patents you will see there are people all over this space "idea wise". As a result its perhaps best to read his story as "Here is how to get an idea to go viral."
More often than not the idea itself isn't really what makes or breaks a company, it is the people executing that idea that gets it out in front of people.
I've not seen another 3-wheel (well, 6) _fold-flat_ trolley. Perhaps that combination is novel, and maybe it needs invention to make the combination work (?).
The information is two clicks away from you (one on UpCart in the article, and one on Learn More on their website):
> The UpCart Deluxe combines an all-terrain three-wheel chassis with a folding hand cart, with unique engineering that makes it easy to bring home the groceries or haul a cabinet up to your fifth floor apartment. UpCart improves stability, is capable of “walking” over irregular terrain and always folds flat for compact storage.
I don't see what it is you're trying to point out. It looks like functionally the same product to me. The only difference is that UpCart is collapsible - is that what you were getting at?
That difference will potentially get you a patent on the combination (not the wheels part). The YouTube clip and item referenced above is fixed (appears far more industrial as well), with no folding or contracting parts. One of the selling points of the Stair Climber supposedly is its ability to "fold completely flat for easy storage or transportation." It also appears a lot lighter, easier for someone to throw in the trunk and haul around. That's a big product difference in the market. One you sell for $300 for heavier industrial purposes (the YouTube cart looks like it could take a beating in a warehouse for a decade), the other you sell for $79.95 for household use or to small businesses with more modest needs.
Is it a radically new invention. No, it's an improvement or variation on an existing product.
We know what he claimed to invent, but the point is that he didn't actually invent any of those mechanisms. They've been around for decades. At best this is incremental development on existing stairclimber trolleys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stairclimber
I remember when I was a kid being quite proud of myself when I figured why there where 6 wheels on some shopping trolleys, so they've existed for at least 20 years.
At best they re-invented the thing, but they certainly did not invented it.
not just that, my grandpa owned a grocery shopping bag/dolly with exactly the same 3 wheels idea, and it was like 30 years ago... they might have perfected an existing idea, but that idea is around for long time...
Interesting that they tried to use commercially available truck parts wherever possible. Good example of "good coders write code, great coders re-use code".
IIRC, the F-117 stealth fighter was built in a similar way. Many of the parts were from other existing planes e.g. the avionics were from a F-16. This mean that the stealth components were cutting edge whereas almost everything else was battle tested and well understood.
I had forgotten all about that. I use to drive by the shop that built it and where it was also parked outside of every day during my commute and always wondered what that was for (figured it was for a movie, but didn't wonder enough to remember to look up which one...)
It's a double-edged sword. My own experience has been that your sales volume will absolutely increase because customers love seeing Prime shipping and "sold by Amazon" on products, but once you add in all the handling, storage, processing, etc. fees and also factor in that you are completely at Amazon's mercy, it's often not worth it unless you're just an FBA reseller pumping through generic stuff from China.
As an example, I shipped 50 units of product to Amazon and got it to their fulfillment center on 12/5. Their published deadline to get things to a fulfillment center in time for Christmas shipping is 12/9. As of today, exactly 0 of those units have been processed and made available for sale, thus completely missing the holiday shopping season and leaving me with a long-term storage bill since it will now take 2-3 months to sell through them. Good luck getting any help with something like that. On the flip side, I did an A/B test last year vs. this year using vendor central vs seller central for a different product and saw about 2x sales volume for the former. So it's really something you just need to test and make a decision on yourself.
Surely this cannot be a new thing. I've been using six-wheel cam carts a decade ago. Did you put it in the Blockchain? Does it leak your personal information to foreign companies and three-letter agencies? What's the novelty here?
Sorry, what's the revolutionizing about this? Not do disappoint you but my mother already has a cart with those 3 tiny wheels and she uses it to buy groceries every day. In fact she bought it at least 3 years ago.
Interesting that he cited Peter Thiel as an influence, specifically citing Thiel’s advice that “competition is a looser [sic], monopolies are the path to success.”
First of all, his business was never going to be a monopoly, patents or no. More importantly, I’d feel very uneasy owning a monopolistic business, considering how much I hate monopolies. But maybe that’s why I’m not rich and other people are.
The multiple smaller wheels give an extra leverage point, whereas a single, larger wheel can require quite a bit of force. If climbing multiple stairs that can wear both you and the dolly out.
I'm not sure I would have preferred this back when I was still moving furniture for a living, as a furniture dolly with belts along the back/spine will slide up a flight of stairs without much trouble.
I used to move furniture and I much preferred the type of straps that would wrap around your wrists, under the appliance, to the other lifter's wrists over the furniture dollies.
We tended to always be labor-short for deliveries, so if we could send a job out with one person we would. A single person can safely deliver most household appliances with just a furniture dolly (up to a side-by-side fridge, which almost always needed two people due to its mass and a set of tools to remove the doors).
If you're talking about wear then my gut feeling says that a larger wheel would be far more robust than three smaller wheels (with additional axis for the combination). Especially when you're using this on streets with uneven pavement I think a larger wheel would be better.
The larger wheel will be made of slightly too thin plastic and held on with a split-pin - how else will you resell it in 2 years - so robustness probably isn't a positive factor from the sellers perspective.
The axle needs to be higher than the ledge of the step. So basically that means the radius of the wheel needs to be larger than a normal step height, which would mean a giant wheel which may not fit on the step at all!
i suspect the leverage of pivoting the tri-spoke axle helps transfer more of the horizontal force you are applying, into a vertical force as it pivots. A larger wheel doesn't do this the same way
"We are dedicated to revolutionizing mobility with innovative products that give people the freedom to do what they love by enhancing their mobility. "
It's one thing when founders claim to be revolutionizing this or that when in fact some major changes are afoot. For example, Zuck can make some lofty claims in terms of 'connecting people'.
But when people make some random thing that's been around for a while, in some niche category and then hustle us with this 'revolutionizing mobility' rubbish ... it instantly hurts credibility so much I wonder why it is that it even works, how are most people not turned off by this kind of stuff immediately?
From that sentence forward, I assume this is about the credibility of a Ronco late-night infomercial something or other.
Edit: I should note the rest of the article seems highly authentic. Maybe dropping the 'we're changing the world' narrative would tighten up the messaging, that said, maybe that kind of stuff works on regular folks.
I don't think it is people being disingenuous as much as just saying what they think they are supposed to say.
It's been drilled in to people that unless you are changing the world with your business, it's not worth doing.
I think something like, "Discovering innovative products to make difficult tasks easier." is an honorable and worthwhile pursuit as a business. But everyone wants to be the next gates or jobs.
So to summarise, people think they are supposed to tell bare faced lies?
Making difficult tasks easier is a much more laudable goal than revolutionising everything. Many things don't need overthrowing and replacing with a different regime. Wording intentional. :)
Thankfully we have Advertising Standards that require all ads to be "Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful" or the ads can be banned. All sanctions are published and often end up reported in the news. More serious breaches can be referred up the chain for fines.
Surprisingly this is industry self regulation, at least in the UK, that mostly works OK. It applies to internet claims, ads and websites too.
Actually, I'm in UK, I can't recall exactly what but the other day I read advertising copy and thought "the ASA have completely given up then". They're pretty toothless it seems. Other places definitely have it worse.
When practised one does get to spot the key phrasing used to "lie within the regulations", the doublespeak like how people felt this or that our something appeared to be better or more lustrous when [paid] users were asked.
I have in the past, the response was (paraphrasing) "the company pinky promise not to do it again so we're not going to do anything else".
One time was a "travel to X for only £Y" and when I checked the actually cost was at least double the advertised price, there was no such ticket available. Not even under limited availability.
I've seen the same thing since, but not checked if it was the same (train) company.
If Ferrara tried to make health claims or tried to market to under 16's they'd be regulated. Here's one example where they were found to be complying with the code after complaints were made: https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/ferrero-uk-ltd-a18-444638.htm...
I tend to agree that it's probably some boilerplate vision/summary statement they came up with a few years ago because you have to have one. Maybe it's better than low balling or boring people.
> [...overblown marketing rhetoric...] instantly hurts credibility so much I wonder why it is that it even works, how are most people not turned off by this kind of stuff immediately?
Only a very small fraction of people hear that kind of "revolutionizing your life" message and get turned off to the point of rejecting the vendor completely. And only a small fraction will hear that drivel and actually believe it.
Most folks, I think, just ignore the lofty claims and accept that that's the kind of BS one hears in advertisements and they set their expectations accordingly.
Does it work better than making honest realistic claims (eg "This product is, at best, marginally better than a regular portable dolly and you probably don't even need it.")? I think that marketing folks have something to say about that, that's their job after all. It doesn't matter what you (or I or many people on HN) think.
The comparison to Zuck with this thing is laughable. Is this device slurping ALL your activities regardless of if you want it or not? Is this device and its creators trying to scam you into accepting app updates so they can further spy on you?
Is this device capable of ANY spying?
NOPE.
What this device SHOULD have is a fitbit which measures how many steps you have used it on - validating its existence. Period.
This is just refreshing to read. I don't like the product, but this was a good read and detailed explanation of the issues/problems you can find of making a physical product startup. I also enjoyed the honesty and down to earth writing of the author.