I'm curious about what you think is still a viable way to compete with GoPro: is it only on price, or are there some missing features that a potential competitor exploit -- the UI/UX you mention? If RED comes out with a water-proof camera I guess that takes care of the high-end, so is the only way to compete with GoPro to go... low end?
There is one annoying thing about these cameras -- they have a large profile/bad aero dynamics. This seems like something that would not be too hard to address either.
First of all they look silly (e.g. if you wear them on your helmet). A more aero-dynamic design would look better. Also, at the high speeds of some of the sports this is used with this may actually cause problems.
Take skiing for example -- a professional downhill skier can easily reach and pass 80 mph. This camera will cause so much drag that if it does not fly off it will probably cause a lot of discomfort by jerking the skier's head up. But even at the lower speeds of advanced amateurs this will cause problems.
But of course the most important thing for a product like this is looks, and a more aerodynamic design would definately look better.
Honestly, I'm not sure what GoPro's software looks like any more? (I assume it's pretty solid.) But that could be an opportunity.
Also, I believe the design and aesthetics could really be improved.
If you really want more people using a p-o-v camera more often, it needs to be a little less intrusive (the GoPro looks pretty awful). A streamlined, low profile camera with the ease and simplicity of a GoPro would be a winner.
Really the only downside for average consumers is that the gopro doesn't give as spectacular images in low light - for obvious reasons at that price point, and i haven't seen any alternatives that do much better. this is also an aspect that is rapidly improving.. right now, i don't see any way to jump on this bandwagon. they do it too well.
Typically service, when used in this context, implies that you do something for somebody else at no or little benefit to yourself.
The only way this can be forced on anyone is if the government does it -- which is pretty much the reason why I am in favour of as small a government as possible.
> Typically service, when used in this context, implies that you do something for somebody else at no or little benefit to yourself
And in another context it just means "serving". So it's silly to call it an oxymoron when it's quite easy to be an involuntary servant. In fact, involuntary servitude has a long and proud history, it's called "slavery".
Draft in US will probably slightly reign in its tendency to throw armies around in one war after another on a whim. I think that is the outcome people tossing around the idea are hoping for.
Given the military history of the US, I think that is wishful thinking. It didn't stop Vietnam or Korea from happening. Since better connected men and all women are exempt, it was unfair.
The only thing a draft in the US will do is to get a lot of people really, really angry and cause the politicians who support it to lose their offices (despite everything and all the PACS, if you have something 80% of Americans support, it will be done). If Obama does it, I would not be surprised if Texas, possibly with some of its neighboring states, leaves the union.
But yeah, it would end the system that the US has today. You can't have permanent bases overseas staffed with men drafted from their homes.
Nobody is seriously discussing a military draft in the US. Nobody actually wants it -- certainly not the generals, who already have all the volunteers they need and have no interest in babysitting a bunch of shiftless eighteen-year-olds who'd rather be anywhere else. Modern military forces require lots of expensive hardware controlled by a small number of well-trained people; we don't do cannon fodder any more.
A non-military draft to force eighteen-year-olds to go out and plant trees or pick up litter is one of those stupid ideas that gets floated around from time to time by people complaining about kids these days, but apart from being vastly politically unpopular it's almost certainly unconstitutional; the Supreme Court upheld conscription in 1918 under Congress's power to declare war and raise armies, but conscripting people for non-military purposes couldn't possibly have the same legal justification so it would have to be against the thirteenth amendment "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude... shall exist"
I would finish the wireframes, make them as detailed as you can -- and then talk to a few developers. It might be a good idea to work with someone with UI/UX experience if you feel like your own wireframes are too fuzzy.
(I would hire my previous developer again but he recently had a kid and started an intense full time job. So he's out.)
Customer audience is sports-related - coaches in particular.
Customer facing insofar that we'll likely want to raise some money and I'd like this person involved in that process. But not necessarily to attend directly to customer inquiries.
In my mind, a reduced rate + equity would be ideal. I don't want anyone going hungry during the ramping up process but at the same time I'd like them to take ownership and be emotionally invested in the project.
I am willing to consider all of options for the right person.
Sorry you lost your developer. That sucks. I take it that was for an old project (since you said that language and tech were open, I'm assuming no existing code base.)
That said, the only thing I'd really advise against are things like oDesk and their ilk. You might find good talent there, and I know people have had good success, but in every success story I hear, they all start with "Well, I had to fire 8 guys before I found this one."
As for hiring, there are of course the monthly "Looking to hire / Looking for freelancer" threads on here that are generally gold for getting qualified candidates.
Where are you located? Do you need your person to be close? Are you in a tech hub (like SF, NYC, vs. say, Des Moines [I assume?]) If so, craigslist might work as a way to get the resumes to start coming in.
Ideally, you'd want to look for someone with previous startup experience.
Uhhh, there's more, but my mind just blanked. I'll come back as I think of anything else relevant.
Yeah, he's a friend and very good at what he does. We worked together over a year ago. I've been talking to him for awhile about this new project but he's just too busy. I understand. Life gets in the way sometimes.
Good to know about oDesk and the like.
I am located in Bend, Oregon but moving (back) to the Bay Area very soon. So I will obviously be in a developer-rich area. (My friend/developer is located in SF.)
Is your friend able to help screen interview applicants? I'd get him involved as much as he's able to help, even if it's just filtering out the obnoxiously underqualified resumes at first.
Customer facing insofar that we'll likely want to raise some money and I'd like this person involved in that process
Sounds like the role is more than just as a developer, but someone who desirably is a long term part of the business and its growth.
I think the parameters slightly change for this type of position. In your shoes I would pitch the vision & culture you're trying to nurture as much as the technical challenges and career advancement that would come out of it.
Our claim to fame was all of the added features that GoPro didn't have: a remote control, view-finder, advanced editing, et al.
Our price was significantly higher.
We got clobbered.
GoPro's simplicity is its secret weapon.
VIO makes a terrific product but missed the mark in terms of UI/UX.