Samsung Buys Kickstarter-Funded Internet of Things Startup For $200MM

jfruh writes: In September of 2012, SmartThings took to Kickstarter with the promise of delivering an "Internet of things" package to backers, including a hub device that would control various home gadgets via the user's smartphone. They aimed to raise $250,000. They got $1.2 million. And now they've been bought by Samsung for a reported $200 million, as the South Korean electronics market tries to get a foothold into this emerging market.

I'm interested in this sort of thing for my house

[rthille]

But I'm sure as hell not going to run my door locks over wireless with some consumer product that's produced as cheaply as can be for the mass market.

On the other hand, I know that roll-it-yourself security is almost always broken.

So, I deal with having to reach into my pocket to get my keys, and turn on lights with a switch rather than automatically.

Somehow I survive.

Re:$200MM

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't post the original comments, but MM is fairly common in finance to indicate Million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MM
- Million in some financial contexts

Re:Enquiring minds want to know

[GNious]

1 dollar bill is 0.10922 mm thick (or 0.0043 inches)
A 200 mm stack of 1 dollar-bills would come to 1831 dollars, assuming there is no space between the notes, and that the notes themselves are in near-pristine condition.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware

[LabRatty]

OR delivered exactly what they said they would, and only a couple of months late which is good going for something 10x oversubscribed. These muppets are still failing to deliver items to many backers 2 years later. Not really in the same category. Additionally, if you think any hardware startup capabable of a global market is not going to get bought out soon after early development that is somewhat naive. On top of that OR had already pulled in 75-90 million or so of VC and would have needed to get 2-3 times more for a full budget to compete with the number of competitors who started popping up. How much of the orginal stock do you think they would have still held by then anyway? not much.

Re:Hesitant about Kickstarter and hardware

[Solandri]

This is the problem I have with the current crowdfunding options like Kickstarter. All the risks of providing venture capital, none of the benefits. They're being pitched as if you're pre-buying a product the company will make once it receives enough funding. But really what you're doing is providing them venture capital [wikipedia.org]. Normally when you provide venture capital, you get partial ownership of the company. (Not all kickstarters work this way - e.g. artists who agree to draw pictures for funding. But as you point out, the companies pitching hardware do.)

I'd really like to see a crowdfunding site which takes venture capital out of the realm of multi-millionaires, and puts it within reach of the common person. People complain that the rich just keep getting richer. Well, judiciously investing venture capital is one of the ways they do that. The nature of the business is that startup companies aren't gonna waste their time on you waving around your $20 investment, while someone with a $2 million bankroll will be wined and dined. Crowdfunding could really change this IMHO. Startups may not care about your $20 investment, but a hundred thousand people wanting to invest $20 each and they'll be interested. At least it'll be a helluva lot more productive than getting low- and middle-income people to play the lottery. (The low- to middle-income folks currently unable to provide venture capital are frequently the customers of the products it produces. So they should on average pick good product ideas, making it positive sum, whereas lotteries are zero or negative sum.)