7 ms·

Exactly. But this goes further and lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter or any other crowd-sourcing platform. Just like facebook's Frankenstei

by lingben 13y ago

Exactly. But this goes further and lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter or any other crowd-sourcing platform. Just like facebook's Frankensteinian monstrous mish-mash of consumer/content/advertiser/publisher crowd-funding in its current state is a mish-mash that ends up meaning nothing in the end. You are not an equity partner, you really have no say in how decisions are made, you are not a lender, you are and are not a client (depending on whether they actually give you the damn 'thing' or not due to a host of reasons, going bust, running out of money, fraud, etc.)

ycaspirant 13y ago
The terms of funding on Kickstarter are pretty clear and straightforward. You back a project for a certain amount of money in exchange for a promised reward (this reward is never equity). When the time comes you either get your reward or you get your money back. Simple as that.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...or you get your money back. Has this ever happened? I was under the impression that the funds raised through Kickstarter are spent on the kickstarted projects. If after spending the money, the project "fails", how can there be a refund?
sillysaurus3 13y ago
I'm happy Oculus got my money for the original devkit, and I spent several hours enjoying it. As far as kickstarter, it's hard to fault them.
TaylorAlexander 13y ago
"this ... lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter..." I'm sorry, but where is the stupidity? Kickstarter is a specific tool available to founders/innovators/creatives that allows us to reach a community of supporters quickly and efficiently. Like all tools, it has a specific way that it operates, and to keep such a new thing from spinning out of control, it is relatively simple and has few rules. Fortunately, we are all made aware of this going in. Backers generally pledge to receive a product. The creator benefits from early access to cash which allows them to build their product. This is what happened with Oculus, and they have already delivered vouchers to all backers which they could have redeemed for the original developer version from last year, the current developer version coming in July, or the consumer version still definitely coming towards the end of this year. I fail to see how Oculus gaining a parent company somehow "lays bare the sheer stupidity" of the system Kickstarter provides. People pledged for a high quality VR device, and Oculus promised to change the world. It seems these things will happen. One of the most compelling opportunities provided by virtual reality is not just gaming, but it's capability to put us somewhere else, including in a virtual room with our loved ones. Virtual reality enables an interaction that humans have never before been able to experience - the ability to hang out in a virtual space with another person. Facebook, whose primary goal has generally been to provide a platform for connecting humans to eachother, clearly sees the value in VR's ability to provide this new experience for us. As such, they've used their purchasing power to buy a stake in the VR game and help grow this new technology. Some day, we will be able to hang out with out loved ones, visit the doctor, or join a game with friends all in a shared virtual space. This is a future made possible by the Kickstarter model, which enabled Oculus to get the start they needed to commercialize Virtual Reality. Tell me again how that is stupid? What strikes me as stupid is the huge number of people decrying this move as some kind of perversion of the original Kickstarter promise, or some kind of bait and switch. It seems to be the logical progression of a company creating a ground-breaking new human interface device. Should they stay independent indefinitely just because they were crowd funded? I don't see how that would make any sense, or why such a modification to the Kickstarter model would be any kind of improvement.
- kelnos 13y ago
  I think what's stupid is participating in a Kickstarter campaign and then getting bent out of shape when the company doesn't do what you want. When you contribute -- note contribute, but invest -- to a Kickstarter campaign, you're buying into the perk you get and pretty much nothing else. I can understand being upset that the company didn't do what you hoped, but considering it an investment is a bit of an overestimation.
  - onetwofiveten 13y ago
    I don't think that's stupid. Kickstarter contributions are investments, they just don't have financial payoffs. The payoff should be that, if successful, a certain desirable piece of technology or art is created. If a company shifts focus away from the aims and goals they used to attract Kickstarter funding, then they have essentially acted dishonestly. There is no legal recourse, so the best thing to do is complain and make them look bad. The behaviour you think of as stupid is really the only way contributors can put pressure on Kickstarter companies to act in good faith.
    - thanatropism 13y ago
      Point here is -- if you want a stake, buy a stake. If you want a steak, you get to sigh if the restaurant gets turned into a Hooters. Me, I think Kickstarter is to fault for being sold as a tool for contributors. You go to kickstarter.com, it's like a shopping mall of the future. For what Kickstarter say they are, they should be a plugin that companies get to put on their website or something, not something that gets marketed to consumers.
      - onetwofiveten 13y ago
        No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fails to try to deliver that future, then it's a rip-off. Your attitude is like I tell you "hey I bought these trainers that were advertised as hard wearing but they fell apart after a week" and you reply "well you didn't buy a stake in the trainer company, so you've got no right to complain".
nerfhammer 13y ago
Kickstarter is not charity. The people/businesses that raise money on kickstarter use the funds as an income stream. They're selling their brand and you're buying good feelings. It's a source of income for them. It's a product, an intangible one.
anigbrowl 13y ago
It's good for artists and small projects that need some capital but might not have very high ROI or might be beyond an innovator's personal means. I can think of quite a few electronic and music-oriented technology projects that I wouldn't have heard about and which would have struggled to find funding in its absence.
jcbrand 13y ago
> But this goes further and lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter or any other crowd-sourcing platform. Only if the projects backed aren't Free and Open-Source.

by lingben 13y ago

ycaspirant 13y ago

The terms of funding on Kickstarter are pretty clear and straightforward. You back a project for a certain amount of money in exchange for a promised reward (this reward is never equity). When the time comes you either get your reward or you get your money back. Simple as that.

jessaustin 13y ago
...or you get your money back. Has this ever happened? I was under the impression that the funds raised through Kickstarter are spent on the kickstarted projects. If after spending the money, the project "fails", how can there be a refund?

sillysaurus3 13y ago

I'm happy Oculus got my money for the original devkit, and I spent several hours enjoying it. As far as kickstarter, it's hard to fault them.

TaylorAlexander 13y ago

"this ... lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter..." I'm sorry, but where is the stupidity? Kickstarter is a specific tool available to founders/innovators/creatives that allows us to reach a community of supporters quickly and efficiently. Like all tools, it has a specific way that it operates, and to keep such a new thing from spinning out of control, it is relatively simple and has few rules. Fortunately, we are all made aware of this going in. Backers generally pledge to receive a product. The creator benefits from early access to cash which allows them to build their product. This is what happened with Oculus, and they have already delivered vouchers to all backers which they could have redeemed for the original developer version from last year, the current developer version coming in July, or the consumer version still definitely coming towards the end of this year. I fail to see how Oculus gaining a parent company somehow "lays bare the sheer stupidity" of the system Kickstarter provides. People pledged for a high quality VR device, and Oculus promised to change the world. It seems these things will happen. One of the most compelling opportunities provided by virtual reality is not just gaming, but it's capability to put us somewhere else, including in a virtual room with our loved ones. Virtual reality enables an interaction that humans have never before been able to experience - the ability to hang out in a virtual space with another person. Facebook, whose primary goal has generally been to provide a platform for connecting humans to eachother, clearly sees the value in VR's ability to provide this new experience for us. As such, they've used their purchasing power to buy a stake in the VR game and help grow this new technology. Some day, we will be able to hang out with out loved ones, visit the doctor, or join a game with friends all in a shared virtual space. This is a future made possible by the Kickstarter model, which enabled Oculus to get the start they needed to commercialize Virtual Reality. Tell me again how that is stupid? What strikes me as stupid is the huge number of people decrying this move as some kind of perversion of the original Kickstarter promise, or some kind of bait and switch. It seems to be the logical progression of a company creating a ground-breaking new human interface device. Should they stay independent indefinitely just because they were crowd funded? I don't see how that would make any sense, or why such a modification to the Kickstarter model would be any kind of improvement.

kelnos 13y ago
I think what's stupid is participating in a Kickstarter campaign and then getting bent out of shape when the company doesn't do what you want. When you contribute -- note contribute, but invest -- to a Kickstarter campaign, you're buying into the perk you get and pretty much nothing else. I can understand being upset that the company didn't do what you hoped, but considering it an investment is a bit of an overestimation.
- onetwofiveten 13y ago
  I don't think that's stupid. Kickstarter contributions are investments, they just don't have financial payoffs. The payoff should be that, if successful, a certain desirable piece of technology or art is created. If a company shifts focus away from the aims and goals they used to attract Kickstarter funding, then they have essentially acted dishonestly. There is no legal recourse, so the best thing to do is complain and make them look bad. The behaviour you think of as stupid is really the only way contributors can put pressure on Kickstarter companies to act in good faith.
  - thanatropism 13y ago
    Point here is -- if you want a stake, buy a stake. If you want a steak, you get to sigh if the restaurant gets turned into a Hooters. Me, I think Kickstarter is to fault for being sold as a tool for contributors. You go to kickstarter.com, it's like a shopping mall of the future. For what Kickstarter say they are, they should be a plugin that companies get to put on their website or something, not something that gets marketed to consumers.
    - onetwofiveten 13y ago
      No, that's not the point. The point is, when a company gets funding from Kickstarter, they are selling something more than just the Kickstarter rewards. They are selling an intangible good - a vision of the future. If that company fails to try to deliver that future, then it's a rip-off. Your attitude is like I tell you "hey I bought these trainers that were advertised as hard wearing but they fell apart after a week" and you reply "well you didn't buy a stake in the trainer company, so you've got no right to complain".

nerfhammer 13y ago

Kickstarter is not charity. The people/businesses that raise money on kickstarter use the funds as an income stream. They're selling their brand and you're buying good feelings. It's a source of income for them. It's a product, an intangible one.

anigbrowl 13y ago

It's good for artists and small projects that need some capital but might not have very high ROI or might be beyond an innovator's personal means. I can think of quite a few electronic and music-oriented technology projects that I wouldn't have heard about and which would have struggled to find funding in its absence.

jcbrand 13y ago

> But this goes further and lays bare the sheer stupidity inherent in kickstarter or any other crowd-sourcing platform. Only if the projects backed aren't Free and Open-Source.