Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | DanBC's commentslogin

You'd have thought they'd have learnt some lessons from their first kickstarter.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/01/triggertrap-the-story/

reply


This 2012 Gizmodo article talks about their previous kickstarter efforts.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2012/01/triggertrap-the-story/

reply


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...

reply


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...

reply


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

reply


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

reply


Its perfectly realistic terms if:

1) The rewards aren't dependent on project success, or 2) The rewards are dependent on project success, but the project is being Kickstarted to fund something that is prototyped and ready to go into production, and the funding level is set appropriate to pay the production costs for the delivered rewards plus whatever premium the company expects to need to go forward.

Its only unreasonable if the project sets the rewards and funding levels at levels that are unreasonable.

When the project sets the funding target and the offered rewards, its not unreasonable to expect the project to be responsible for actually being able to meet the promised rewards if it meets the funding level it set.

No one forces you to put a project on Kickstarter, or sets the funding target or reward levels for you.

reply


Don't ask me. 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.

reply


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.

reply


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

reply


There are plenty of angry KickStarters in the comments. I'm not sure all of them did realise just what KickStarter is.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/triggertrap/triggertrap...

reply


"When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward."

https://www.kickstarter.com/terms-of-use

A Kickstarter project is not a charity. You are legally obligated to deliver the promised rewards. I'm sure you can weasel out through bankruptcy or whatever, but you can't just shrug and move on.

reply


I would prefer they use drones and robots that have some kind of targeting, even though the targeting is imperfect, than they use cluster bombs on civilian populations.

Especially when they make the unfortunate mistake of making the cluster bomblets the same colour as air-dropped food packages.

reply


http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Insomnia/Pages/Treatment.aspx

reply


> feeling constant pain

Do you currently live with pain?

reply


I was going to point this out, as well. There is a certain level of physical pain where your ability to focus on anything external to the pain is severely diminished. Having recently spent time with people in end of life situations, I have to say that the urge to "fight on" is definitely championed more often by those who are far removed from the day-to-day details.

reply


Not sending it to places like the e-waste dump in Agbogbloshie, Accra, Ghana is a benefit. I'm not sure how to weight each thing - the increased CO2 emmissions are bad; not poisoning poor people who do things like burn the PVC insulation off cables to get the copper is a good thing.

reply


Certainly agree with that sentiment! We are getting to the point where it makes sense to have 'disassembly' robots, this paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967066108...) looked at that (it wasn't the focus per se but an example). I can clearly see that 'anti-factories' where raw materials are recovered and unrecoverable materials made inert will be a thing.

reply


Still, the market isn't going to solve this on it's own. Other peoples children are going to be cheaper than robots for the foreseeable future. In fact, poisoning the local population could be considered a minor issue compared to contaminating the water tables. Sick people die, but a contaminated water table keeps killing people for generations.

I think strong local regulations, as well as an emphasis of recycling locally is the best short-term solution. It does expose the actual cost of recycling (safely) -- but also cuts energy to shipping, and can be used as a stimuli for a more re-cycle friendly value chain (eg: make sellers of electronics take the bill for recycling, and demand local, safe recycling) -- which in turn puts pressure on suppliers to deliver items that are cheaper to recycle safely.

reply


We may have sufficient regulations that the market can push it over the top. After all if you can create a facility that converts ewaste into resalable raw materials you can both sell the service to municipalities who are required by law to dispose of their ewaste safely, and the raw materials to manufacturers as a recycled product. That combination might get you into an internal rate of return to make it worth while.

reply


You're right that this type of public shaming is a bad idea.

Anonymous shaming gets the point across - this unwanted attention is relentless and inappropriate, but without the risks of public shaming.

> How does one truly figure out this network out?

When you meet a woman in a business context talk to her about her business. Don't talk to her about her eyes or smile or hairstyle. It's not rocket science.

reply


It's not rocket science but it's not instinct either. What/who defines the appropriate behavior in a business context. I say this because I've read books on appropriate business behavior in the context american vs chinese businesses, and its different.

People have different interpretations of what appropriate behavior is in different contexts. Example: in some southern cities in the us, its weird or rude not to say hello to strangers on the street. In New york, its weird and rude to say hello to strangers on the street.

How do people actually learn whats appropriate in business context ?

Personally I read books like Corporate Confidential, How to make friends and influence people to learn it, but I found it far from easy.

edit: anecdote: I've had women business managers compliment my hair style, I didn't feel it was inappropriate.

reply

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: