I wrote up a response to this, but accidentally did it under the wrong comment (see my response to thieving_magpie).

In that reply I explain what I felt I was baited with and what it was switched for. Maybe you could explain how you feel the term should be used, since you feel my usage was incorrect?

Sigh, yes. "Bait and switch" is the "begging the question" of product forums. It has an actual meaning that nobody cares about and by now just means "I feel disappointed". This is one of the least unfair outcomes for what is a barely a purchase and it is still a "Classic bait-n-switch".

His point is that it was an attempted bait and switch. The fact that they failed and refunded the money doesn't change that. They purportedly promised one product and worked on a different one.

It's not even an attempted bait and switch. They thought that a certain feature was needed/wanted, so they tried implementing it. Extra features have killed projects before and will kill in the future.

Let's say I want to sell you shirt. You pre-order the shirt, then I decide that it's import that the same shirt has an additional pocket on the front. At that point, is it a bait-and-switch scam?

Like Sanddancer says, it's just feature-creep that scuttled the project, not a malicious misrepresentation of the product.

The project was billed as a DRM-free chromecast alternative.

It's more like you pre-order a pocketless shirt, I'm not able to retrofit a pocket onto it and so I refund your money.

They could have kept the money, right? If it was an attempted bait and switch, then what caused them to fail in that attempt? It doesn't make sense.