I don't think it is a good idea that the backers are only charged when the product is ready to ship. After all, this is all about getting the resources so that you are able to ship. When the backers don't pay upfront, you don't have those resources. So to me it seems you are looking at Kickstarter as a distribution channel, not as a funding opportunity.
The Problem with Kickstarter
11–20 of 39 posts
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#12Can we talk about bytelight? What the heck does that thing do?
Indoor positioning using LED lights. Our market is in enterprise (not the home).
We're using selfstarter to experiment if there's enough demand for individual developer/hacker kits. It's not economical for us to sell small orders unless they're batched together.
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#13I believe there's an opening for a crowdfunding model focused purely on hardware startups. Perhaps some of you are already working on it. App.net, Lockitron and most recently Lumawake helped kick this off, with selfstarter. We contributed some changes back to help push it along: https://github.com/lockitron/selfstarter There are flaws with this approach (no third party payment verification, no established network of…
I've been following the space pretty closely and I agree that there's a ton of opportunity. I'd love to pick your brain over beers - where are you guys located?
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#14> Kickstarter has taken a half-measure when it comes to hardware projects. It should take a full measure—and remove hardware as a category. Agreed. Hardware projects are too high-risk for a model like Kickstarter's, and it's difficult for crowdfunders to be fully informed about that risk when even the makers are often inexperienced. Worse, they're all or nothing. If one of the major videogame projects runs out of fun…
This is we like the selfstarter model. Backers don't get charged until the product is ready. And project creators are incentivised to use efficient techniques that get their product to market quickly. There are flaws with this too, which I touched upon in the post. I think this is an opportunity.
s/Backers/"People who just pre-ordered something that doesn't exist yet"
I thought the whole point of Kickstarter was to "kickstart" your project with an infusion of cash allowing you to quit your job/outsource more work/whatever to get to market?
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is we like the selfstarter model. Backers don't get charged until the product is ready. And project creators are incentivised to use efficient techniques that get their product to market quickly. There are flaws with this too, which I touched upon in the post. I think this is an opportunity.
s/Backers/"People who just pre-ordered something that doesn't exist yet" I thought the whole point of Kickstarter was to "kickstart" your project with an infusion of cash allowing you to quit your job/outsource more work/whatever to get to market?
Yes - but it doesn't work for hardware. It leads to projects failing to deliver on their expectations. Failures hurt the Kickstarter brand. They know that. Which is why they're moving away from hardware.
The "kickstart" part is what's missing with the selfstarter approach. We're funded so we didn't have this problem.
Maybe a new model could be a hybrid of incubator and crowdfunding. You apply with an idea. The incubator provides some up-front capital to get you started. They have expertise in hardware mentoring. Logistics, manufacturing, customer support, IP, warranties etc.
The incubator could build a brand and network of supporters, but be purely focused on cultivating innovative consumer product ideas and getting them to market.
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#16I would suggest respectfully engaging the Kickstarter folks in a discussion about your project. I had a hardware project rejected in the same manner, except I did not leave it at that. I engaged the KS staff, stated my case, qualifications, and had a general discussion about the project. A few days later they authorized it. In fact, I have more than one approved project in the pipeline. I have found them to be nothing but reasonable.
The project isn't up yet because my approach --having owned a hardware manufacturing business at one time-- is to have a fully engineered, DFM'd, production-ready product prior to launching the KS campaign.
I hate surprises. I've run into plenty of them in my design and manufacturing career. Things like sole-source components discontinued by the manufacturer a month before you go into production after THEY recommended we use that component and we spent eight months developing product using it.
Yes, hardware is different. That does not mean it is impossible.
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is we like the selfstarter model. Backers don't get charged until the product is ready. And project creators are incentivised to use efficient techniques that get their product to market quickly. There are flaws with this too, which I touched upon in the post. I think this is an opportunity.
s/Backers/"People who just pre-ordered something that doesn't exist yet" I thought the whole point of Kickstarter was to "kickstart" your project with an infusion of cash allowing you to quit your job/outsource more work/whatever to get to market?
[deleted]
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#18Hardware is expensive. Plastic injection tooling, PCB fabrication, PCB assembly, component purchases, FCC and EU and UL testing and certifications. Something like Kickstarter makes it possible for an engineer, such as myself, who does not have $200K in the bank, to use the skills I use every day for large companies, and create something new in the world.
For somebody to suggest that the one endeavor that needs Kickstarter type pre-funding the most, be the one endeavor that should never be entitled to it, all because they're mad because their own attempt at funding was rejected, pisses me off.
Promoting some sort of system where I get money only after I'm ready to ship, leaves me scratching my head. If I have a warehouse full of product ready to ship, I can go get traditional purchase orders the old fashioned way. What problem would such a system be addressing?
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#19Hardware is expensive. Plastic injection tooling, PCB fabrication, PCB assembly, component purchases, FCC and EU and UL testing and certifications. Something like Kickstarter makes it possible for an engineer, such as myself, who does not have $200K in the bank, to use the skills I use every day for large companies, and create something new in the world. For somebody to suggest that the one endeavor that needs Kickst…
Exactly.
Hardware needs pre-funding more than anything. The article is opening up a discussion for alternative models that work better than Kickstarter.
The problem with Kickstarter's approach is that oftentimes, the reality of the product is divorced from the perception of the product. There are countless examples of high profile hardware products that failed to deliver on expectations. That hurts the Kickstarter brand.
Kickstarter can't be expected to guarantee projects. It's too costly. And it opens them up to liability.
I'm not suggesting that self-starter is the final version of this model. It's an evolutionary process - and an opportunity for a new startup with a different approach.
Re: The Problem with Kickstarter
#20Hardware is expensive. Plastic injection tooling, PCB fabrication, PCB assembly, component purchases, FCC and EU and UL testing and certifications. Something like Kickstarter makes it possible for an engineer, such as myself, who does not have $200K in the bank, to use the skills I use every day for large companies, and create something new in the world. For somebody to suggest that the one endeavor that needs Kickst…
I agree.
One of the problems with the Kickstarter model is that companies were offering product in exchange for funding.
They should have been offering stickers and mentions on a "Thank You" page, or tours of the factories, or some such. That would have created better expectations in the minds of funders.
Or they could have offered vouchers - "Pay $X, we give you a voucher that entitles you to one free widget if we go into production".
The current "challenges" question is not being answered as well as it could by several projects. It feels a bit like the "What are your weaknesses" interview question, where people are dodging the real answer and giving feel good sound bites. I have a lot more trust in the projects who make a solid attempt at answering that question fully.