The worst project I ever funded on Kickstarter(a.wholelottanothing.org)
a.wholelottanothing.org
The worst project I ever funded on Kickstarter
http://a.wholelottanothing.org/2012/01/lessons-for-kickstarter-creators-from-the-worst-project-i-ever-funded-on-kickstarter.html
71 comments
most project creators don't see Kickstarter as a real commitment to business, it's a way to get money for their "neat project" that they want to complete but without the hassle of raising money properly or selling pre-orders.
But that's true, of course. Kickstarter isn't a marketplace like e.g. Etsy where customers buy items. Kickstarter lets people fund cool projects they like. Often (but not always) the item istelf is offered as a "perk" for backers. But that's not really the point of Kickstarer, it's just about funding a project.
But that's true, of course. Kickstarter isn't a marketplace like e.g. Etsy where customers buy items. Kickstarter lets people fund cool projects they like. Often (but not always) the item istelf is offered as a "perk" for backers. But that's not really the point of Kickstarer, it's just about funding a project.
This is what I'm talking about, if I choose to fund a project and the reward I choose is that project, isn't that the point of funding? For example, http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/petertreadway/spnkix-wea... is a project being funded at the moment and will reach it's goal, I've backed with $500 so I can get a pair, if they don't deliver on that isn't that an issue? Kickstarter does not present it as a chance to maybe see a project and if not, well great free money for the project creator, it's presented as a way to fund a project to creation, to delivery.
Here's one I funded. It's a documentary: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/textfiles/the-jason-scot...
They haven't even been shot yet. Heck when I pledged, the guy hadn't even bought the cameras to do the shooting yet. There's no gurantee about the content of the films. Sure, I'll get a copy, eventually, but that's not really why I pledged. I pledged to fund the making of these films.
They haven't even been shot yet. Heck when I pledged, the guy hadn't even bought the cameras to do the shooting yet. There's no gurantee about the content of the films. Sure, I'll get a copy, eventually, but that's not really why I pledged. I pledged to fund the making of these films.
Man, I wish you didn't mention that project. I would have been very happy spending that money on something else instead, but now that I've seen it, there is no option. :)
Maybe one way to solve this problem is to define several milestones, and a percentage of the funds get released once milestones are reached. At each milestone, each funder can decide whether or not the person has achieved their stated goal for the milestone.
If the person who puts money into the project gets cold feet, they can back out at any time, but any money they have committed up to the current milestone goes to the founders and the rest gets returned.
If the person who puts money into the project gets cold feet, they can back out at any time, but any money they have committed up to the current milestone goes to the founders and the rest gets returned.
Problem is that oftentimes most of the money is needed before a first prototype. And many concerns wont emerge until the prototype comes out. So effectively what will happen is that the milestone system will be gamed so that most of them are "paper" or "cad" which dont take much effort.
well, with these projects that are vastly overfunded, like the case example, it seems like most of the money could have been safely put in some sort of escrow so that the founders wouldn't get lazy.
And if there's a proper description of the milestones, it seems like gaming might not be so easy.
For example, if there were a "test the metal case for signal loss" milestone, and if the founders only gave a half-hearted attempt, then a bunch of people could have had the option to pull out at that point.
Basically the founders need to create a proper plan, with reasonable milestones, and then the funders might be more willing to give more money. I think after a while, people would be able to flag a gamed milestone.
And if there's a proper description of the milestones, it seems like gaming might not be so easy.
For example, if there were a "test the metal case for signal loss" milestone, and if the founders only gave a half-hearted attempt, then a bunch of people could have had the option to pull out at that point.
Basically the founders need to create a proper plan, with reasonable milestones, and then the funders might be more willing to give more money. I think after a while, people would be able to flag a gamed milestone.
I find this to be reasonable for overfunded project. Release only the funds they requested for, until the milestones are met.
You can't necessarily fault the founders for not thinking through all of the potential pitfalls. A proper plan will not cover all of these details. Take the apple death grip issue -- they had a plan, it was produced, and the issue was really only emphasized after it was produced and sold to customers.
I was backing this project until the day they decided to raise shipping costs. It wasn't the raised shipping costs that made me withdraw my backing, but the fact that they had no respect for the backers.
Just pulling a few quotes from the project starter... That is why I backed out of it.
---
@Jeffrey Sorry you feel that way. But I owe you nothing. No one does.
@PAIK Jackass, it's right here >> http://screencast.com/t/aPOddZQtDJ Stop harassing me!! And as I said, it was in the comments.
@Noor from day one of the project we've always stated that there will be international shipping charges. So nothing has changed. Secondly. I don't believe that the customer is always right. And there's actually a strong community of business people out there that feel the same way.
Just pulling a few quotes from the project starter... That is why I backed out of it.
---
@Jeffrey Sorry you feel that way. But I owe you nothing. No one does.
@PAIK Jackass, it's right here >> http://screencast.com/t/aPOddZQtDJ Stop harassing me!! And as I said, it was in the comments.
@Noor from day one of the project we've always stated that there will be international shipping charges. So nothing has changed. Secondly. I don't believe that the customer is always right. And there's actually a strong community of business people out there that feel the same way.
Just more lessons on what not to do when raising funds. It's not even so much what he said, but his "tone."
Seems like kickstarters are mostly okay with the risks.. it is inherent in the site, after all, but man, it doesn't seem necessary to be mean about things..
I'm helping out with a Kickstarter project (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/studentrnd/plasma-speake...) which is already 2 months behind the delivery date, and I just wanted to offer a view from the other side.
Shipping a product is hard. Our initial prototype used some components we had in our parts organizer, and a $100k variable DC power supply Boeing donated. It was pretty cool, so we put it online, and it picked up $20k in donations.
As soon as we put it online, we started working on improvements to the design, and when it was to a point we considered done, we made a board design and ordered parts.
And of course, nothing worked.
We've been working on it for as much time as possible since then (as mentioned in our Kickstarter, the lead designer is a high school student), and even with the help of some local EEs, it's taken forever to get it to even start. The flybacks and PSUs took forever to get to the US, customs held up the package, and FedEx refused to deliver them. Our laser cutter, which we ordered to make the enclosures, was a week late, and took a few days to set up.
Now we're at the point where we're balancing sound quality and time. We can redesign the entire project so it sounds better, but that means another few weeks to get the new boards and parts, or we can just ship what we have.
If we do any Kickstarters in the future, we're obviously going to have a totally more realistic timeframe. But it's apparent that anyone who hasn't shipped a product is going to have no idea of how involved trying to reproduce something in a mass scale is.
That said, it looks like these people took an AWFUL approach to customer support. We've tried to keep people as up-to-date as we were, we've refunded anyone who asked for it and offered to ship laser cut cards to anyone who was planning on giving the plasma speakers as a Christmas gift.
tl;dr: Kickstarter is hard. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Shipping a product is hard. Our initial prototype used some components we had in our parts organizer, and a $100k variable DC power supply Boeing donated. It was pretty cool, so we put it online, and it picked up $20k in donations.
As soon as we put it online, we started working on improvements to the design, and when it was to a point we considered done, we made a board design and ordered parts.
And of course, nothing worked.
We've been working on it for as much time as possible since then (as mentioned in our Kickstarter, the lead designer is a high school student), and even with the help of some local EEs, it's taken forever to get it to even start. The flybacks and PSUs took forever to get to the US, customs held up the package, and FedEx refused to deliver them. Our laser cutter, which we ordered to make the enclosures, was a week late, and took a few days to set up.
Now we're at the point where we're balancing sound quality and time. We can redesign the entire project so it sounds better, but that means another few weeks to get the new boards and parts, or we can just ship what we have.
If we do any Kickstarters in the future, we're obviously going to have a totally more realistic timeframe. But it's apparent that anyone who hasn't shipped a product is going to have no idea of how involved trying to reproduce something in a mass scale is.
That said, it looks like these people took an AWFUL approach to customer support. We've tried to keep people as up-to-date as we were, we've refunded anyone who asked for it and offered to ship laser cut cards to anyone who was planning on giving the plasma speakers as a Christmas gift.
tl;dr: Kickstarter is hard. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Well said. I think offering a constructive and meaningful response to your potential customers goes a long way.
>we've refunded anyone who asked for it
If you don't mind me asking, how many refunds have been requested? It might give an insight into what people expect from Kickstarter
If you don't mind me asking, how many refunds have been requested? It might give an insight into what people expect from Kickstarter
I only see two in the notes section on Kickstarter. Amazon Payments would be the definitive place to check but I don't know the password for it, and I probably won't be in our office until Thursday because of snow in Seattle.
I just cannot help but notice how much the perception of what Kickstarter is has changed from its initial days. I learned about Kickstarter at the time the Diaspora project was there collecting money. It was clear that people are not "buying" but "investing". They were not "consumers", they were "investors". Diaspora wasn't a "product" on "pre-order" but a "project" which was "under development". How the intent and purpose of the site changed in the minds of both "backers" and project makers is just amazing. Its like the identity of what Kickstarter started out to be has been lost somewhere.
Kickstarter was supposed to replace angle investors and VC. They were supposed to help the little guy start up without all the control of the big guy who had money. The idea, as explained to me on this very forum, was that this was crowd sourced investment. The users here went on to say how this will change the startup culture and help people start more bootstrapped startups without any strings attached. The "rewards" were never a guaranteed thing. They were sort of a thank you and giving out rewards were supposed to be a way to show off that they actually succeeded. Now it seems the whole thing has shifted to a marketplace of sorts. It seems like people are using it as an alternative to ebay or amazone, just that they can have higher flexibility and more contact to their "consumers". The inherent risk of "investing" has been lost and given way to the guarantee of "buying" a product.
Kickstarter was supposed to replace angle investors and VC. They were supposed to help the little guy start up without all the control of the big guy who had money. The idea, as explained to me on this very forum, was that this was crowd sourced investment. The users here went on to say how this will change the startup culture and help people start more bootstrapped startups without any strings attached. The "rewards" were never a guaranteed thing. They were sort of a thank you and giving out rewards were supposed to be a way to show off that they actually succeeded. Now it seems the whole thing has shifted to a marketplace of sorts. It seems like people are using it as an alternative to ebay or amazone, just that they can have higher flexibility and more contact to their "consumers". The inherent risk of "investing" has been lost and given way to the guarantee of "buying" a product.
Kickstarter's guidelines specifically say
> Offering financial incentives, such as ownership, financial returns (for example, a share of profits), or repayment (loans) is prohibited.
If they ever claimed pledges were "investments", that was dishonest and I think the SEC could actually prosecute them for it.
> Offering financial incentives, such as ownership, financial returns (for example, a share of profits), or repayment (loans) is prohibited.
If they ever claimed pledges were "investments", that was dishonest and I think the SEC could actually prosecute them for it.
I think I made the wrong choice of words there. I am really truly sorry. I think donations is much more appropriate. I don't know, maybe someone will understand. I just wanted to say that kickstarter didn't imply any ownership in anyway. Ever.
I wish people would stop thinking of Kickstarter as a shop.
It's not.
The site is very clear in it's FAQ that once a project is funded, delivery of the promised perks is up to the project creator, not up to Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Wh...
I've seen some great projects on the site, but you have to realize that you're not buying something.
When you see a project that is developing a product, and the promised reward is one of those items, you are _not buying one of them_.
You are pledging your money to the sponsor in good faith that they will provide you with one. In effect, speculating your money on Kickstarter against the risk of the project failing after it's fully funded.
If you want to buy something, use a shop.
I actually think that Kickstarter (despite it not being in their best interests) should place an upper limit on the funding available on projects that effectively try to use Kickstarter as a shop, and dupe the public into thinking they are buying things.
There's really nothing to stop me creating a "cool laptop" shop on Kickstarter, claiming to "rebrand" macbook airs and resell them with laser etched designs for $500 each, take all the money and walk away.
It's not.
The site is very clear in it's FAQ that once a project is funded, delivery of the promised perks is up to the project creator, not up to Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Wh...
I've seen some great projects on the site, but you have to realize that you're not buying something.
When you see a project that is developing a product, and the promised reward is one of those items, you are _not buying one of them_.
You are pledging your money to the sponsor in good faith that they will provide you with one. In effect, speculating your money on Kickstarter against the risk of the project failing after it's fully funded.
If you want to buy something, use a shop.
I actually think that Kickstarter (despite it not being in their best interests) should place an upper limit on the funding available on projects that effectively try to use Kickstarter as a shop, and dupe the public into thinking they are buying things.
There's really nothing to stop me creating a "cool laptop" shop on Kickstarter, claiming to "rebrand" macbook airs and resell them with laser etched designs for $500 each, take all the money and walk away.
[deleted]
Disclaimer: I've never used Kickstarter
This being said, I was under the impression that funding a project is still a bit of a risk - I'd expect that some projects (like businesses) simply don't work out how they planned - this seems like that type of problem. Of course they should have mentioned the signal problems (and even reached out to see if they could crowd source a solution) but buying in as an early "funder" would imply that there is a risk that it doesn't work, in my opinion.
Seems like they simply couldn't deliver on the project, glad that it's only happened to him once in 72 times.
This being said, I was under the impression that funding a project is still a bit of a risk - I'd expect that some projects (like businesses) simply don't work out how they planned - this seems like that type of problem. Of course they should have mentioned the signal problems (and even reached out to see if they could crowd source a solution) but buying in as an early "funder" would imply that there is a risk that it doesn't work, in my opinion.
Seems like they simply couldn't deliver on the project, glad that it's only happened to him once in 72 times.
I've funded a few projects of friends. One never materialized but it was worth the shot and the others are in production. If you spread your investments out, some are bound to take off no? I'm in line to receive some great products that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise and I'm excited. You don't get this excited over many things you can buy.
I must say though, reading the content of this Kickstarter they don't deal very well with their failure. With the proper tone they could have gotten another round and kept their investors happy.
I must say though, reading the content of this Kickstarter they don't deal very well with their failure. With the proper tone they could have gotten another round and kept their investors happy.
I don't quite understand what the "investors" are getting out of KickStarter. It doesn't seem like prouducts are that unique or cheap. The risk of a project failing or being delayed means I wouldn't buy anything I really needed from there.
It seems like all the benefits are on the producers side. They can start a project with little risk, ask for more money when they mess up their budgetting and still finish up making a tidy profit.
It seems like all the benefits are on the producers side. They can start a project with little risk, ask for more money when they mess up their budgetting and still finish up making a tidy profit.
As an investor you help create something that didn't exist before. Maybe something cool or interesting or important that you think should exist. Maybe something you desire to own as well.
Sometimes the rewards are worth more than the investment, sometimes the personal value of contributing to something worthwhile is enough. People volunteer their time and donate their money to things beyond helping sick children and the poor.
Sometimes the rewards are worth more than the investment, sometimes the personal value of contributing to something worthwhile is enough. People volunteer their time and donate their money to things beyond helping sick children and the poor.
This is a fairly known issue in elec. design. What is happening here is that the case is acting as a Faraday cage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage) that blocks out signals.
It is not just enough to wear the designer hat. An engineer hat is absolutely essential as well.
It is not just enough to wear the designer hat. An engineer hat is absolutely essential as well.
It pretty well blows my mind that they just wrapped the whole antenna in metal and didn't think that it might cause problems. You shouldn't need to wear any hats at all for that one, just apply some common sense.
When I saw the thing, I assumed they must have come up with some extremely clever way to avoid signal attenuation. Turns out they were just ignoring the blindingly obvious. Oops.
When I saw the thing, I assumed they must have come up with some extremely clever way to avoid signal attenuation. Turns out they were just ignoring the blindingly obvious. Oops.
> they must have come up with some extremely clever way to avoid signal attenuation
Which itself would be fairly incredible, considering that Steve Jobs and Jony Ive wanted to make the iPhone out of metal, and for three years they couldn't do so because of the antenna issue, and finally after spending what must have been many millions of dollars and many engineering man-years they came up with a sophisticated solution that was pretty good but even so still had widely publicized issues when it first came on the market.
Which itself would be fairly incredible, considering that Steve Jobs and Jony Ive wanted to make the iPhone out of metal, and for three years they couldn't do so because of the antenna issue, and finally after spending what must have been many millions of dollars and many engineering man-years they came up with a sophisticated solution that was pretty good but even so still had widely publicized issues when it first came on the market.
After the iPhone "antenna gate" with a rubber bumper as the resolution, how did 1,053 backers conclude surrounding an iPhone 4 with a metal band would be a good idea?
The author even owned Apple's bumper, but perhaps had not realized why it was rubber. Then the author's other stated reason was frequently dropping the phone. How shock absorbent does he imagine solid metal is, compared to that rubber bumper?
As easily discerned from the photos, this antenna blocking, shock transmitting, "case" doesn't even extend past the face glass, allowing it to shatter if dropped on any front face corner.
Seems like this project's backers should consider it a $65 lesson in weighing the plausibility of marketing claims for oneself.
The author even owned Apple's bumper, but perhaps had not realized why it was rubber. Then the author's other stated reason was frequently dropping the phone. How shock absorbent does he imagine solid metal is, compared to that rubber bumper?
As easily discerned from the photos, this antenna blocking, shock transmitting, "case" doesn't even extend past the face glass, allowing it to shatter if dropped on any front face corner.
Seems like this project's backers should consider it a $65 lesson in weighing the plausibility of marketing claims for oneself.
When you are designing a product for Kickstarter and you show prototypes, backers will assume you have worked all the bugs out first.
Do backers on Kickstarter really assume that all the bugs will be worked out before the prototype is shown? I'm not familiar with how the community works, but would assume that the prototypes would be used to identify more bugs and design flaws, as well as elicit feedback from early users.
Do backers on Kickstarter really assume that all the bugs will be worked out before the prototype is shown? I'm not familiar with how the community works, but would assume that the prototypes would be used to identify more bugs and design flaws, as well as elicit feedback from early users.
Yes. Backers on kickstarter are not sophisticated startup people. They're regular consumers. Most kickstarter projects are ones that appeal to them, and are also low tech. If a project expects a lengthy development process they can say it in the project.
I've done some mechanical engineering, but I'm no mechanical engineer. I can't know whether an iPhone dock is going to require 3 prototypes and 4 nearly complete versions before being ready to ship, and all this will take 9 months, or if what they're showing in the picture can be manufactured in 60 days in volume, all they need is the money for the injection molding forms, which are very expensive.
Hell, I bet most people who fund kickstarter projects don't even know injection molding forms are expensive.
So, if the project has high risk, and this isn't disclosed by the leader of the project when asking for funding, that's an error on their part.
The problem projects I've seen (that are products, rather than pieces of art) tend to pitch themselves as completed products that just need manufacturing help.
I've done some mechanical engineering, but I'm no mechanical engineer. I can't know whether an iPhone dock is going to require 3 prototypes and 4 nearly complete versions before being ready to ship, and all this will take 9 months, or if what they're showing in the picture can be manufactured in 60 days in volume, all they need is the money for the injection molding forms, which are very expensive.
Hell, I bet most people who fund kickstarter projects don't even know injection molding forms are expensive.
So, if the project has high risk, and this isn't disclosed by the leader of the project when asking for funding, that's an error on their part.
The problem projects I've seen (that are products, rather than pieces of art) tend to pitch themselves as completed products that just need manufacturing help.
I bought an aluminum Element Vapor Pro and it has no problems. I actually got it to see how it fits in my current Kickstarter project, the Elevation Dock, b/c a lot of people asked and they love them.
It has plastic around the top left corner and small foam pads so the aluminum never touches the steel antenna. If I were these guys, I would machine out the corner and make a polycarbonate piece to fit.
If anyone here has one, I'd machine the modifications for you just to show it.
It has plastic around the top left corner and small foam pads so the aluminum never touches the steel antenna. If I were these guys, I would machine out the corner and make a polycarbonate piece to fit.
If anyone here has one, I'd machine the modifications for you just to show it.
You have no idea much I am looking forward to having the Elevation Dock in my hands and using it!
I've seen some neat things coming out of Kickstarter projects, but I get the impression most backers don't understand they're not guaranteed to receive an awesome perfectly functioning polished final product pitched by the creator.
Kickstarter needs to make that more clear.
Also, they need to do something about overfunding. Perhaps hold some of the money back until the product is ready to go into production or something.
Kickstarter needs to make that more clear.
Also, they need to do something about overfunding. Perhaps hold some of the money back until the product is ready to go into production or something.
I'm not familiar with the outcome of any other "failed" projects, but has Kickstarter ever forcibly refunded money or intervened in any way? If not... they're obviously growing (nearly 4x as much pledged in 2011) and I don't know if more strict guidelines would really help.
I've put done close to $300 to help fund a programmable espresso machine. Funding closes this Friday. Get in quick if it might be your sort of thing:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zpmespresso/pid-controll...
Just yesterday they posted a very good update letting people know where they stand. Notably that the shipping times are already longer than originally stated, and that now is the time to ask them questions (before the money is taken). They also specifically state that they're not a storefront, and that setbacks in the schedule are possible:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zpmespresso/pid-controll...
Seems like a sensible way to set expectations upfront.
(I discovered this project as I was close to spending $700 on a machine that is (on paper) lower spec'ed (but, to be fair, available now). I'm willing to wait the few months and risk some cash to give some guys a chance at producing something new/different.)
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zpmespresso/pid-controll...
Just yesterday they posted a very good update letting people know where they stand. Notably that the shipping times are already longer than originally stated, and that now is the time to ask them questions (before the money is taken). They also specifically state that they're not a storefront, and that setbacks in the schedule are possible:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zpmespresso/pid-controll...
Seems like a sensible way to set expectations upfront.
(I discovered this project as I was close to spending $700 on a machine that is (on paper) lower spec'ed (but, to be fair, available now). I'm willing to wait the few months and risk some cash to give some guys a chance at producing something new/different.)
Could the founders take only a small portion of money and proceed till the bugs were resolved?
With hardware a lot of costs are up front. I have some knowledge of PCB manufacture.
So, you need to design the PCB. You need to get artwork made. You need some prototypes. Then you need to decide whether you'll re-design, or include a mod. Re-design is expensive, that is balanced by having a bit of wire soldered between two points and a track cut by a low paid operative in some random factory.
You now have some PCBs. You need production aids. You may need stencils for screen printing solder paste. The design can be generated from the PCB gerber files. But again, there are artwork costs for this. You need a pick and place machine program. If there are many conventional components you'll want a cropping machine plate made. (A steel plate which the PCB sits on with small holes for conventional components; you then put this on the cropping machine which pins the components down while a blade slides and crops the component leads).
Then you build your prototypes. You need someone to buy components; to put these onto the pick and place machine (Which means stripping that machine down from the last job); to load the programs and set the reflow oven and align the screen print stencil.
You can new see that it's just as easy to produce ten as it is to produce one. (I'd recommend people building prototypes to build a batch of, say, 3 rather than just 1 or 2. That gives you an early alpha; a beta, and a neat and tidy beta to create documents and production drawings from.)
Hopefully I've shown how many of the costs are up front. The costs of components and actually building stuff is relatively cheap.
So, you need to design the PCB. You need to get artwork made. You need some prototypes. Then you need to decide whether you'll re-design, or include a mod. Re-design is expensive, that is balanced by having a bit of wire soldered between two points and a track cut by a low paid operative in some random factory.
You now have some PCBs. You need production aids. You may need stencils for screen printing solder paste. The design can be generated from the PCB gerber files. But again, there are artwork costs for this. You need a pick and place machine program. If there are many conventional components you'll want a cropping machine plate made. (A steel plate which the PCB sits on with small holes for conventional components; you then put this on the cropping machine which pins the components down while a blade slides and crops the component leads).
Then you build your prototypes. You need someone to buy components; to put these onto the pick and place machine (Which means stripping that machine down from the last job); to load the programs and set the reflow oven and align the screen print stencil.
You can new see that it's just as easy to produce ten as it is to produce one. (I'd recommend people building prototypes to build a batch of, say, 3 rather than just 1 or 2. That gives you an early alpha; a beta, and a neat and tidy beta to create documents and production drawings from.)
Hopefully I've shown how many of the costs are up front. The costs of components and actually building stuff is relatively cheap.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I got burned by a kickstarter project. Like others, I naively believed that they were at least an above board outfit. I also appreciated that Amazon was the payments service because I believe they are above board as well.
I fell for the "Hexbright Flashlight" project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/527051507/hexbright-an-o...
His pitch was that the product was designed and that he just needed the funding to underwrite manufacturing startup costs with asian and local suppliers. Having been well down the path of getting a consumer electronics product manufactured, and knowing the costs and understanding that a lot of those costs are upfront, I this seemed very reasonable to me. I thought his asking amount was a bit low, but the project was overfunded to the tune of $800,000 - more than enough to cover these startup costs.
Once funded, however, the October delivery date-- two months from the funding date, was never mentioned again.
Instead the updates have increasingly focused on design choices. In fact, the early updates made it very clear that many of the design choices hadn't even been settled!
He's clearly taking his time, doing some updates once a month or so, but it doesn't even look like this is full time. (excuses for having a new baby, etc. Jeez guy, you took on an $800,000 project with a baby on the way, really?)
I have the very strong impression that it was a slight con job-- he got the money to dick around with his ultimate flashlight and "really do it right", but doesn't seem too concerned about his commitment to deliver the flashlights in a timely manner.
I do believe has has every intention to deliver these flashlights... eventually.
But I bought them for christmas presents, I've been out several hundred dollars for 6 months and I don't even have a promise date for delivery. In fact, the whole thing is so half assed that he doesn't even know which colors I want because he didn't give us a way to tell him.
So, I contacted Kickstarter. I figured they had contingency plans for this kind of situation. I figured they were a standup organization. Their response? A form letter telling me that they advise their project leaders to deliver in a timely manner to backers. That's it. No suggestions for alternatives, nothing like that.
Of course the 30 day credit card dispute period has long passed. But I don't think it will come to that.
The FTC has a rule, that if you take money for a product, you have to deliver it in 6 weeks. This is why TV commercials and magazine ads often say "delivers in 4-6 weeks". Because they're using drop shippers, or whatever. If you don't deliver in 6 weeks, you have to get the customers permission to delay shipment, or you have to refund their money. Thems the rules.
Its debatable whether the 6 weeks started at the funding date when our cards were charged (and kickstarter got their $80,000), or at the "end of october" when they were originally supposed to ship. Either way that time is up.
Because I think this guy intends to deliver them, and was only dishonest about the level of completion of the project, and because I know that last %10 can take a lot of time, I'm going to give him a bit longer. Maybe the end of January. I'd go to the end of February if he promises to ship in that month.
After that point, I'm going to take up the dispute with Amazon. I expect that amazon, having handled the payment will resolve the issue, but if they don't then I'm going to escalate.
I actually blame kickstarter more than I do the guy behind the project. They should not blow people off when projects fail to deliver. This isn't a donation to some kid who wants to take pictures of trees in the Sierras. They are selling products here, and they are promising tangible goods on a specified date in exchange for the funds. That's the definition of being a store.
I don't mind giving people some time. I only even got annoyed about this one after christmas came and went and there wasn't even an apology for not shipping in a reasonable amount of time. And I only got upset when kickstarter blew me off when I wrote them. Because of that, if this isn't resolved in 4-8 weeks, I'm going to Amazon, and then the police.
Needless to say, I won't be backing any more Kickstarter projects, and until they start taking some responsibility, I no longer consider them a trustworthy outfit.
Here's the introduction of the project: "I am offering pre-orders for two unique and powerful lights, the HexBright Prime for $35 and the HexBright Flex for $60. Both models are virtually identical looking with an ergonomic, very comfortable grip and use the best available LED light source. ... The major difference between the Prime and Flex models is the HexBright Flex is USB rechargeable and USB programmable. If you want, you can re-write the default code and tweak the HexBright Flex however you desire."
He's offering pre-orders. That's what the project promised. (Elsewhere it gave a "late september, early october" ship date, but that has since been removed.)
Kickstarter offers a FAQ. Here's the FAQ entry for this project: When will you ship? "Short answer- as soon as we can. Long answer- HexBright is not a product already on the shelf ready to be shipped. You are funding development of a top quality product where almost all your money is going into the parts and materials with almost no overhead, marketing or middlemen costs (we are projecting future retail prices to be over $100). As the saying goes, "CHEAP, FAST, GOOD, pick any two". Our price is fixed so we are choosing between "fast" and "good". Good wins every time. "
The thing is, this FAQ was changed. Kickstarter helpfully tells us so:
Last updated: Monday Nov 14, 1:22pm EST
So, during the time he was asking for money, we were given the opportunity to "pre-order" these flashlights that are described as already existing:
"the HexBright Flex is USB rechargeable and USB programmable."
NOT: "the HexBright Flex WILL BE USB rechargeable and WILL BE USB programmable."
Then, about 2 months after he was supposed to ship, the FAQ changes to "You are funding development of..."
So, the project says one thing, but the FAQ says another, and the wording on the FAQ, updated 2 months after it should have started shipping, implies that people who expected it to ship when promised weren't actually promised a shipping product on any specific date.
I fell for the "Hexbright Flashlight" project: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/527051507/hexbright-an-o...
His pitch was that the product was designed and that he just needed the funding to underwrite manufacturing startup costs with asian and local suppliers. Having been well down the path of getting a consumer electronics product manufactured, and knowing the costs and understanding that a lot of those costs are upfront, I this seemed very reasonable to me. I thought his asking amount was a bit low, but the project was overfunded to the tune of $800,000 - more than enough to cover these startup costs.
Once funded, however, the October delivery date-- two months from the funding date, was never mentioned again.
Instead the updates have increasingly focused on design choices. In fact, the early updates made it very clear that many of the design choices hadn't even been settled!
He's clearly taking his time, doing some updates once a month or so, but it doesn't even look like this is full time. (excuses for having a new baby, etc. Jeez guy, you took on an $800,000 project with a baby on the way, really?)
I have the very strong impression that it was a slight con job-- he got the money to dick around with his ultimate flashlight and "really do it right", but doesn't seem too concerned about his commitment to deliver the flashlights in a timely manner.
I do believe has has every intention to deliver these flashlights... eventually.
But I bought them for christmas presents, I've been out several hundred dollars for 6 months and I don't even have a promise date for delivery. In fact, the whole thing is so half assed that he doesn't even know which colors I want because he didn't give us a way to tell him.
So, I contacted Kickstarter. I figured they had contingency plans for this kind of situation. I figured they were a standup organization. Their response? A form letter telling me that they advise their project leaders to deliver in a timely manner to backers. That's it. No suggestions for alternatives, nothing like that.
Of course the 30 day credit card dispute period has long passed. But I don't think it will come to that.
The FTC has a rule, that if you take money for a product, you have to deliver it in 6 weeks. This is why TV commercials and magazine ads often say "delivers in 4-6 weeks". Because they're using drop shippers, or whatever. If you don't deliver in 6 weeks, you have to get the customers permission to delay shipment, or you have to refund their money. Thems the rules.
Its debatable whether the 6 weeks started at the funding date when our cards were charged (and kickstarter got their $80,000), or at the "end of october" when they were originally supposed to ship. Either way that time is up.
Because I think this guy intends to deliver them, and was only dishonest about the level of completion of the project, and because I know that last %10 can take a lot of time, I'm going to give him a bit longer. Maybe the end of January. I'd go to the end of February if he promises to ship in that month.
After that point, I'm going to take up the dispute with Amazon. I expect that amazon, having handled the payment will resolve the issue, but if they don't then I'm going to escalate.
I actually blame kickstarter more than I do the guy behind the project. They should not blow people off when projects fail to deliver. This isn't a donation to some kid who wants to take pictures of trees in the Sierras. They are selling products here, and they are promising tangible goods on a specified date in exchange for the funds. That's the definition of being a store.
I don't mind giving people some time. I only even got annoyed about this one after christmas came and went and there wasn't even an apology for not shipping in a reasonable amount of time. And I only got upset when kickstarter blew me off when I wrote them. Because of that, if this isn't resolved in 4-8 weeks, I'm going to Amazon, and then the police.
Needless to say, I won't be backing any more Kickstarter projects, and until they start taking some responsibility, I no longer consider them a trustworthy outfit.
Here's the introduction of the project: "I am offering pre-orders for two unique and powerful lights, the HexBright Prime for $35 and the HexBright Flex for $60. Both models are virtually identical looking with an ergonomic, very comfortable grip and use the best available LED light source. ... The major difference between the Prime and Flex models is the HexBright Flex is USB rechargeable and USB programmable. If you want, you can re-write the default code and tweak the HexBright Flex however you desire."
He's offering pre-orders. That's what the project promised. (Elsewhere it gave a "late september, early october" ship date, but that has since been removed.)
Kickstarter offers a FAQ. Here's the FAQ entry for this project: When will you ship? "Short answer- as soon as we can. Long answer- HexBright is not a product already on the shelf ready to be shipped. You are funding development of a top quality product where almost all your money is going into the parts and materials with almost no overhead, marketing or middlemen costs (we are projecting future retail prices to be over $100). As the saying goes, "CHEAP, FAST, GOOD, pick any two". Our price is fixed so we are choosing between "fast" and "good". Good wins every time. "
The thing is, this FAQ was changed. Kickstarter helpfully tells us so:
Last updated: Monday Nov 14, 1:22pm EST
So, during the time he was asking for money, we were given the opportunity to "pre-order" these flashlights that are described as already existing:
"the HexBright Flex is USB rechargeable and USB programmable."
NOT: "the HexBright Flex WILL BE USB rechargeable and WILL BE USB programmable."
Then, about 2 months after he was supposed to ship, the FAQ changes to "You are funding development of..."
So, the project says one thing, but the FAQ says another, and the wording on the FAQ, updated 2 months after it should have started shipping, implies that people who expected it to ship when promised weren't actually promised a shipping product on any specific date.
I totally appreciate your perspective on this. But I think you were missing part of the point of kickstarter.
These are projects, not products. You're making a donation, not buying something. For that donation you are often promised a reward, but you are not guaranteed one.
There is a certain amount of risk associated with backing a project on kickstarter. Projects don't always turn out the way you hope. Budget issues, design flaws, etc, are all par for the course.
I've backed a number of projects now. I just checked, and I've backed 15 projects out of which 9 have received funding ($346 pledged, $284 charged) since August 2011. So far I have only received two items.
I hope to receive all the items I've funded, but I know that even with the best intentions, not every project will be able to deliver.
Since you believed you were "purchasing" items, perhaps kickstarter needs to do a better job of making it clear that what you are doing is making a donation, and the whole thing is running on the honor system. They do say that (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ac...), but I guess they could do a better job of stressing it.
Because it's a donation, it's my understanding that kickstarter, amazon, and the police would have no real recourse unless there has been serious fraudulent claims of some kind.
Anyway, I would urge you to change the way you look at kickstarter, and then give it another go. I'm a huge fan of the model, and have enjoyed both the items I've received so far. You can always give them for xmas next year :)
These are projects, not products. You're making a donation, not buying something. For that donation you are often promised a reward, but you are not guaranteed one.
There is a certain amount of risk associated with backing a project on kickstarter. Projects don't always turn out the way you hope. Budget issues, design flaws, etc, are all par for the course.
I've backed a number of projects now. I just checked, and I've backed 15 projects out of which 9 have received funding ($346 pledged, $284 charged) since August 2011. So far I have only received two items.
I hope to receive all the items I've funded, but I know that even with the best intentions, not every project will be able to deliver.
Since you believed you were "purchasing" items, perhaps kickstarter needs to do a better job of making it clear that what you are doing is making a donation, and the whole thing is running on the honor system. They do say that (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ac...), but I guess they could do a better job of stressing it.
Because it's a donation, it's my understanding that kickstarter, amazon, and the police would have no real recourse unless there has been serious fraudulent claims of some kind.
Anyway, I would urge you to change the way you look at kickstarter, and then give it another go. I'm a huge fan of the model, and have enjoyed both the items I've received so far. You can always give them for xmas next year :)
Generally I agree with you here, though I once read that the majority (perhaps the vast majority?) of the best-funded projects in Kickstarter history presented themselves as product pre-sales. They showed tangible goods, linked those goods to donation levels, and in all but name only, gave the impression that users were trading "donations" for the goods they saw in the pictures.
Perhaps this says something about Kickstarter and its userbase, or about the way Kickstarter describes itself to its users. I am a big fan of Kickstarter, and I've funded about ten projects on the site. I realize that not everything I fund is going to ship me something, and I'm fine with that.
But I suspect I am not a typical user. Indeed, I suspect that the typical user funds a single project, which he or she believes will directly result in the shipment of a physical product. In fact, I would be very curious to know what the user stats tell us on this matter. If Kickstarter says it's X (a donation site), but a preponderance of its users believe it's Y (a pre-sales site), then it's got an interesting dilemma on its hands. A site that believes itself to be X will not be a good enough Y for people who think it's Y, and vice versa. Maybe Kickstarter doesn't want the Y people sticking around, or it thinks that a preponderance of Y people indicates that the site is still in its infancy and has yet to mature. Fine. But if that's the case, and the Y pipeline eventually dries up, is X actually a viable business model? To date, it seems that Y users have been keeping X afloat.
If I build a ski run, and the majority of my users show up to snowboard on it, do I still call it a ski run? Do I chase the snowboarders off? Do I try to reason with the snowboarders, and convince them to trade their snowboards for skis? Do I advertise for more skiers, hoping that their numbers will eventually outweigh those of the snowboarders? Or do I embrace snowboarding? There isn't a right answer, and obviously my analogy is a little silly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
Perhaps this says something about Kickstarter and its userbase, or about the way Kickstarter describes itself to its users. I am a big fan of Kickstarter, and I've funded about ten projects on the site. I realize that not everything I fund is going to ship me something, and I'm fine with that.
But I suspect I am not a typical user. Indeed, I suspect that the typical user funds a single project, which he or she believes will directly result in the shipment of a physical product. In fact, I would be very curious to know what the user stats tell us on this matter. If Kickstarter says it's X (a donation site), but a preponderance of its users believe it's Y (a pre-sales site), then it's got an interesting dilemma on its hands. A site that believes itself to be X will not be a good enough Y for people who think it's Y, and vice versa. Maybe Kickstarter doesn't want the Y people sticking around, or it thinks that a preponderance of Y people indicates that the site is still in its infancy and has yet to mature. Fine. But if that's the case, and the Y pipeline eventually dries up, is X actually a viable business model? To date, it seems that Y users have been keeping X afloat.
If I build a ski run, and the majority of my users show up to snowboard on it, do I still call it a ski run? Do I chase the snowboarders off? Do I try to reason with the snowboarders, and convince them to trade their snowboards for skis? Do I advertise for more skiers, hoping that their numbers will eventually outweigh those of the snowboarders? Or do I embrace snowboarding? There isn't a right answer, and obviously my analogy is a little silly, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at.
> You're making a donation, not buying something.
I'm not making a donation, I'm buying a product in advance that hasn't finished being developed.
I'm not making a donation, I'm buying a product in advance that hasn't finished being developed.
[deleted]
>These are projects, not products. You're making a donation, not buying something.
That this was a sale isn't a question of perspective, but the legal fact of the matter. The project I funded advertised itself as "pre-sales". It was not asking for donations, it was asking for pledges to buy the product. Nowhere has there been any implication, let alone statement that I'm not "guaranteed" the product I purchased.
>There is a certain amount of risk associated with backing a project on kickstarter.
Sure, but that's not the issue. In this case, the flashlight I ordered was redesigned to be significantly larger than it was initially promised (when it was claimed to be identical to the other flashlight he's selling.)
That increase in size and weight actually makes this product much less suitable to my needs than the original one was. Yes, for me, that is an issue. (I live full time out of a backpack, I travel the world full time- I know the dates these were supposed to ship because I knew when I'd be in the USA and gave him an extra 2 months to ship, even.)
But I didn't even mention this design change. I'm ok with it. I did accept some risk, and I even accepted the risk that he might be as much as 2 months late in shipping. Now that I'm out of the USA, getting the flashlights delivered to me will be more hassle, and significantly more expensive due to import duties and international shipping.
I haven't complained about either of those- that's within the risk.
>Because it's a donation, it's my understanding that kickstarter, amazon, and the police would have no real recourse unless there has been serious fraudulent claims of some kind.
In no way is it a donation. When you offer someone a product for money, that's a sale. This isn't an issue of perspective, this is the nature of the law.
>the whole thing is running on the honor system. They do say that(http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ac...),
No they don't. Nowhere in there do they say its on the honor system. Nowhere in there do they say its donations. Of course kickstarter is attempting to disclaim responsibility by saying the project starter is responsible for delivery. However, this is not the case under the law of the land, nor the contract that Kickstarter signed with Amazon, nor the contract that Amazon signed with the credit card companies.
I don't care. I'll reverse charges thru Amazon and then Kickstarter can take it up with the project backer.
>You can always give them for xmas next year :)
Yeah, you like this project because you like giving money to people. Great. If this were kiva and I was bitching about a loan not being repaid, you'd be right. But this is not kiva.
That this was a sale isn't a question of perspective, but the legal fact of the matter. The project I funded advertised itself as "pre-sales". It was not asking for donations, it was asking for pledges to buy the product. Nowhere has there been any implication, let alone statement that I'm not "guaranteed" the product I purchased.
>There is a certain amount of risk associated with backing a project on kickstarter.
Sure, but that's not the issue. In this case, the flashlight I ordered was redesigned to be significantly larger than it was initially promised (when it was claimed to be identical to the other flashlight he's selling.)
That increase in size and weight actually makes this product much less suitable to my needs than the original one was. Yes, for me, that is an issue. (I live full time out of a backpack, I travel the world full time- I know the dates these were supposed to ship because I knew when I'd be in the USA and gave him an extra 2 months to ship, even.)
But I didn't even mention this design change. I'm ok with it. I did accept some risk, and I even accepted the risk that he might be as much as 2 months late in shipping. Now that I'm out of the USA, getting the flashlights delivered to me will be more hassle, and significantly more expensive due to import duties and international shipping.
I haven't complained about either of those- that's within the risk.
>Because it's a donation, it's my understanding that kickstarter, amazon, and the police would have no real recourse unless there has been serious fraudulent claims of some kind.
In no way is it a donation. When you offer someone a product for money, that's a sale. This isn't an issue of perspective, this is the nature of the law.
>the whole thing is running on the honor system. They do say that(http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/backing%20a%20project#Ac...),
No they don't. Nowhere in there do they say its on the honor system. Nowhere in there do they say its donations. Of course kickstarter is attempting to disclaim responsibility by saying the project starter is responsible for delivery. However, this is not the case under the law of the land, nor the contract that Kickstarter signed with Amazon, nor the contract that Amazon signed with the credit card companies.
I don't care. I'll reverse charges thru Amazon and then Kickstarter can take it up with the project backer.
>You can always give them for xmas next year :)
Yeah, you like this project because you like giving money to people. Great. If this were kiva and I was bitching about a loan not being repaid, you'd be right. But this is not kiva.
"Each project is crafted solely by its creator, and it’s up to them to make the case that they can successfully bring their project to life. Part of every creator’s job is earning their backers’ trust, especially backers who don’t personally know them.
Creators are encouraged to share links to their personal website(s), as well as any websites that show work related to the project, or past projects.
The web is an excellent resource for learning about someone’s prior experience. If someone has no demonstrable prior history of doing something like their project or is unwilling to share information, backers should consider that when weighing a pledge. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well may be."
READ: caveat emptor.
I'm not saying this particular kickstarter project hasn't jerked you around. Nor am I saying you have no right to attempt to get your money back. What I am saying is if you look at kickstarter projects like purchases, you're going to be angry eventually.
Creators are encouraged to share links to their personal website(s), as well as any websites that show work related to the project, or past projects.
The web is an excellent resource for learning about someone’s prior experience. If someone has no demonstrable prior history of doing something like their project or is unwilling to share information, backers should consider that when weighing a pledge. If something sounds too good to be true, it very well may be."
READ: caveat emptor.
I'm not saying this particular kickstarter project hasn't jerked you around. Nor am I saying you have no right to attempt to get your money back. What I am saying is if you look at kickstarter projects like purchases, you're going to be angry eventually.
Kickstarter can say whatever they want in their FAQ. It doesn't change the law. It doesn't change the contracts they signed with Amazon. It doesn't change the contract Amazon signed with the credit card companies. It doesn't change the FTC regulations for sales. It doesn't change the fact that this product was advertised for sale, explicitly. Further, nothing in this indicates that it was a "donation" or on the "honor" system, nor absolves kickstarter of liability for being a party to fraud, either morally or legally.
I won't be doing any more business with kickstarter because they have shown themselves to not be a trustworthy entity. Not because this guy is late with his deliveries, but because they don't care. They're party to fraud that has gone on for more than a year in other cases, with no signs of delivery. And they don't care.
If you're happy using kickstarter to give money to projects without expecting any kind of a delivery, that's fine for you. Where you're wrong is in telling me I'm wrong, for being upset that a product that was explicitly SOLD to me, was not delivered.
You're telling me to change my perspective. This isn't an issue of perspective. You can give your money away however you like. I'm not telling you your wrong. I am telling you that the fact of the matter is, I was sold a product. I was not solicited for a donation.
Kickstarter is not an entity that is trustworthy with money.
I won't be doing any more business with kickstarter because they have shown themselves to not be a trustworthy entity. Not because this guy is late with his deliveries, but because they don't care. They're party to fraud that has gone on for more than a year in other cases, with no signs of delivery. And they don't care.
If you're happy using kickstarter to give money to projects without expecting any kind of a delivery, that's fine for you. Where you're wrong is in telling me I'm wrong, for being upset that a product that was explicitly SOLD to me, was not delivered.
You're telling me to change my perspective. This isn't an issue of perspective. You can give your money away however you like. I'm not telling you your wrong. I am telling you that the fact of the matter is, I was sold a product. I was not solicited for a donation.
Kickstarter is not an entity that is trustworthy with money.
On kickstarter you are an investor not a customer.
It doesn't matter how you make your investment. If you don't want the risk, then yes, KickStater is not a place for you.
It doesn't matter how you make your investment. If you don't want the risk, then yes, KickStater is not a place for you.
I was under the illusion that investment laws are stricter than consumer laws. If I, as a backer on kickstarter, am an investor and not a customer (or donor or whatever), then investment laws apply. Does anyone know what, under such laws, is legally required by a kickstarter project?
IANAL However, as I understand unless it's clearly a case of fraud the law treats such things as a loan, because you where not offered stock or a cut of profits ect. If he incorporated, you might at best be able to recover your money from whatever the company's assets are, but you really have minimal recourse that's worth the time investment at this point.
I am pretty happy with the hexbright flashlight (I funded it, too) -- it's not like anyone doesn't have a flashlight. I'd like to have the most awesome flashlight possible, even if it takes a year. He's been posting monthly or more frequent updates, and making good progress.
I'd be happy to buy out your stake in the project.
I'd be happy to buy out your stake in the project.
We're both right. He's making good progress for a flashlight that was at the state of development it turned out to be, its just that I didn't pledge to fund a flashlight at that state of development. If I'd known what I know now, I wouldn't have put up the money, or I would have only bought one or something like that.
Also, I had very specific intentions for this purchase.
Supporting an engineering project like this, as sort of a patron of it, is a cool idea.
The idea of trading stakes is also a good one. It would be really cool if we could support startups that way.
We all pledge some amount of money, the startup has milestones, as the milestones are achieved, more funding is required and another round is raised.
If you and I have a disagreement about which direction the startup is going, I could sell you my stake or vice versa. Or I could just hold onto my stake in case I'm wrong and not fund the next round, while you could double up the next round.
If the SEC would allow it, I think that would be a great idea. But we'd all know the risks, we'd all know the state of the project from idea, thru the milestones it had achieved, etc.
Also, I had very specific intentions for this purchase.
Supporting an engineering project like this, as sort of a patron of it, is a cool idea.
The idea of trading stakes is also a good one. It would be really cool if we could support startups that way.
We all pledge some amount of money, the startup has milestones, as the milestones are achieved, more funding is required and another round is raised.
If you and I have a disagreement about which direction the startup is going, I could sell you my stake or vice versa. Or I could just hold onto my stake in case I'm wrong and not fund the next round, while you could double up the next round.
If the SEC would allow it, I think that would be a great idea. But we'd all know the risks, we'd all know the state of the project from idea, thru the milestones it had achieved, etc.
Yeah, all of the alternative investment market stuff is basically a hack to get around SEC regulations (and state blue sky securities laws, which are even more strict and insane; SEC compliance is a form of safe harbor against those. A friend of mine is a securities lawyer; this seems like the shittiest job in the world)
If you need a flashlight today, btw, my favorites are the Novatac, but for the money, the Fenix lights are the best. Generally CR123 based, non-rechargeable, and n. I have Surefire for very specific weapons light applications (e.g. $400 fore-end lights for pump action shotguns, which replace the front grip), and a couple Streamlights for less-specific tactical applications (forward t-grip plus light for an M4).
If you need a flashlight today, btw, my favorites are the Novatac, but for the money, the Fenix lights are the best. Generally CR123 based, non-rechargeable, and n. I have Surefire for very specific weapons light applications (e.g. $400 fore-end lights for pump action shotguns, which replace the front grip), and a couple Streamlights for less-specific tactical applications (forward t-grip plus light for an M4).
I've been using Fenix lights for years. We have several L1Ds among us. I love the multi-mode of them, flashing, including SOS, etc. Since these are rechargable we have enerloop batteries that we can recharge using the computers USB port. Hate the idea of trying to find unusual batteries in an obscure location.
Since we travel internationally all the time and since some of us are female, some form of self defense is needed.
The specfic purpose for which I bought the Hexbright was to be able to program a random flashing mode into the flashlight. This would work as a self defense device in dim or dark situations, simply be shining the flashlight into the eyes of an attacker.
It makes it hard for an attacker to see where you are across a room (while a solidly on light is easy to pinpoint) and induces a kind of blindness. (as I understand it, I've not experienced it.)
Its not the strength of pepper spray or a real weapon, but it has the unbeatable advantage of not being a problem with customs-- its just a flashlight.
Since we travel internationally all the time and since some of us are female, some form of self defense is needed.
The specfic purpose for which I bought the Hexbright was to be able to program a random flashing mode into the flashlight. This would work as a self defense device in dim or dark situations, simply be shining the flashlight into the eyes of an attacker.
It makes it hard for an attacker to see where you are across a room (while a solidly on light is easy to pinpoint) and induces a kind of blindness. (as I understand it, I've not experienced it.)
Its not the strength of pepper spray or a real weapon, but it has the unbeatable advantage of not being a problem with customs-- its just a flashlight.
I totally agree about lights for self defense -- they're the one thing I carry all the time, followed by an inoffensive folder, and then escalating from there. There is basically no situation other than being in a shower where I don't have at least one 120+ lumen tactical flashlight, and no firearm-defense situation where I don't have a mounted light and/or handheld light. I keep lights stashed by the bed, in my desk, by the door, in the car, etc. too. Imagine an earthquake, fire, etc.!
The "disorienting strobe" mode of the novatac (or other tactical lights) is pretty much optimal (I think it's about 15Hz, 120+ Lumen). I'm not sure how I'd use the fully programmable modes, except maybe to do recognition patterns with other users (although the standard for that is to have some kind of retroreflective squares in specific parts of your clothing, or IR reflectors and an IR light/NVD). The one weakness of the fenix lights I have is the lack of the fast-strobe mode -- some of them have it, but it's harder to access, and a bunch of them don't have it at all. With the novatac, it's a firmware/setting update.
http://www.novatac.com/downloads/data-sheets/20-0104C_120T.p... is the one I like the most, although I preferred the older design where the end switch was convex vs. flat (although you couldn't stand it on the endcap as a "candle").
The novatac is a little thicker, with a scallop in the back and an O-ring, and thus grips better in a syringe grip (which is useful in off-hand when used with a pistol in the other hand).
It also has a nice crenellated front, which the smaller fenix lights don't have. I've broken auto window glass with one (it's not optimal, but works).
The "disorienting strobe" mode of the novatac (or other tactical lights) is pretty much optimal (I think it's about 15Hz, 120+ Lumen). I'm not sure how I'd use the fully programmable modes, except maybe to do recognition patterns with other users (although the standard for that is to have some kind of retroreflective squares in specific parts of your clothing, or IR reflectors and an IR light/NVD). The one weakness of the fenix lights I have is the lack of the fast-strobe mode -- some of them have it, but it's harder to access, and a bunch of them don't have it at all. With the novatac, it's a firmware/setting update.
http://www.novatac.com/downloads/data-sheets/20-0104C_120T.p... is the one I like the most, although I preferred the older design where the end switch was convex vs. flat (although you couldn't stand it on the endcap as a "candle").
The novatac is a little thicker, with a scallop in the back and an O-ring, and thus grips better in a syringe grip (which is useful in off-hand when used with a pistol in the other hand).
It also has a nice crenellated front, which the smaller fenix lights don't have. I've broken auto window glass with one (it's not optimal, but works).
You guys should check out wiseled.com
http://www.wiseled.com/wiseled_products_tactical_flashlight....
I did some work for them years back, have a sweet forensic set at home.
http://www.wiseled.com/wiseled_products_tactical_flashlight....
I did some work for them years back, have a sweet forensic set at home.
Those are nice. The biggest portable spotlight I've seen was IR, but visible light is a lot more useful usually. Too bad there isnt an hn discount!
Are you kidding?
(not a very high-level HN contributory comment, I know)
(not a very high-level HN contributory comment, I know)
No.
A super-bright flashlight is a critical self-defense (from all kinds of danger, man made or natural) tool. I'd put a cellphone as #1, bright light as #2, and some kind of very small knife/multitool (for cutting things, like seatbelts, not people) as #3.
It's crazy when people go straight to pepper spray, big knives, firearms, etc. for self defense, but don't carry simple things which are used far more often. There are costs (increased legal compliance, weight, training needs, risk if the item is taken from you, moral issues with hurting/killing other people) with each, vs. the benefit, but I can't think of any situations where the analysis for a tactical light isn't strongly in the "do" category.
A super-bright flashlight is a critical self-defense (from all kinds of danger, man made or natural) tool. I'd put a cellphone as #1, bright light as #2, and some kind of very small knife/multitool (for cutting things, like seatbelts, not people) as #3.
It's crazy when people go straight to pepper spray, big knives, firearms, etc. for self defense, but don't carry simple things which are used far more often. There are costs (increased legal compliance, weight, training needs, risk if the item is taken from you, moral issues with hurting/killing other people) with each, vs. the benefit, but I can't think of any situations where the analysis for a tactical light isn't strongly in the "do" category.
This is interesting; could you give some examples of what you mean by a tactical situation?
Incidents in which tools have been useful to me personally: Traffic accidents (I've responded to about 20-25 in the past decade outside warzones, and probably seriously improved victim outcomes in a few, the last being 2 weeks ago); loud noises at night (ranging from two being shot and bleeding out in front of the loft in the tenderloin, to raccoons in trash cans, to everything in between), power failures sometimes incident to hurricanes, sandstorms, ..., all sorts of fun in warzones (mortars, people dropping cargo containers on top of other people by accident, porta-potties upended by high winds with person inside (!!!), street altercations (kid with knife, feral dogs, drunks, drug dealers on my front step blocking the entrance, ...), etc.
Plus the thousands of cardboard boxes, envelopes, plastic clamshells, bottles, cans, etc. which have fallen before me.
Plus the thousands of cardboard boxes, envelopes, plastic clamshells, bottles, cans, etc. which have fallen before me.
Okay - street altercations I know too much about - so a torch and a what? The challenge to me seems always to avoid it without escalating, so I don't think whipping out my box-cutter would be too advisable! Is there a procedure?
Hope you don't mind me quizzing you.
Hope you don't mind me quizzing you.
>Of course the 30 day credit card dispute period has long passed.
You may want to check with your card issuer on this. Some cards have a 30-60 day window to file for a chargeback. Others, notably AmEx, will issue chargebacks going back six months or even a year.
You may want to check with your card issuer on this. Some cards have a 30-60 day window to file for a chargeback. Others, notably AmEx, will issue chargebacks going back six months or even a year.
I don't see it as the worst project. I don't know why you are so dissapointed
Kick Starter appears to need to manage people's expectations of projects a bit better? People are not buying product, they're "investing" to help someone create a product. The return on a successful investment is a cheap version of that product, or some stickers, or a warm fuzzy feeling of helping someone.
Without Apple-like innovation and fabrication technology, how could could they got the aluminum casing to not completely block out the signal? It seemed like the entire project was doomed from the start.
"Apple-like innovation"? What's "Apple-like" about making an antenna? Wasn't "Apple-like" the reason for free bumpers and "you're holding it wrong"?
My guess is vast resources...
Kickstarter really need to fix this side of the site, I won't be backing any projects from this point on unless they absolutely have a pre-created product and I'm happy with what I can see at the time of backing, putting money into "creative" projects or "prototypes" seems to be a guaranteed way to come away with something you didn't expect (if you get anything at all). I would love to see either some retribution for people that never deliver or project curation from Kickstarter.
On a positive note I backed "Romo" (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/peterseid/romo-the-smart...) a couple of months back and had an absolutely wonderful experience, they delivered on all their promises (so far) and the project is everything they promised.