3 ms·

"you should not be allowed to just have another go at it." Yes you should. Since when did we get the idea that failing at something (even spectacularly) shoul

"you should not be allowed to just have another go at it." Yes you should. Since when did we get the idea that failing at something (even spectacularly) should preclude you from trying again? Nearly everyone who reads HN has benefited enormously from the mindset that allows entrepreneurs to keep trying.

kikki 12y ago
The entrepreneurs you're talking about lose a lot more when they fail in the real world. Networking contacts, trust, even become bankrupt. This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.
- jamesrcole 12y ago
  > This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. You just flatly assert that. Is it actually true? I don't know, but surely they've at least got their reputation, with backers and others, from this failed product. > Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not. You're failing to acknowledge that kickstarter backers know -- or should know -- the risk. It's their choice to back a particular project.
no_wave 12y ago
It appears that this company is taking the "lessons they learned" and the intellectual property they developed from spending $400,000 of other peoples' money on R&D to get VC investments for their next thing. They've taken other peoples' money and turned it into personal gain while giving nothing back in return. This isn't behavior anyone should encourage.
- asuffield 12y ago
  If there are people who are willing to give them more money to try again, why should the rest of us have any say in it? I probably wouldn't fund them myself, but if there's some investor who is fully aware of what happened here and still wants to fund them, I don't see a reasonable basis to object. If they aren't lying to anybody, where exactly is the problem?
  - no_wave 12y ago
    The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      Well, to be honest, Kickstarter is not a shop. Even though nowadays it's mostly a marketing tool, it's original idea was to be a way to invest in ideas you like. That is, take a risk with your money.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    I think the idea here is that Kickstarter investors are NOT aware and are easily hoodwinked. Why, even this project appears to have been a lie- it's just that the founders were lying to themselves, too. The assumption being that the Kick starter investors ought to essentially be protected a little against their own gullability. This of course all serves as a nice allegory of how rules requiring accreditation for some types of investment were born.
anigbrowl 12y ago
You're right, but on the other hand it should be a little harder so that you can't make a habit of dumping the loss onto others. For example, it might be reasonable to be barred from crowdfunding websites going forward, and have to raise money through other channels like regular VCs.
mikeash 12y ago
Trying again is perfectly fine. Trying again with other people's money is perhaps less fine.

kikki 12y ago

The entrepreneurs you're talking about lose a lot more when they fail in the real world. Networking contacts, trust, even become bankrupt. This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not.

jamesrcole 12y ago
> This company literally just moves on to the next product like it's nothing with no repercussions. You just flatly assert that. Is it actually true? I don't know, but surely they've at least got their reputation, with backers and others, from this failed product. > Failing at something is fine, being naive and irresponsible with other people's money - without repercussion - is not. You're failing to acknowledge that kickstarter backers know -- or should know -- the risk. It's their choice to back a particular project.

no_wave 12y ago

It appears that this company is taking the "lessons they learned" and the intellectual property they developed from spending $400,000 of other peoples' money on R&D to get VC investments for their next thing. They've taken other peoples' money and turned it into personal gain while giving nothing back in return. This isn't behavior anyone should encourage.

asuffield 12y ago
If there are people who are willing to give them more money to try again, why should the rest of us have any say in it? I probably wouldn't fund them myself, but if there's some investor who is fully aware of what happened here and still wants to fund them, I don't see a reasonable basis to object. If they aren't lying to anybody, where exactly is the problem?
- no_wave 12y ago
  The $400,000 they spent is now, effectively, an investment into their future product line. It's not a surprise that VCs see that $400,000 of free R&D isn't valueless. The actual individuals who funded this investment will see 0% of the return on it, while the company that fucked up plans on profiting from the software, hardware, and niche-specific expertise they developed while not delivering anything.
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    Well, to be honest, Kickstarter is not a shop. Even though nowadays it's mostly a marketing tool, it's original idea was to be a way to invest in ideas you like. That is, take a risk with your money.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  I think the idea here is that Kickstarter investors are NOT aware and are easily hoodwinked. Why, even this project appears to have been a lie- it's just that the founders were lying to themselves, too. The assumption being that the Kick starter investors ought to essentially be protected a little against their own gullability. This of course all serves as a nice allegory of how rules requiring accreditation for some types of investment were born.

anigbrowl 12y ago

You're right, but on the other hand it should be a little harder so that you can't make a habit of dumping the loss onto others. For example, it might be reasonable to be barred from crowdfunding websites going forward, and have to raise money through other channels like regular VCs.

mikeash 12y ago

Trying again is perfectly fine. Trying again with other people's money is perhaps less fine.