Right, but I meant a gamble on their side, not the buyers'. Like when MtGox lost their bitcoins and ran as a fractional reserve trying to cover what happened. Or an actual addicted gambler trying to cut their losses by playing more. I wonder when they learned they were going out of business, and if the last Kickstarter was just a Hail Mary...

They probably thought a big KS would convince investors to give them couple hundred million.

What they should have done is cut costs and develop 10x fewer features, let the community grow slowly but organically and wait out the bad times.

"What they should have done is cut costs and develop 10x fewer features, let the community grow slowly but organically and wait out the bad times."

It's easy to say that, but when you are up against the Apple/Samsung type companies who have much deeper pockets, don't have to wait out bad times, have the ability to lean on vendors, have contracts in place with manufacturing and the supply chain to efficiently deliver the product, it might not be realistic to do that. On top that, as others here have said, once you take VC money, there isn't really an option to go slowly and let the community grow.

> there isn't really an option to go slowly and let the community grow.

Sure there is. Just not while also being the dominant, or one of the dominant players in the industry when there is competition form a bit name. Pebble didn't have to be a dominant player, they could have positioned themselves differently if they wanted. Both paths are a gamble, but if it comes to a small company I own trying to compete with Apple/Samsung/Google and it's obvious their resources give them an edge (which they almost always do), then I think I would try to position myself to net necessarily compete with them directly (e.g. be the more hacker friendly device, don't shoot for the luxury market, find some cool thing they aren't offering, etc).

> It's easy to say that, but when you are up against the Apple/Samsung type companies who have much deeper pockets

They did not really have to go against Apple/Samsung, their product was unique enough that Apple and Samsung don't have anything that's similar to it, and people like me would prefer pebble over their products. I mean now that pebble is gone, I'll most likely go back to regular watches.

> once you take VC money

their goals become your goals and their goals are almost always "Make more money now"

A gamble by definition is always a two sided transaction.

Perhaps the word gambit might suit better here?

There are Kickstarter projects that a year or two after the fact, haven't shipped. (for example, the Hydradock, which was to have shipped in June 2015)

I think this is an example of an issue that some companies that do kickstarter/preorder campaigns have.

They try to do a Hardware project that pushes boundaries and try to collect money to early during the development process at a time when it is really impossible to set a ship date. (Also a factor is company inexperience with manufacturing) This is why so many projects have to delay shipments and sometimes eventually run out of money without getting to a shippable product.

Companies that are successful typically do their preorders at a point where they have already completed multiple production runs at a cm in china and are ready to ramp for mass production. the order count helps justify the costs of ordering mass production parts. The issue of course is that it means investors had to be willing to fund seed/series A without seeing any traction.

This is not really an issue with what some companies are doing. This is the main point of kickstarter.

It's for people to support funding projects still in development and helping them get from that stage to get into production. In exchange for a "reward". It's not meant to be for products already having done multiple production runs ready to ramp up and customers are just pre-paying a long delivery time.

I would agree it appears there needs to be better communication about the risks and uncertainties. But they have said quite clearly kickstarter is not a store:

https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

I think the point is that Kickstarter is not a sustainable way to build a hardware business. Despite kickstarter's own statement that it isn't a store, it really is. Would the majority of people on the site really back projects if they didn't expect the rewards?

I hear what you're saying but I have this perspective that includes Kickstarter in these issues. Why doesn't Kickstarter take a more active role in supporting it's campaigners after they raise funds?

Kickstarter for hardware products is very much its own insane, dysfunctional, extraordinarily risky world.

Most money spent on Kickstarter goes to projects which are far far more likely to be completed in some form: videogames, books, board games. I'd say that hardware projects should be banned entirely except for companies that have already shipped similar products but, well, that would've included Pebble.

I don't mind the risk. I think it's great there's a way to support cool product ideas that still need time and money to figure out if it will work.

It's not for everyone, but I'd be happy to back a hardware project knowing there's a solid chance it might not succeed, especially on the more niche products. Someone has to.

But I do think risky product creators can compensate their backers better for the risks and for taking a chance on them. For example I think it would be great to see something like a behind the scenes component with more sharing of the process as they go. Maybe like a weekly vlog about them building this new product from scratch, with successes and failures and what they are learning. The company doesn't have to show anything proprietary. It's like behind the scene DVD but for a product not a movie. I'd watch it. Plus all the backers would know that the creators tried and if they are failing, the reasons why. It could be interesting and entertaining. And if doesn't work they would at least have shared what they learned which others can learn from too. Anywho I don't see this happening.

A while back GPG announced their Kickstarter campaign for a game to be named Human Resources. It was later announced that they actually didn't have enough funds to survive if the Kickstarter didn't go through[1]. The campaign stalled and the entire company went under.

People were understandably angry. And it wasn't so much the risk (because none of the backers lost their money), it's that the company wasn't upfront about risks. GPG's leadership knew going in that the company would go under if the campaign didn't become a miraculous success, but backers didn't find that out until after the campaign had stalled.

Presumably, backers wouldn't have been informed at all if the campaign had succeeded.

This situation with Pebble is even more strange because apparently their campaign succeeded (in raising money beyond their target goal)....

[1]: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/659943965/human-resourc...

I think your parent means a gamble on the part of Pebble.

Yup. I actually bought the Pulse which was their forgotten pre-Pebble failure.

It arrived as a useless brick that I, and most other recipients, never even got to show the time.

So their first thing failed and then they got more people to gamble on them?!

Free Market at its finest

Even though Kickstarter explicitly says it's not a store, it doesn't mean people don't think it is. Perception = reality. This news will most likely have the largest effect on Kickstarter, specifically in the tech category, more than anything else. There have been many failures of promises on Kickstarter, but when your top 4 most funded projects are all now dead, people are going to start thinking twice about backing companies.

To be fair though the 1, 3, and 4 are all pebble. 2 is that coolest cooler project