Lily Drone Folds After Funding Dries Up - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 05:07:35 am
content: Even with $34M (MILLION!) in pre-orders from 60,000 people, they have now folded without delivering anything.Refunds are being offered though.As early as December 20th they Tweeted that they were delivering.Turns out they were relying upon new funding in order to do that. That funding didn't come through.Backer email:Quote

author: Kean
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 05:32:18 am
content: Wow! I wonder what they're not saying...Presumably their build cost was going to be way higher than they anticipated, and thus there wasn't going to be the ROI expected by VC/financers.

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 05:58:13 am
content: Were they spamming forums with some new FAA rules copy-paste?

author: vodka
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 07:03:02 am
content: They will refund the moneythat is i think.By experience with other bankrupts, when a person needs 60 days for refund the money , he hasn't the money and he has to ask to loan somebody.

author: ivaylo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 07:19:10 am
content: Interesting, 3D Robotics folded burning investors similar amount of money -http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2016/10/05/3d-robotics-solo-crash-chris-anderson/#4fc7954d4840They did produce a drone which hit the stores, but apparently couldn't save them...

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 10:59:53 am
content: Will be interesting to see how refunds work out.They could very well still be sitting on a considerable amount of cash, but having so grossly underestimated the production costs that if they started manufacturing they'd make a significant loss on each unit.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 11:37:34 am
content: Quote from: Kilrah on January 12, 2017, 10:59:53 amI can't imagine they'd be sitting on anything close to $30M in cash.

author: nixfu
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2017, 07:55:16 pm
content: Dear Dave, please come home.

author: Brumby
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 13, 2017, 12:23:29 am
content: Would have been interesting to see the final product....https://youtu.be/lWAhoAIcELM

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 03:08:07 am
content: The UK's El Reg has something on this: apparently the DA is having a go at them for unlawful practices:http://m.theregister.co.uk/2017/01/13/lily_robotics_faces_lawsuit_for_false_advertising/One bit of note is:QuoteApparently they (allegedly) fibbed about the footage from a prototype, making out it was from the Lily camera when it was from a GoPro. OK, fair enough that fibbing is a naughtly thing to do, but was the prototype supposed to be the final thing? I mean, if it's a technology demo, isn't it OK to say "this is what it will look like" (noting that they didn't have small print saying it wasn't the real thing as you'd buy it).

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 10:56:33 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on January 14, 2017, 03:08:07 amProbably fine IF you say so, which they apparently didn't.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 11:36:23 am
content: QuoteIndeed, although a closer reading doesn't say they did fib, only that the boss didn't want the footage to be traced to a GoPro. Kind of like Microsoft not wanting their servers to be known to run Linux (and saying so in internal email), which is fine so long as they don't sell the asp.net services as IIS hosted.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 11:38:03 am
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on January 14, 2017, 03:08:07 amThe problem is theydidn'tsay it was from a mockup, hence the lawsuit.Also, itwasn'ta prototype, it was shot from a competitors commercial drone.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 11:59:30 am
content: QuoteThe advert, yes, but the dodgy emails refer to a prototype which had a GoPro mounted on it. I think the desire to explicitly not have it traced to a GoPro may have been because that was a direct competitor rather than to hide that it wasn't the final hardware.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 12:02:51 pm
content: I wonder if they are telling the truth. They told that they will shut down and refund at the same day the DA informed them about filing a lawsuit. They were "racing against a clock of ever-diminishing funds", but still have enough money left for refunding?

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 12:06:29 pm
content: QuoteI am not defending them (honest!) but thatcouldmean that they were burning through other investment funds and the point at which that runs out and they would have to start on the returns money is where the clock runs out.

author: Fraser
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 01:04:24 pm
content: The DJI Mavic has just been released as well. It looks pretty amazing and though more expensive it would be strong competition to the Lily. I certainly want a Mavic as it looks well designed and has DJI knowledge and support.https://www.dji.com/mavicFraser

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 02:48:28 pm
content: I've had a Mavic for 2 months now, it's a real technology marvel and extremely well crafted fine piece of gear.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 02:57:05 pm
content: The Hover camera also looks impressive, though not quite on the same level as the Mavic - amazing nobody thought to put a carbon-fibre shell round a quad before.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 03:15:28 pm
content: If you read the actual complaint :https://regmedia.co.uk/2017/01/13/lily_complaint.pdfIt appears that they made deliberate attempts to disguise the fact that the demo footage was shot from a GoPro, and there are emails to prove it. Seems like a pretty good case for false advertising.My guess is it will boil down to whether the crowdfund campaign is subject to the same rules as conventional sales and advertising.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 03:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: dunkemhigh on January 14, 2017, 12:06:29 pmI've just read that they have burned $15 million from some sponsors and didn't touch the money from the preorders. Kudos for that.

author: Howardlong
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 04:37:08 pm
content: I don't believe I've seen it stated anywhere how much the refund would be, i.e., nowhere have I seen it state "full refund".

author: eugenenine
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 04:41:42 pm
content: I would think most anyone on here could design an RC coptor with a camera for 34 million.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 05:26:16 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2017, 02:57:05 pmPatents? There have been a few protected rotor quads before.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 05:32:46 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2017, 03:15:28 pmTheir problem there is they didn't use any of the usual crowdfunding platforms, they did their own thing where they really took "pre-orders", not "investments" - so it will likely be considered as "pre-order sales" and not "crowdfunding"...Quote from: eugenenine on January 14, 2017, 04:41:42 pmThe whole point for this one was not to be "RC" but fully autonomous with barely any user interaction required, or even possible. Even the biggest players aren't quite to that level yet.My guess is that they folded simply because they were way too optimistic at the start. If they delivered something now, already more than a year late it would be nothing like what they advertised either in design or capabilities, everybody would go batshit crazy about them, so they really had no choice.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 05:46:36 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on January 14, 2017, 05:32:46 pmMaybe a ToF based direction finder for a 433 MHz beacon would help, forget about image processing on the drone.

author: CraigHB
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:14:52 pm
content: It takes some innovative technology to do what the Lily set out to do, not something particularly cheap to manufacture. Even so, drones or multi-rotor RC aircraft with cameras are a dime a dozen anymore. The difference is their flight paths have to be pre-programmed or manually controlled. Even if the Lily had accomplished what it set out to do (follow the user autonomously taking video), these things are typically made cheaply as possible and tend to have reliability issues. They could run into lawsuits where people are getting hit by drones following them around or other damage to life and property when a drone flies off out of control. It happens all the time with drones sold currently and was the imputes for the FAA to impose regulations on them. The whole idea was wrought with pitfalls so it's no surprise to me it didn't make it.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 07:21:28 pm
content: Seems to be another case of "AI is easy" handwaving. (In 1966, Marvin Minsky assigned "vision" to an undergrad as a summer project.)The Lily was to be an autonomous UAV with no operator backup. Just the legal liability issues involved are crippling.

author: Kilrah
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:44:43 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 14, 2017, 05:46:36 pmGPS is enough for locating, vision recognition is just there for additional precision and image smoothness. The big issues for something you "launch and forget" are obstacle detection and positioning reliability.Technologically the first is becoming possible, the 2nd is getting better but still a bit of "spray and pray"... but the state of the art in both fields combined costs >3x what Lily was hoping to sell for, anyone with a foot in the industry would call BS, completely unrealistic.My stance is that anything that needs breakthrough technology should never be crowdfunded or even announced before being ready. All they achieved is reveal the interest in this so that the big players could invest all their know-how and WAY bigger resources into competing with them.It's not a bad thing per se, but anyone going this way should be aware of it. Maybe they were. Make a big buzz so that someone else does the complex job that's outside of your capabilities and creates what you want... IF they actually do refund all preorders I would consider them geniuses.The lawsuit developments will also be very interesting for anyone considering a tech project. Nowadays if you don't do what they did you have 0 chance of getting attention. If that gets punished... it would be a giant blow to innovation and small-medium scale developments. If when you try to do something good all you gain is being sued for doing what everybody does, why bother. I'd rather sit on my chair and watch the others in their mess than try to do something, even if I've got great ideas.I'm NOT condoning the stupid "not actual footage" or whatever warnings that would make it legal. The only solution is for everybody to be prohibited from including any footage that would warrant such a warning... but it would force a "downgrade" on so many big players there's no chance it would happen. Actually, maybe with Trump's councelor pushing down on them that could be a thing...

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2017, 08:52:15 pm
content: Quote from: Kilrah on January 14, 2017, 08:44:43 pmYeah I guess you're right, at least as long as you calculate position from the same subset of satellites.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2017, 01:32:35 pm
content: Quote from: helius on January 14, 2017, 07:21:28 pmI wonder if that might be the real reason. I've been involved with a novel (at the time) invention which worked well and got to the point of selling hand-built pre-production units, and then got dropped because of the legal and insurance potential. The current crop of rules regarding drones didn't exist when they started, I think.

author: PlainName
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2017, 01:43:36 pm
content: Quote from: mikeselectricstuff on January 14, 2017, 03:15:28 pmI read the complaint and am not that sure it was false advertising (bearing in mind this complaint isn't going to offer up any evidence for the defence). Yes, that video is kind of incriminating, but only out of context. The on-screen text ("Lily shot | Follow", for example) I would normally think to myself as having the subtext "this is what it would look like". Typically, this type of advertising would say "Actual footage" or similar, so I don't think it's that clear cut.Possibly the decider would be the Kickstarter blurb - in that, did they say they need the dosh only to get manufacturing started or to finish development? If the latter, the punter should suspect it can't be real footage.I imagine the same applies to the pre-sales. That is, whether it was sold as basically in production but not shipped yet, or 'soon to be ready' kind of thing.