5 ms·

They gave the money back. Regardless of surrounding events or further stories, you do not get to call them unprincipled.

by Eliezer 11y ago

hluska 11y ago
First, he did not call the founders unprincipled, he said that this is not a principled way to run a business. I know that's splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important. Granted, I just told a doctor about a grammatical error in her Emergency Department's mission statement, so this may just be a symptom... :) Second, the surrounding events do matter. They claimed to be raising money to build a product. Then, their efforts bogged down because they tried to build an entirely different product than they originally promised. Where I'm from, we call that lying. But, for fun, let's check out their own words: Q: Why did Matchstick select Microsoft PlayReady ? A: Matchstick intends to offer DRM on its platform and bring premium content to its users in the quickest timeframe possible. Microsoft PlayReady offers a mature technology, has relationship with premium content providers and is quick to deploy on the Firefox OS platform. Funny how a solution that is so 'quick to deploy' could sink the whole ship, hey?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > Second, the surrounding events do matter. They claimed to be raising money to build a product. Then, their efforts bogged down because they tried to build an entirely different product than they originally promised. Let's put it differently: they raised money to build X. They attempted to build X+Y, they fucked up. Maybe they were dishonest about their plans. But in the end, they decided to give the X money back, which raises them above 99% of companies out there.
jlarocco 11y ago
I disagree. If they were principled, they would have followed through with the original product. Instead they used the money to start building something slightly different. It was a bait and switch. Giving people's money back is saving face to avoid a huge backlash.
- AndrewKemendo 11y ago
  So Kickstarter companies aren't allowed to pivot? Things change, other groups get involved. That's just real life, hell, look at Oculus.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Not without consulting their backers. 'Pivoting' means not delivering the item people backed. On the other hand, I think the refunds should be the end of complaints.
    - claudius 11y ago
      Refunds + appropriate interest rates for such a high-risk “investment” + penalty for not upholding their end of a promise + …. I don’t see how they could afford to satisfy any morally (if not legally) reasonable demands.
      - pjc50 11y ago
        It's definitely not an investment (as Kickstarter continually remind you), and there were no penalties agreed upfront. Seriously, do you want more restrictive consumer protection on KS projects than when you buy offered products at retail that have the order cancelled because it wasn't in stock? I'm normally the last person to get libertarian about "you agreed to this contract", but this seems to be one case where it's appropriate. Or does it need more warning that you're not buying an extant product?
        claudius 11y ago
        AndrewDucker’s comment above, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002117 , does not look like “you’re not buying an extant product” to me. In fact, it looks like the exact opposite of that, more like “we’re finished and can start making these now”.
  - billyhoffman 11y ago
singulaire 11y ago
In addition to what other commenters said, even once the money is given back, this still amounts to a loan without interest. I would call that unprincipled.
makomk 11y ago
No, they promised to give the money back within the next 60 days. In the past, Kickstarter projects have had a very mixed record when it comes to actually making the refunds they promised.
- sbarre 11y ago
  This is a good point. Maybe come back and defend them once they've actually made good on the refunds.

They gave the money back. Regardless of surrounding events or further stories, you do not get to call them unprincipled.

by Eliezer 11y ago

They gave the money back. Regardless of surrounding events or further stories, you do not get to call them unprincipled.

hluska 11y ago

First, he did not call the founders unprincipled, he said that this is not a principled way to run a business. I know that's splitting hairs, but I think the distinction is important. Granted, I just told a doctor about a grammatical error in her Emergency Department's mission statement, so this may just be a symptom... :) Second, the surrounding events do matter. They claimed to be raising money to build a product. Then, their efforts bogged down because they tried to build an entirely different product than they originally promised. Where I'm from, we call that lying. But, for fun, let's check out their own words: Q: Why did Matchstick select Microsoft PlayReady ? A: Matchstick intends to offer DRM on its platform and bring premium content to its users in the quickest timeframe possible. Microsoft PlayReady offers a mature technology, has relationship with premium content providers and is quick to deploy on the Firefox OS platform. Funny how a solution that is so 'quick to deploy' could sink the whole ship, hey?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> Second, the surrounding events do matter. They claimed to be raising money to build a product. Then, their efforts bogged down because they tried to build an entirely different product than they originally promised. Let's put it differently: they raised money to build X. They attempted to build X+Y, they fucked up. Maybe they were dishonest about their plans. But in the end, they decided to give the X money back, which raises them above 99% of companies out there.

jlarocco 11y ago

I disagree. If they were principled, they would have followed through with the original product. Instead they used the money to start building something slightly different. It was a bait and switch. Giving people's money back is saving face to avoid a huge backlash.

AndrewKemendo 11y ago
So Kickstarter companies aren't allowed to pivot? Things change, other groups get involved. That's just real life, hell, look at Oculus.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Not without consulting their backers. 'Pivoting' means not delivering the item people backed. On the other hand, I think the refunds should be the end of complaints.
  - claudius 11y ago
    Refunds + appropriate interest rates for such a high-risk “investment” + penalty for not upholding their end of a promise + …. I don’t see how they could afford to satisfy any morally (if not legally) reasonable demands.
    - pjc50 11y ago
      It's definitely not an investment (as Kickstarter continually remind you), and there were no penalties agreed upfront. Seriously, do you want more restrictive consumer protection on KS projects than when you buy offered products at retail that have the order cancelled because it wasn't in stock? I'm normally the last person to get libertarian about "you agreed to this contract", but this seems to be one case where it's appropriate. Or does it need more warning that you're not buying an extant product?
      - claudius 11y ago
        AndrewDucker’s comment above, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002117 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002117 , does not look like “you’re not buying an extant product” to me. In fact, it looks like the exact opposite of that, more like “we’re finished and can start making these now”.
- billyhoffman 11y ago

singulaire 11y ago

In addition to what other commenters said, even once the money is given back, this still amounts to a loan without interest. I would call that unprincipled.

makomk 11y ago

No, they promised to give the money back within the next 60 days. In the past, Kickstarter projects have had a very mixed record when it comes to actually making the refunds they promised.

sbarre 11y ago
This is a good point. Maybe come back and defend them once they've actually made good on the refunds.