7 ms·

I love kickstarter, I really do. There's a lot of issues with the way capital is currently generated that puts the small guy at a disadvantage. However, I real

by deelowe 14y ago

I love kickstarter, I really do. There's a lot of issues with the way capital is currently generated that puts the small guy at a disadvantage. However, I really think the kickstarter team needs to take a closer look at how things are going today. This is but one example. Out of the many kickstarters I've contributed to, only one has shipped and only one more appears to have had any progress in the past 6 months. My friends have had very similar experiences and all of us have said we probably won't be contributing as much for a while. It kind of ruins the idea if a very large percentage of the projects fail or are halted (e.g. trademark disputes).

qznc 14y ago
If you consider Kickstarter projects as startups, then a 10% success rate is ok. Is something like am 80% success rate for kickstarter projects desirable? They probably would have to implement much higher barriers for applicants then.
- Ntrails 14y ago
  That depends on whether kickstarter can continue to generate sufficient revenue once people get "disillusioned". Otherwise someone else will come along with a similar concept but stricter rules and a higher potential success rate etc etc
- potatolicious 14y ago
  But Kickstarters aren't startups. This is specifically an avenue for lower-capital, lower-risk businesses to get the money they need to deliver products. If you're an angel or VC, the low success rate is countered by the large upside - a Kickstarter has no upside besides the cool t-shirt/game/gadget you were promised. The risk needs to be commensurate with that.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    Kickstarter does have an upside: The option of actually receiving a project that was deemed commercially unviable by a VC or other investor/company. Something that no one wanted to produce since "there is no market for it". So by becoming a backer you might end up with a product that otherwise would not be available. Granted, it's a small upside, but the risk is also lower.
    - graysnorf 14y ago
      An additional upside for some projects: you may actively dislike many distributors/publishers for some industry and want to support indie production.
  - jiggy2011 14y ago
    So basically, a lemon market. When I see for example a kickstarter game that has a $20 price tag for a pre-order "donation" that seems like reasonable value. If however the delivery rate is only 1/10 then that game actually costs me $200 (since I probably need to fund 10 games in order to get one I can play). Therefor if I only want to pay $20 for a game, I shouldn't pay more than $2 for a pre-order. The result of this is that genuine projects who stand a good chance of delivering have to grossly undercharge for pre-orders which starves them of the level of funding that they actually need.
    - lambda 14y ago
      When funding something, you should consider its likelihood of succeeding and its value to you. If its value is around the price you're funding it at or slightly higher, then you should only fund things which have a high chance of success; from a proven team, that has shipped plenty of products before. For instance, a band that you like that's released several albums and is raising money for a new one, a studio that is developing a new game based on an existing engine, and so on. If it's a riskier campaign, like development of a new hardware product from a new company that has never shipped anything before, or an artist's first album, or some amazing new game with an amazing new engine that has all kinds of really neat features, with a game designer you like but a rookie team, then you should only fund it if it has significantly more value to you than what you are funding. Maybe you just think it's such a good idea, that even trying and failing and learning from that is worth the money you spend. Or maybe you think that it is a game worth $200; it's such a perfect game for you, that you would be willing to shell out $200 for it, or the equivalent, fund 10 such games for $20 and get one working game out of it. Or maybe you're just a big fan of the person you are funding, and don't mind giving them $20 even if you think they might not complete the project. So yes, you should be aware of the risks when funding something; that's why it's funding, and not buying a completed product. You should decide if what you're going to get is worth the risk. Far too many people seem to see Kickstarter as a pre-order system, where the product is basically ready but they want funding to determine how large to make the first batch and fund just the final manufacture. Maybe people think that because it does act that way for some products; but you really should not expect it to work that way for all products. If Kickstarter limited themselves to the pre-order model, that would vastly limit the kinds of things it would be good for. You seem to want only pre-orders, not to fund development, so maybe that would work for you. But some people want to be able to fund riskier, more wild ideas, and accept that risk. I think that they should be able to; the only trick is that there seems to be a good deal of confusion on the part of funders as to which projects are which type; people don't seem to be very good at judging the risks involved when funding a project.
- mikeash 14y ago
  It's not the same game at all, though. When you invest in a startup, you help them make a product which they then try to find customers for. When you back a kickstarter, you're basically pre-ordering the product. A successful kickstarter already has their first run of customers. Startups generally fail when they can't scare up enough business, while kickstarters only fail if they can't actually produce the product they promised.
  - timwiseman 14y ago
    This is an insightful comparison, but its significant to know that it is not actually a preorder. When you preorder you are entitled to demand the product or your money back, but with kickstarter if it fails after a good faith effort you probably have no recourse. With most preorders (not all, but most) the product is near completion when you put in the order, but with kickstarter that product is often little more than plans at the point of pledging. It is similar to a preorder, but the differences matter.
    - mikeash 14y ago
      Agreed. It's a different concept from both startups and preorders, but of the two it's more similar to a preorder. The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that, at the completion of a successful kickstarter, the creators have a guaranteed minimum customer base for the product, which puts them way ahead of the average startup. Success rates should therefore be much higher.
    - makomk 14y ago
      It's not clear the courts would buy this distinction if someone who backed a Kickstarter project did sue, though.
      - timwiseman 14y ago
        I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the courts would see a distinction. Kickstarter goes out of its way to try to make sure people understand that it is not a preorder service, and many projects include a "risks" section specifically talking about how it could fail. There would be a clear case for fraud if the people asking for contributions just took the cash and walked. But in the event of a good faith effort that failed, I think the court would find that the contract was probably upheld. The possibility of failure was always there and what was promised was the effort.
crusso 14y ago
This is why Kickstarter is doomed in its current incarnation. With no sense of accountability, backers will be abused more and more by individuals or groups just looking to spend other peoples' money. Worse, fraud is going to ramp up because it always follows the money and Kickstarter is taking a hands-off approach that will fail. Kickstarter should promote the trust of backers in a similar fashion to the way that Ebay promotes the trust of purchasers. Kickstarter should be seeking to increase accountability in any way that it can through reputation systems, project completion metrics, background checks, and full transparency of the entire process. Besides the sad response to the Arduino founder in this article, I would point to the backer-only forums and updates on each Kickstarter project. How are potential donors to see what's going on in that project?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  >Kickstarter should promote the trust of backers in a similar fashion to the way that Ebay promotes the trust of purchasers. I would certainly hope not. Get screwed by a buyer? Tough luck, deal with it, cost of doing business. Ebay is the most merchant-hostile pack of morons I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with, on par with PayPal. Also, if they go that route (even not into full idiot mode territory like Ebay), their reason for existing will go away - make it more onerous for small startups and individuals to operate while making way for the larger, more organized companies, and Kickstarter as we know it dies. I'm not ready to sacrifice kickstarter on the legislation altar, especially considering how many amazing things have been launched from it and how many more are still in the works. I'd say the occasional trademark kerfluffle is well worth what KS provides.
  - zokier 14y ago
    > Ebay is the most merchant-hostile pack of morons I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with, on par with PayPal. PayPal is owned by ebay. So at least they are consistent :)
- gosub 14y ago
  Would be against Kickstarters' TOS to sell micro-shares of the company making the product? It would be like a distributed yc.
thisone 14y ago
I may not be a friend, but of the 7 projects I've contributed to, 5 have delivered, and two are in active development with weekly updates (software) Some of the things I've back have been on the "sure thing" side (Amanda Palmer) and some on the "hey that's a neat idea" side (obos). But I've never contributed more than I'm willing to lose, even for Wasteland.
incision 14y ago
>Out of the many kickstarters I've contributed to, only one has shipped and only one more appears to have had any progress in the past 6 months. For what it's worth, I've had my own reservations [1]. Since then: - 2/9 have shipped, one precisely on schedule. - 1/9 is shipping now after a forgivable hurricane-related delay and just might meet the schedule. - 1/9 has barely gotten started, but has a relatively generous schedule, veteran team and continuous updates. - 1/9 appears to be just marching right along, unremarkable. - 2/9 are behind schedule, but have been providing enough in the way of updates and/or early access that I remain quite confident. However, I will say that in both cases, their schedules appeared plainly unrealistic from the jump. - 1/9 appears to be floundering and has gone a month or more without updates at times. - 1/9 is so massive and ambitious that I can't help but expect problems even though a lack of updates has been the only issue so far. The impressions I gather from my admittedly tiny data set: 1) If the schedule seems unrealistic, it likely is. One year is probably a good starting point for creating anything from scratch. 2) Exceeding the funding goal seems to correlate to delays. 3) Experience counts. Veterans have performed better at delivering and much better at providing updates. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4323835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4323835
- thechut 14y ago
  I am also in roughly this situation with my Kickstarter backing. I have funded 10 projects over the course of the last 10 or 11 months. And I just received my third item, allow not in the same order I backed. For right now, this has definitely put me off a little from Kickstarter and I am hesitant to back more projects until I receive some of the ones I have already backed.
  - pbreit 14y ago
    Why would they come in the same order of backing?
- GauntletWizard 14y ago
  I need to go through my kickstarter list; I have enough projects backed (100+) that I can start to get data out of it, not just anecdote.
blhack 14y ago
I'm curious what you've funded there. The two things I have funded (a laser cutter for our hackerspace, and The Temple of Juno at Burning Man this year) have both been built, and both have delivered on their prizes. Of course the "I'm going to totally smash an industry with $100,000 and...and....ANDROID!" aren't going to work.
- mememememememe 14y ago
  I only funded those with very specific tasks in mind. I don't fund projects that will spend 6 months. I sponsored two and they both returned. They were small gift ideas. Also on par with ebay issue. I never had any issue with buyer/seller. I only pick the one with photos and really high rating. If you want to buy a whole iMac, good luck on that because some of them arrive DOA and that usually has to do with shipping handler.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
I think this Onion video is very possibly relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqZ65pUQxyQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqZ65pUQxyQ
kfury 14y ago
This comment is about Kickstarter in general, and not about the Smartduino project, right? Even the linked blog post doesn't imply that they're not capable of delivering their product, and looking at their collateral they appear to be very far along, far more mature than the average hardware kickstarter project. I just want to make sure we're not blanket conflating branding concerns with ability to ship, because they're entirely different issues.
shloime 14y ago
You can always order successfully funded Kickstarter projects without the wait: http://outgrow.me/ http://outgrow.me/
bigiain 14y ago
I've also backed a bunch of Kickstarter projects, so far none that have taken my money then failed, but two very ambitious and relatively expensive ones which have my money are running well behind schedule (The Pebble Watch and the ZPM Espresso Machine). I don't regret a cent of that money, and if both/either of the watch or the coffee machine never turn up, I'll be sad - but sad because a great project failed, not sad because I feel any overpowering entitlement to "get my thing". I view all of my Kickstarter pledges as "gifts to people with great ideas" with the understanding that if they can trun the idea into a product/business, they'll send me one. I see _many_ complaints from people who don't view Kickstarter that way, and in one sense I feel sorry for them, because I think it's at least partly Kickstarter's fault and partly some project's fault. The recent changes to KS's hardware policy were clearly aimed at people who thought they were buying products in a shop. I think Kickstarter, and the people starting projects on Kickstarter, need to make things much more clear that it's not an "online shop" - because in spite of words/phrases like "funding platform for creative projects", "funders", "pledges", "projects", and "creators"; I see lots of people, including smart people who I respect, complaining that their "purchase" at Kickstarter isn't turning out as they expected. I think those peoples expectations were wrong, but they still had those expectations, and were still upset when they weren't met. People need to understand there _are_ places where you can buy products online and have them shipped to you within reasonable pre-agreed timeframes. They're called "online stores", there's _heaps_ of them out there - try amazon.com for example, or ebay.com. Kickstarter is _not_ one of those. Kickstarter, and Kickstarter project creators probably need to do a better job of making sure people understand that before taking their money off them.
waterlesscloud 14y ago
I've mostly backed creative projects (films/books) and they've all delivered or are making progress towards delivery, with one notable exception. They mostly run behind, but having worked on more than a couple low-budget film projects myself I fully expected that. It's just how it works. One film project completely halted when a big studio started sniffing around it. Not happy about that one, honestly, but I guess it's good for the people involved. I half-expect nothing will come of the studio interest and then the guy's burned all his bridges on both ends, but I see how he got to the decision he made. I've also backed some large game projects which haven't yet reached their scheduled delivery dates, so we'll see how they go.

by deelowe 14y ago

qznc 14y ago

If you consider Kickstarter projects as startups, then a 10% success rate is ok. Is something like am 80% success rate for kickstarter projects desirable? They probably would have to implement much higher barriers for applicants then.

Ntrails 14y ago
That depends on whether kickstarter can continue to generate sufficient revenue once people get "disillusioned". Otherwise someone else will come along with a similar concept but stricter rules and a higher potential success rate etc etc
potatolicious 14y ago
But Kickstarters aren't startups. This is specifically an avenue for lower-capital, lower-risk businesses to get the money they need to deliver products. If you're an angel or VC, the low success rate is countered by the large upside - a Kickstarter has no upside besides the cool t-shirt/game/gadget you were promised. The risk needs to be commensurate with that.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  Kickstarter does have an upside: The option of actually receiving a project that was deemed commercially unviable by a VC or other investor/company. Something that no one wanted to produce since "there is no market for it". So by becoming a backer you might end up with a product that otherwise would not be available. Granted, it's a small upside, but the risk is also lower.
  - graysnorf 14y ago
    An additional upside for some projects: you may actively dislike many distributors/publishers for some industry and want to support indie production.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  So basically, a lemon market. When I see for example a kickstarter game that has a $20 price tag for a pre-order "donation" that seems like reasonable value. If however the delivery rate is only 1/10 then that game actually costs me $200 (since I probably need to fund 10 games in order to get one I can play). Therefor if I only want to pay $20 for a game, I shouldn't pay more than $2 for a pre-order. The result of this is that genuine projects who stand a good chance of delivering have to grossly undercharge for pre-orders which starves them of the level of funding that they actually need.
  - lambda 14y ago
    When funding something, you should consider its likelihood of succeeding and its value to you. If its value is around the price you're funding it at or slightly higher, then you should only fund things which have a high chance of success; from a proven team, that has shipped plenty of products before. For instance, a band that you like that's released several albums and is raising money for a new one, a studio that is developing a new game based on an existing engine, and so on. If it's a riskier campaign, like development of a new hardware product from a new company that has never shipped anything before, or an artist's first album, or some amazing new game with an amazing new engine that has all kinds of really neat features, with a game designer you like but a rookie team, then you should only fund it if it has significantly more value to you than what you are funding. Maybe you just think it's such a good idea, that even trying and failing and learning from that is worth the money you spend. Or maybe you think that it is a game worth $200; it's such a perfect game for you, that you would be willing to shell out $200 for it, or the equivalent, fund 10 such games for $20 and get one working game out of it. Or maybe you're just a big fan of the person you are funding, and don't mind giving them $20 even if you think they might not complete the project. So yes, you should be aware of the risks when funding something; that's why it's funding, and not buying a completed product. You should decide if what you're going to get is worth the risk. Far too many people seem to see Kickstarter as a pre-order system, where the product is basically ready but they want funding to determine how large to make the first batch and fund just the final manufacture. Maybe people think that because it does act that way for some products; but you really should not expect it to work that way for all products. If Kickstarter limited themselves to the pre-order model, that would vastly limit the kinds of things it would be good for. You seem to want only pre-orders, not to fund development, so maybe that would work for you. But some people want to be able to fund riskier, more wild ideas, and accept that risk. I think that they should be able to; the only trick is that there seems to be a good deal of confusion on the part of funders as to which projects are which type; people don't seem to be very good at judging the risks involved when funding a project.
mikeash 14y ago
It's not the same game at all, though. When you invest in a startup, you help them make a product which they then try to find customers for. When you back a kickstarter, you're basically pre-ordering the product. A successful kickstarter already has their first run of customers. Startups generally fail when they can't scare up enough business, while kickstarters only fail if they can't actually produce the product they promised.
- timwiseman 14y ago
  This is an insightful comparison, but its significant to know that it is not actually a preorder. When you preorder you are entitled to demand the product or your money back, but with kickstarter if it fails after a good faith effort you probably have no recourse. With most preorders (not all, but most) the product is near completion when you put in the order, but with kickstarter that product is often little more than plans at the point of pledging. It is similar to a preorder, but the differences matter.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    Agreed. It's a different concept from both startups and preorders, but of the two it's more similar to a preorder. The ultimate point I'm trying to make is that, at the completion of a successful kickstarter, the creators have a guaranteed minimum customer base for the product, which puts them way ahead of the average startup. Success rates should therefore be much higher.
  - makomk 14y ago
    It's not clear the courts would buy this distinction if someone who backed a Kickstarter project did sue, though.
    - timwiseman 14y ago
      I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is the courts would see a distinction. Kickstarter goes out of its way to try to make sure people understand that it is not a preorder service, and many projects include a "risks" section specifically talking about how it could fail. There would be a clear case for fraud if the people asking for contributions just took the cash and walked. But in the event of a good faith effort that failed, I think the court would find that the contract was probably upheld. The possibility of failure was always there and what was promised was the effort.

crusso 14y ago

This is why Kickstarter is doomed in its current incarnation. With no sense of accountability, backers will be abused more and more by individuals or groups just looking to spend other peoples' money. Worse, fraud is going to ramp up because it always follows the money and Kickstarter is taking a hands-off approach that will fail. Kickstarter should promote the trust of backers in a similar fashion to the way that Ebay promotes the trust of purchasers. Kickstarter should be seeking to increase accountability in any way that it can through reputation systems, project completion metrics, background checks, and full transparency of the entire process. Besides the sad response to the Arduino founder in this article, I would point to the backer-only forums and updates on each Kickstarter project. How are potential donors to see what's going on in that project?

Karunamon 14y ago
>Kickstarter should promote the trust of backers in a similar fashion to the way that Ebay promotes the trust of purchasers. I would certainly hope not. Get screwed by a buyer? Tough luck, deal with it, cost of doing business. Ebay is the most merchant-hostile pack of morons I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with, on par with PayPal. Also, if they go that route (even not into full idiot mode territory like Ebay), their reason for existing will go away - make it more onerous for small startups and individuals to operate while making way for the larger, more organized companies, and Kickstarter as we know it dies. I'm not ready to sacrifice kickstarter on the legislation altar, especially considering how many amazing things have been launched from it and how many more are still in the works. I'd say the occasional trademark kerfluffle is well worth what KS provides.
- zokier 14y ago
  > Ebay is the most merchant-hostile pack of morons I've ever had the displeasure of doing business with, on par with PayPal. PayPal is owned by ebay. So at least they are consistent :)
gosub 14y ago
Would be against Kickstarters' TOS to sell micro-shares of the company making the product? It would be like a distributed yc.

thisone 14y ago

I may not be a friend, but of the 7 projects I've contributed to, 5 have delivered, and two are in active development with weekly updates (software) Some of the things I've back have been on the "sure thing" side (Amanda Palmer) and some on the "hey that's a neat idea" side (obos). But I've never contributed more than I'm willing to lose, even for Wasteland.

incision 14y ago

>Out of the many kickstarters I've contributed to, only one has shipped and only one more appears to have had any progress in the past 6 months. For what it's worth, I've had my own reservations [1]. Since then: - 2/9 have shipped, one precisely on schedule. - 1/9 is shipping now after a forgivable hurricane-related delay and just might meet the schedule. - 1/9 has barely gotten started, but has a relatively generous schedule, veteran team and continuous updates. - 1/9 appears to be just marching right along, unremarkable. - 2/9 are behind schedule, but have been providing enough in the way of updates and/or early access that I remain quite confident. However, I will say that in both cases, their schedules appeared plainly unrealistic from the jump. - 1/9 appears to be floundering and has gone a month or more without updates at times. - 1/9 is so massive and ambitious that I can't help but expect problems even though a lack of updates has been the only issue so far. The impressions I gather from my admittedly tiny data set: 1) If the schedule seems unrealistic, it likely is. One year is probably a good starting point for creating anything from scratch. 2) Exceeding the funding goal seems to correlate to delays. 3) Experience counts. Veterans have performed better at delivering and much better at providing updates. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4323835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4323835

thechut 14y ago
I am also in roughly this situation with my Kickstarter backing. I have funded 10 projects over the course of the last 10 or 11 months. And I just received my third item, allow not in the same order I backed. For right now, this has definitely put me off a little from Kickstarter and I am hesitant to back more projects until I receive some of the ones I have already backed.
- pbreit 14y ago
  Why would they come in the same order of backing?
GauntletWizard 14y ago
I need to go through my kickstarter list; I have enough projects backed (100+) that I can start to get data out of it, not just anecdote.

blhack 14y ago

I'm curious what you've funded there. The two things I have funded (a laser cutter for our hackerspace, and The Temple of Juno at Burning Man this year) have both been built, and both have delivered on their prizes. Of course the "I'm going to totally smash an industry with $100,000 and...and....ANDROID!" aren't going to work.

mememememememe 14y ago
I only funded those with very specific tasks in mind. I don't fund projects that will spend 6 months. I sponsored two and they both returned. They were small gift ideas. Also on par with ebay issue. I never had any issue with buyer/seller. I only pick the one with photos and really high rating. If you want to buy a whole iMac, good luck on that because some of them arrive DOA and that usually has to do with shipping handler.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

I think this Onion video is very possibly relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqZ65pUQxyQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqZ65pUQxyQ

kfury 14y ago

This comment is about Kickstarter in general, and not about the Smartduino project, right? Even the linked blog post doesn't imply that they're not capable of delivering their product, and looking at their collateral they appear to be very far along, far more mature than the average hardware kickstarter project. I just want to make sure we're not blanket conflating branding concerns with ability to ship, because they're entirely different issues.

shloime 14y ago

You can always order successfully funded Kickstarter projects without the wait: http://outgrow.me/ http://outgrow.me/

bigiain 14y ago

I've also backed a bunch of Kickstarter projects, so far none that have taken my money then failed, but two very ambitious and relatively expensive ones which have my money are running well behind schedule (The Pebble Watch and the ZPM Espresso Machine). I don't regret a cent of that money, and if both/either of the watch or the coffee machine never turn up, I'll be sad - but sad because a great project failed, not sad because I feel any overpowering entitlement to "get my thing". I view all of my Kickstarter pledges as "gifts to people with great ideas" with the understanding that if they can trun the idea into a product/business, they'll send me one. I see _many_ complaints from people who don't view Kickstarter that way, and in one sense I feel sorry for them, because I think it's at least partly Kickstarter's fault and partly some project's fault. The recent changes to KS's hardware policy were clearly aimed at people who thought they were buying products in a shop. I think Kickstarter, and the people starting projects on Kickstarter, need to make things much more clear that it's not an "online shop" - because in spite of words/phrases like "funding platform for creative projects", "funders", "pledges", "projects", and "creators"; I see lots of people, including smart people who I respect, complaining that their "purchase" at Kickstarter isn't turning out as they expected. I think those peoples expectations were wrong, but they still had those expectations, and were still upset when they weren't met. People need to understand there _are_ places where you can buy products online and have them shipped to you within reasonable pre-agreed timeframes. They're called "online stores", there's _heaps_ of them out there - try amazon.com for example, or ebay.com. Kickstarter is _not_ one of those. Kickstarter, and Kickstarter project creators probably need to do a better job of making sure people understand that before taking their money off them.

waterlesscloud 14y ago

I've mostly backed creative projects (films/books) and they've all delivered or are making progress towards delivery, with one notable exception. They mostly run behind, but having worked on more than a couple low-budget film projects myself I fully expected that. It's just how it works. One film project completely halted when a big studio started sniffing around it. Not happy about that one, honestly, but I guess it's good for the people involved. I half-expect nothing will come of the studio interest and then the guy's burned all his bridges on both ends, but I see how he got to the decision he made. I've also backed some large game projects which haven't yet reached their scheduled delivery dates, so we'll see how they go.