It's in blatant violation of kickstarters rules, and was probably set up as the result of a partnership with kickstarter. Kickstarter knew that the return of pebble would be lucrative for them, and pebble knew that by using kickstarter they'd continue to wear the facade of a small fledgeling grassroots company (and while they're the underdog relative to their competition from LG, Samsung, Motorola and Apple, they're a lot bigger than they were for their first kickstarter campaign.

I think kickstarter modified those rules when they announced Launch Now: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/introducing-launch-now-and-...

Now companies can just use it as an advertising platform to generate publicity, even if they have to give up a slice of revenue to kickstarter.

From the article you linked:

> No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

That clearly did not occur in this comment thread.

Using fallacies while not understanding them makes you look like an idiot. Just FYI.

1) They easily could have raised all the capital they needed

2) They're already a successful company

1) Crowdfunded dollars are better than VC dollars.

2) Most large crowdfunding campaigns are from already successful companies.

Capital is not the same thing as sales. And with $20m (less fees) in the bank they can get even more VC money if that's what they want to do.