4 ms·

Kickstarter certainly did open the door to these styles of private hardware-funding campaigns. And given how successful private Kickstarter-esque launches can b

Kickstarter certainly did open the door to these styles of private hardware-funding campaigns. And given how successful private Kickstarter-esque launches can be (App.net, Lockitron), I can't see myself trying Kickstarter -- I would go the private route first. From the article: """ A brief e-mail exchange ensued, culminating with a firm “No” – stating that Lockitron fell into the “home improvement” category of prohibited projects. """ Maybe it is HN bias, but all past popular Kickstarter launches seem to be products that would now be prohibited. I think Kickstarter is writing their own fate by not allowing these things. All the new popular launches are going to go off-site. There are probably legal implications (and other problems) that come with being a "store" and Kickstarter does clearly not want that. But I can't envision the future of Kickstarter unless they come up with a solution to the store problem (and not by outright banning store-like products).

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Maybe it is HN bias, but all past popular Kickstarter launches seem to be products that would now be prohibited. I think Kickstarter is writing their own fate by not allowing these things. All the new popular launches are going to go off-site. Watching Kickstarter and the various multi-million dollar projects, the liability question was getting more and more important. And even when you've tried to be very up front where the liability is, that doesn't stop angry people from suing you. And that, is not a fun way to live. So Kickstarter gets more and more explicit in their liability language and rules and that shuts down folks who might otherwise have participated. So I don't know if its 'fate' so much as a hard way to do a business.
- mikeknoop 14y ago
  Someone suggested this below. Maybe they should pivot (slightly, more like adding a new feature) and offer a Kickstarter-as-a-service SDK to products that would fall outside their liability-acceptance zone. That way they can still take their cut and offer a valuable service to folks who want to offer funding campaigns. EDIT: For clarity, the idea is Kickstarter provides some sort of white-labelled page to show a counter and collect/skim funds. I have to imagine liability falls back to the originating company at that point.
  - iamdave 14y ago
    Maybe they should pivot (slightly, more like adding a new feature) and offer a Kickstarter-as-a-service SDK to products that would fall outside their liability-acceptance zone. This seems like a natural, albeit complicated and delicate evolution. It shifts the burden from ks on high-risk projects elsewhere and in doing so can put it in the hands of people with experience navigating the niche-fields. It further expands and helps crowdfunding grow; go for it I say.
  - toomuchtodo 14y ago
    Stackoverflow charges ~$200/month to have your own QA site on their platform. I'd drop at least a couple hundred bucks a month on my own Kickstarter SaaS site that funds R&D science/technology research. If you're on the Kickstarter team, read this ,and are interested, get in touch. I have my credit card in hand.
stdbrouw 14y ago
I've sponsored Lauren Ipsum (a book about computer science for kids), the recording of a country music CD, an archiving project by Jason Scott (of archive.org), homicidewatch.org and the restoration of an old printing press among others. Most under $10k, all under $50k. These are small projects but they're the vast majority of what you'll find on Kickstarter. They all got funded and as such are successful by their own standards. I always got my rewards, too. Huge projects that require hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, like games and hardware, are a relatively recent phenomenon on Kickstarter. And while those projects are potentially more transformative, I wouldn't mind at all if Kickstarter decides that that game is too risky to play for them.
- varikin 14y ago
  Do you have a link to the printing press one? Edit: I think I found it: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355732839/save-a-piece-of-printing-and-cultural-history http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355732839/save-a-piece-o... I was interested cause my wife does a lot with printing presses and we have a C&P platen press.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Maybe it is HN bias, but all past popular Kickstarter launches seem to be products that would now be prohibited. I think Kickstarter is writing their own fate by not allowing these things. All the new popular launches are going to go off-site. Watching Kickstarter and the various multi-million dollar projects, the liability question was getting more and more important. And even when you've tried to be very up front where the liability is, that doesn't stop angry people from suing you. And that, is not a fun way to live. So Kickstarter gets more and more explicit in their liability language and rules and that shuts down folks who might otherwise have participated. So I don't know if its 'fate' so much as a hard way to do a business.

mikeknoop 14y ago
Someone suggested this below. Maybe they should pivot (slightly, more like adding a new feature) and offer a Kickstarter-as-a-service SDK to products that would fall outside their liability-acceptance zone. That way they can still take their cut and offer a valuable service to folks who want to offer funding campaigns. EDIT: For clarity, the idea is Kickstarter provides some sort of white-labelled page to show a counter and collect/skim funds. I have to imagine liability falls back to the originating company at that point.
- iamdave 14y ago
  Maybe they should pivot (slightly, more like adding a new feature) and offer a Kickstarter-as-a-service SDK to products that would fall outside their liability-acceptance zone. This seems like a natural, albeit complicated and delicate evolution. It shifts the burden from ks on high-risk projects elsewhere and in doing so can put it in the hands of people with experience navigating the niche-fields. It further expands and helps crowdfunding grow; go for it I say.
- toomuchtodo 14y ago
  Stackoverflow charges ~$200/month to have your own QA site on their platform. I'd drop at least a couple hundred bucks a month on my own Kickstarter SaaS site that funds R&D science/technology research. If you're on the Kickstarter team, read this ,and are interested, get in touch. I have my credit card in hand.

stdbrouw 14y ago

I've sponsored Lauren Ipsum (a book about computer science for kids), the recording of a country music CD, an archiving project by Jason Scott (of archive.org), homicidewatch.org and the restoration of an old printing press among others. Most under $10k, all under $50k. These are small projects but they're the vast majority of what you'll find on Kickstarter. They all got funded and as such are successful by their own standards. I always got my rewards, too. Huge projects that require hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding, like games and hardware, are a relatively recent phenomenon on Kickstarter. And while those projects are potentially more transformative, I wouldn't mind at all if Kickstarter decides that that game is too risky to play for them.

varikin 14y ago
Do you have a link to the printing press one? Edit: I think I found it: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355732839/save-a-piece-of-printing-and-cultural-history http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/355732839/save-a-piece-o... I was interested cause my wife does a lot with printing presses and we have a C&P platen press.