For the first time ever all of the "Dragons" were united in backing a proposal. It was for a device that switched off the television to save on standby power. The "inventor" had a patent application in for it. I would have laughed it out of the studio. Anybody want to point out the flaws in my reasoning?
1) The device is basically a remote controlled switch. I have one of those for my garden lights.
2) TV's come with an on/off switch already. How many people will pay for an extra gizmo rather than just use that?
3) The big attraction was the prospect of milliions licensing the idea to TV manufacturers who could include it in their TV. That might have generated some income if the inventor had not gone onto the den, and got his patent granted. Now I suspect he is going to find that the TV manufacturers will point out to the patent office that this is old technology. Way back TV remotes switched the set on and off, using a rechargeable battery internally. I would be surprised if there were not patents covering this. "Standby" was invented to shorten the time to come on by keeping current flowing through the filimants of the valves to reduce warm-up time.
Any rebuttals?
Wasn't it announced on the news recently that new TVs etc will be made without a standby button anyway?
However I would think the Dragons know more about markets and what will sell than I do. People may be able to turn their appliances off at the main switch but the fact is that many don't bother, or simply aren't aware of the cost of leaving them on standby. So there could be a market for such a device. It wouldn't be the only product that replies on people's laziness to provide a market for it.
I know of more than a few people who would be interested in something like this - not out of laziness but due to that fact that they are elderly and very unsteady on their feet and spend most of the day in their chair.
Well, the similar sounding device I bought a couple of years ago (and I used just a few times) is called TV B-Gone. It's a small device which you can point at any TV and it works through the codes eventually switching it off. The idea was you could use it as guerilla warfare against the plethora of TVs wherever you go these days. Not sure of the difference with the DDen device (did not see it).
This was on BBC Breakfast TV this morning. It's simple but very clever, one of those "why didn't I think of that?" ideas. Basically it's a four gang socket with an infrared off switch that totally cuts the power . The neat idea is that it learns the standby code from your TV remote so that switching off the TV to standby as normal will actually switch off at the wall.
This is the TV B-Gone web site
TV-B-Gone from Cornfield Electronics :: TV-B-Gone Home
I have only used mine at home - and I have not dared to use it at (say) and airport - or petrol station................yet.
Neighbour from hell situation approaching!
The wireless remote control device I own switches four mains sockets on/off. I think that would be more useful for the handicapped - lights, electric fire, tv, whatever.
In the home situation a switched extension lead or longer cables and torpedo switches could do more functions cheaper. I do not doubt that the device will sell, but I do not see a real need for it, and I do not think that a patent with sufficient teeth should be granted.
Anybody else who doesn't watch much TV and was disappointed that this thread wasn't about a few Dragons firing big flames at each other ?
This device is entirely different – it's about turning TVs OFF – not to standby, which is what normal TV remotes (and the TV B-Gone) does.
I think it's a clever little device, and I wonder if it's so obvious and if there exists "prior art", then why haven't TV manufacturers already done it?
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
They had already done it. One problem is that rechargeable batteries have a limited life and the cost, which is not just measured in money, of providing the facility for changing them is too high. Most customers do not want the prolonged warm-up times associated with starting the set from cold. It is a case of "the market speaks". Sets used to be built that way, but the more expensive and wasteful variant won. "Market forces" do not automatically provide optimum solutions.
Most Dragon's Den successful pitches match the following criteria:
- An innovation, not a new business built on an existing model
- The innovation is protected: patent, rights etc...
- Existing sales / orders it retail
- The possibility to make a one-off massive contract if the model is B2B
- A healthy balance sheet
Frankly, go to these guys if your business fits the boxes above isn't the cleverest idea, as it should be possible to find loans (ie you keep the equity) or venture capitalism at better price than that of the Den. For the rest, people are just giving away their hardl worked-on ideas for nothing and a Peter Jones (£800m) or a Duncan Bannatyne just need to snap their fingers the minute after pitchers are out to put a team together that will copy and benchmark a good concept, without having to pay for it...
As fancy as the programme is, it encourages the idea that little people have to submit to wealthy ones. Real entrepreneurship -the people who refuses the deal they have offered to them in the programme - can do without that.
Doug Richard's (one of the original Dragons) amazing story.
http://www.entrepreneur2009.co.uk/dougrichard.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks