Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When hardware Kickstarters ship

engineering.koalasafe.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#71

Post by [deleted] »

stephen_g wrote: post #64
listic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading a postmortem about a failed hardware Kickstarter campaign (some photographic accessory: a flash remote?) and they said they contacted a professional manager from the industry who told them he wouldn't even try developing new hardware without a few million in funding, tens of millions being more common. So there, turns out making new hardware is really expensive.

Wow, pretty bad advice they got... The little company I work for does high end microwave equipment (satellite terminals, RF conversion equipment, 5Gbps ultra-low-latency terrestrial links used for high frequency trading, etc.) and only turns over a few million dollars per year... I would be surprised if a flash remote cost more than two or three hundred thousand to develop and productise, tool up and do a small produ…

[deleted]

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#72

Post by jkestner »

listic wrote: post #14
zrgiu_ wrote: post #3

As a hardware maker on Kickstarter who is about to ship [1], I can sort-of agree with what the article is saying. Yes, one of the most important things is to find THE right partner in China, as that can easily make or break your product. However, if you're afraid to build your own hardware (or at least drastically modify something pre-existent), you're severely limiting your flexibility and the areas where you can in…

I remember reading a postmortem about a failed hardware Kickstarter campaign (some photographic accessory: a flash remote?) and they said they contacted a professional manager from the industry who told them he wouldn't even try developing new hardware without a few million in funding, tens of millions being more common. So there, turns out making new hardware is really expensive.

The project is the Triggertrap Ada. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap...

The product could've easily been made on their budget. Their problem was outsourcing much of the development work, so they paid consultants too much money to make something that was overdesigned and way too expensive to make. When you're starting in hardware, you need to immerse yourself in the whole chain to be able to make good decisions. Shame, I liked the guys.

More practical discussion of their missteps: http://www.eevblog.com/forum/crowd-funded-projects/kickstart...

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#73

Post by jkestner »

bsbechtel wrote: post #62
divisionfurtive wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 2-step process. 1 - Are communications easy, fast and meaningful? That's the first step. Contact more than one supplier (on a initial round, think 10 to 20). Make small challenges like posting design files on a secure site that requires the supplier to create an account...you'll get rid of a lot of unworthy suppliers that won't bother and therefore are not going to be proactive in the future. 2 - Invest in r…

This sounds more or less like the process I've gone through. I have yet to explore the option of manufacturing in China....have you done this? Is the process more or less the same?

Given the importance of good communication, there are obvious additional challenges to manufacturing in China. Take baby steps and get small components, small orders first to establish trust. Finding an agent who will handle sourcing and communication can be a big help.

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#74

Post by jkestner »

rebootthesystem wrote: post #34

As someone with over 30 years in hardware + software + mechanical product design and manufacturing one thing that always bothers me on Kickstarter is the dishonesty of funding goals. Now, I do realize quite a few project owners come at it without the product manufacturing experience. I definitely get that part. Yet, I don't see it as an excuse. People need to do due diligence and get numbers closer to reality. I reme…

You're talking about LIFX, and many were there with you speculating on their chances to deliver. Given that Kickstarter was booming and the failures were becoming more public (and the creator hadn't even delivered his much simpler previous project), it led to this article: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter...

And also led Kickstarter to writing the "not a store" post and encouraging LIFX to cap their campaign.

While I hope for more diligence from project creators, I think setting a high bar to eliminate risks also eliminates many interesting Kickstarter successes.

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#75

Post by jkestner »

nugga wrote: post #51
steven_pack wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably the number one question we get asked now rebootthesystem, by people in our network who considering KS. It's a catch 22. Aim too low, you can't deliver (unless you get additional capital... which might be the point), aim too high, people don't believe you'll get there, project fails. It's because of these incompatible goals that projects will keep going to low and keep posting eulogies on HN.

I don't understand the "people not believing you'll get there" point. The pledger loses no money if the project doesn't attain its goal so there is no reason to not pledge just because it might fail.

It doesn't seem rational, but it's a real effect. The theory is that people don't want to back a loser, and perhaps that they are psychologically purchasing the product at the point they make a pledge.

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#76

Post by lindseya »

Taniwha wrote: post #42
polar8 wrote: post #12

I've shipped one hardware product on Kickstarter [1] and I'm in the process of fulfilling the second [2]. Lessons I've learned are: 1. Design with your factory. Finding a good supplier is important but the real work starts once you've shaken hands. Your factory is your greatest resource as a presumably inexperienced hardware designer. It's like having an expert-level consultant work on your project for free, so take…

Yes, I've shipped a hardware project on kickstarter, and (just) on time - the original article is a tad unfair, as if they were the only ones to ever ship. And I designed my own hardware ..... the trick is to design your hardware BEFORE you announce your kickstarter, not after ....

What level of fidelity (e.g. self-made prototype, small batch of manufactured prototypes, etc.) would you recommend before going on kickstarter?

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#77

Post by tgb »

moron4hire wrote: post #58

Of all the kickstarters I've funded (and it has been a lot) only two have failed to deliver, eventually, and only one of those was a hardware project. It was an attempt to make an open-hardware GPU, and when it turned out way more expensive than he imagined, he released all the work he had done on github. The other failed project was Neil Stephenson's "Clang!" sword fighting game. We all know how that ended >:(

Surely Clang! had significant hardware components, too?

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#78

Post by joshstrange »

kenz0r wrote: post #43
steven_pack wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks mate. Admittedly we don't typically test with those browser when we push changes. :|

Selenium is great for this. For this particular case, it won't access an element unless its visible, so you can validate that the scroll happens on button press. Easy to make a quick smoke test that can run in a few browsers

While this is a technically true statement Selenium is neither easy to setup nor easy to learn. It's documentation (of at least the libraries I've used, which were the recommended ones) was atrocious and not at all consistent.

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#79

Post by rebootthesystem »

jkestner wrote: post #75
nugga wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the "people not believing you'll get there" point. The pledger loses no money if the project doesn't attain its goal so there is no reason to not pledge just because it might fail.

It doesn't seem rational, but it's a real effect. The theory is that people don't want to back a loser, and perhaps that they are psychologically purchasing the product at the point they make a pledge.

I wonder if anyone has looked at the idea of not showing the funding goal at all until it is funded (or not) or some other metric. For example, show it during the last week of the campaign.

I am trying to think of a way to allow project originators the freedom to set reasonable goals (a million, whatever) without fear of this one number becoming a drag on their campaign despite the fact that they are actually being honest about what it will take to deliver a quality product.

Re: When hardware Kickstarters ship

#80

Post by moron4hire »

tgb wrote: post #77
moron4hire wrote: post #58

Of all the kickstarters I've funded (and it has been a lot) only two have failed to deliver, eventually, and only one of those was a hardware project. It was an attempt to make an open-hardware GPU, and when it turned out way more expensive than he imagined, he released all the work he had done on github. The other failed project was Neil Stephenson's "Clang!" sword fighting game. We all know how that ended >:(

Surely Clang! had significant hardware components, too?

Oh, yeah, actually forgot about that. It just bothered me that they just seemed to throw everything away. After burning through several million dollars, I think they could have at least just done a Github dump or something.
Post reply on HN