The iPad's 'Ultimate Typing Accessory' Is A Dud(forbes.com)
forbes.com
The iPad's 'Ultimate Typing Accessory' Is A Dud
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2012/07/11/the-ipads-ultimate-typing-accessory-is-a-dud/
12 comments
I'm not worried about that, I'm hoping it happens. It obviously should be harder to have your project taken seriously and raise 200k. I adore kickstarter, but it shouldn't be a gold rush for anyone good at making videos, but not products.
I agree with this point and I too adore kickstarter. Generally, the startup advice I've been receiving is to show vision by creating a really solid pitch rather than actually building (or only build for pitch purposes). I understand why this would be the case since if I can build the right emotional state which leads to the same or better outcome (raise $$) at a fraction of the time/cost, why wouldn't I? However, this has caused me to be jaded. Instead of getting excited about new products, I'm now very cautious. I'm asking myself... is the focus on the sales approach right for this product or does it weaken its credibility?
I can't think of a better example for buyer-beware. The crowd-funding idea is new and exciting, and a lot of people are jumping in on ideas they want to see come to fruition, without properly vetting those behind those ideas.
We will probably see some money come out of crowdfunding, but only the mindless money that was being thrown at it before that shouldn't have been. This product shouldn't have been funded, and likely, in the future, a product with similar prospects won't be. That's a good thing.
We will probably see some money come out of crowdfunding, but only the mindless money that was being thrown at it before that shouldn't have been. This product shouldn't have been funded, and likely, in the future, a product with similar prospects won't be. That's a good thing.
This product should have been funded, clearly. You are saying it shouldn't have been because the execution didn't match the (perfectly reasonable) hype.
One problem highlighted by this situation is the lack of an advisor. There should be an advisor (essentially a board member) associated with sufficiently large projects to make sure that things progress (and to give the inventor the ability to communicate changes without it blowing up like this).
One problem highlighted by this situation is the lack of an advisor. There should be an advisor (essentially a board member) associated with sufficiently large projects to make sure that things progress (and to give the inventor the ability to communicate changes without it blowing up like this).
Jokes aside, people continue to vote for politicians who are under-qualified and who make promises they wouldn't even have the power to keep... and yet study after study shows that bad promises are far more effective at getting votes than setting realistic expectations.
If the same holds true for crowdfunding, illustrious but poorly defined projects built by under-qualified "inventors" has a long run ahead of it.
If the same holds true for crowdfunding, illustrious but poorly defined projects built by under-qualified "inventors" has a long run ahead of it.
I recently received a DVD that was a reward for sponsoring a Kickstarter project back in the days. At first, I was worried that the DVD might be region-locked, considering I live in Europe and had it shipped overseas. And while that wasn't the case, what if it had been? What would people do?
It made me think that there should be a satisfaction rating available to users, after they receive their reward, digital or physical. It doesn't have to do anything at first; it's just there for the people behind Kickstarter to see if someone seriously fucked up. People like these guys or these guys: https://twitter.com/jb/status/214437340737843200.
They could divide the reviews into two categories. 1) Did you receive your product? 2) Did you not receive your product?
The first is more relevant, because it describes the end product rather than the logistical issues that aren't - usually - as important. They can be ignored at first.
It's going to bite the Kickstarter people in the ass, and I think we need some kind of middle-of-the-road solution between goodwill and project creator ratings.
Who knows, maybe we'll see companies who offer Kickstarter insurances in the future.
It made me think that there should be a satisfaction rating available to users, after they receive their reward, digital or physical. It doesn't have to do anything at first; it's just there for the people behind Kickstarter to see if someone seriously fucked up. People like these guys or these guys: https://twitter.com/jb/status/214437340737843200.
They could divide the reviews into two categories. 1) Did you receive your product? 2) Did you not receive your product?
The first is more relevant, because it describes the end product rather than the logistical issues that aren't - usually - as important. They can be ignored at first.
It's going to bite the Kickstarter people in the ass, and I think we need some kind of middle-of-the-road solution between goodwill and project creator ratings.
Who knows, maybe we'll see companies who offer Kickstarter insurances in the future.
The ElevationDock can undock without the dock moving as advertised. It looks like he is bending the phone forward and then pulling it out - that pinches the connector and will certainly cause it to hang. Video just shot showing that - https://vimeo.com/45589974
You should remember that the rewards are not supposed to be the main goal of a Kickstarter project, but more like an appreciation token for your donation.
I think it's somewhere in between the two points you bring up. Kickstarter is used directly as a shop by many people. With the Ouya console busting all records, I am wondering when consumer advocates will begin taking notice, if one of these blockbuster projects disappoint the cust-, backers in any significant way. :)
And, to reiterate, I am just thinking of a reputation-based system, this more or less being an economy of goodwill. Kickstarter has so much clout and utility that the prospect of getting blackballed or receiving a poor public satisfaction index them could be a huge deterrent by itself without the need for any legal and consumer-advocate action to be taken.
And, to reiterate, I am just thinking of a reputation-based system, this more or less being an economy of goodwill. Kickstarter has so much clout and utility that the prospect of getting blackballed or receiving a poor public satisfaction index them could be a huge deterrent by itself without the need for any legal and consumer-advocate action to be taken.
It's not the goal of the project, but I'm sure they are pretty much the only goal of the donation... Or do you think people would donate at all if there weren't any gifts?
I've donated to several kickstarters without a backer reward. They're usually film or music projects though, where the finished product is available to everyone for free.
I've backed a few projects that I just wanted to exist, or happen. I put $250 toward a documentary project. Sure I'll get a copy as a "reward" but the copies obviously aren't worth $250 to me. I just wanted it to happen.
And that's exactly the problem. There's a massive mismatch in expectations. People treat it like a store, where it's more like a micro-scale venture capital investment, without the potential for a huge return.
Kickstarter is actually NOTHING like a micro-scale venture capital investment. It's not an investment at all. It's a donation.
But it's not a donation at all in many cases. Frequently, you give money in exchange for a product, promised at some future time, generally for a discount over the ultimate retail price. That's an investment, with the finished product being the reward, and the risk being the potential failure of the project. Yes, Kickstarter calls them donations, but when people are putting up money in exchange for a promise of being delivered a product, it's hard to believe that's what they really are.
That's not an investment, any more than buying a keyboard or an iPhone dock at the local computer store is an investment. It's an advance downpayment on a product purchase, with no recourse if the seller never delivers you the product, or delivers something that doesn't meet your expectation.
It's worth remembering that Kickstarter is ("merely") a way to codify and publicize promises.
Keeping promises is no easier than it's ever been.
Keeping promises is no easier than it's ever been.
A very good point and something that needs to be built into the Kickstarter framework. Some way of keeping ideas 'easy' to fund, but still hold the initiators to a high standard for excellence/delivery.
Interesting, the article slams it for fit and finish (manufacturing issues) rather than functional issues. I suspect this will be the biggest thing people learn using kickstarter, manufacturing is not straightforward as one might hope.
It criticizes both aspects, although it spends less time on the functional issues, presumably because it really doesn't do that much. Here's the paragraph dedicated to the problem with the functionality:
'One benefit touted by the Touchfire creators is that you can rest your fingers on the keyboard without accidentally producing a string of nonsense. The problem with that statement is that it’s not true. Especially when typing on an angle, my resting fingers easily made it through the thin plastic layer to create fun words like “eoran” and “nadskj”.'
It also says that it's "pretty gratifying" to type with, so it seems to be a mixed bag, functionality-wise.
'One benefit touted by the Touchfire creators is that you can rest your fingers on the keyboard without accidentally producing a string of nonsense. The problem with that statement is that it’s not true. Especially when typing on an angle, my resting fingers easily made it through the thin plastic layer to create fun words like “eoran” and “nadskj”.'
It also says that it's "pretty gratifying" to type with, so it seems to be a mixed bag, functionality-wise.
Well, it kind of nailed on the resting fingers angle which would be a big draw for touch typists who are used to resting on the 'home' keys.
That makes the whole keyboard cover for Surface really interesting. Microsoft has made keyboards for many years though so I am hoping that they are aware of possible problems and hopefully will be able to avoid it.
I agree, the Surface keyboard cover looks like it might make it the best of both worlds...a tablet that I can actually use on the road with me to get some typing done, and then docked at home into my normal keyboard/mouse/monitor. As it is now, I hate typing so much on the iPad that I use it mostly like a larger phone. Just a little tactile feedback will go a long way.
BTW, I'm still awaiting my TouchFire to arrive, and I'm still hopeful that it improves touch typing on the iPad, especially since this review was a bit of a mixed-bag
BTW, I'm still awaiting my TouchFire to arrive, and I'm still hopeful that it improves touch typing on the iPad, especially since this review was a bit of a mixed-bag
My apologies, I should have replied to you:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4232558
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4232558
While waiting, try out the new Logitech Ultrathin for iPad. It's a real keyboard with great touch feel and all the coder keys, with the smart magnets to cover iPad face, and a brilliantly positioned slot to angle it in that gives you extra inches on an airline tray.
http://www.pcworld.com/product/1198763/logitech_ultrathin_ke...
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Ultrathin-Keyboard-Cover-920-...
I've taken three cross country trips and countless trains to NYC, Boston, or Philly, all on one charge. No longer need a laptop for travel.
http://www.pcworld.com/product/1198763/logitech_ultrathin_ke...
http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Ultrathin-Keyboard-Cover-920-...
I've taken three cross country trips and countless trains to NYC, Boston, or Philly, all on one charge. No longer need a laptop for travel.
Another dud, an iPhone case that blocks reception: http://a.wholelottanothing.org/2012/01/lessons-for-kickstart...
It actually surprises me that more big kickstarters don't fail on fulfillment, but I think that is because they are Strongly Encouraged to outsource it to one of kickstarter's partners.
It actually surprises me that more big kickstarters don't fail on fulfillment, but I think that is because they are Strongly Encouraged to outsource it to one of kickstarter's partners.
I spent ten minutes with mine and threw it in the trash.
Edit: But I'm not disappointed. First, I expect a certain failure rate with venture funding. Second, it was worth it to me just to see if they could pull it off. If I got a working keyboard overlay out of it, that would just be a bonus. Finally, I didn't expect they'd pull it off, because it's a really hard problem (which is why Apple doesn't have a solution for this).
Edit: But I'm not disappointed. First, I expect a certain failure rate with venture funding. Second, it was worth it to me just to see if they could pull it off. If I got a working keyboard overlay out of it, that would just be a bonus. Finally, I didn't expect they'd pull it off, because it's a really hard problem (which is why Apple doesn't have a solution for this).
One thing that's come up in this article, it seems that Kickstarter's members are often willing to give free money to developers. Why?
Kickstarter is referred to again and again, even by posters in this discussion, as a "micro-investment" site. That's a nice thought, except that Kickstarter funders get zero equity in what they produce. This makes great sense in funding an artist to create a new piano concerto, or produce a documentary on Rwanda. It also makes sense for development or improvement of Free Software, where the world will benefit from the result. It makes much less sense for people to fund the for-profit development of hardware that will ultimately be sold at a mark-up.
Have we somehow fooled ourselves into thinking that we are improving the world by bankrolling the creation of a more stylish iPhone dock? Or, is it the street cred of saying, "Yeah, I knew them when they were on Kickstarter..."?
Kickstarter is referred to again and again, even by posters in this discussion, as a "micro-investment" site. That's a nice thought, except that Kickstarter funders get zero equity in what they produce. This makes great sense in funding an artist to create a new piano concerto, or produce a documentary on Rwanda. It also makes sense for development or improvement of Free Software, where the world will benefit from the result. It makes much less sense for people to fund the for-profit development of hardware that will ultimately be sold at a mark-up.
Have we somehow fooled ourselves into thinking that we are improving the world by bankrolling the creation of a more stylish iPhone dock? Or, is it the street cred of saying, "Yeah, I knew them when they were on Kickstarter..."?
There are also positive reviews like these:
http://www.zdnet.com/touchfire-ipad-keyboard-enhances-text-e...
http://www.padgadget.com/2012/07/11/hands-on-with-the-touchf...
http://www.zdnet.com/touchfire-ipad-keyboard-enhances-text-e...
http://www.padgadget.com/2012/07/11/hands-on-with-the-touchf...
I help fund the iKeyboard, which was (is) very similar to the Touchfire. It's an excellent execution of what I now see as a fundamentally flawed concept. Having to remove an object from my iPad when I want to switch apps, which is often, sorta sucks.
IOW, the suck of messing with the iKeyboard > the suck of trying to touch type on the iPad.
IOW, the suck of messing with the iKeyboard > the suck of trying to touch type on the iPad.
I'm not familiar with the iKeyboard — you have to remove it to switch apps? Do multitasking gestures help with that at all?
Any attachable keyboard on the iPad will be the same. When the keyboard hides itself (on the home screen, or any other screen without the keyboard input selected), you are left with a keyboard covering 25% of your real estate. However this review seemed to note that it is possible to click through the keyboard, which is a good thing in that regard.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. If the keyboard is hidden, why is there then "a keyboard covering 25% of your real estate"?
What he is saying is, if you have this plastic keyboard attached to your iPad, then you are stuck in software-keyboard mode. If you dismiss the software keyboard, then you have no access to the UI now displayed on the bottom half of the screen, without pulling off the plastic keyboard.
I tend to agree -- there are only a very few iPad apps that are designed to be used 100% of the time with the soft keyboard displayed. Even in mail, for example, you switch back and forth between browse and edit mode.
I tend to agree -- there are only a very few iPad apps that are designed to be used 100% of the time with the soft keyboard displayed. Even in mail, for example, you switch back and forth between browse and edit mode.
The software keyboard is hidden, the hardware keyboard is covering the screen area that belonged to that.
How an "entrepreneurial reporter" gets his editors to print his article - be sure to bash an "Apple" product and be plenty insulting to "Apple" fans.
Of course, there are plenty of Kickstarter products that produced crap, plenty that folded for no reason. But only the "Apple" ones get you a certain article.
Garbage.
Of course, there are plenty of Kickstarter products that produced crap, plenty that folded for no reason. But only the "Apple" ones get you a certain article.
Garbage.
In blogging there's little editorial oversight, thankfully. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to write anything. Here's how the article came about since you seem to view journalism as some kind of conspiracy: The Touchfire people reached out to me, sent me the Touchfire for review, and I reviewed it. Simple as that. I'm not bashing Apple fans since I clearly am an Apple fan in that I make known that the Touchfire is unworthy of a "beautiful" device - i.e the iPad. (Yes, I had fun with the lede though.) As for some kind of Kickstarter bias, I wrote a very positive review about the Zboard which was a Kickstarter project. I'm all for informed pushback from readers, but that's an awful lot of unfounded speculation.
A few more duds like this that raised over $200,000 for developers and engineers clearly without the technical know-how and prowess to pull something like this off and deliver what they promised just makes it that much harder for people to have their projects taken seriously on kickstarter in the future.