wan show KickStarter Ossic Disapears

[kasugatei]

I will be really direct with this - who ever pays $1000 for piece of consumer audio equipment based on a promise from completely unknown "company" is an idiot. Let's not forget self filling water bottle BS as well and yet still people backed that as well....

 

Personally I backed several projects on Kickstarter and all of them performed as promised. Still waiting Scorn game to be released

[suicidalfranco]

and friendly reminder that all you needed were 2 drivers, one for your left ear and one for the right, for spatial awareness. So instead of tossing 200 to 1000$ on what clearly was snake oil, to begin with, you could have just used them for some kickass cans already purchasable and 1 to 2 days away, at an Amazon near you.

 

[MrDynamicMan]

3 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

and friendly reminder that all you needed were 2 drivers, one for your left ear and one for the right, for spatial awareness. So instead of tossing 200 to 1000$ on what clearly was snake oil, to begin with, you could have just used them for some kickass cans already purchasable and 1 to 2 days away, at an Amazon near you.

 

This was the most surprising people. Who actually buys this snake oil...

[dionkoffie]

tl;dr

 

Why is this allowed lol? everyone can create a Kickstarter page, spend $2000 on a fake but convincing video, farm a couple million and p00f. Disappear without trouble. 

[suicidalfranco]

46 minutes ago, MrDynamicMan said:

This was the most surprising people. Who actually buys this snake oil...

probably the same kind of people who believe that audio cables made of silver will give better sound

or the same kind of people who go for the gamer headphones with 7 drivers on each cup for whatever bs reason it's written on the box

or those who are convinced that this 8400$ feet would make their speaker sound better

[dalekphalm]

12 hours ago, -BirdiE- said:

I mean, if we want to play it that way technically everything you spend money or time on is an investment. Buying a banana is an investment. Going to the gym is an investment.

 

But in normal financial terms, an investment is something that you purchase in hopes that it appreciates in monetary value. If you invest in a start-up company you take the risk that you lose money in hopes that the company, and thus your share in the company, appreciates in value and you net a return on your money. Purchasing a product, or even pre-ordering a product, would not be considered an investment in financial terms.

Not quite.

 

Kickstarter is clearly and obviously not a pre-order. Anyone who thinks it is, is wrong - and really, that's the problem.

 

Plus, many investments, even in companies, don't give any shares or ownership. Many investments in companies are cash only injections. Granted, they still typically make a percentage return (hopefully) on their investment.

 

That's why I said Kickstarter is a bad investment, because you don't get a percentage return. You get (at best), the product you helped fund, plus some extra thing as a bonus.

 

Kickstarter is a novel concept, and it's flashy and easy to market. But it's not really a great concept for the end user.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

13 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

 

Kickstarter is an investment. It's a bad investment, but it's still an investment. You're not pre-ordering a product, because in most cases, there is no product yet.

The last part is true, but you are not investing either. The most accurate way to denominate it is "donation". You give the kickstarters money without acquiring any ownership, any product, nor any financial claim on it. You may get promised a "reward", but that's no different from the Red Cross promising that your donation will help them save 5,000 kids somewhere. If they eventually fail to save anyone, they still owe you nothing. You just helped them try. I guess that's the best way to describe Kickstarter "backing": you donate money to help someone trying to make a company.

 

3 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Kickstarter is clearly and obviously not a pre-order. Anyone who thinks it is, is wrong - and really, that's the problem.

I agree with that. I think the number of people treating it as a pre-order (and the number of people treating it as an investment to some extent) illustrate the extent to which kickstarter needs to obscure what it is to succeed. I don't think "Charity-based entrepreneurship" would attract as much money as "crowdfunding" does.

 

[dalekphalm]

18 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

The last part is true, but you are not investing either. The most accurate way to denominate it is "donation". You give the kickstarters money without acquiring any ownership, any product, nor any financial claim on it. You may get promised a "reward", but that's no different from the Red Cross promising that your donation will help them save 5,000 kids somewhere. If they eventually fail to save anyone, they still owe you nothing. You just helped them try. I guess that's the best way to describe Kickstarter "backing": you donate money to help someone trying to make a company.

 

I agree with that. I think the number of people treating it as a pre-order (and the number of people treating it as an investment to some extent) illustrate the extent to which kickstarter needs to obscure what it is to succeed. I don't think "Charity-based entrepreneurship" would attract as much money as "crowdfunding" does.

 

Agreed - Kickstarter is literally gambling, in the sense that there's no hard guarantee that the product will become a reality.

 

By the time a traditional company starts pre-orders, R&D is well past finished, and the product is already entering mass production.

[Jito463]

On 5/21/2018 at 7:35 AM, Rupe said:

People need to accept it as a gamble when they go into it and that they might lose any money they hand over. The fact some want to file a class action lawsuit shows these people considered it more that they were buying a product. Which is the wrong way to look at it

19 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

No really because you never bought any thing, you never signed any contract any thing so you're not entitled for any thing juridically speaking.

 

What you did do was a Patreon like thingy to fund the idea and in exchange you were promised something but there is absolutely nothing obligating any one to give you any thing, that's the beauty on it.

There are those who misconstrue the purpose of KS, but many of us understand and accept the inherent risks involved.  However, just because there's no guarantee with KS, doesn't mean there's no liability on the part of the creator.  KS guidelines clearly state that there must be clear evidence of a good faith showing from the creator, that they actually made an attempt to provide the promised product or service.  If they cannot prove that, then they are still vulnerable to a lawsuit, no matter what KS says about the inherent risks.

 

Personally, I find it difficult to accept that they've burned through all of that cash without any product to show for it.  If they actually did spend nearly $6 million ($2.7m from KS, and $3.2M from IGG, according to the OP) on just R&D, then they didn't have anything to begin with, and they were lying to their backers.  I find it more likely that the whole thing was a scam, and I wish the best for those suing to get their money back.

 

I've been burned before, and even from big names (who should know better), but ultimately anything backed on KS is a risk.  I can say that I've been pleasantly surprised several times, too.  Overall, I've at least received what I expected (if not better) more often than I've been disappointed.  KS is fine, so long as you understand what you're getting into and don't pledge to support sketchy products.

[Devin92]

20 hours ago, Rupe said:

Kickstarter does, but people understand what Kickstarter is and that is not a store front, and from that should accept the inherent risk with handing over money for a promise to essentially strangers most of them with no former track record of supplying a product.

I would like to know the legal def of kickstarter. If its investment (like stock or lottery) you pay and expect the value to rise as you own part of the whole asset. Which in case of stock, the kickstarter should be transparent as in how those money is spent (quarterly financial report like what other company do).

 

if its a store front, then once you pay them (even if its a 'pre-order'), its contract of sell, which the seller should be obligated with something in return. if one cant deliver and cant refund without a explaination, its a fraud.

 

From what i have seen so far in the post, kickstarter is a evil-mid-ground. you 'pre-order' and maybe you get what exactly the item/service you paid for with no potential value add-on, and when things goes wrong, kickstarter holds no responsibility to explain how the fund raised is used, and are not obligated for refund?

i dont know, it seems too good to be true. How can this be legal.

[Jito463]

19 minutes ago, Devin92 said:

From what i have seen so far in the post, kickstarter is a evil-mid-ground. you 'pre-order' and maybe you get what exactly the item/service you paid for with no potential value add-on, and when things goes wrong, kickstarter holds no responsibility to explain how the fund raised is used, and are not obligated for refund?

Kickstarter themselves - for better or worse - are not directly involved in any of the crowdfunding campaigns.  They simply facilitate the connection between creators and backers.  KS is not, and never has been a pre-order platform.  Nor is it an investment platform.  As you said, it's somewhere in between (though I'd argue that describing it as "evil" is hyperbolic).  Effectively, it's more akin to Angel Investing than regular investing, albeit without the ownership benefits.  There's a reason that those pledging are referred to as "backers" rather than "investors".

28 minutes ago, Devin92 said:

i dont know, it seems too good to be true. How can this be legal.

It's legal because KS clearly states in their terms of service that there is a risk involved in backing any project, and that one should always assume the possibility of losing their pledged money.

[Devin92]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Kickstarter themselves - for better or worse - are not directly involved in any of the crowdfunding campaigns.  They simply facilitate the connection between creators and backers.  KS is not, and never has been a pre-order platform.  Nor is it an investment platform.  As you said, it's somewhere in between (though I'd argue that describing it as "evil" is hyperbolic).  Effectively, it's more akin to Angel Investing than regular investing, albeit without the ownership benefits.  There's a reason that those pledging are referred to as "backers" rather than "investors".

It's legal because KS clearly states in their terms of service that there is a risk involved in backing any project, and that one should always assume the possibility of losing their pledged money.

but for angel investing, if one invest, he own some of the company, and if the company succeed, one get a huge return, where for those who ''pre-order'', they just get what they probly will be paying for the product anyway.

now that i read your post abt showing the effort of making the idea success i guess its not too ''evil''. but it will be pretty stupid for those who ''pre-order'' since you get nothing back from the risk you take.

[Sniperfox47]

As someone who's crowdfunded many products in both kickstart and indiegogo and gotten pretty much exactly what I wanted every time (albeit well past the expected date), I just want to weigh in.

 

I don't disagree that currently it's a "donation", but that really needs to change. The amount of people who misunderstanding what it is is ludicrous. Sometimes the law needs to step in to protect people from themselves, even if they're the dumbasses not reading what a service is.

[MrDynamicMan]

18 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

probably the same kind of people who believe that audio cables made of silver will give better sound

or the same kind of people who go for the gamer headphones with 7 drivers on each cup for whatever bs reason it's written on the box

or those who are convinced that this 8400$ feet would make their speaker sound better

that looks really cheap too lmao

[dalekphalm]

9 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

As someone who's crowdfunded many products in both kickstart and indiegogo and gotten pretty much exactly what I wanted every time (albeit well past the expected date), I just want to weigh in.

 

I don't disagree that currently it's a "donation", but that really needs to change. The amount of people who misunderstanding what it is is ludicrous. Sometimes the law needs to step in to protect people from themselves, even if they're the dumbasses not reading what a service is.

I fully agree.

 

I also have kickstarted before, and I always understood the risks. But most don't.

[macknade]

Quote

When a project is successfully funded, the creator must complete the project and fulfill each reward. Once a creator has done so, they’ve satisfied their obligation to their backers.

Throughout the process, creators owe their backers a high standard of effort, honest communication, and a dedication to bringing the project to life. At the same time, backers must understand that when they back a project, they’re helping to create something new — not ordering something that already exists. There may be changes or delays, and there’s a chance something could happen that prevents the creator from being able to finish the project as promised.

If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers. A creator in this position has only remedied the situation and met their obligations to backers if:

• they post an update that explains what work has been done, how funds were used, and what prevents them from finishing the project as planned;
• they work diligently and in good faith to bring the project to the best possible conclusion in a timeframe that’s communicated to backers;
• they’re able to demonstrate that they’ve used funds appropriately and made every reasonable effort to complete the project as promised;
• they’ve been honest, and have made no material misrepresentations in their communication to backers; and
• they offer to return any remaining funds to backers who have not received their reward (in proportion to the amounts pledged), or else explain how those funds will be used to complete the project in some alternate form.

The creator is solely responsible for fulfilling the promises made in their project. If they’re unable to satisfy the terms of this agreement, they may be subject to legal action by backers.

If actually read Kickstarters terms. They actually expect backers to pursue legal action! (But Kickstarter won't help)

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, macknade said:

If actually read Kickstarters terms. They actually expect backers to pursue legal action! (But Kickstarter won't help)

Yep, it's up to the backers to sue.

 

The problem is that most individual backers can't afford to hire a lawyer over $100 or $200, or even $1000.

 

And getting a class action lawsuit up and running is a much trickier beast.

[-BirdiE-]

On 5/22/2018 at 12:19 PM, dalekphalm said:

Plus, many investments, even in companies, don't give any shares or ownership. Many investments in companies are cash only injections. Granted, they still typically make a percentage return (hopefully) on their investment.

 

That's why I said Kickstarter is a bad investment, because you don't get a percentage return. You get (at best), the product you helped fund, plus some extra thing as a bonus.

Again, an investment is where you put in money in hopes to receive a gain in monetary value. This does not describe kickstarter.