
Kickstarter is Not a Store - benackles
http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store
======
robomartin
I welcome these changes. They might seem draconian at first, but I think it
could do wonders to protect project supporters.

It could also serve to protect neophyte project originators who have no clue
as to what it takes to get a hardware project from a rendering or a garage
prototype to a real finished product.

There are a myriad of technologies available today to produce very high
quality prototypes that look like the finished product. Forcing project
originators to show an actual product rather than a rendering will simply
force them to make the time and financial investment to get the project to a
far deeper level of completion and really think it all thorough.

If someone will not take the time and spend the money to put together a
prototype that is a real representation of what it is they are proposing I
don't think they belong on Kickstarter.

I would imagine that it would still be OK to show renderings and animations so
long as the actual physical product is shown as well. The reason I think this
is important is that this can also show supporters important details that may
not be evident or easy to demonstrate with actual products. For example,
animations could show internal mechanism and how they work. 3D renderings
could show ideas on variants or configurations for backers to discuss and
provide feedback for.

I have a couple of projects that have been slated for Kickstarter for months.
I've been too busy with work to really get to them. In both cases my approach
has been to fully develop the items to the point that they are basically ready
to manufacture. The Kickstarter push would simply serve to gage interest and
pay for tooling and other NRE's that would make it possible to fabricate the
items in reasonable quantities at a decent cost. Of course, I've been in
product design and manufacturing for a long, long time so I tend to be very
realistic about what it takes to get something done. I've seen projects go on
Kickstarter that would not have a chance in hell to be completed at the
requested funding level. Not a good thing.

Above all, what this indicates is that Kickstarter is watching and listening,
which is excellent.

~~~
ajross
Indeed. The implication here is that, generally, "Hardware and Product Design"
projects always fail. But rather than ban them entirely, they are simply
preventing anyone from "marketing" them. So you can still do a hardware
project, you just have to sell it via the plan and specs only, without sexy
adornment. That seems fair.

~~~
utopkara
If the point is to make sure that the backers do not make decisions
uninformed, why not take time to add a curated risk score. This way, the
projects will be responsible in providing proper evidence about how far they
are in production, and you can help us figure out if they are really on track.
For instance, a project which can provide a list of parts, is probably further
in the process than one which only has CAD sketches; but that doesn't mean
that people wouldn't be interested in backing the project in its infancy. It
shouldn't be too hard for you to come up with an acceptable process of
evaluation, and hire experts to do it. Heck, we pay a cut to KS anyway, why
not throw in a better service in return.

~~~
utopkara
If KS is serious in what they are doing, they shouldn't try patches like
putting arbitrary rules, but take action to solve the problem directly.
Project funding is their core business after all. Apple does it with their App
Store, and without their curation, probably the store would have turned into a
bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the point of being unusable.

~~~
gms7777
> Apple does it with their App Store, and without their curation, probably the
> store would have turned into a bigger garbage pile than it is now, to the
> point of being unusable.

Ummm, I know its not your primary point, but I'm not entirely sure about this
statement. Look at the android app store (Google play) in comparison. It
doesn't have that same curation as the Apple version, and certainly there are
a lot of useless apps on it, but it is by no standard "unusable". In fact, in
my experience, I prefer looking for apps on the Google version than the Apple
because for almost any purpose its easy to find an amateur low cost or free
app. This generally isn't the case in the apple version

------
waterlesscloud
Hmm.

They needed to make some sort of move, but banning simulations and renderings
(Really?) seems to be terrible overkill.

If anything, this move makes it much _more_ a store. You can only put up
products that exist. There's no funding of development.

Not sure this is a good solution on their part.

EDIT: Fully in support of the "Risks and Challenges" section. Makes it like an
investment prospectus.

~~~
guelo
The problems is skilled designers are starting to pull off big time scams
fooling people for hundreds of thousands of dollars. People see realistic
renderings of a hoverboard or whatever and they immediately open their wallets
without realizing that their is very little chance that they will be able to
pull it off. If people see a skateboard with some glued-on fans they will be
much more skeptical.

~~~
jonnathanson
Can we actually prove fraud in any of these cases, though? I'm not saying it
can't happen, or that it hasn't happened. But we should never attribute to
malice what can be more readily attributed to stupidity. I'm more inclined to
believe that a bunch of people got in over their heads than that a bunch of
people intentionally scammed backers.

I may be wrong. But can someone point to some concrete examples? Fraud is a
pretty heavy charge to level against Kickstarter projects, and it's also an
indirect accusation that Kickstarter is a hotbed of such activity.

~~~
yummies
Wanting to prevent campaigns that will end in failure due to "stupidity", or
even people who "got in over their heads" is just as valid as wanting to
prevent fraud. Kickstarter's image/brand will be hurt by poorly executed
campaigns that fail for whatever reason, so it's in their best interest to
keep those to a minimum.

~~~
evilduck
I've thought for a while now that Kickstarter should have upper bounds for
funding to prevent people from unwittingly accepting too much money and
forcing the scale and scope of their project to change. Once a project is 200%
funded, stop allowing more backers.

~~~
bobds
You can limit the number of slots per reward, which is essentially the same.

~~~
evilduck
Yes, but that doesn't stop people from adding more slots than they can
realistically handle.

The skills, knowledge, and resources to produce 1k widgets is totally
different than producing 1MM widgets. I might be able to brute-force
manufacture 1k widgets from my garage and that would kickstart the business if
that's my skill and scale estimate. I need staff, facilities and a different
type of supplier if I need to make millions, and I may not have what it takes
to deliver on that.

------
olalonde
When Ouya raised over a million dollars within 24 hours a few weeks ago, they
specifically wrote: "In just 24 hours, 20,000 people _bought_ an Ouya
console"[0]. They should be more careful with their choice of words in the
future if they really want to reflect that "Kickstarter is not a store".

[0] <http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/ouyas-big-day>

~~~
mcphilip
The change in terminology would seem to imply that Kickstarter is now wising
up to the fact that there will inevitably be a high profile failure to deliver
in the near future and is now trying to preempt criticism against Kickstarter
not laying out clearly enough the risks involved in backing a project.

I welcome this change and think that it will help in the long run.

~~~
waterlesscloud
There's already been a high profile failure to deliver, and it was a software
project. Diaspora.

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-
the-p...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/196017994/diaspora-the-
personally-controlled-do-it-all-distr)

~~~
macspoofing
There's a code base that's functional, and available for anyone. The project
wasn't a failure. It just didn't take.

~~~
veridies
Not to mention active, ongoing development, including regularly adding new
features and a several hundred thousand strong community. It's not a Facebook-
killer, but it's a reasonable social network as-is.

------
andrewljohnson
What a measured, interesting, and social response.

As programmers, we often try and fix things with code, but it's cool to see
Kickstarter improve their product by thinking about what questions the
creators should be asking. I also agree that hardware makers do themselves and
other a disservice by showing space age renderings of their products.

------
ghshephard
I find it fascinating how Kickstarter is starting to adopt some of the same
cautions that we see in an S1/Prospectus, "“What are the risks and challenges
this project faces, and what qualifies you to overcome them?”"

As a long time burner, it was interesting to me how year after year, the playa
adopted many (but not all) of the rules, regulations, restrictions of the
outside world. We had a DMV (Department of Mutan Vehicles), Building
Regulations (for buildings over a certain height), developed clinics, and
ambulance services - etc...

It will be interesting to see, over time, how kickstarter adopts many of the
SEC mandated governance over new enterprises going to the market for funding.

Reading through all the regulations though - it feels like 90% (100%?) are in
response to this: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-
light...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/limemouse/lifx-the-light-bulb-
reinvented?ref=live)

I'm sure a LOT of people watched that video, and thought that the LIFX
lightbulb exists (or almost exists) in it's current incarnation. Also, there
are a lot of people supporting for $500 in the belief that they'll get 10
lightbulbs - I wonder how many of those backers don't realize their is a
better than even chance that this project will come to nothing, and they'll
get nothing but good feelings for their money?

------
majormajor
I think the move from product simulations/renderings to solely being able to
show what the product can do _now_ is a great change. I've been critical about
some of the usages of Kickstarter in the past, but this addresses a big part
of my concerns.

I do hope that it doesn't keep products that are in a rough state from being
able to be successful, though if somethings really _that_ complex that you
need to raise a lot of money to have a marketable prototype, let alone bring
it to market, I don't think Kickstarter donations are the way to fund it.

------
mistercow
That's a start, but I still think that allowing hardware projects to offer
arbitrary, open-ended numbers of end-product rewards is a mistake. Suddenly
being expected to produce 100 times as many units as you planned is not, as
people so often say "a good problem to have". It's just "a problem".

Yes, the general tendency is for marginal cost to decrease as production
quantity increases, but that does not mean that it's a smooth curve. Instead,
the line is jagged, littered with points where large investments need to be
made. For an open-ended product, you get investors, hire extra people, buy
equipment, etc. You'll end up taking a short-term loss that will be earned
back in the long term. For a close-ended project like Kickstarter allows,
you'll have the short-term loss, but no long-term profit.

And that's if you have experience and connections to pull off manufacturing
and courting investors. If you're hawking a project on Kickstarter, it's
pretty likely that you have neither.

------
gojomo
I think "Product renderings are prohibited", and to a lesser extent "Product
simulations are prohibited", run against the emphasized goal being "a new way
for creators and audiences to work together to make things".

When something doesn't yet exist, you have to present speculative
representations to communicate (or even rationally discuss!) the vision. That
goes double for a wider audience, which may not be as accustomed to letting
their imagination range over exotic possibilities.

Such mockups should be clearly labeled, and placed alongside current-best-
prototype representations for comparison, and disclaimerized as with the new
'Risks and Challenges' requirement.

But before Kickstarter, more traditional investors and prepurchasers -- and
indeed internal organization R&D and product-development processes -- would
use and expect such representations for design communication. Why cripple the
new model with this encumbrance?

~~~
001sky
These guys are New York, and it seems like their leagal-eagle's have raised
some concerns. This does not smell like bus-dev, or pr, or typical CEO
brainstorming at work. so, it would be very fascinating to see what they are
seeing internally. we can speculate, but that's not likely going to get us the
same look at the situation.

~~~
zacharycohn
I disagree. If huge product failures/not-quite-scams-but-might-as-well-be keep
happening, people will loose faith in the Kickstarter brand. This is them
protecting themselves, and their community.

~~~
gojomo
If the real motive is to prevent scams/failures-to-deliver, that's OK. But
that's almost the opposite concern from the headline -- "not a store" -- about
just using Kickstarter as a channel for moving already-developed, riskless
product inventory.

------
stefanobernardi
This is a very honorable move from Kickstarter, forcing themselves to follow
their mission vs immediate revenues.

This is how every company should operate. And this will definitely improve
their long-term shape and revenues.

~~~
saurik
It isn't just revenues: having people who think they are buying things (or
probably worse: think they are selling things) but aren't really (as there are
risks and this is all just contributing money to possible futures) has legal
and accounting (eg. sales tax) ramifications that kickstarter was not
previously, not seemed to have any signs of in the future, addressing.

------
vannevar
This was becoming a real issue for Kickstarter. Many of the recent high
profile 'projects' were companies (particularly game developers/publishers and
consumer products manufacturers) effectively taking pre-orders through
Kickstarter and using those funds to develop the product. As the channel
through which the orders were placed (and the party that that receives the
money and takes a cut), I think a good legal argument could be made that
Kickstarter _is_ a store, and thus would have to comply with the UCC and other
laws (including the various Deceptive Trade Practices acts across the country)
applying to retail.

------
mstank
There's also an issue with the media talking about Kickstarter products like
they already exist.

In the case of Lifx, article titles like "Australian re-invents the lightbulb"
mislead the public and perpetuate the belief that people are purchasing actual
products and not merely funding idea that may come into fruition.

[https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=lifx+light&oq=lifx+light&gs_l)

------
jmilloy
As others have said, it seems like KS is preferring projects which, already
having functional prototypes, just need the capital to produce a commercially
viable product in quantity. But, I think some projects need funding to even be
able produce a prototype. To be able to show the mock-up is essential to
describe the product potential backers.

I would like to see a separate (new) category for product&design projects at
this stage. The projects would explicitly be looking for funding to create the
prototype, with no promise to deliver a finished product. If a project is
backed and delivers a working prototype, but now needs funding for the next
step, they could return to Kickstarter for another round. Backers who want to
fund product ideas could do so (likely with smaller pledges), and no one is
tricked into a large backing thinking they will get a working product in the
mail in three months.

Traditional startups get venture capital in rounds; why not crowd-sourced
capital in rounds?

------
fruchtose
Personally, I would prefer a hybrid approach--projects cannot show _only_
simulations/rendering. If a project presents these things, it must also
present the current state of the ideas being rendered.

You're developing a spacefaring action game? By all means, show me that you
want to have planets, stars, and space pirates--but if all you have right now
is a spaceship object floating in an environment without a skybox, I want to
see that, too.

~~~
guelo
The rendering ban only applies to hardware products. Video games are not
affected.

~~~
fruchtose
Looks like I skimmed too quickly then.

------
erohead
Wow. This is a major move. Pebble (my project) would not be possible now.

~~~
ChuckMcM
I was thinking the same thing. If you limit rewards to '1' of the product you
won't have any $1,000 or $5,000 backers. Hard to get to $1M at $100 a throw.

~~~
PeterisP
Backing a project and pre-ordering a product are two different things - and
kickstarter doesn't want to get involved in the second part. If you're mature
enough to really start accepting preorders with a guarantee of delivery, then
put up your product for sale. If you don't yet have a product to sell - that's
what kickstarter is for, but then it is not a sale/preorder with a volume
discount, but backing of a venture that might deliver something else, or
nothing at all - i.e., you get to be an investor, not a customer.

------
idanb
I see this as a very welcome addition to the public stance of Kickstarter with
regards to physical products (which it's been relatively quiet about). One of
the reasons we chose Kickstarter as a platform to get our product off the
ground was the fact that it would allow us flexibility and freedom to get our
prototypes to full scale manufacturing, which were already relatively mature
in their stage of production (tooling already complete, near final hardware
etc).

Lots of things can go wrong at every stage after you have a final production
sample. You still need to get the sample certified by a number of governing
bodies, set up QC and shipping, and in the case of overseas manufacturing deal
with the freight/customs and finally fulfillment of the product.

I'm happy that Kickstarter is taking more of stance on the subject, as we've
had to in many cases provide "returns" to people or deal with "customer
service" style requests, which we've done in good faith but it really misses
the point of launching a product on Kickstarter.

I think this stance will really help back up projects when they need to make
an adjustment, or have to deal with something unexpected. Also, it should
improve the quality of projects moving forward by making people more skeptical
and aware of the time/cost-instability of the manufacturing process. We were
lucky to hit a pretty happy medium with regards to initial volume, and unlike
some of the blockbuster projects when we have to change things we don't end up
on TechCrunch for it, only the Guardian :)

------
aorshan
Though I completely understand where kickstarter is coming from with their
decision, I have a bit of a gripe with their choice to prevent projects from
showing renderings and requiring actual photos.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time I checked the purpose of
kickstarter was to help people get their ideas off the ground. Some types of
products, especially hardware, can cost a lot of money to produce at a
prototype stage. Not everyone has the cash lying around to spend hundreds, if
not thousands of dollars to build a functional prototype. So normally what
that person would do is put together some renderings and a video and go to
kickstarter to raise the funds to expand into prototypes and production. Now
what are they to do?

Ultimately I think this decision by kickstarter gives a tremendous advantage
to design shops with the budgets to build prototypes, while leaving the little
guy behind.

------
imrehg
Well, if people think it's a store, then it might be a store. Sign of a
successful platform that it goes in directions that you have not expected.
Though it is also a sign of failed communication.

The question is now whether you want to bring the project back onto the
originally envisioned path, or figure out how to ride the waves of these
unexpected changes?

~~~
riledhel
After reading the news, I keep thinking "aren't they missing something?".
Can't they seize this audience that come to the site to buy stuff? Maybe a
spin-off from the original kickstarter, specially tailored as a sales
platform.

~~~
LaGrange
Maybe they don't want to? They seem to like their knitted scarves, art-house
films and interpretative dance about marine life quite a lot. Going for high-
profile store-like projects doesn't actually guarantee success (they may get
whacked by litigation, or people may become disillusioned) and puts their
primary goal at risk.

------
MatthewPhillips
Smart move. AirBnB waited until scandal broke out and then tried to put out
the fire. We were/are dangerously close to a major scandal happening on
Kickstarter.

~~~
prezjordan
What was the major scandal?

~~~
Roedou
A user's home was trashed:

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-
air...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/27/the-moment-of-truth-for-airbnb-as-
users-home-is-utterly-trashed/)

------
ck2
100% simple solution to this.

DO NOT ALLOW listings to offer the product described as a reward.

Will solve the problem entirely, guaranteed.

~~~
evan_
This is a kickstarter for: An awesome t-shirt with a picture of an Android-
based game console we're developing on it.

Rewards: $180 A new Android-based game console.

~~~
ck2
All listings are reviewed by humans before published so this kind of trickery
wouldn't work.

------
labizaboffle
Two recent things come to mind, Ouya and the Tesla museum. Both offered items
with purchase, but the Ouya items included the Ouya itself. That presents a
problem that I didn't realize until now, which is that a store has to do a lot
of things relating to paying taxes, etc., when being a store was not the
intent of kickstarter, so... I get it. They are not a store.

However, with the Tesla thing and related projects, I think that this gets
into a really grey area- and from past experience with helping with a large
site that took donations- you have to subtract the items that have value from
the donation, so they have to do this if anything is given away, or at least
the recipient does if they are a charity/non-profit. Was the Tesla thing a
non-profit?

And not allowing 3D renderings of hardware is a bad idea. For example, if you
have a valid design for something and need the money to have it fabricated,
then the sponsor should be able to see the design. Not being able to do so is
lame. Sometimes the design is the hard part. That is a valuable asset. It
should be rewarded with money to see it through. Why place someone with no
design and someone with a design on equal footing. They aren't. It's not just
about fairness, it is about being able to invest in something with a future.
No design- no future. Good design- possible future.

~~~
binarycrusader
The kickstarter rules only limit the content on the kickstarter website. I
don't see anything that precludes them from showing design concepts on a
different website.

So if you want to impress people with your project on the kickstarter website,
you'll have to stick to actual content.

------
shuri
It takes a lot of character to look at a lot of money in the eye and say no
thanks.

------
FooBarWidget
I still don't understand how Kickstarter is different from Pledgie, from which
has been around for much longer. At first I thought that Kickstarter would
hold the funds for the backers and return the funds if the project fails, but
that appears not to be the case. How is Kickstarter anything more than a
Donate button, a donation counter and a mailing list?

~~~
marknutter
The hold the funds until the funding round is over. If the goal is met, it's a
success, otherwise it's a failure and everyone gets their money back. It'd be
much harder to determine what exactly constitutes a "failure" of a project.

~~~
FooBarWidget
What about all those articles that talk about projects that failed to deliver
and backers that never got their money back?

------
trhtrsh
> Offering multiple quantities of a reward is prohibited.

The GoldieBlox are in violation of this bizarre rule.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4550707>

Why not just say "The developer must declare their planned production run, and
not accept excess backers"?

------
lifeformed
Renderings seem useful in helping viewers visualize what the goal is. Maybe
instead they should enforce that renders have to have an accompanying text
disclaimer? Kind of like medicine commercials and their side effects.

------
weej
I for one would be more interested in general success rate. I'm not talking
return on investment, but more so on how many projects actually come to
fruition and deliver at any level.

This is outside the fraudulent activity. It's more out of my sheer, selfish
interest in rate of success.

I could see such data publication helping and hurting Kickstarter. It could be
inspiring and generate even more interest (aka revenue), but also expose the
lack of completion and high failure rate turning off investors.

------
mparlane
I find it funny how the Oculus Rift's front image is a rendering, and not
because they can't do it. But because they want you to see the final design
that they have created.

------
smoyer
For software products, it's pretty hard for them to tell the difference
between a simulation/rendering and the real thing. If I show a finished UI, it
will appear to be fully functional and polished, but there may not be any
back-end at all. I often create a fake persistence layer to allow for faster
development of the UI. How would they be able to tell the difference? And it's
actually not violating the rules at all right?

~~~
siganakis
The simulation/rendering rule is only for "Hardware and Product Design
Projects", not software.

~~~
waterlesscloud
Are you sure? Software could conceivably fall under "Product".

~~~
jere
Everything on the site could conceivably fall into "Product".

It seems fairly clear to me that they are just trying to prevent these kind of
shenanigans: [http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jp...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/files/2012/09/bulbs.jpg)

[http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter...](http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-
salmon/2012/09/18/kickstarter-vaporware-of-the-day-lifx-edition/)

~~~
makomk
There are a bunch of obvious technical mistakes in that, not least of which is
that you're _not_ effectively buying a WeMo and getting the bulb for free;
only the more expensive master bulb will have WiFi support and the rest will
talk to it over much cheaper 802.15.4 mesh networking.

------
tibbon
I've been saying this for a while, and I'm glad they are working on
clarification. Yes, this will lower some of the astronomical numbers that some
projects are seeing- but I'm not sure if hitting 10mm is to anyone's benefit
really.

It needs to be understood that there is risk associated with this, no
guarantees, and that it isn't a straight up purchase transaction like going to
the store or preordering an iPhone.

------
steve8918
This is a good idea, kudos to them for making this move to help alleviate a
lot confusion on behalf of funders.

I think what they need to do is have milestones for their project that can get
vetted by Kickstarter. For each milestone they hit, more funds get released to
them. This will allow funders to get out if they keep missing their
milestones, and the project looks like it's going downhill.

~~~
001sky
\-- This staged financing concept is why they do vc in rounds a, b, c etc.

------
esalazar
In my opinion, Kickstarter is just a futures market for Goods/Services. When
they come out and say, "What are the risks and challenges this project faces,
and what qualifies you to overcome them?", it just sounds like Futures are
dangerous, risky, and you might loose your money.

I don't think you can call them a traditional store, but you can definitely
call them a Futures Store.

------
techtalsky
The rule against showing a render seems just a little rough. In some cases I
think a render of a product is important and it seems like really crippling a
hardware project if they can't show the design of the product. I get why, but
that seems like the toughest of the restrictions to me.

------
fratis
This is a sensible list of new rules. This is a quintessential exercise in
changing user expectations and behavior. This is great UX, especially in a
platform-type environment in which the platform managers aren’t always able to
curate the content created by the platform users.

------
zokier
I wonder why they disallowed selling vapor hardware but still allow equally
vapor software? Of course I wouldn't be surprised if vapor software would
bring significant portion of kickstarters income, so banning it would harm
significantly their bottom line.

------
rickdale
Not going to lie, I backed my first kickstarter project the other day with
Boosted Boards. When I decided to back it my thought process was "Oh, get it
in May, perfect timing for my brothers birthday"... now I understand, it might
never come.

------
Karunamon
Really? No renders? So how are you supposed to communicate what you want to
build?

Terrible move. Require renders and sims to be clearly labeled as such, but
this? FFS.

------
raldi
I don't really get the ban on multiple reward tiers for hardware. Anyone got
an example of something that used this to abuse users in the past?

~~~
waterlesscloud
The Lifx lightbulb is specific in setting multiple products shipped per
multiple dollar amount.

~~~
raldi
So what bad thing did that lead to?

~~~
rm999
They are making two simultaneous points:

1\. Projects are over-promising and under-delivering

2\. Kickstarter isn't a store and was never meant to be one. People have
turned it into one, leading to all sorts of issues, including point #1

I think when you are asking for examples of abuse you are thinking of the
first point, but the 'no multiple products' rule addresses #2. You aren't
buying a product, you are backing a project. If you want multiple lightbulbs,
presumably you can purchase them after the project is funded.

In other words, I don't think the rule is to prevent abuse, it's to bring
kickstarter back to its roots and remind people what kickstarter is all about.
It may hurt some projects but hopefully it will revert kickstarter to its
original niche where it was adding a lot of value.

~~~
makomk
Of course, since LIFX is planned as a networked bulb you can't actually get
the full functionality of it if you just order one. Also, for some of the
smaller Kickstarter hardware projects the creator actually has no intention of
launching them as a commercial product at all - they're essentially group buys
allowing hobbyists to offer something they've designed to other hobbyists for
less than the cost of building it themselves.

------
shloime
Kickstarter may not be a store, but <http://outgrow.me/> is.

------
anigbrowl
The ban on mutliple rewards is interesting. While there have been no tears
shed over ~$1000 going to finance the Makey Makey project, there's a mildly
awkward silence every time we try to figure out what we're going to do with 30
of them. It's also true that cannibalizing a old keyboard would have delivered
the same functionality...

ఠ_ఠ

------
ChuckMcM
Nicely done, hope it is enough to protect them from the lawyers.

------
wissler
No simulations or renderings to show the vision that's being pursued? Beyond
stupid. It's insane.

I'd speculate that it's probably a requirement driven by lawyers worried about
failed projects conferring some kind of liability onto Kickstarter itself.

------
melvinmt
New idea for startup: Kickstarter for New Hardware and Product Design. "Now
WITH renders."

