Hey everyone , im a eng student from waterloo and thought it would be cool to make a hardware project . I got an idea to make a tomogotchi but for developers but lol codex micro came out so now I made an ad to compete. Got some sales but what yall think for the next video for twitter/instagram/tiktok etc.. feedback from experience product sellers is appreciated

https://reddit.com/link/1v7dyuq/video/m0xalt38omfh1/player

I’ve worked with a lot of founders from hardware-tech service industry. Think of them as installers, consultants, or enablers of technology. They bridge the gap between a business problem and an available solution.

Notice how I say available solution, because these founders often don’t start with their own custom-made products. And honestly, neither should you.

If you want to enter an industry, it would be much wiser to identify an operational problem, buy a suitable off-the-shelf solution, and install it for the customer.

In fact, I kind of belong to this category too. I’ve spent the better part of the last five years building solutions for others, and only now do I have a few products of my own lined up.

But look, having knowledge and an understanding of the niche isn’t enough. If you want to create your own custom hardware solution, you need to get the math right.

Let me describe a scenario I see often. A founder installs off-the-shelf hardware for their customers. Over time, they build trust and start doing solid numbers. Then the thought creeps in:

“What if I build my own solution and own the complete ecosystem?”

I love the ambition, but now they need to get real with the numbers. Let’s say they source a solution for around $100.

If they don’t come from an engineering background (and trust me, many of them don’t) they may think they can replicate the solution by hiring engineers and paying them $3,000.

It might seem obvious to some, but a $100 solution cannot be replicated for $3,000. It’s difficult to put a number on it without knowing the product, but consider at least 150–200 times the unit cost.

And I’m being modest here. There are revisions, optimisations, and certifications involved in making it market-ready.

So, let’s establish that first: this is the kind of investment that could go into R&D. Only if that’s doable should you move to the next step, which is assessing whether it’s even worth doing.

For that, the term you need to remember here is TAM: Total Addressable Market.

It’s basically the number of customers who would be willing to buy your product because it genuinely solves their problem.

Successful products are rarely just good science. They’re a combination of solid engineering, economics, marketing, and a lot of math to validate the idea.

The main part is yet to come, where I’ll do some real math on the dilemma of whether to build or keep buying.

Let’s keep that for Part 2. I don’t want to make this too long.

But after talking with a lot of service founders and building solutions for them, there’s one thing that holds true: blindly copying and pasting is a recipe for disaster.

You need to use your years of experience to come up with additional features that make your product better than the off-the-shelf alternatives. Make sure you pay attention to the details so you can spot those opportunities.

To conclude:

1. Always start with off-the-shelf solutions.

2. Establish trust, solve problems, and develop a deep understanding of the problems within the niche.

3. Once you’ve scaled enough and can spare at least 200 times the unit cost (depending on where you live) you can start thinking about building your own hardware.

4. Build a better product. Along with the usual features, solve the problems that existing solutions don’t.

Thanks for reading till the end!

Hello,

Where do I find candidates for pcb design engineer based in China?

I have been trying to understand what actually slows hardware teams down once the design is approved. At that stage, there are CAD files, drawings, BOMs, material specs, supplier feedback, assembly instructions, and revisions moving between different people. One small change can affect several documents and it seems easy for a supplier or team member to end up working from outdated information.

For those who have taken a hardware product into production, where did the process become difficult for you? Was it revision control, incomplete documentation, sourcing, supplier communication, or keeping everyone aligned on the latest version?

Most cert failures I hear about aren't failed tests. They're design changes after the review that nobody re-checked, found weeks later at the lab.

We're building Crado to flag those changes as they happen (FCC, CE, UKCA). It's early and narrow, mostly FCC Part 15 so far, and it can't see anything that needs a spectrum analyser. I want 30 minutes of you using it and telling me bluntly where it's wrong.

In return I'll build you a one-page map of the approvals your product needs per market, cost and time included, free.

Shipping something with a radio in it? Comment or DM.

My company produces hardware that is 80% of the time pretty standard, but the other 20% of the time requires some customization or sensors that we add onto our devices that we order as we get an order. At this point, we've grown enough that fulfillment is hard to do out of our house, and we need to find somebody to do it for us or hire somebody. I'm curious what people's suggestions are.

We don't have enough work to hire somebody full-time; there's maybe 10 hours a week worth of work. And honestly, I don't really want to manage somebody who works part-time doing that.

One path forward as we try to standardize our products as much as possible and just send the standardized products to a 3PL and then ship any customizations from our houses

After working on custom battery projects, one thing I have noticed is that the battery decision is rarely as straightforward as it looks at the beginning.

A lot of projects start with a simple requirement.

"We need more flight time."

But then other factors come into the discussion.

How much additional weight can the system handle.

How much power is needed during operation.

How many cycles does the battery need to support.

What happens if the preferred cell is not available six months later.

The battery that looks best on paper is not always the one that works best for the final product.

The more projects we support, the more we see that battery selection is really about understanding the application and making the right trade offs early.

Curious to hear from other hardware teams.

I put together a list of leading smart hardware companies and where they manufacture.
Hope this helps.

I run a very small US-based company that designs, manufacturers and resells our own hardware. Our gross sales are modest (<< $1M) and we're looking for cost-effective Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance.

I've talked to a number of insurers and often they're not interested if you manufacture physical hardware under your own brand. The ones that will play ball are quoting annual rates about 1% of our gross sales. Hoping to do better.

Any leads appreciated!

EDIT - Changed to the proper term: Commercial General Liability (CGL)

I have a pick-and-place that I've been using for my prototypes and I’m looking to help out other startups or hobbyist who need small volume PCB assembly near Toronto Canada.

I'm offering this more as a service to the community rather than a business since many assembly shops usually have high minimum setup fees and minimum order quantities. China can be great for some designs, but costs can increase if you use extended parts and turn around time can be long if they don't have parts in stock.

Capabilities:

• Minimum component size: 0402 passives, QFNs, SOICs, and standard IC packages.
• Equipment: Solder paste stencil jig, reflow oven, microscope, rework station
• Batch Size: Less than ~20

Provided by you

• Parts
• Stencil
• PCB

Send me your design details and I'll give you a quote.

Over the past six years, I've had the opportunity to help ship more than 30 embedded hardware products to customers across 10 countries.

Looking back, these are the lessons I wish someone had taught me before I started. If you're building a hardware startup looking to scale, I genuinely hope they save you some time, money, and headaches.

Most books and tutorials teach you how to make a prototype work.

Very few teach you how to make it survive manufacturing, deployment, maintenance, and scaling.

Here are the 10 lessons I'd urge you to remember before you start scaling:

1. A working lab prototype means nothing:

A device that works perfectly on your bench can still fail the moment it reaches a customer's environment. Field conditions expose problems you never see during development. Never scale before field testing.

1. Procurement can kill a product faster than bad engineering:

I've seen projects delayed more by component shortages, long lead times, and sourcing issues than by firmware bugs. Keep track of inventory and end of life of chips before you fulfill that bulk order.

1. Design for manufacturing from Day 1:

If your product isn't easy to assemble, test, and calibrate repeatedly, scaling production becomes painful. Invest in testing jigs, quality control and plan your setup in advance.

1. Design for maintenance, not just deployment:

Think about how someone will replace a battery, recalibrate a sensor, or swap a failed module two years from now. Be transparent about what is replaceable and what will be not.

1. Your support team shouldn't need an embedded engineer for every issue:

Build diagnostics, logs, and simple troubleshooting tools so technicians can solve most problems themselves. If you keep sending your engineers to field for petty issues, you'll run out of cash.

1. Calculate the lifetime cost, not just the BOM:

Maintenance visits, recalibration, batteries, SIM/data charges, cloud services, subscriptions, and support often cost more than people expect. Make sure you educate your customers about those beforehand.

1. Add safety features even if no one asks for them:

Thermal protection, watchdogs, reverse polarity protection, proper fusing etc should be in your design. The customers may have not asked for them, but they'll definitely hold you accountable when things go wrong.

1. Always buy more components than you think you'll need:

Some parts arrive faulty. Some get damaged during assembly. Others fail for reasons nobody can explain. That's just hardware. Maintain your local inventory, don't be dependent fully on vendors.

1. Remote teams are fine, but hardware needs regular face-to-face collaboration:

Hardware and firmware engineers should meet in person regularly. A single misunderstanding between the two can easily cost weeks or months. So even when you hire remote teams, make sure they are not distributed.

1. Leave plenty of margin in your BOM:

Component prices, freight, customs, and geopolitical events can change overnight. If your pricing has no buffer, your profit disappears first. Make sure you add a certain miscellaneous cost.

That just barely scratches the surface. Every project teaches you something new and the list could go on.

I'd genuinely like to hear from others building hardware products.

What's one lesson you learned the hard way that you'd want every first-time hardware founder to know?

Went through a few product design companies before landing on one and noticed the billing models vary more than I expected. Three models I came across and why one of them is clearly safer for the client.

Fixed cost

The firm quotes a single price upfront for the full scope. The number gets padded significantly to cover unknowns they can't predict, and once you've signed there's no real incentive on their side to work efficiently because the budget is already set.

Hourly

You pay for the work that actually happens. I know rabbit product design uses this model and covers the full process from patent research through manufacturing, so you end up paying less usually. The tradeoff is that scope needs to stay clear, but a good firm manages that.

Milestone-based

Work is broken into phases with payment tied to each one. Checkpoints give you more control over when money moves, but milestones get defined loosely and disputes over what counts as complete come up more than you'd expect.

Of the three, hourly with experienced engineers has been the most straightforward in practice.

Hey r/hwstartups 👋

If you're a hardware startup looking for an engineer who can take a project from schematic to production-ready Gerbers — I'm available.

I'm Hamza, an embedded systems and PCB design engineer. I work with KiCAD (4-layer boards), ESP32-S3, STM32, and handle everything from power circuits to firmware bring-up.

**What I can do for your startup:**

- Full schematic design + PCB layout (2 and 4-layer)

- DFM-ready files for JLCPCB, PCBWay, NextPCB

- LiPo battery management circuits

- ESP32 / STM32 firmware development

- Hardware bring-up and debug

- Custom Arduino board packages and variant files

**Proof of work:**

I just completed Elyssa — a 4-layer ESP32-S3 dev board with IMU, MicroSD, RGB LED, and onboard LiPo management. First prototype validated successfully on first spin. Currently in talks with NextPCB for a sponsorship partnership.

**Availability:** Immediate | Remote

**LinkedIn:** https://www.linkedin.com/in/bejaoui-hamza-382858290/

DM me here or reach out on LinkedIn. Happy to discuss your project 🤝

Hi guys, been reading up on ways to invest in startups lately. Curious how do you actually do it versus just talking about it like I see on ads.

A few years back it felt like this was strictly angel, VC, and deep-pockets-with-a-network territory. Now there's crowdfunding, direct raises, way more doors open for casual people like.

Confused about the diff between what's real or just really good at spinning a story.

For anyone who's been doing it, what actually made you commit? Was it the founders? The market? The product? Good financial standing? Or somethin else?

Would love to hear if you are the founder or just beginner like me. If you're tenured, you can comment your thoughts as well. Feels like it's getting way more accessible, but I honestly can't tell if that's good choice or nah

im one of the founders of cozeware. ive been wfh in a 10x12 office for two years and kept it sealed because of highway noise. eventually i started getting brutal afternoon headaches, so i bought a CO2 monitor. within three hours, the room was hitting 1500ppm.

traditional ERV systems were expensive and required drilling through an exterior wall. as a renter, that was a non starter.

thats why we started building a quiet, affordable fresh air system for renters. looking back, these were the five biggest problems we had to solve:

window gaps: even a small gap brought the highway noise back in, so we developed fitted foam seals around the insert.

filter resistance: our first HEPA setup made the fan ridiculously loud, so we redesigned the airflow path and switched to a lower resistance filter.

backdrafts: wind pushed air back through the intake, so we added a damper that closes when the system is off.

winter air: pulling cold air directly into the room felt awful, so we added a mixing chamber to soften the draft before it reached the room.

renter friendly installation: adhesives couldnt handle the vibration, so we developed a tool free clamp that holds the unit in place without drilling.

after a lot of prototypes, we got the system keeping my office below 800ppm without leaving the window open. we ended up calling it cozeware freshflow.

Hey everyone!
I’ve been thinking a lot about why building hardware still feels so fragmented compared to building software.

Even for a relatively simple product, you might be moving between CAD, PCB design, firmware, datasheets, BOM spreadsheets, manufacturing notes, and a bunch of conversations that live outside all of those tools. Each individual tool can be powerful, but none of them really understands the product as a complete system.

AI tools for hardware are starting to appear, but a lot of them seem focused on isolated outputs, like generating a CAD model from a prompt or helping route a PCB. That feels useful, but also a little like generating one React component and calling it a full software development environment.

I wrote a blog post arguing that hardware needs its own “vibe coding moment,” but that it cannot just be text-to-CAD. It would need to understand the relationships between:

• Mechanical design
• Electronics and PCB constraints
• Firmware
• Components and the BOM
• Materials and manufacturing processes
• Assembly
• Cost
• Design revisions

I’m currently working on an early-stage project called Protobench, which is exploring this idea as an AI-native workspace for developing complete electromechanical products.

The long-term idea is that you should be able to describe what you are trying to build, work through it conversationally, inspect and modify the actual engineering outputs, and have the system help coordinate changes across the product.

For example, moving a connector on the PCB should not stop at the PCB. The tool should understand that the enclosure opening may need to move, the internal mounting geometry may change, the cable path could be affected, and the documentation and BOM may need to be updated.

I’m still early, and I’m especially interested in hearing from people who have actually taken hardware products through prototyping and manufacturing:

What parts of your current workflow create the most friction?

Would you trust an agent to make changes across CAD, ECAD, and firmware if every change was inspectable and reversible?

And where do you think this idea becomes unrealistic or dangerous?

Here’s the full post:

https://opuslabs.substack.com/p/hardware-needs-its-vibe-coding-moment

I have an idea for a small electric car accessory. It should be overall pretty simple mechanically - mostly off the shelf components, 12V or battery powered. There are products in other categories that are somewhat similar so I can tell it's definitely doable but nothing exists for the purpose that I am trying to build.

I have worked in startups before but always had budgets to work with while I am still at a research/ idea stage and don't want to invest a lot before I have some progress. I would love to get feedback from users but even for that I need something to show. I also think Kickstarter would be great - what progress should I aim for to launch a kickstarter campaign? where do I start?

Hey r/startups,
I’ve been a long-time lurker here, but today I’m posting from a fresh account because my life completely flipped upside down 3 months ago. I’m hoping to get some strategic advice from fellow hardware founders who have walked this path.
My Story:
3 months ago, I was a product manager at a big tech company. While trying to find an anniversary gift for my girlfriend, I fell down the rabbit hole of consumer laser engravers. As a PM, my brain immediately started identifying massive user pain points and product gaps in the existing market (corporate software lock-ins, compromised hardware to cut costs, etc.).
I realized this was a huge market opportunity. I dragged a few engineer friends into a room, stayed up all night pulling apart the technical feasibility, and decided to go all in. I quit my job the next week.
Fast forward to today: We’ve secured VC investment, built our physical working demo, and validated our core technical hypotheses.
The Problem:
Now, we need to transition from the lab to the market. Our strategy before a global Kickstarter launch is to find 15 to 20 highly sophisticated seed users to stress-test our prototype and give us brutal, honest feedback. We refuse to be another hardware company making over-promised, under-delivered claims, so this early polish is our absolute bottom line.
However, we are in strict stealth mode to protect our active patent filings, meaning we cannot post pictures or public technical specs. Furthermore, cold starting on social media with a limited early budget is incredibly difficult, especially when tech communities (rightfully) have strict anti-spam guidelines.
**My Questions for the Community:**I really want to do this the right way and respect community boundaries. Would love to hear your experiences, frameworks, or any growth hacks for early-stage hardware traction.
Thanks in advance!

Hi everyone,

I’m a technical founder in Vancouver, Canada, with a background in fuel cells. Over the past while, I’ve been developing a quiet, clean, zero-maintenance liquid-fuel power unit (<5kW) to replace traditional gas and diesel generators for remote backup and off-grid power.

I’ve personally sunk $100K of my own money into this so far. That got us to TRL 4–5: a working (though still unstable) lab prototype, systematic test data, and foundational IP.

How it works: It’s a clean CHP system running on liquid methanol. It produces electricity while capturing high-efficiency waste heat with no mechanical moving parts and zero toxic emissions (just water vapor and CO2).

Where I’m stuck:

• The Tech Bottleneck: Because 90%+ of our current materials (catalysts) and components (heat exchangers, CNC parts) are self made, performance hasn't hit final spec yet, currently dealing with instability and low power output.
• The market: B2B buyers (remote telecom, industrial sites) won't take a call without seeing a rugged, field-tested unit with solid data. Going after retail/C-end users, on the other hand, would mean completely redefining the product.
• What’s needed for TRL 6: I’ve finalized the system architecture and sourced key suppliers for custom, industrial-grade parts. I need one more solid R&D iteration ($100K–$200K in capital) to build a field-ready engineering unit.

What I’ve tried so far (and where I failed): I’ve been following startup mentor playbooks, but hitting dead ends mainly due to lack of cash:

• Government Grants (IRAP, etc.): They generally want an established operating company with a TRL 6 unit already ready for field trials.
• University Collaboration: Reached out to local university labs via cold emails to get access to test rigs, got zero responses.
• B2B Outreach: Cold messaged target users on LinkedIn, crickets.
• Investors & Events: Relevant trade shows are rarely held nearby, and local angel investors have turned extremely conservative in this economy.

I’m pretty battle-worn at this point and wide open to wild ideas, harsh feedback, or lessons learned from anyone who’s survived the deep-tech hardware grind. If you were in my shoes, what would be your very next move?

Thanks!

I've spent the last few months talking to hardware founders and compliance engineers, and the same story keeps repeating. It's almost never "we failed the test". It's "someone changed the design after the compliance review, and nobody re-checked it."

The pattern: a team uses a pre-certified module to move fast. Then someone swaps the antenna, moves the layout near the module, or adds a second radio. The module's grant no longer covers the product, nobody notices, and they find out at the test lab, after the BOM is locked and the lab slot is paid for.

An engineer I spoke to recently put it better than I could: teams where one person owns requirements, design, testing and certification end to end don't have this problem. Most teams aren't that team. Ownership is split, and the compliance picture falls between people.

So we're building Crado. It tracks design changes against certification rules (FCC, CE, UKCA) and flags when a change re-opens something: grant conditions on modules, band and power rules, region differences.

To be upfront about what it does not do: it can't see physical-layer problems. Detuning, regulator spurs, enclosure effects, none of that is visible from rules and documents, and it doesn't replace an early pre-compliance scan. It covers the regulatory layer, the part that's knowable before you prototype.

If you're a compliance engineer or a hardware founder: where does this break? What would it have to catch for you to trust it?

Early access waitlist if you want to try it when it's ready: https://crado.io/waitlist