Lots of trolling and ranting. I mean seriously, kickstarter is an incubator. If you don't like it, don't participate. No need to whine about it loud. Instead of being really constructive in his critique, the author provides shallow critique.
I agree, the article might not be the best critique ever but I think there is a need to rise some noise about Kickstarter, not because I hate it or whatever, but because it made noise and now people are using it in the wrong way so to educate it's users we must give a strong, clear message of how to use it. And it should be a message both for founders and backers.
What I get from the article is that this guys had an idea and 24 hours later they created the Kickstarter. This is partly wrong, what is totally wrong is people supporting them(please note this is just my opinion) because you can find everywhere cheap shirts, even good ones. There a huge market about it what would make you think that some random guy can do better? Just because they say so? If this would make any money companies would have already adopted this.
When approaching Kickstarter I think one(with an idea or a prototype) should make it clear what he wants to achieve without the "I will make the best at the lowest price" attitude. Remember the users that backing the project it's a donation with a possible gift and not a preorder. Also you should have thought about it more than 1 day. The day you realize that you can't maintain your promises your reputation might end up destroyed.
I think that it's important that we use Kickstarter the correct way because we risk ruining it, when too many people will realize that they will not get what they paid for people will not use it any more, resulting a bad reputation for kickstarter and therefore other projects that might be worth checking.
I've been preparing for this Kickstarter campaign for six months. I'm doing it because I'm truly passionate about fixing a very broken retail/apparel manufacturing model that hasn't changed much in 50 years. I think there is a truly better way to make and sell the best men's clothes, and that is why I'm building this company. Kickstarter happens to be an incredibly efficient way to gain the resources required to continue down this path.
My background is in technology. I've built a few software companies. I focused on understanding the manufacturing process, designing the first line, sourcing materials, finding partners, working on fit, thinking about how to market the company in the future, etc. All the things you'd expect. It has been incredibly fun.
No. It was certainly constructive, just not without humor. For instance, he goes into detail on risks and challenges, saying that From Holden uses this section to talk further about how awesome it is, rather than talking simply talking about risks and challenges. This could have helped From Holden for next time; it is constructive.
While I agree the article is negative in tone, I don't like this attitude 'if you don't like it shut up and leave us alone' or 'just quit whining'. If someone genuinely feels there are problems with kickstarter, why shouldn't they be allowed to talk about it?
I'm not backing you on kickstarter because you're asking me to give you money in the hope of a reward later, instead of it being either a real purchase or a real investment.
That is specifically the incubator's role. It's a promise, not a shop. Promises can be broken, but they are also innovation's fuel. It's a bit like criticising a baby, for being a baby. You have to let it grow and be patient. If you don't want to support it, then don't. Perhaps I was too harsh in my comment, but kickstarter does not realize a typical transaction-oriented in capitalist sense shop. Some reserve is necessary for ideas to flourish.
I'm not criticising kickstarter because promises can be broken, I'm just saying that I don't find it compelling as it's neither an investment nor a purchase. A micro-investment platform would be far more interesting to me.
Kickstarter croudsources the risk, and the upside is 'you get this thing we want to make', where you could instead just wait for that thing to be made and buy it.
I would rather have given Pebble $200 or $2000 for a (admittedly tiny) piece of the company. That's compelling.
The risk is way, way too high for the reward. But the price points are generally so low that it isn't a big deal. It's like playing the Super Lotto, but instead of an infinitesimal chance of winning $10m on a given date, you have a slightly less infinitesimal chance of getting the product you wanted at some nebulous point in the future.
All the downside of risk with none of the upside, where do I sign up?!
Eh, I consider my backings to be investments. I don't expect a personal return for them because that's not how I work; I back stuff because I think there will be a return for society. Sometimes that means I get diddly. I'm okay with this.
I could not find any trolling in the post, and also no whining. I mean, how should we have a discussion about a certain kickstarter project if all you have to say is "If you don't like it, don't participate."