It reminds me of Juicero. The mechanism was total overkill -- it was actually very well engineered and machined as though cost was no object. They would have taken a loss selling them even at $699.

The mechanism of a deadbolt is pretty simple. Other smart lock companies do fine with simple mechanisms. The way to differentiate a product in that space is ease of use and battery life, not by needlessly over-complicating a part that the users won't see.

From their website: “Freed of keys, you might just have more time and opportunity to explore life’s possibilities.”

C’mon really?

Similar to Juicero they could have gone to market with a simpler and less over engineered product and have a viable company but leadership had their heads in the clouds. He even starts the article with how amazing the Swiss watch engineer respected their work - as if that matters in the door lock market.

From the article: “... our customers would fall in love with the way they engaged the product and actually experience joy as they used it.”

I’m having a hard time visualizing myself experiencing joy unlocking a door.

> From the article: “... our customers would fall in love with the way they engaged the product and actually experience joy as they used it.”

He doesn't seem to have literally copy-and-pasted that palaver from somewhere else, but the first page of these search results suggests a malfunctioning robot stringing together memorized phrases at random:

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=our+customers+would+fall+in+love+w...

Besides, a lock seems like the last place I would possibly want to power something by battery...

>it was actually very well engineered and machined as though cost was no object

I would argue that it wasn't really engineered at all. Almost anyone can build something with a practically unlimited budget; engineering is a game of trade-offs. That juice press was ridiculously over-designed and didn't need to cost anywhere near that much.

They must have wanted that deal pretty bad. At the very least they should have demanded a break-up fee in return for agreeing to forgo all other attempts at finding an investment partner. The acquirer might very well have refused but that would have been good information to consider.

There has to be something else going on, otherwise Greylock would have given them some kind of bridge. 4 weeks to revenue also doesn't mean 4 weeks to profitability. 70 employees in the Bay Area probably implies a burn rate north of $10mm annually.

>Also, it’s a damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth. Do you really need $45M and designing new mechanical systems from scratch to make it work?

If you don't intend on making just a "damn internet-connected door lock with Bluetooth", of which there are many, but a great one, then very possibly yes.

Many great hardware products and companies have been built on budgets a fraction of $45M. Even the Apple 1 was an ugly hodge-podge of parts. If you want to build pyramids, it's best figure out how to build sand castles before.

The thing is, the definition of a great product is one that solves a user's need. While people may have problems with the internet-connected door locks they have now, I'm pretty confident their issue isn't with the deadbolt mechanism, which is as close to a solved problem as you can get.

The market for people who care that their door locking mechanism is as precise as a Swiss watch is so vanishingly small, it feels almost self-evident that there's not a viable business there.