I live in a neighborhood with a ton of gunshots. I've called the police about gunshots maybe three times, but I probably hear gunshots multiple times a week. One of those times I was the first person to call in a murder, the other two didn't even generate a shooting report that I could tell.
I've been following ShotSpotter, and I'm not surprised by the problem they have been having with false positives. For one thing, gunshots don't sound like cannons in real life, there are so many things that sound like them, especially in an economically deprived neighborhood. Backfiring cars, fireworks, people driving over plastic bottles, lumber being dropped, etc.
One of the reasons I don't call in shots is because it's almost impossible to figure out where a gunshot actually came from. The grid system in Chicago combined with the ubiquity of 3 story brick and stone houses means that sound bounces all over the place. Even sounds that are generally easy to place, such as trains and sirens, often sound like they are coming from a completely different direction .
The other reason I don't bother calling in shots is because I feel like any police officer close enough to respond in a timely manner is likely close enough that they probably heard the shots themselves. By the time I call 911, give them my questionable guess to location, and the police actually arrive there, chances are the shooter is long gone. Even the 911 operators seem uninterested in my calls unless I can give them extremely detailed information about what just happened.
If ShotSpotter is as accurate as the paper indicates, then I think it could be an extremely powerful tool if the information can be given to officers in a timely manner. That being said, from what I've read ShotSpotter is already considered a bit of a success in Chicago, so I think the technology has a solid market.
Given the fact that they have a solid market, I can't help but feel their problem is on the management side of things. Honestly, ShotSpotter seems like one of those companies that should have 25-50 employees, and could be reasonably profitable at that level. Looking at their SEC filing, it seems like they spend way too much on Admin and Marketing, given the fact that 1) their market seems reasonably straightforward from a sales perspective and 2) their technology seems to speak for itself.
That being said, I have no idea how much trade shows and such cost, but overall I feel like there is no reason they shouldn't be profitable after 20 years of existence given the fact that they appear to have basically the only viable product in the market.
I could, but I'm saving a ton of money this way. The owner is a friend of a friend of a friend who didn't want to rent anymore, but didn't want to sell at the bottom of the market.
I live two blocks from the train, and it takes me less than 10 minutes to get to the loop. The neighborhood is also close to the neighborhoods where I like to spend time.
That isn't to say I wouldn't prefer to live in a nicer neighborhood, but I don't think the benefits are worth the added cost. Plus, to be quite frank, nobody is shooting at me.
I've been following ShotSpotter, and I'm not surprised by the problem they have been having with false positives. For one thing, gunshots don't sound like cannons in real life, there are so many things that sound like them, especially in an economically deprived neighborhood. Backfiring cars, fireworks, people driving over plastic bottles, lumber being dropped, etc.
One of the reasons I don't call in shots is because it's almost impossible to figure out where a gunshot actually came from. The grid system in Chicago combined with the ubiquity of 3 story brick and stone houses means that sound bounces all over the place. Even sounds that are generally easy to place, such as trains and sirens, often sound like they are coming from a completely different direction .
The other reason I don't bother calling in shots is because I feel like any police officer close enough to respond in a timely manner is likely close enough that they probably heard the shots themselves. By the time I call 911, give them my questionable guess to location, and the police actually arrive there, chances are the shooter is long gone. Even the 911 operators seem uninterested in my calls unless I can give them extremely detailed information about what just happened.
If ShotSpotter is as accurate as the paper indicates, then I think it could be an extremely powerful tool if the information can be given to officers in a timely manner. That being said, from what I've read ShotSpotter is already considered a bit of a success in Chicago, so I think the technology has a solid market.
Given the fact that they have a solid market, I can't help but feel their problem is on the management side of things. Honestly, ShotSpotter seems like one of those companies that should have 25-50 employees, and could be reasonably profitable at that level. Looking at their SEC filing, it seems like they spend way too much on Admin and Marketing, given the fact that 1) their market seems reasonably straightforward from a sales perspective and 2) their technology seems to speak for itself.
That being said, I have no idea how much trade shows and such cost, but overall I feel like there is no reason they shouldn't be profitable after 20 years of existence given the fact that they appear to have basically the only viable product in the market.