
How a half-million dollar Kickstarter project can crash and burn - aaronbrethorst
https://medium.com/@Haje/how-a-half-million-dollar-kickstarter-project-can-crash-and-burn-5482d7d33ee1
======
ChuckMcM
Wow, that sounded so painful, and painfully obvious to anyone who has designed
and built hardware. I think lesson 5 should be lesson 0 and re-written:

They wrote:

 _As soon as the Kickstarter money hit our account, we should have hired an
experienced hardware product manager._

And it should be:

 _Before contemplating a Kickstarter campaign, we should have hired an
experienced hardware product manager and had them price out what such a
product would cost to bring to market at various volumes._

Kickstarters work when they are the "D" side of R&D and fail when they start
with the "R" side and try to get to "D".

~~~
bsder
Yeah, yet another example of "Gee, hardware is actually hard."

These guys should be crucified. $100 retail means $30 BOM. This is easily a
$30 BOM project _provided you supply the labor_.

Yeah, you're going to be working your own 3D printer. Pouring your own
silicone rubber for molds. Soldering your own chips. etc.

However, you got $500,000. That's enough to fund two people (one hardware and
one software) an entire year and _still_ have $250K left for development.

They didn't learn crap.

~~~
jkestner
> provided you supply the labor

That's the #1 lesson. You can't consult away all the challenges, especially
not the core of your product. As he found out, no one else is going to give a
crap like you will, and if you don't have expertise in that area yourself,
you're going to pick the wrong people.

I'm still trying to figure out how the BOM got so high without alarms going
off.

~~~
sliverstorm
BOM cost sneaks up on first-time projects. My first big project I was a
_fanatic_ about price and I was still shocked how fast it added up.

This is one of the ways an experienced hardware engineer can really turn
things around from impossible to affordable- they can handle BOM cost as a
major design parameter and drive down cost in ways a novice can't.

------
kikki
It's actually quite amazing how it feels that the author doesn't really mind
that he's failed, and sees it as a learning curve. It almost reads like he's
proud that he's blown half a mill, just read the title. This is real people's
money. Whether or not it was more expensive than you originally planned,
whether or not you feel really bad about it, you should not be allowed to just
have another go at it. It makes an absolute joke of the entire concept of
crowdfunding.

For a Kickstarter that budgeted 50k, received 300k, and was still nowhere near
production, that's just really poor management and people like that shouldn't
be in the business of making promises and taking other peoples' money.

~~~
socalnate1
"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
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
> _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.

------
anigbrowl
Not seeing the screamingly obvious trademark problems with using the name
'Red' before launching the Kickstarter is sort of astonishing to me. That sort
of naivete would have been a huge red flag from the outset. These days 99% of
trademark collisions can be avoided with a Google search and a little time to
get familiar with the basic legal issue involved. I mean, you have to call a
product something in order to sell it to more than 3 people, and if it has a
name it seems like basic common sense that you'd want to avoid overlapping
with similarly named products in the same market sector.

~~~
vkjv
I saw similar red flags in other places.

"Internally we expected that at worst 20% of people who had signed up to the
newsletter would pre-order, and at best 50% of people on the list would
convert into sales."

I work for a brand whose customers are fairly passionate about it and those
expectations are insane. A little market research would have shown that the
1.5% that they got was right in line with the standard.

~~~
1123581321
I think one factor is that people imagine their Kickstarters to be backed by a
high percentage of people who visit the page when this probably isn't the
case. If Kickstarter provided more lucid 'conversion metrics' to campaign
runners, then they would have more realistic expectations of post-campaign
sales promotions and this would help them to budget and plan more accurately
and soon enough to avoid some problems.

------
FigBug
Seems crazy to do a project like this with an agency doing the software and
hardware design. That's going to be crazy expensive. I would think you need
the skills in house to make it affordable.

~~~
sliverstorm
Yeah, my disbelief just kept growing as it became more and more clear that
they seem to have completely outsourced the software and hardware. I'm
completely astounded, especially given the aggressive price target that was an
integral part of their product.

~~~
jkestner
This sounds a lot like the Kreyos story — that guy outsourced _everything_ ,
including the blame. At least this one took responsibility himself.
[https://medium.com/@stevekreyos/the-rise-and-fall-of-
kreyos-...](https://medium.com/@stevekreyos/the-rise-and-fall-of-kreyos-new-
ac4e2d847964)

~~~
sliverstorm
This idea that a product based company can be founded purely on marketing is
infuriating. As if _every other part of the business_ (but not marketing) is
fungible. It's like the Idea-Guy, come back to haunt us.

------
a2kadet
> To me, Kickstarter backers aren’t just customers. They’re our friends. They
> are mavens. They represent our most passionate, most ardent and most
> enthusiastic customers.

> Yes, that’s it. I failed. We failed. It feels horrible, and it’s the end of
> Ada. But not the end of Triggertrap.

Uh... if I was your "friend" I would be livid that you weren't going bankrupt
to sell off every asset you had to pay me back in full.

*Edit - My post was more about the use of the term friendship to absolve the author of guilt. Seems to have been effective This seems like shady business ethics to me.

~~~
marssaxman
If you are expecting to be paid back in full then you should not be spending
your money on Kickstarter!

~~~
DanBC
At the time they launched this project the TOS said "deliver the product or
offer a full refund".

~~~
Retra
That seems like completely unrealistic terms. How can you afford to pay for a
refund if the product fails?

~~~
DanBC
Don't ask me. [https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-
use/oct2012?country=GB](https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-
use/oct2012?country=GB)

> Kickstarter does not offer refunds. A Project Creator is not required to
> grant a Backer’s request for a refund unless the Project Creator is unable
> or unwilling to fulfill the reward.

> Project Creators are required to fulfill all rewards of their successful
> fundraising campaigns or refund any Backer whose reward they do not or
> cannot fulfill.

> Project Creators may cancel or refund a Backer’s pledge at any time and for
> any reason, and if they do so, are not required to fulfill the reward.

That "at any time" para is possibly going to cause problems to the backers.

~~~
Retra
So if you are _successful_ , you are required to fulfill your terms. Or you
can back out by refunding money.

But if you fail, you have no such obligation.

~~~
msandford
Yeah but that's not if you succeed at MAKING the product, it's if you succeed
at FUNDING.

~~~
Retra
Oh, I see...

------
stestagg
Far more lucrative, and easy to screw over customers, become a supplier to the
kickstarter projects, rather than start your own KS.

Naiive business people who have suddenly received 100,000s in capital are the
easiest to con

~~~
sliverstorm
Ah yes, the old "sell shovels" game. You might be on to something.

------
driverdan
If their company isn't folding they need to refund 100% of the money they
raised from Kickstarter. There is a clear expectation of Kickstarter being a
pre-order system no matter what the fine print says. I bet if the backers sued
them they'd get a judgement in their favor.

------
armored
Don't listen to some EE expert tell you the product can't be developed for
less than a million. These guys are used to working at big shops that
routinely throw that kind of money into the garbage. This product could have
shipped, if only they had run the numbers first.

With a cheaper chip, better project management and using a shop like Proto
Labs for tooling they could have made it happen. Resourcefulness, not
resources. $99 is pretty aggressive, but it could be done with a slim margin.

Run the numbers first, THEN spend the money.

~~~
jkestner
Resourcefulness, agreed! I have made consumer products for less, with
resourcefulness, careful planning and sweat. Key is to do a bunch of the work
yourself. If you don't have those skills and can't learn them, get cofounders
who do. Or use the skills you do have as constraints when developing new
product ideas. Don't try to do too many new things at once — you're
compounding risk.

------
kevin_thibedeau
>the electronics agency claimed that the original microprocessor didn’t have
enough memory

This sounds like an attempt to pass blame. How could their engineers not know
from the datasheet if there was enough memory (presumably program flash)? They
had a prototype before the KS campaign. They must have had some way to
estimate the space requirements for the final design. Flash is cheap. Bumping
up to a bigger memory can't possibly be the main cost driver.

~~~
sliverstorm
Memory == SRAM, not flash. SRAM is not cheap, and if you are not efficient
with your SRAM usage you can suddenly find yourself stepping up several entire
classes of microprocessor.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Embedded applications like this don't need lots of RAM. One has to wonder why
such a simple application that boils down to a controlled delay was hard to
achieve for them. It seems like they were too focused on a sexy LCD interface
driven by god knows what over-engineered software crammed into what should
have been a simple device.

Now I see that the prototype was an Arduino, probably implemented within the
safe shell of the Arduino libs rather than working with the baremetal AVR.
Clearly they were way over their heads from the start.

~~~
coupdejarnac
No kidding, this project could have been accomplished with a cheapo PIC. I've
basically already built this project...Hmmm, kickstarter idea. :)

------
no_wave
Main question - what led this company to think they could even get close to a
$99 price? Did someone give them a misleading estimate early on, or did they
just come up with that number out of thin air?

~~~
anigbrowl
Desire; they asked themselves how much they wanted to pay as photography
consumers, asked other people if they'd buy into a device at $99, and
convinced themselves that it should be easily doable at that price, most
likely by deconstructing the marginal (per unit) costs without considering the
large fixed costs that allow you to manufacture _anything_ in volume.

In fairness this seems to be a normal blind spot in many peoples' thinking.
When I've discussed film piracy and market economics with people on HN, many
people focus on the duplication cost of printing and packaging a blu-ray disc
or suchlike in order to argue that films are extremely overpriced, or assume
that there is a conspiracy among distributors to obstruct availability of
films in order to extort money from consumers. It takes lengthy explanation to
clue people into the numerous hidden costs of distribution (eg language-
specific marketing materials, soundtrack-dubbing and so on), and that the
considerable up-front costs of film production are typically financed by pre-
sales agreements, and that most films do _not_ have hyper-lucrative tie-ins
like action figures, theme park rides, and worldwide audience anticipation
that pretty much guarantees everyone will make a profit.

People tend to focus on the objective and then tell themselves a fairy story
about how they're going to get there. I'm not immune. Now when I'm planning a
project I try to come up with my best estimates on everything but then I go
through and multiply lots of them x 2 because of the things that I don't know
I don't know.

~~~
jkestner
I think you're largely right in that optimism led to a bunch of unforced
errors. Evidence: They thought that they'd get 20% conversion on preorders
(probably because it made their numbers line up), when those interested had
their expectations set at ~$99 and instead got $350.

But specifically about not rolling in the fixed costs, it's much larger than
that. Their BOM alone blew up 3x. Even if you planned poorly up to that point,
what you then do is cut. You find the biggest cost drivers and get them down.
Find a cheaper way to make a less-polished case. Ship with 40 hours of battery
life instead of spending developer-months getting to 400.

Anyway, I really appreciate that he posted this post-mortem. There are too few
of these for others to learn from. I hate when someone who obviously loves
Kickstarter (and has successfully used it before) is called a scam artist. It
may be all the same to a backer, but he's only guilty of mismanagement.

~~~
bravo22
Perhaps he should put his vendor quotations online, along with his BOM
choices?

I design products for a living and I'm finding it hard to believe that the
component BOM for this would be anything over $15.

Additionally, their case is a pretty simple two half-shell design. I can think
of 5 vendors off the top of my head who would make the mold for about 5-8K.

I want to take his word about mismanagement but the disclosed details don't
add up, unless he really has no product knowledge and is being taken for a
ride by his supplier.

~~~
jkestner
Yes, project planning docs with hard numbers, for better or worse, would be
particularly valuable for others to learn from. Though I suspect that the
difference is that the BOM he built early estimates on was composed of
optimistic guesses, and the later BOM was compiled and padded by his
consultant.

It's not exactly two parts. You've also got the pad for the buttons, perhaps
the window over the display, and there appear to be three different body
variations, for a total of maybe 8 pieces. Still, $50K is high for Chinese
molds.

If you don't understand manufacturing well, you won't be able to effectively
design a low-cost product - that's knowledge that should inform your early
decisions. For starters, I wouldn't have made several modules - that's
essentially making several products at once. Start with the minimum useful
product and add modules after you've shipped.

~~~
bravo22
I agree. It was very poor project planning. The multiple radio modules doesn't
make sense for starters and in fact all but laser could easily be built into
the current design for little cost (PIR, Light intensity, sound intensity).

As for the mold (and this is just an exercise at this point) I considered that
the window would just be built into the mold and would be parallel to the
parting line. The buttons could easily be cap sense buttons, and not membrane.
It would only need an inexpensive pad printing operation, which they're doing
anyways for branding.

------
swamp40
20% refunds (promised, not yet delivered).

And the company's going to stay in business.

How embarrassing.

~~~
FigBug
That's the beauty of Kickstarter. No downside for those who get the money,
very limited upside for those who pledge.

~~~
hgferee
Why are you singling out Kickstater? You statement holds true for any form of
investment.

There seem to be a misconception what Kickstarter is. Their FAQ is clearly
explains it is funding. I'm sure if everyone who backs a project would read
it, there wouldn't be so many complaints.

~~~
aikah
I wish people stop saying that. Backers are not investors.They are essentially
pre-ordering a product,whatever it is. Today the language is vague enough to
confuse the "bakers", Kickstarter knows it. What's even more amazing is that
no backer has successfully sued Kickstarter for a failed project yet, because
one could clearly get the money lost from them directly. They are a store,
period.

~~~
hgferee
That is your impression. You seem to be relying on word of mouth i.e. the
general public representation of what Kickstarter is. Unfortunately that is
not accurate.

Simply reading FAQ will shows they are not a store, quoting:

 _At the same time, backers must understand that Kickstarter is not a store.
When you back a project, you’re helping to create something new — not ordering
something that already exists._

you might think they are( a store ), but that doesn't make it true.

~~~
ghaff
It actually looks as if there have been some changes to the Kickstarter TOS.
For a long time, it seemed to imply that you needed to return the money if you
didn't deliver the rewards. (However unrealistic that was--blood from stone
and all that.)

Now it seems to explicitly refer to returning _remaining_ funds. ("they offer
to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward
(in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will
be used to complete the project in some alternate form.)"

Kickstarter has been tiptoeing this line forever between Not-a-store and Not-
giving-people-what-they-paid-for-is-a-very-bad-thing.

~~~
DanBC
At the time the triggertrap ada completed funding the TOS said full refunds if
the product isn't delivered -- according to comments on the kickstarter page.

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap-
redsnap-modular-camera-trigger/comments)

~~~
ghaff
Interesting. I _thought_ the terms had changed. While I'm sure not everyone
will agree, the new ones seem to make a lot more sense. After all, if you had
the money why would you run a Kickstarter (other than for the
marketing/feeling out the market) if you were really, truly, personally on the
hook to give it all back no matter what? And, if you didn't have the money
before the Kickstarter, there's pretty much an inherent risk that things are
going to go south as in this case.

I understand Kickstarter wanting to keep the pressure on project creators
while minimizing the perceived risk in the eyes of funders, but the current
TOS seems to mirror the reality much better than the old one. (Threats of
lawsuits and so forth notwithstanding.)

EDIT: Ah. This seems to have happened last fall:
[http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/kickstarter-tries-
to...](http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/09/kickstarter-tries-to-help-
creators-who-dont-deliver-with-new-terms/)

------
jayess
I'm guessing this is the trademark he's referring to:

[http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:9r4...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4807:9r4gt3.3.2)

~~~
TeMPOraL
The search link has expired. Could you please provide the query you used?

~~~
Crito
His link works for me right now, but it is these guys:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Compa...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company)
[http://www.red.com](http://www.red.com)

They _really_ should have seen it coming. Red is pretty well known, even if
you aren't in some sort of camera-related industry.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yup. I wasn't sure if this is what he meant, but if it was this, then indeed,
Red is a very known name in camera-related industry. Hell, even I know about
this (via HN) and I have absolutely nothing to do with photography.

------
vitalus
For the sake of its customers, Kickstarter needs to be doing a better job of
evaluating projects, as it sounds like this project wasn't viable from the
outset. This hurts their credibility and makes me wary of funding in the
future.

In the "Refunds" breakdown on the Kickstarter page, it shows that they're
refunding the remaining 20%, while Kickstarter is keeping the 5% fee.
Shouldn't Kickstarter be refunding their cut?

~~~
vacri
Kickstarter did their middle-man job in good faith; why should they be liable?

------
Balgair
It seems like the take home lesson to all hackers and hobbyists out there:

Hardware is HARD. Fullstop. $500,000 is nothing for even something as 'small'
as this.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I don't think that is the correct lesson. The lesson is that if you are
building a product and you don't already have all the expertise in house to
finish the design, then you cannot predict what it should cost.

Building hardware is actually "easier" in some senses than building software
because it is so testable. More importantly building to the 'proof of concept'
stage, or prototyping, is _essential_ in a hardware design.

I expect that building their device for $500K was eminently doable, with an in
house hardware engineer, embedded software engineer, and a
mechanical/manufacturing engineer or someone who is really talented and can do
all three acceptably well. You don't get their fancy injection molded case,
you get something much more boxish, and your controls are simpler.

Perhaps the better lesson is don't assume anything you cannot do yourself but
can describe is either easy to do or simple to do.

~~~
Balgair
I thought the summary at the end was true though, but I still think that the
takeaway for hobbyists and hackers is that getting a hardware device to market
is HARD (caps intended). Cloning software is trivial, while getting things
from China or wherever is not. If you are a hacker with all 3 skills you
mentioned, then you probably can say that it is merely 'tough', but then
again, you probably already have a great job with stock options, as you are
rare in these fields.

~~~
pkaye
In this case the issue is not that it is HARD but that they don't have people
with the right experience in their team. Also in pure software projects, you
can cover for your mistakes with personal sacrifices and working crazy hours
but with hardware, some mistakes really cost money.

~~~
sliverstorm
The idea behind the "hardware is hard" message isn't that hardware is
impossible, but to get software engineers starting hardware projects to stop
trivializing it. Engineers have a tendency to dismiss all disciplines outside
their own as easy, the sort of thing you can pick up in a week if you need.

------
aikah
Kickstarter is a great social experiment.I wouldn't give a cent to any
project. But if people looking for some thrill or some desire to make
something happen give money,they are free to do so.

Yet I find pathetic people then complaining on kickstarter forums after a
scam,what did they expect? there is nothing to expect.Because these consumers
are not really protected,and kickstarter itself doesn't give a fuck about
them.

On the other hand sooner or later, "backers" need to have a legal
status.Donators,investors,consumers whatever, it needs to be regulated, like
any other industry. Right now it isn't,but it will, mark my words.

------
DanBC
This 2012 Gizmodo article talks about their previous kickstarter efforts.

[http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/01/triggertrap-the-
story/](http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/01/triggertrap-the-story/)

------
weissadam
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Kickstarter is basically Skymall
2.0 with added suspense. Will they actually ship it?! Will it actually work?!
Will it actually work well?!

------
pyb
The whole system has become so unhealthy for hardware startups. Kickstarter
pushes everyone to overpromise and underdeliver, which is precisely the
opposite what any good startup should aim for.

------
ripter
It would be awesome if they open sourced the hardware. Then hackers could
build their own Triggertrap Ada to interface with their mobile app.

~~~
coupdejarnac
Well, they are using the audio jack for i/o. Convert audio signal to a logic
level voltage, then use that voltage to activate a solid state relay. Camera
remotes are normal open momentary switches, and the relay would serve as the
switch. The app is pretty much a timer that outputs beeps. Why not make that
too?

~~~
ripter
From what I read, it sounded like they already built the thing, they just
don't have the means to bring it to production.

Selling kits wouldn't require them to bring it to production, while at the
same time letting people experiment and use their app. I don't want to re-
create their product, but it would be nice for people who still want the
product and are willing to do a little work.

------
tjradcliffe
There's a lot to criticize here, but one suggestion I've not seen anyone make
is some kind of commitment to backers to make them whole.

This is an ongoing enterprise, so there are any number of ways that might
happen. One is just to say, "Look, we don't have the money to pay you back now
but we are converting your contributions to loans at interest rate $X and will
pay you back when we have the cash, which we expect to be $DATE." Or give
people a discount on some future product. Free software updates for life.
Something. Otherwise this reads as kind of narcissistic: "It's been so painful
for us to spend all your money!"

They also made any number of mistakes that are so large and well-known as to
be nearly inexcusable. They were clearly learning on other people's dime, and
that's kind of a problem when the product never materializes.

Outsourcing design and development is a terrible mistake for a boutique
product. While this was a product management failure, the lack of in-house
resources was an even bigger error.

For a $500K budget, zero money should be have been spent on design. Let the
engineers decide how it looks. You can make it pretty on the second iteration.
The first one will be charmingly ugly, and it will exist. Design people can
suck down an astonishing amount of cash arguing about fonts, and that kind of
thing makes a difference if you're selling to the mass-market, but for a
niche/enthusiast/industrial product? No one cares.

I once worked on an industrial product where a design company burned a huge
amount of money on everything from UI layouts (mostly unusable) to icon
design, to fonts. I re-did their UI so it could actually be implemented with
the development and hardware resources available, added a few icons they had
missed, and replaced their pricey commercial font with a free one. Number of
complaints about the UI _from the people who had approved the design dollars
in the first place_? Zero. No one could tell the difference (I'm sure a
designer would have gone spare looking at what I produced, but our customers
weren't designers... they almost never are.)

Good design in a mass-market product can be a huge big deal, but hitting that
perfect sweet spot the way Apple does so often is incredibly difficult and
expensive. The odds of hitting it are so low for a project with limited
resources that you're far better off not trying until you've got a shipping
product.

------
jkestner
Here's a pie chart of how the money was spent:
[http://petapixel.com/2015/03/02/triggertrap-has-failed-
after...](http://petapixel.com/2015/03/02/triggertrap-has-failed-after-
raising-nearly-500k-for-the-ada-modular-camera-trigger/)

~~~
bhayden
Still not very useful. $135,000 on "staff costs" doesn't say much - did one
guy just pay himself $100k for the hell of it? $5,000 on travel expenses, did
they expense all their gas for commuting and take a business trip to hawaii?
$7,000 for "kickstarter campaign" \- what are they possibly spending $7k on?
This is a separate amount from the fee that KS takes. The lack of transparency
is dumb.

------
djloche
As a backer of projects, I'd rather have them slowly make 3D printed / hand-
made editions for their backers, than get a % of my money back. But I
understand why they don't want to spend any more energy on hardware.

------
voltagex_
Aren't the high costs of injection molding well known?

~~~
asuffield
Yes, and it seems clear from the article that this was understood going into
the project. They got screwed when their production volume dropped from
50,000+ (viable for injection moulding) to 2,000 (not viable for anything),
after it became clear that the product they had designed was not sellable in
the market.

~~~
teraflop
The whole point of Kickstarter is _supposedly_ to let people fund projects
that require a minimum investment to be feasible, without their money going to
waste if that minimum isn't met.

If they knew their business model was only viable with 50,000 orders at $99
each, they should have set their target at $5million. Anything else is
dishonest and deceptive.

~~~
msandford
I can't understand how these idiots didn't think to use ProtoMold so that
their tooling costs would be reasonable.

[http://www.protolabs.com/protomold](http://www.protolabs.com/protomold)

$10k buys you a LOT of tooling there and they'll do the maintenance on it if
it starts to wear. Yeah you pay more per part, but who cares if it's a $0.20
or a $0.30 part when you're talking about going from $1 to $0.10 of overhead
per part.

This whole thing reeks of massive, gross incompetence.

------
javajosh
Consider that a "major camera manufacturer" cost this enterprise many
thousands of dollars by _sending a letter_.

~~~
anigbrowl
An expense the enterprise could have avoided entirely with a little bit of
effort and common sense in advance. Here's the top results for 'trademarks for
dummies': [http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/patents-copyrights-
tra...](http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/patents-copyrights-trademarks-
for-dummies-cheat-sh.html)

I'm not saying they should have spent $$$ on legal advice before setting pen
to paper. Trademarks are A Thing in the world of business and not a
particularly hard thing to learn about. If you're going to call your product
'Triggertrap Red' you shouldn't be too surprised when you get a letter from
'Red Camera' objecting to the apparent linkage between your product and
theirs.

I mean, if you invested some sort of automotive accessory, would you call it
the 'Javajosh Lexus'?

~~~
javajosh
It's funny that both you and the other commenter assume I'm taking an
editorial position on this. I was taken aback by the asymmetry of effort and
cost. They hired a "small team of lawyers" to deal with a _letter_. It wasn't
a lawsuit. It was a piece of paper with words on it!

Sort of similar to when you launch a big AWS cluster and when you hit "enter"
you know you just spent a lot of money.

~~~
anigbrowl
The piece of paper with words on it was created by a bunch of highly paid
lawyers to get their attention. If it was a typical demand letter, it probably
demand not only that they cease and desist from use of the infringing mark,
but that they turn over any and all material employing the infringing mark for
destruction, as well as a complete accounting of their financial interest in
said mark. I imagine Triggertrap's legal bill was about 10% for the time to
explain 'they're right, you're wrong, give it up already' and 90% for the
drafting of a reply letter and compliance sufficient to get the injured party
to call the matter closed.

Now, that's a lot to ask for in a letter - usually a Trademark C&D goes along
the lines of 'stop or I'll sue' \- but in the context of a money-raising
campaign, and given the fact that Red Camera company had historically and
famously employed the pre-order launch strategy themselves, I think it would
have been appropriate to come down on Triggertrap like a ton of bricks. Don't
forget that trademark law works on a 'defend it or lose it' basis - if you
don't vigorously contest infringement of the mark, then some later infringer
can raise a defense of constructive abandonment.

Not a lawyer, but I've long been interested in this subfield of law.
Monitoring and defending the mark against potential infringers isn't cost-free
either.

~~~
javajosh
_> The piece of paper with words on it was created by a bunch of highly paid
lawyers to get their attention._

You do know the difference between speculation and knowledge, right? I'm not
saying that you're wrong, but I want to point out how much you're reading into
this situation. Consider the possibilities: what if that letter was a fake,
crafted by an early stage competitor just to waste their valuable time and
money? An effective hack, because it's probably not even illegal.

~~~
anigbrowl
Triggertrap's legal team would begin by verifying the provenance of any demand
letter. Any letter like that is going to start by introducing itself as being
either from a firm's general counsel or (more often) a law firm acting as
outside counsel, and it's not hard to verify the sender's legal credentials
and client relationship. A fake letter would be easy enough to identify and
might even attract criminal penalties. In some states, legitimate but
overzealous demand letters can be grounds for civil fraud action by the
recipient, eg [http://www.stormoenlaw.com/extortion-risks-from-
overzealous-...](http://www.stormoenlaw.com/extortion-risks-from-overzealous-
demand-letters.html)

Of course I'm speculating about the contents, but I am familiar with the legal
issues, know lawyers who practice in this area, and the camera market, as well
as people at Red Camera. I think you overestimate the ease of the 'hack'
you're imagining.

------
Aeolun
I just don't understand this. I read this to mean that they only started
looking into the cost of production after they finished R&D...

No matter how you look at it that's pretty retarded.

------
ffwacom
Criminal negligence

------
hurin
Please, Please, stop publishing articles in these ridiculous 600 pixel text
widths. The other 73% percent of my screen is there for a reason.

~~~
joshuapants
Have you ever read a newspaper? There's a reason that text is typically
contained in columns: readability. Presumably these writers want their content
to be read.

~~~
brianwawok
Newspapers can't be responsive.

