10 ms·

Kickstarter is Not a Store

428 points by benackles 14y ago

majormajor 14y ago
I think the move from product simulations/renderings to solely being able to show what the product can do now is a great change. I've been critical about some of the usages of Kickstarter in the past, but this addresses a big part of my concerns. I do hope that it doesn't keep products that are in a rough state from being able to be successful, though if somethings really that complex that you need to raise a lot of money to have a marketable prototype, let alone bring it to market, I don't think Kickstarter donations are the way to fund it.
andrewljohnson 14y ago
What a measured, interesting, and social response. As programmers, we often try and fix things with code, but it's cool to see Kickstarter improve their product by thinking about what questions the creators should be asking. I also agree that hardware makers do themselves and other a disservice by showing space age renderings of their products.
stefanobernardi 14y ago
This is a very honorable move from Kickstarter, forcing themselves to follow their mission vs immediate revenues. This is how every company should operate. And this will definitely improve their long-term shape and revenues.
- saurik 14y ago
  It isn't just revenues: having people who think they are buying things (or probably worse: think they are selling things) but aren't really (as there are risks and this is all just contributing money to possible futures) has legal and accounting (eg. sales tax) ramifications that kickstarter was not previously, not seemed to have any signs of in the future, addressing.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
Hmm. They needed to make some sort of move, but banning simulations and renderings (Really?) seems to be terrible overkill. If anything, this move makes it much more a store. You can only put up products that exist. There's no funding of development. Not sure this is a good solution on their part. EDIT: Fully in support of the "Risks and Challenges" section. Makes it like an investment prospectus.
- nettdata 14y ago
  I agree. I think a good compromise would be to ensure that anything that was a simulation or rendering was very obviously labeled as such, so that there would be absolutely no doubt in the viewer's mind.
- guelo 14y ago
  The problems is skilled designers are starting to pull off big time scams fooling people for hundreds of thousands of dollars. People see realistic renderings of a hoverboard or whatever and they immediately open their wallets without realizing that their is very little chance that they will be able to pull it off. If people see a skateboard with some glued-on fans they will be much more skeptical.
  - sharkweek 14y ago
    I asked this a while back and the answer was pretty much "no" -- but I'm curious if that's changed. Have there recently been any high profile examples of fraud through crowdfunding sites?
  - jonnathanson 14y ago
    Can we actually prove fraud in any of these cases, though? I'm not saying it can't happen, or that it hasn't happened. But we should never attribute to malice what can be more readily attributed to stupidity. I'm more inclined to believe that a bunch of people got in over their heads than that a bunch of people intentionally scammed backers. I may be wrong. But can someone point to some concrete examples? Fraud is a pretty heavy charge to level against Kickstarter projects, and it's also an indirect accusation that Kickstarter is a hotbed of such activity.
fruchtose 14y ago
Personally, I would prefer a hybrid approach--projects cannot show only simulations/rendering. If a project presents these things, it must also present the current state of the ideas being rendered. You're developing a spacefaring action game? By all means, show me that you want to have planets, stars, and space pirates--but if all you have right now is a spaceship object floating in an environment without a skybox, I want to see that, too.
- guelo 14y ago
  The rendering ban only applies to hardware products. Video games are not affected.
  - fruchtose 14y ago
    Looks like I skimmed too quickly then.
lifeformed 14y ago
Renderings seem useful in helping viewers visualize what the goal is. Maybe instead they should enforce that renders have to have an accompanying text disclaimer? Kind of like medicine commercials and their side effects.
steve8918 14y ago
This is a good idea, kudos to them for making this move to help alleviate a lot confusion on behalf of funders. I think what they need to do is have milestones for their project that can get vetted by Kickstarter. For each milestone they hit, more funds get released to them. This will allow funders to get out if they keep missing their milestones, and the project looks like it's going downhill.
- 001sky 14y ago
  -- This staged financing concept is why they do vc in rounds a, b, c etc.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
gojomo 14y ago
I think "Product renderings are prohibited", and to a lesser extent "Product simulations are prohibited", run against the emphasized goal being "a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things". When something doesn't yet exist, you have to present speculative representations to communicate (or even rationally discuss!) the vision. That goes double for a wider audience, which may not be as accustomed to letting their imagination range over exotic possibilities. Such mockups should be clearly labeled, and placed alongside current-best-prototype representations for comparison, and disclaimerized as with the new 'Risks and Challenges' requirement. But before Kickstarter, more traditional investors and prepurchasers -- and indeed internal organization R&D and product-development processes -- would use and expect such representations for design communication. Why cripple the new model with this encumbrance?
- 001sky 14y ago
  These guys are New York, and it seems like their leagal-eagle's have raised some concerns. This does not smell like bus-dev, or pr, or typical CEO brainstorming at work. so, it would be very fascinating to see what they are seeing internally. we can speculate, but that's not likely going to get us the same look at the situation.
  - zacharycohn 14y ago
    I disagree. If huge product failures/not-quite-scams-but-might-as-well-be keep happening, people will loose faith in the Kickstarter brand. This is them protecting themselves, and their community.
    - gojomo 14y ago
      If the real motive is to prevent scams/failures-to-deliver, that's OK. But that's almost the opposite concern from the headline -- "not a store" -- about just using Kickstarter as a channel for moving already-developed, riskless product inventory.
ck2 14y ago
100% simple solution to this. DO NOT ALLOW listings to offer the product described as a reward. Will solve the problem entirely, guaranteed.
- evan_ 14y ago
  This is a kickstarter for: An awesome t-shirt with a picture of an Android-based game console we're developing on it. Rewards: $180 A new Android-based game console.
  - ck2 14y ago
    All listings are reviewed by humans before published so this kind of trickery wouldn't work.
- LoneWolf 14y ago
  Agreed, what annoys me more in kickstarter are projects that use it as a way to get preorders. Existing a finished product or not to me seems to go away from funding the project its just a way to buy and sell
- alex_c 14y ago
  This would kill Kickstarter.
  - ck2 14y ago
    Either kickstarter is investment or it's a preorders store, it needs to pick one, it cannot be both. If someone is really behind the concept for a product, they can just buy the product after it's available in an online store. I could easily see this becoming a legal requirement if it gets visible to legislature.
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      > Either kickstarter is investment or it's a pre-sale store, it needs to pick one, it cannot be both. The way Kickstarter presents itself, it's neither - it's not an investment; it's a way for creators and consumers to collaborate on a project. That's subtly different from an investment per se, (Whether you agree with that is a different question, but it's important to note how Kickstarter intends to portray itself).
smoyer 14y ago
For software products, it's pretty hard for them to tell the difference between a simulation/rendering and the real thing. If I show a finished UI, it will appear to be fully functional and polished, but there may not be any back-end at all. I often create a fake persistence layer to allow for faster development of the UI. How would they be able to tell the difference? And it's actually not violating the rules at all right?
- siganakis 14y ago
  The simulation/rendering rule is only for "Hardware and Product Design Projects", not software.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Are you sure? Software could conceivably fall under "Product".
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      From the comments in the linked blog, there was this comment "The new guideline prohibiting renderings applies only to projects categorized as Product Design or Hardware. Other categories, including Games, are not affected." which came from Kickstarter's community manager.
    - jere 14y ago
      Everything on the site could conceivably fall into "Product". It seems fairly clear to me that they are just trying to prevent these kind of shenanigans: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jpg http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jp... http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter-vaporware-of-the-day-lifx-edition/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter...
      - makomk 14y ago
        There are a bunch of obvious technical mistakes in that, not least of which is that you're not effectively buying a WeMo and getting the bulb for free; only the more expensive master bulb will have WiFi support and the rest will talk to it over much cheaper 802.15.4 mesh networking.
ghshephard 14y ago
I find it fascinating how Kickstarter is starting to adopt some of the same cautions that we see in an S1/Prospectus, "“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”" As a long time burner, it was interesting to me how year after year, the playa adopted many (but not all) of the rules, regulations, restrictions of the outside world. We had a DMV (Department of Mutan Vehicles), Building Regulations (for buildings over a certain height), developed clinics, and ambulance services - etc... It will be interesting to see, over time, how kickstarter adopts many of the SEC mandated governance over new enterprises going to the market for funding. Reading through all the regulations though - it feels like 90% (100%?) are in response to this: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-light-bulb-reinvented?ref=live http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-light... I'm sure a LOT of people watched that video, and thought that the LIFX lightbulb exists (or almost exists) in it's current incarnation. Also, there are a lot of people supporting for $500 in the belief that they'll get 10 lightbulbs - I wonder how many of those backers don't realize their is a better than even chance that this project will come to nothing, and they'll get nothing but good feelings for their money?
olalonde 14y ago
When Ouya raised over a million dollars within 24 hours a few weeks ago, they specifically wrote: "In just 24 hours, 20,000 people bought an Ouya console"[0]. They should be more careful with their choice of words in the future if they really want to reflect that "Kickstarter is not a store". [0] http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day
- mcphilip 14y ago
  The change in terminology would seem to imply that Kickstarter is now wising up to the fact that there will inevitably be a high profile failure to deliver in the near future and is now trying to preempt criticism against Kickstarter not laying out clearly enough the risks involved in backing a project. I welcome this change and think that it will help in the long run.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    There's already been a high profile failure to deliver, and it was a software project. Diaspora. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-p...
    - sneak 14y ago
      People are used to big software budgets producing nothing. It's an entirely different value proposition failure when they paid $100 expecting to receive a light bulb or gaming console only to end up empty-handed.
    - pbreit 14y ago
      Except that Diaspora is alive and delivered on its project. https://www.joindiaspora.com https://www.joindiaspora.com https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora
      - blutonium 14y ago
mparlane 14y ago
I find it funny how the Oculus Rift's front image is a rendering, and not because they can't do it. But because they want you to see the final design that they have created.
raldi 14y ago
I don't really get the ban on multiple reward tiers for hardware. Anyone got an example of something that used this to abuse users in the past?
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  The Lifx lightbulb is specific in setting multiple products shipped per multiple dollar amount.
  - raldi 14y ago
    So what bad thing did that lead to?
    - rm999 14y ago
      They are making two simultaneous points: 1. Projects are over-promising and under-delivering 2. Kickstarter isn't a store and was never meant to be one. People have turned it into one, leading to all sorts of issues, including point #1 I think when you are asking for examples of abuse you are thinking of the first point, but the 'no multiple products' rule addresses #2. You aren't buying a product, you are backing a project. If you want multiple lightbulbs, presumably you can purchase them after the project is funded. In other words, I don't think the rule is to prevent abuse, it's to bring kickstarter back to its roots and remind people what kickstarter is all about. It may hurt some projects but hopefully it will revert kickstarter to its original niche where it was adding a lot of value.
      - makomk 14y ago
        Of course, since LIFX is planned as a networked bulb you can't actually get the full functionality of it if you just order one. Also, for some of the smaller Kickstarter hardware projects the creator actually has no intention of launching them as a commercial product at all - they're essentially group buys allowing hobbyists to offer something they've designed to other hobbyists for less than the cost of building it themselves.
- 14y ago
fratis 14y ago
This is a sensible list of new rules. This is a quintessential exercise in changing user expectations and behavior. This is great UX, especially in a platform-type environment in which the platform managers aren’t always able to curate the content created by the platform users.
wissler 14y ago
No simulations or renderings to show the vision that's being pursued? Beyond stupid. It's insane. I'd speculate that it's probably a requirement driven by lawyers worried about failed projects conferring some kind of liability onto Kickstarter itself.
ChuckMcM 14y ago
Nicely done, hope it is enough to protect them from the lawyers.
MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Smart move. AirBnB waited until scandal broke out and then tried to put out the fire. We were/are dangerously close to a major scandal happening on Kickstarter.
- prezjordan 14y ago
  What was the major scandal?
  - Roedou 14y ago
    A user's home was trashed: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-airbnb-as-users-home-is-utterly-trashed/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-air...
mistercow 14y ago
That's a start, but I still think that allowing hardware projects to offer arbitrary, open-ended numbers of end-product rewards is a mistake. Suddenly being expected to produce 100 times as many units as you planned is not, as people so often say "a good problem to have". It's just "a problem". Yes, the general tendency is for marginal cost to decrease as production quantity increases, but that does not mean that it's a smooth curve. Instead, the line is jagged, littered with points where large investments need to be made. For an open-ended product, you get investors, hire extra people, buy equipment, etc. You'll end up taking a short-term loss that will be earned back in the long term. For a close-ended project like Kickstarter allows, you'll have the short-term loss, but no long-term profit. And that's if you have experience and connections to pull off manufacturing and courting investors. If you're hawking a project on Kickstarter, it's pretty likely that you have neither.
vannevar 14y ago
This was becoming a real issue for Kickstarter. Many of the recent high profile 'projects' were companies (particularly game developers/publishers and consumer products manufacturers) effectively taking pre-orders through Kickstarter and using those funds to develop the product. As the channel through which the orders were placed (and the party that that receives the money and takes a cut), I think a good legal argument could be made that Kickstarter is a store, and thus would have to comply with the UCC and other laws (including the various Deceptive Trade Practices acts across the country) applying to retail.
anigbrowl 14y ago
The ban on mutliple rewards is interesting. While there have been no tears shed over ~$1000 going to finance the Makey Makey project, there's a mildly awkward silence every time we try to figure out what we're going to do with 30 of them. It's also true that cannibalizing a old keyboard would have delivered the same functionality... ఠ_ఠ
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
aorshan 14y ago
Though I completely understand where kickstarter is coming from with their decision, I have a bit of a gripe with their choice to prevent projects from showing renderings and requiring actual photos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked the purpose of kickstarter was to help people get their ideas off the ground. Some types of products, especially hardware, can cost a lot of money to produce at a prototype stage. Not everyone has the cash lying around to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to build a functional prototype. So normally what that person would do is put together some renderings and a video and go to kickstarter to raise the funds to expand into prototypes and production. Now what are they to do? Ultimately I think this decision by kickstarter gives a tremendous advantage to design shops with the budgets to build prototypes, while leaving the little guy behind.
erohead 14y ago
Wow. This is a major move. Pebble (my project) would not be possible now.
- weej 14y ago
  Agreed. It's hard to get your average consumer and investor excited about a product they cannot visualize. Kuddos on the Pebble project. It's an amazing product, and I can't wait to see you guys release to market. Cheers!
  - erohead 14y ago
    I understand the problem that the Kickstarter founders are facing, but I don't think this is the right (or even close to the correct) solution. Despite saying "kickstarter is not a store" in the title, their rules basically force project creators to physically show exactly what they're planning to deliver...making it even more of a store. Thanks! Working 24-7 to get these watches out, blogging here: kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  Congrats on Pebble so far. Sorry, I can't see what would prohibit the project here? Maybe the language would need to be more restrained, but I doubt that would harm the funding too much.
  - scottschulthess 14y ago
    I think it would be hard to market a product without being able to show prototypes and mockups and whatnot.
- hypersoar 14y ago
  You think so? My mind went to your project when I saw the OP. I heard second-hand that you guys were showing off a prototype at Google I/O which consisted of the watch casing with a display connected to external (not yet miniaturized) electronics. This seems to fit Kickstarter's new regulations. Would something like this not have been possible before you got funded? The reason I felt comfortable backing guys is because you guys had already delivered a product to market. A description or early prototype demonstrating what you were trying to make - almost exactly what I had pictured as my ideal smartwatch before you launched - and my wallet would have been open.
idanb 14y ago
I see this as a very welcome addition to the public stance of Kickstarter with regards to physical products (which it's been relatively quiet about). One of the reasons we chose Kickstarter as a platform to get our product off the ground was the fact that it would allow us flexibility and freedom to get our prototypes to full scale manufacturing, which were already relatively mature in their stage of production (tooling already complete, near final hardware etc). Lots of things can go wrong at every stage after you have a final production sample. You still need to get the sample certified by a number of governing bodies, set up QC and shipping, and in the case of overseas manufacturing deal with the freight/customs and finally fulfillment of the product. I'm happy that Kickstarter is taking more of stance on the subject, as we've had to in many cases provide "returns" to people or deal with "customer service" style requests, which we've done in good faith but it really misses the point of launching a product on Kickstarter. I think this stance will really help back up projects when they need to make an adjustment, or have to deal with something unexpected. Also, it should improve the quality of projects moving forward by making people more skeptical and aware of the time/cost-instability of the manufacturing process. We were lucky to hit a pretty happy medium with regards to initial volume, and unlike some of the blockbuster projects when we have to change things we don't end up on TechCrunch for it, only the Guardian :)
shuri 14y ago
It takes a lot of character to look at a lot of money in the eye and say no thanks.
Karunamon 14y ago
Really? No renders? So how are you supposed to communicate what you want to build? Terrible move. Require renders and sims to be clearly labeled as such, but this? FFS.
weej 14y ago
I for one would be more interested in general success rate. I'm not talking return on investment, but more so on how many projects actually come to fruition and deliver at any level. This is outside the fraudulent activity. It's more out of my sheer, selfish interest in rate of success. I could see such data publication helping and hurting Kickstarter. It could be inspiring and generate even more interest (aka revenue), but also expose the lack of completion and high failure rate turning off investors.
imrehg 14y ago
Well, if people think it's a store, then it might be a store. Sign of a successful platform that it goes in directions that you have not expected. Though it is also a sign of failed communication. The question is now whether you want to bring the project back onto the originally envisioned path, or figure out how to ride the waves of these unexpected changes?
- riledhel 14y ago
  After reading the news, I keep thinking "aren't they missing something?". Can't they seize this audience that come to the site to buy stuff? Maybe a spin-off from the original kickstarter, specially tailored as a sales platform.
  - LaGrange 14y ago
    Maybe they don't want to? They seem to like their knitted scarves, art-house films and interpretative dance about marine life quite a lot. Going for high-profile store-like projects doesn't actually guarantee success (they may get whacked by litigation, or people may become disillusioned) and puts their primary goal at risk.
mstank 14y ago
There's also an issue with the media talking about Kickstarter products like they already exist. In the case of Lifx, article titles like "Australian re-invents the lightbulb" mislead the public and perpetuate the belief that people are purchasing actual products and not merely funding idea that may come into fruition. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=lifx+light&oq=lifx+light&gs_l https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&#3...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
robomartin 14y ago
I welcome these changes. They might seem draconian at first, but I think it could do wonders to protect project supporters. It could also serve to protect neophyte project originators who have no clue as to what it takes to get a hardware project from a rendering or a garage prototype to a real finished product. There are a myriad of technologies available today to produce very high quality prototypes that look like the finished product. Forcing project originators to show an actual product rather than a rendering will simply force them to make the time and financial investment to get the project to a far deeper level of completion and really think it all thorough. If someone will not take the time and spend the money to put together a prototype that is a real representation of what it is they are proposing I don't think they belong on Kickstarter. I would imagine that it would still be OK to show renderings and animations so long as the actual physical product is shown as well. The reason I think this is important is that this can also show supporters important details that may not be evident or easy to demonstrate with actual products. For example, animations could show internal mechanism and how they work. 3D renderings could show ideas on variants or configurations for backers to discuss and provide feedback for. I have a couple of projects that have been slated for Kickstarter for months. I've been too busy with work to really get to them. In both cases my approach has been to fully develop the items to the point that they are basically ready to manufacture. The Kickstarter push would simply serve to gage interest and pay for tooling and other NRE's that would make it possible to fabricate the items in reasonable quantities at a decent cost. Of course, I've been in product design and manufacturing for a long, long time so I tend to be very realistic about what it takes to get something done. I've seen projects go on Kickstarter that would not have a chance in hell to be completed at the requested funding level. Not a good thing. Above all, what this indicates is that Kickstarter is watching and listening, which is excellent.
- ajross 14y ago
  Indeed. The implication here is that, generally, "Hardware and Product Design" projects always fail. But rather than ban them entirely, they are simply preventing anyone from "marketing" them. So you can still do a hardware project, you just have to sell it via the plan and specs only, without sexy adornment. That seems fair.
rickdale 14y ago
Not going to lie, I backed my first kickstarter project the other day with Boosted Boards. When I decided to back it my thought process was "Oh, get it in May, perfect timing for my brothers birthday"... now I understand, it might never come.
labizaboffle 14y ago
Two recent things come to mind, Ouya and the Tesla museum. Both offered items with purchase, but the Ouya items included the Ouya itself. That presents a problem that I didn't realize until now, which is that a store has to do a lot of things relating to paying taxes, etc., when being a store was not the intent of kickstarter, so... I get it. They are not a store. However, with the Tesla thing and related projects, I think that this gets into a really grey area- and from past experience with helping with a large site that took donations- you have to subtract the items that have value from the donation, so they have to do this if anything is given away, or at least the recipient does if they are a charity/non-profit. Was the Tesla thing a non-profit? And not allowing 3D renderings of hardware is a bad idea. For example, if you have a valid design for something and need the money to have it fabricated, then the sponsor should be able to see the design. Not being able to do so is lame. Sometimes the design is the hard part. That is a valuable asset. It should be rewarded with money to see it through. Why place someone with no design and someone with a design on equal footing. They aren't. It's not just about fairness, it is about being able to invest in something with a future. No design- no future. Good design- possible future.
- binarycrusader 14y ago
  The kickstarter rules only limit the content on the kickstarter website. I don't see anything that precludes them from showing design concepts on a different website. So if you want to impress people with your project on the kickstarter website, you'll have to stick to actual content.
melvinmt 14y ago
New idea for startup: Kickstarter for New Hardware and Product Design. "Now WITH renders."
zokier 14y ago
I wonder why they disallowed selling vapor hardware but still allow equally vapor software? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if vapor software would bring significant portion of kickstarters income, so banning it would harm significantly their bottom line.
esalazar 14y ago
In my opinion, Kickstarter is just a futures market for Goods/Services. When they come out and say, "What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?", it just sounds like Futures are dangerous, risky, and you might loose your money. I don't think you can call them a traditional store, but you can definitely call them a Futures Store.
FooBarWidget 14y ago
I still don't understand how Kickstarter is different from Pledgie, from which has been around for much longer. At first I thought that Kickstarter would hold the funds for the backers and return the funds if the project fails, but that appears not to be the case. How is Kickstarter anything more than a Donate button, a donation counter and a mailing list?
- marknutter 14y ago
  The hold the funds until the funding round is over. If the goal is met, it's a success, otherwise it's a failure and everyone gets their money back. It'd be much harder to determine what exactly constitutes a "failure" of a project.
  - FooBarWidget 14y ago
    What about all those articles that talk about projects that failed to deliver and backers that never got their money back?
  - cube13 14y ago
    They don't even charge until the funding round is over, actually.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  With Kickstarter, if you get the money you said you needed you actually get it. It sounds like what you're talking about, you'd have to still completely finance the project yourself with the understanding that you get that money if it works out. Completely different (and pointless?) thing.
jmilloy 14y ago
As others have said, it seems like KS is preferring projects which, already having functional prototypes, just need the capital to produce a commercially viable product in quantity. But, I think some projects need funding to even be able produce a prototype. To be able to show the mock-up is essential to describe the product potential backers. I would like to see a separate (new) category for product&design projects at this stage. The projects would explicitly be looking for funding to create the prototype, with no promise to deliver a finished product. If a project is backed and delivers a working prototype, but now needs funding for the next step, they could return to Kickstarter for another round. Backers who want to fund product ideas could do so (likely with smaller pledges), and no one is tricked into a large backing thinking they will get a working product in the mail in three months. Traditional startups get venture capital in rounds; why not crowd-sourced capital in rounds?
trhtrsh 14y ago
> Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. The GoldieBlox are in violation of this bizarre rule. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4550707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4550707 Why not just say "The developer must declare their planned production run, and not accept excess backers"?
tibbon 14y ago
I've been saying this for a while, and I'm glad they are working on clarification. Yes, this will lower some of the astronomical numbers that some projects are seeing- but I'm not sure if hitting 10mm is to anyone's benefit really. It needs to be understood that there is risk associated with this, no guarantees, and that it isn't a straight up purchase transaction like going to the store or preordering an iPhone.
shloime 14y ago
Kickstarter may not be a store, but http://outgrow.me/ http://outgrow.me/ is.
techtalsky 14y ago
The rule against showing a render seems just a little rough. In some cases I think a render of a product is important and it seems like really crippling a hardware project if they can't show the design of the product. I get why, but that seems like the toughest of the restrictions to me.

428 points by benackles 14y ago

I think the move from product simulations/renderings to solely being able to show what the product can do now is a great change. I've been critical about some of the usages of Kickstarter in the past, but this addresses a big part of my concerns. I do hope that it doesn't keep products that are in a rough state from being able to be successful, though if somethings really that complex that you need to raise a lot of money to have a marketable prototype, let alone bring it to market, I don't think Kickstarter donations are the way to fund it.

andrewljohnson 14y ago

What a measured, interesting, and social response. As programmers, we often try and fix things with code, but it's cool to see Kickstarter improve their product by thinking about what questions the creators should be asking. I also agree that hardware makers do themselves and other a disservice by showing space age renderings of their products.

stefanobernardi 14y ago

This is a very honorable move from Kickstarter, forcing themselves to follow their mission vs immediate revenues. This is how every company should operate. And this will definitely improve their long-term shape and revenues.

saurik 14y ago
It isn't just revenues: having people who think they are buying things (or probably worse: think they are selling things) but aren't really (as there are risks and this is all just contributing money to possible futures) has legal and accounting (eg. sales tax) ramifications that kickstarter was not previously, not seemed to have any signs of in the future, addressing.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

Hmm. They needed to make some sort of move, but banning simulations and renderings (Really?) seems to be terrible overkill. If anything, this move makes it much more a store. You can only put up products that exist. There's no funding of development. Not sure this is a good solution on their part. EDIT: Fully in support of the "Risks and Challenges" section. Makes it like an investment prospectus.

nettdata 14y ago
I agree. I think a good compromise would be to ensure that anything that was a simulation or rendering was very obviously labeled as such, so that there would be absolutely no doubt in the viewer's mind.
guelo 14y ago
The problems is skilled designers are starting to pull off big time scams fooling people for hundreds of thousands of dollars. People see realistic renderings of a hoverboard or whatever and they immediately open their wallets without realizing that their is very little chance that they will be able to pull it off. If people see a skateboard with some glued-on fans they will be much more skeptical.
- sharkweek 14y ago
  I asked this a while back and the answer was pretty much "no" -- but I'm curious if that's changed. Have there recently been any high profile examples of fraud through crowdfunding sites?
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  Can we actually prove fraud in any of these cases, though? I'm not saying it can't happen, or that it hasn't happened. But we should never attribute to malice what can be more readily attributed to stupidity. I'm more inclined to believe that a bunch of people got in over their heads than that a bunch of people intentionally scammed backers. I may be wrong. But can someone point to some concrete examples? Fraud is a pretty heavy charge to level against Kickstarter projects, and it's also an indirect accusation that Kickstarter is a hotbed of such activity.

fruchtose 14y ago

Personally, I would prefer a hybrid approach--projects cannot show only simulations/rendering. If a project presents these things, it must also present the current state of the ideas being rendered. You're developing a spacefaring action game? By all means, show me that you want to have planets, stars, and space pirates--but if all you have right now is a spaceship object floating in an environment without a skybox, I want to see that, too.

guelo 14y ago
The rendering ban only applies to hardware products. Video games are not affected.
- fruchtose 14y ago
  Looks like I skimmed too quickly then.

lifeformed 14y ago

Renderings seem useful in helping viewers visualize what the goal is. Maybe instead they should enforce that renders have to have an accompanying text disclaimer? Kind of like medicine commercials and their side effects.

steve8918 14y ago

This is a good idea, kudos to them for making this move to help alleviate a lot confusion on behalf of funders. I think what they need to do is have milestones for their project that can get vetted by Kickstarter. For each milestone they hit, more funds get released to them. This will allow funders to get out if they keep missing their milestones, and the project looks like it's going downhill.

001sky 14y ago
-- This staged financing concept is why they do vc in rounds a, b, c etc.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

gojomo 14y ago

I think "Product renderings are prohibited", and to a lesser extent "Product simulations are prohibited", run against the emphasized goal being "a new way for creators and audiences to work together to make things". When something doesn't yet exist, you have to present speculative representations to communicate (or even rationally discuss!) the vision. That goes double for a wider audience, which may not be as accustomed to letting their imagination range over exotic possibilities. Such mockups should be clearly labeled, and placed alongside current-best-prototype representations for comparison, and disclaimerized as with the new 'Risks and Challenges' requirement. But before Kickstarter, more traditional investors and prepurchasers -- and indeed internal organization R&D and product-development processes -- would use and expect such representations for design communication. Why cripple the new model with this encumbrance?

001sky 14y ago
These guys are New York, and it seems like their leagal-eagle's have raised some concerns. This does not smell like bus-dev, or pr, or typical CEO brainstorming at work. so, it would be very fascinating to see what they are seeing internally. we can speculate, but that's not likely going to get us the same look at the situation.
- zacharycohn 14y ago
  I disagree. If huge product failures/not-quite-scams-but-might-as-well-be keep happening, people will loose faith in the Kickstarter brand. This is them protecting themselves, and their community.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    If the real motive is to prevent scams/failures-to-deliver, that's OK. But that's almost the opposite concern from the headline -- "not a store" -- about just using Kickstarter as a channel for moving already-developed, riskless product inventory.

ck2 14y ago

100% simple solution to this. DO NOT ALLOW listings to offer the product described as a reward. Will solve the problem entirely, guaranteed.

evan_ 14y ago
This is a kickstarter for: An awesome t-shirt with a picture of an Android-based game console we're developing on it. Rewards: $180 A new Android-based game console.
- ck2 14y ago
  All listings are reviewed by humans before published so this kind of trickery wouldn't work.
LoneWolf 14y ago
Agreed, what annoys me more in kickstarter are projects that use it as a way to get preorders. Existing a finished product or not to me seems to go away from funding the project its just a way to buy and sell
alex_c 14y ago
This would kill Kickstarter.
- ck2 14y ago
  Either kickstarter is investment or it's a preorders store, it needs to pick one, it cannot be both. If someone is really behind the concept for a product, they can just buy the product after it's available in an online store. I could easily see this becoming a legal requirement if it gets visible to legislature.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > Either kickstarter is investment or it's a pre-sale store, it needs to pick one, it cannot be both. The way Kickstarter presents itself, it's neither - it's not an investment; it's a way for creators and consumers to collaborate on a project. That's subtly different from an investment per se, (Whether you agree with that is a different question, but it's important to note how Kickstarter intends to portray itself).

smoyer 14y ago

For software products, it's pretty hard for them to tell the difference between a simulation/rendering and the real thing. If I show a finished UI, it will appear to be fully functional and polished, but there may not be any back-end at all. I often create a fake persistence layer to allow for faster development of the UI. How would they be able to tell the difference? And it's actually not violating the rules at all right?

siganakis 14y ago
The simulation/rendering rule is only for "Hardware and Product Design Projects", not software.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  Are you sure? Software could conceivably fall under "Product".
  - MartinCron 14y ago
    From the comments in the linked blog, there was this comment "The new guideline prohibiting renderings applies only to projects categorized as Product Design or Hardware. Other categories, including Games, are not affected." which came from Kickstarter's community manager.
  - jere 14y ago
    Everything on the site could conceivably fall into "Product". It seems fairly clear to me that they are just trying to prevent these kind of shenanigans: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jpg http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jp... http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter-vaporware-of-the-day-lifx-edition/ http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter...
    - makomk 14y ago
      There are a bunch of obvious technical mistakes in that, not least of which is that you're not effectively buying a WeMo and getting the bulb for free; only the more expensive master bulb will have WiFi support and the rest will talk to it over much cheaper 802.15.4 mesh networking.

ghshephard 14y ago

I find it fascinating how Kickstarter is starting to adopt some of the same cautions that we see in an S1/Prospectus, "“What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”" As a long time burner, it was interesting to me how year after year, the playa adopted many (but not all) of the rules, regulations, restrictions of the outside world. We had a DMV (Department of Mutan Vehicles), Building Regulations (for buildings over a certain height), developed clinics, and ambulance services - etc... It will be interesting to see, over time, how kickstarter adopts many of the SEC mandated governance over new enterprises going to the market for funding. Reading through all the regulations though - it feels like 90% (100%?) are in response to this: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-light-bulb-reinvented?ref=live http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-light... I'm sure a LOT of people watched that video, and thought that the LIFX lightbulb exists (or almost exists) in it's current incarnation. Also, there are a lot of people supporting for $500 in the belief that they'll get 10 lightbulbs - I wonder how many of those backers don't realize their is a better than even chance that this project will come to nothing, and they'll get nothing but good feelings for their money?

olalonde 14y ago

When Ouya raised over a million dollars within 24 hours a few weeks ago, they specifically wrote: "In just 24 hours, 20,000 people bought an Ouya console"[0]. They should be more careful with their choice of words in the future if they really want to reflect that "Kickstarter is not a store". [0] http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day

mcphilip 14y ago
The change in terminology would seem to imply that Kickstarter is now wising up to the fact that there will inevitably be a high profile failure to deliver in the near future and is now trying to preempt criticism against Kickstarter not laying out clearly enough the risks involved in backing a project. I welcome this change and think that it will help in the long run.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  There's already been a high profile failure to deliver, and it was a software project. Diaspora. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-p...
  - sneak 14y ago
    People are used to big software budgets producing nothing. It's an entirely different value proposition failure when they paid $100 expecting to receive a light bulb or gaming console only to end up empty-handed.
  - pbreit 14y ago
    Except that Diaspora is alive and delivered on its project. https://www.joindiaspora.com https://www.joindiaspora.com https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora
    - blutonium 14y ago

mparlane 14y ago

I find it funny how the Oculus Rift's front image is a rendering, and not because they can't do it. But because they want you to see the final design that they have created.

raldi 14y ago

I don't really get the ban on multiple reward tiers for hardware. Anyone got an example of something that used this to abuse users in the past?

waterlesscloud 14y ago
The Lifx lightbulb is specific in setting multiple products shipped per multiple dollar amount.
- raldi 14y ago
  So what bad thing did that lead to?
  - rm999 14y ago
    They are making two simultaneous points: 1. Projects are over-promising and under-delivering 2. Kickstarter isn't a store and was never meant to be one. People have turned it into one, leading to all sorts of issues, including point #1 I think when you are asking for examples of abuse you are thinking of the first point, but the 'no multiple products' rule addresses #2. You aren't buying a product, you are backing a project. If you want multiple lightbulbs, presumably you can purchase them after the project is funded. In other words, I don't think the rule is to prevent abuse, it's to bring kickstarter back to its roots and remind people what kickstarter is all about. It may hurt some projects but hopefully it will revert kickstarter to its original niche where it was adding a lot of value.
    - makomk 14y ago
      Of course, since LIFX is planned as a networked bulb you can't actually get the full functionality of it if you just order one. Also, for some of the smaller Kickstarter hardware projects the creator actually has no intention of launching them as a commercial product at all - they're essentially group buys allowing hobbyists to offer something they've designed to other hobbyists for less than the cost of building it themselves.
14y ago

fratis 14y ago

This is a sensible list of new rules. This is a quintessential exercise in changing user expectations and behavior. This is great UX, especially in a platform-type environment in which the platform managers aren’t always able to curate the content created by the platform users.

wissler 14y ago

No simulations or renderings to show the vision that's being pursued? Beyond stupid. It's insane. I'd speculate that it's probably a requirement driven by lawyers worried about failed projects conferring some kind of liability onto Kickstarter itself.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Nicely done, hope it is enough to protect them from the lawyers.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago

Smart move. AirBnB waited until scandal broke out and then tried to put out the fire. We were/are dangerously close to a major scandal happening on Kickstarter.

prezjordan 14y ago
What was the major scandal?
- Roedou 14y ago
  A user's home was trashed: http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-airbnb-as-users-home-is-utterly-trashed/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-air...

mistercow 14y ago

That's a start, but I still think that allowing hardware projects to offer arbitrary, open-ended numbers of end-product rewards is a mistake. Suddenly being expected to produce 100 times as many units as you planned is not, as people so often say "a good problem to have". It's just "a problem". Yes, the general tendency is for marginal cost to decrease as production quantity increases, but that does not mean that it's a smooth curve. Instead, the line is jagged, littered with points where large investments need to be made. For an open-ended product, you get investors, hire extra people, buy equipment, etc. You'll end up taking a short-term loss that will be earned back in the long term. For a close-ended project like Kickstarter allows, you'll have the short-term loss, but no long-term profit. And that's if you have experience and connections to pull off manufacturing and courting investors. If you're hawking a project on Kickstarter, it's pretty likely that you have neither.

vannevar 14y ago

This was becoming a real issue for Kickstarter. Many of the recent high profile 'projects' were companies (particularly game developers/publishers and consumer products manufacturers) effectively taking pre-orders through Kickstarter and using those funds to develop the product. As the channel through which the orders were placed (and the party that that receives the money and takes a cut), I think a good legal argument could be made that Kickstarter is a store, and thus would have to comply with the UCC and other laws (including the various Deceptive Trade Practices acts across the country) applying to retail.

anigbrowl 14y ago

The ban on mutliple rewards is interesting. While there have been no tears shed over ~$1000 going to finance the Makey Makey project, there's a mildly awkward silence every time we try to figure out what we're going to do with 30 of them. It's also true that cannibalizing a old keyboard would have delivered the same functionality... ఠ_ఠ

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

aorshan 14y ago

Though I completely understand where kickstarter is coming from with their decision, I have a bit of a gripe with their choice to prevent projects from showing renderings and requiring actual photos. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked the purpose of kickstarter was to help people get their ideas off the ground. Some types of products, especially hardware, can cost a lot of money to produce at a prototype stage. Not everyone has the cash lying around to spend hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to build a functional prototype. So normally what that person would do is put together some renderings and a video and go to kickstarter to raise the funds to expand into prototypes and production. Now what are they to do? Ultimately I think this decision by kickstarter gives a tremendous advantage to design shops with the budgets to build prototypes, while leaving the little guy behind.

erohead 14y ago

Wow. This is a major move. Pebble (my project) would not be possible now.

weej 14y ago
Agreed. It's hard to get your average consumer and investor excited about a product they cannot visualize. Kuddos on the Pebble project. It's an amazing product, and I can't wait to see you guys release to market. Cheers!
- erohead 14y ago
  I understand the problem that the Kickstarter founders are facing, but I don't think this is the right (or even close to the correct) solution. Despite saying "kickstarter is not a store" in the title, their rules basically force project creators to physically show exactly what they're planning to deliver...making it even more of a store. Thanks! Working 24-7 to get these watches out, blogging here: kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/
mmahemoff 14y ago
Congrats on Pebble so far. Sorry, I can't see what would prohibit the project here? Maybe the language would need to be more restrained, but I doubt that would harm the funding too much.
- scottschulthess 14y ago
  I think it would be hard to market a product without being able to show prototypes and mockups and whatnot.
hypersoar 14y ago
You think so? My mind went to your project when I saw the OP. I heard second-hand that you guys were showing off a prototype at Google I/O which consisted of the watch casing with a display connected to external (not yet miniaturized) electronics. This seems to fit Kickstarter's new regulations. Would something like this not have been possible before you got funded? The reason I felt comfortable backing guys is because you guys had already delivered a product to market. A description or early prototype demonstrating what you were trying to make - almost exactly what I had pictured as my ideal smartwatch before you launched - and my wallet would have been open.

idanb 14y ago

I see this as a very welcome addition to the public stance of Kickstarter with regards to physical products (which it's been relatively quiet about). One of the reasons we chose Kickstarter as a platform to get our product off the ground was the fact that it would allow us flexibility and freedom to get our prototypes to full scale manufacturing, which were already relatively mature in their stage of production (tooling already complete, near final hardware etc). Lots of things can go wrong at every stage after you have a final production sample. You still need to get the sample certified by a number of governing bodies, set up QC and shipping, and in the case of overseas manufacturing deal with the freight/customs and finally fulfillment of the product. I'm happy that Kickstarter is taking more of stance on the subject, as we've had to in many cases provide "returns" to people or deal with "customer service" style requests, which we've done in good faith but it really misses the point of launching a product on Kickstarter. I think this stance will really help back up projects when they need to make an adjustment, or have to deal with something unexpected. Also, it should improve the quality of projects moving forward by making people more skeptical and aware of the time/cost-instability of the manufacturing process. We were lucky to hit a pretty happy medium with regards to initial volume, and unlike some of the blockbuster projects when we have to change things we don't end up on TechCrunch for it, only the Guardian :)

shuri 14y ago

It takes a lot of character to look at a lot of money in the eye and say no thanks.

Karunamon 14y ago

Really? No renders? So how are you supposed to communicate what you want to build? Terrible move. Require renders and sims to be clearly labeled as such, but this? FFS.

weej 14y ago

I for one would be more interested in general success rate. I'm not talking return on investment, but more so on how many projects actually come to fruition and deliver at any level. This is outside the fraudulent activity. It's more out of my sheer, selfish interest in rate of success. I could see such data publication helping and hurting Kickstarter. It could be inspiring and generate even more interest (aka revenue), but also expose the lack of completion and high failure rate turning off investors.

imrehg 14y ago

Well, if people think it's a store, then it might be a store. Sign of a successful platform that it goes in directions that you have not expected. Though it is also a sign of failed communication. The question is now whether you want to bring the project back onto the originally envisioned path, or figure out how to ride the waves of these unexpected changes?

riledhel 14y ago
After reading the news, I keep thinking "aren't they missing something?". Can't they seize this audience that come to the site to buy stuff? Maybe a spin-off from the original kickstarter, specially tailored as a sales platform.
- LaGrange 14y ago
  Maybe they don't want to? They seem to like their knitted scarves, art-house films and interpretative dance about marine life quite a lot. Going for high-profile store-like projects doesn't actually guarantee success (they may get whacked by litigation, or people may become disillusioned) and puts their primary goal at risk.

mstank 14y ago

There's also an issue with the media talking about Kickstarter products like they already exist. In the case of Lifx, article titles like "Australian re-invents the lightbulb" mislead the public and perpetuate the belief that people are purchasing actual products and not merely funding idea that may come into fruition. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=lifx+light&oq=lifx+light&gs_l https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&#3...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

robomartin 14y ago

I welcome these changes. They might seem draconian at first, but I think it could do wonders to protect project supporters. It could also serve to protect neophyte project originators who have no clue as to what it takes to get a hardware project from a rendering or a garage prototype to a real finished product. There are a myriad of technologies available today to produce very high quality prototypes that look like the finished product. Forcing project originators to show an actual product rather than a rendering will simply force them to make the time and financial investment to get the project to a far deeper level of completion and really think it all thorough. If someone will not take the time and spend the money to put together a prototype that is a real representation of what it is they are proposing I don't think they belong on Kickstarter. I would imagine that it would still be OK to show renderings and animations so long as the actual physical product is shown as well. The reason I think this is important is that this can also show supporters important details that may not be evident or easy to demonstrate with actual products. For example, animations could show internal mechanism and how they work. 3D renderings could show ideas on variants or configurations for backers to discuss and provide feedback for. I have a couple of projects that have been slated for Kickstarter for months. I've been too busy with work to really get to them. In both cases my approach has been to fully develop the items to the point that they are basically ready to manufacture. The Kickstarter push would simply serve to gage interest and pay for tooling and other NRE's that would make it possible to fabricate the items in reasonable quantities at a decent cost. Of course, I've been in product design and manufacturing for a long, long time so I tend to be very realistic about what it takes to get something done. I've seen projects go on Kickstarter that would not have a chance in hell to be completed at the requested funding level. Not a good thing. Above all, what this indicates is that Kickstarter is watching and listening, which is excellent.

ajross 14y ago
Indeed. The implication here is that, generally, "Hardware and Product Design" projects always fail. But rather than ban them entirely, they are simply preventing anyone from "marketing" them. So you can still do a hardware project, you just have to sell it via the plan and specs only, without sexy adornment. That seems fair.

rickdale 14y ago

Not going to lie, I backed my first kickstarter project the other day with Boosted Boards. When I decided to back it my thought process was "Oh, get it in May, perfect timing for my brothers birthday"... now I understand, it might never come.

labizaboffle 14y ago

Two recent things come to mind, Ouya and the Tesla museum. Both offered items with purchase, but the Ouya items included the Ouya itself. That presents a problem that I didn't realize until now, which is that a store has to do a lot of things relating to paying taxes, etc., when being a store was not the intent of kickstarter, so... I get it. They are not a store. However, with the Tesla thing and related projects, I think that this gets into a really grey area- and from past experience with helping with a large site that took donations- you have to subtract the items that have value from the donation, so they have to do this if anything is given away, or at least the recipient does if they are a charity/non-profit. Was the Tesla thing a non-profit? And not allowing 3D renderings of hardware is a bad idea. For example, if you have a valid design for something and need the money to have it fabricated, then the sponsor should be able to see the design. Not being able to do so is lame. Sometimes the design is the hard part. That is a valuable asset. It should be rewarded with money to see it through. Why place someone with no design and someone with a design on equal footing. They aren't. It's not just about fairness, it is about being able to invest in something with a future. No design- no future. Good design- possible future.

binarycrusader 14y ago
The kickstarter rules only limit the content on the kickstarter website. I don't see anything that precludes them from showing design concepts on a different website. So if you want to impress people with your project on the kickstarter website, you'll have to stick to actual content.

melvinmt 14y ago

New idea for startup: Kickstarter for New Hardware and Product Design. "Now WITH renders."

zokier 14y ago

I wonder why they disallowed selling vapor hardware but still allow equally vapor software? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if vapor software would bring significant portion of kickstarters income, so banning it would harm significantly their bottom line.

esalazar 14y ago

In my opinion, Kickstarter is just a futures market for Goods/Services. When they come out and say, "What are the risks and challenges this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?", it just sounds like Futures are dangerous, risky, and you might loose your money. I don't think you can call them a traditional store, but you can definitely call them a Futures Store.

FooBarWidget 14y ago

I still don't understand how Kickstarter is different from Pledgie, from which has been around for much longer. At first I thought that Kickstarter would hold the funds for the backers and return the funds if the project fails, but that appears not to be the case. How is Kickstarter anything more than a Donate button, a donation counter and a mailing list?

marknutter 14y ago
The hold the funds until the funding round is over. If the goal is met, it's a success, otherwise it's a failure and everyone gets their money back. It'd be much harder to determine what exactly constitutes a "failure" of a project.
- FooBarWidget 14y ago
  What about all those articles that talk about projects that failed to deliver and backers that never got their money back?
- cube13 14y ago
  They don't even charge until the funding round is over, actually.
flyinRyan 14y ago
With Kickstarter, if you get the money you said you needed you actually get it. It sounds like what you're talking about, you'd have to still completely finance the project yourself with the understanding that you get that money if it works out. Completely different (and pointless?) thing.

jmilloy 14y ago

As others have said, it seems like KS is preferring projects which, already having functional prototypes, just need the capital to produce a commercially viable product in quantity. But, I think some projects need funding to even be able produce a prototype. To be able to show the mock-up is essential to describe the product potential backers. I would like to see a separate (new) category for product&design projects at this stage. The projects would explicitly be looking for funding to create the prototype, with no promise to deliver a finished product. If a project is backed and delivers a working prototype, but now needs funding for the next step, they could return to Kickstarter for another round. Backers who want to fund product ideas could do so (likely with smaller pledges), and no one is tricked into a large backing thinking they will get a working product in the mail in three months. Traditional startups get venture capital in rounds; why not crowd-sourced capital in rounds?

trhtrsh 14y ago

> Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited. The GoldieBlox are in violation of this bizarre rule. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4550707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4550707 Why not just say "The developer must declare their planned production run, and not accept excess backers"?

tibbon 14y ago

I've been saying this for a while, and I'm glad they are working on clarification. Yes, this will lower some of the astronomical numbers that some projects are seeing- but I'm not sure if hitting 10mm is to anyone's benefit really. It needs to be understood that there is risk associated with this, no guarantees, and that it isn't a straight up purchase transaction like going to the store or preordering an iPhone.

shloime 14y ago

Kickstarter may not be a store, but http://outgrow.me/ http://outgrow.me/ is.

techtalsky 14y ago

The rule against showing a render seems just a little rough. In some cases I think a render of a product is important and it seems like really crippling a hardware project if they can't show the design of the product. I get why, but that seems like the toughest of the restrictions to me.