In my opinion, the reason behind the fail is not a bad management or bad technology. On the contrary, the company had a terrific marketing campaign, and people rushed for the product - which happened only due to a good positioning. But at some point, the people realized that there is no real use for these cameras during the daily life and just sobered up after the mesmerizing first years and started to think whether they need this product at all after those Chinese companies went into the market with their cheaper copies. And that's how do we get here. IMO, right now there are no reasons to suppose that the company is gonna show the miracle again, probably this is the beginning of the end...
Isn't it business as usual for GoPro? They are still the number 1 POV camera. Just because the stock tanked after the IPO doesn't mean the business has failed.
2 years is still recent for an IPO. Do you consider the low stock price to be an indication of failure?
what fail? it sounds like the normal capitalist business cycle. it is unlike the US government which believes it can prevent future downturns. even the underwriters cannot be faulted . people who bought in the first few days after the ipo could have made 2X on their money. short sellers also made money. the founders of the company made money . jobs were created. a new consumer product area was created. consumers were made happy. what fail? to me it sounds like the American Dream in its full glory.
1. For the same reasons that Fitbit will be irrelevant in 3 years or less: technology is a commodity that is ultimately dominated by generic rivals offering the same or better performance at a fraction of the original price. The price and profit margins start tanking as soon as a new product drops. It seems that only Steve Jobs could make technology that was cool for a long time and could sell at a premium to the mass market. 2. No one cared about the social networking capabilities of GPRO (?). 3. Camera-on-a-stick isn't a great revolutionary idea. We are essentially talking about the pop cultural phenomenon of "selfies:" a fad that is fading. the picture quality of camera-on-a-stick is headache inducing (my opinion). 4. Drones weren't the second coming for GPRO. 5. GPRO likes to link itself with "core" extreme sports. The original GPRO consumers (5 years ago?) were mostly kooks with more money than skills. Weekend warriors and tweens from wealthy neighborhoods decked out in tennis attire would push their razor scooters and longboard skateboards and catch all of the exciting action on their GPRO helmet mounted cam. Most of the real extreme athletes, however, are broke from my experience. The older ones with money don't really care about footage quality or the latest GPRO model.
GPRO has the unfortunate situation of going through these struggles in the midst of an overall market downtrend. The company is solid, the products are solid, and the financials are solid. Once the market turns around we will see up trends toward a very bright future for GPRO.
both mint and garrettkimmel, in posts above, are showing what makes for a market, a buyer and a seller. mint will go short and gk will go long. let's see if either one has the courage of their convictions and takes action.
I made money shorting GPRO and FIT but am not currently short either. Full disclosure: I am happy with my Xiaomi Yi (better video processor and fraction of the cost kinda quirky) and S6 Edge phone. The most popular camera sold over the holidays was a $40 generic unit according to the store manager at the local electronics store in a beach community (surfing, skating, skydiving, fishing, etc.).