It seems entirely possible that a few (early) successes by Kickstarter
Campaigns may have fooled the general populace that this is a (safe) way to
invest in things.

This is very similar (from my point of view) to the early Internet boom
(1995 or so until the crash in 2001).  It seemed like anyone with a modem
and a server could literally print money.

I think you could find some kickstarter campaigns that made money - or at
the very least created a useful product.

The problem (that Kickstarter should address sooner rather than later - if
they intend to be more serious than a spam board) is (just as with the
internet boom) for every one legitimate product there are plenty that are
complete garbage.

The fact that many of the investors in these things are either not
sophisticated enough or simply don't understand why something in rubbish is
the problem.  If the intention is to connect good ideas with money -
perhaps there should be a vetting process.

Of course, in the 2.0 kind of world, vetting processes are frowned upon as
somehow curtailing innovation.

Kind Regards -

Aleksei


On 2 June 2014 10:22, RussellMc <apptechnz@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >I can't say I like the idea of giving money to scammers to gain the
> >
> >> privilege of pointing out their scams.
> >>
> >
> > I suspect that my $2's worth will have reduced their take by
> substantially
> > more than that. Consider it a cost of community service.
> >
> > I have since pointed out that if they amend the graph axis to m/s from
> mph
> > (~=3D 11x reduction in power at any given wind speed) and apologise to
> their
> > supporters now, they may save themselves a law suit or general
> > unpleasantness later on. Whether they have done so I know not
> >
> > ______________
> >
>
> Update:
>
> Several of the 100 early innovator slots which had been fully subscribed
> became free.
> Others will take their place BUT at least a few people seem to have decid=
ed
> that the products they shell out $249 for should not break the laws of
> physics.
>
> They have not updated the graph - it still reads in mph. That would have
> been such a simple change to make.
> Their claims still break the laws of Physics.
> Other people have also commented separately and re what I said.
>
> They have addressed some minor questions that others have raised but
> ignored any comments that raised issues re the impossibility of their
> claims.
> They have exceeded their funding goals, so get their % of the money, and
> kickstarter get theirs.
>
> While some projects with quite complex goals offer to have product in
> people's hands very quickly, this project has a very long close to delive=
ry
> time scale.
>
> April - Kickstarter Project starts
> June - Final Prototype
> July - Final Decision on manufacturing process
> September - Tooling, Tools, Trials and Fine Tuning
> November - Packaging Design
> 2015
> January - First Kickstarter backers receive their Trinity
> February - Full Scale Production
>
>  Note July to December - from final decision on manufacturing process to
> > (presumably) manufacturing.
> > About 6 months. With full scale production in February.
> >
>
> Kickstarter's laissez faire approach is known - but if the above does not
> disturb Kickstarter then Kickstarter should be disturbing other people by
> now.
>
> _____________
>
> MAYBE they are just being FAR more cautious than most.
> But:
>
> We have been able to build a fully working prototype but it may require
> small changes for full scale manufacturing. We will face more challenges
> and unforeseen product issues as we get closer to manufacturing. We do no=
t
> currently have a factory though we will explore every option and decide t=
he
> best way to manufacture the product. If we decide to partner up with a
> manufacturer there may be delays should we need to change suppliers. Ever=
y
> step in our development will be carefully selected to make this product
> even more special for our backers.
>
> We may need to make a few changes in materials so the product can become
> more durable and scratch resistant. This can cause the final product to b=
e
> slightly different from our original prototype.
> All of these factors can have an effect on shipping dates. We will work o=
ur
> hardest to achieve our set dates and deliver a product that both we and o=
ur
> backers are satisfied with.
>
>
> Is disturbing.
>
>
>
>
> >        Russell
> >
> >
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.