4 ms·

So people supported project and paid for a product they were presented, but creator decided on the fly it wasnt good enough so they changed it? How ridiculous

by funkyy 12y ago

So people supported project and paid for a product they were presented, but creator decided on the fly it wasnt good enough so they changed it? How ridiculous is this. People paid for a product (support) in order to receive what they were presented. The creator could then release version 2.0 after a year with updated features instead of making this decission. It would be like person would buy an Iphone 4 in shop and after he paid the guy behind the counter would say "sorry, I changed my mind, you will get Iphone 5 in 1 year because its better. Your money is ours now, so good bye and see you in a year." The decisions made behind this seems to be immature - similar unfortunately to pretty large chunk of Kickstarter startups. The Kickstarter seems to replaced government grants for some, where people would risk it to achieve success, but if they fail cause of issues/bad decision they don't care because it wasn't their money anyway. To many people with no prior life experience starting projects and businesses.

mianos 12y ago
Please read the above comment. Kickstarter is not a store.
dm2 12y ago
Donating money to a KickStarter project is not the same as buying something. You're not paying for a product, you are helping fund a company or project who has no legal obligation to give you anything. If you are donating to a KickStarter just because you want the reward they are offering then you should do sufficient research on the company and their founders to ensure that you trust that they will deliver what they promised.
- JeremyBanks 12y ago
  While I agree with the spirit of the above comment, and am not upset when projects I fund are delayed or cancelled, you're not technically correct: Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project? Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter+basics https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter+basics This isn't just hypothetical: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150780/firstofakind-kickstarter-lawsuit-highlights-risks-of-crowd-funding.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150780/firstofakind-kickstar...
  - dm2 12y ago
    If a project creator takes the money and disappears then it's fraud, that's what that quote is referring to. From that same FAQ: "Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. On Kickstarter, backers (you!) ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it." In court it's probably about as valid as a Terms of Service agreement on a website or a "by reading this you must keep the contents of this email confidential" at the bottom of an email.
    - funkyy 12y ago
      What if project creator takes money, then over thinks it and uses money to sponsor his ambitions? Is Kickstarter ego boost fund, or actual project funding? Most users sponsor project to get early and discounted access to cool stuff - if you fund Kickstarter projects for other reasons - good for you. But dont expect others to follow. Some people hard earned money are in stake, they expect to get something from it and when creator just blatantly changes what he has to offer while sponsoring his high lifestyle from money received - thats just bad. You got money for something - do it. You want to develop something different, better? First finish what you have promised, then move on for money your company earned itself.
      - dm2 12y ago
        "Most users sponsor project to get early and discounted access to cool stuff" There is a reason why KickStarter forbids calling a reward a pre-order. I think a good solution would be to forbid the product being developed from being offered as a reward and instead allow a coupon (free, half-priced, whatever) to be the reward with the understanding that the technology product might never be produced. Kickstarter has many other products that are not technology focused, these kinds of development issues and product delivery issues are less of a problem when you don't have major technical challenges to overcome. Look at Lockitron, it seems like such a simple concept and device, but as they've shown, making it a reality is difficult. There is a high chance of failure in the startup world, investors should be aware of this. Kickstarter should make this very clear to people and limit the types of rewards so that people (who arguably shouldn't be "investing") are not disappointed if the project just doesn't work out.
cyorir 12y ago
I disagree with your conclusion, that there are "to[o] many people with no prior life experience starting projects and businesses." I think a large number of people starting projects like this is necessary. True, many of them fail. However, it is in the process of failing at a first attempt that many people will gain the experience necessary to help them in later projects. So there is nothing inherently wrong with failure. My interpretation of the article is that the developers did not handle their failure correctly. They were not clear in communicating and responding to the difficulties they were facing. The failure was left unaddressed, and only compounded over time; this was the fault of the developers. A more adequate solution would have been to recognize that changing the product to quickly was not the right approach; releasing a project without all of the desired features at a sooner date may have been preferable.

by funkyy 12y ago

mianos 12y ago

Please read the above comment. Kickstarter is not a store.

dm2 12y ago

Donating money to a KickStarter project is not the same as buying something. You're not paying for a product, you are helping fund a company or project who has no legal obligation to give you anything. If you are donating to a KickStarter just because you want the reward they are offering then you should do sufficient research on the company and their founders to ensure that you trust that they will deliver what they promised.

JeremyBanks 12y ago
While I agree with the spirit of the above comment, and am not upset when projects I fund are delayed or cancelled, you're not technically correct: Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project? Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfill. https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter+basics https://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter+basics This isn't just hypothetical: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150780/firstofakind-kickstarter-lawsuit-highlights-risks-of-crowd-funding.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150780/firstofakind-kickstar...
- dm2 12y ago
  If a project creator takes the money and disappears then it's fraud, that's what that quote is referring to. From that same FAQ: "Kickstarter does not guarantee projects or investigate a creator's ability to complete their project. On Kickstarter, backers (you!) ultimately decide the validity and worthiness of a project by whether they decide to fund it." In court it's probably about as valid as a Terms of Service agreement on a website or a "by reading this you must keep the contents of this email confidential" at the bottom of an email.
  - funkyy 12y ago
    What if project creator takes money, then over thinks it and uses money to sponsor his ambitions? Is Kickstarter ego boost fund, or actual project funding? Most users sponsor project to get early and discounted access to cool stuff - if you fund Kickstarter projects for other reasons - good for you. But dont expect others to follow. Some people hard earned money are in stake, they expect to get something from it and when creator just blatantly changes what he has to offer while sponsoring his high lifestyle from money received - thats just bad. You got money for something - do it. You want to develop something different, better? First finish what you have promised, then move on for money your company earned itself.
    - dm2 12y ago
      "Most users sponsor project to get early and discounted access to cool stuff" There is a reason why KickStarter forbids calling a reward a pre-order. I think a good solution would be to forbid the product being developed from being offered as a reward and instead allow a coupon (free, half-priced, whatever) to be the reward with the understanding that the technology product might never be produced. Kickstarter has many other products that are not technology focused, these kinds of development issues and product delivery issues are less of a problem when you don't have major technical challenges to overcome. Look at Lockitron, it seems like such a simple concept and device, but as they've shown, making it a reality is difficult. There is a high chance of failure in the startup world, investors should be aware of this. Kickstarter should make this very clear to people and limit the types of rewards so that people (who arguably shouldn't be "investing") are not disappointed if the project just doesn't work out.

cyorir 12y ago

I disagree with your conclusion, that there are "to[o] many people with no prior life experience starting projects and businesses." I think a large number of people starting projects like this is necessary. True, many of them fail. However, it is in the process of failing at a first attempt that many people will gain the experience necessary to help them in later projects. So there is nothing inherently wrong with failure. My interpretation of the article is that the developers did not handle their failure correctly. They were not clear in communicating and responding to the difficulties they were facing. The failure was left unaddressed, and only compounded over time; this was the fault of the developers. A more adequate solution would have been to recognize that changing the product to quickly was not the right approach; releasing a project without all of the desired features at a sooner date may have been preferable.