8 ms·

As a backer now apparently getting a refund, I'm extremely disappointed with the way this project was managed. The DRM that apparently blew up the project wasn

As a backer now apparently getting a refund, I'm extremely disappointed with the way this project was managed. The DRM that apparently blew up the project wasn't in scope when I backed it. This was supposed to be an open source, No-DRM stick. After they had everyone's money, they decided to build a Chromecast clone instead. Classic bait-n-switch.

justonepost 11y ago
No, classic bait n switch doesn't involve refunding money...
- zach 11y ago
  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".
- javert 11y ago
  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.
  - Sanddancer 11y ago
    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.
  - CognitiveLens 11y ago
    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.
    - aidenn0 11y ago
      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.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    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.
- coderjames 11y ago
  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?
hermanmerman 11y ago
I am completely out of the loop and hove no idea what the project is about, but apparently every one on the KS page is basically saying that they couldn't care less about this feature. I'm curious now at what really happened and why they shut it down, if their biggest hurdle is something so few people want.
thieving_magpie 11y ago
The old "Take their money then give it back to them 11 months later" con. Great theory ya got there.
- javert 11y ago
  I'm pretty sure I could make money if I had $470K to hold on to for 11 months. Of course, I could just get a job, that would be easier.
  - dsjoerg 11y ago
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS1/ https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS1/
    - javert 11y ago
      I've never looked into treasury notes. Am I right in interpreting this graph as showing how much you would make holding treasury notes over a one year period? So roughly between . 05 and .4 percent? Point being that it's not necessarily that easy to make money holding $400k for a year? If so, I agree with that---hence my point that it would be easier to work.
  - davnicwil 11y ago
    Yeah, for sure. I remember once I bought tickets for a large stadium gig. The gig was postponed at a late stage, for a year, and the options were: 1) get a refund, lose the ticket you'd been lucky to get at face value back into the pool, probably never to be seen again for the same price. 2) hold onto your ticket, wait a year, go see the gig It therefore resulted in $millions being held by the organisers for over a year - there are extremely low risk ways to gain a meaningful profit from a large amount of capital. Intentionally or not, and whether or not it was invested by them during that year, this situation turned out to be a great way to get a huge, zero-interest loan of said capital. I'm not sure if there are laws that prevent this kind of thing from happening, but it's certainly easy money in theory.
zz1 11y ago
Agree! I even sent them e-mail telling them I didn't care about DRM, and, even though I got why, and I didn't wanted to oppose them, I DIDN'T WANTED THEM TO WASTE TIME ON DRM! And I am sooo deceived now: they can't handle DRM? NO PROBLEM! They are running late? NO PROBLEM! Just get me what you promised me whenever you get there! I wish I was offered a choice, here, instead of being forced to take my money back.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  Given a half million dollars doesn't fund a hardware company with a few dozen employees, it sounds like they have other investors, with deeper pockets, that do want DRM. At that point, the KS money becomes more a liability than an asset, and refunding the money is a wise business decision. This frees them to make potentially necessary design decisions that would upset their kickstarter backers, like migrating from Firefox OS and adding DRM features, that would please their other backers.
  - zz1 11y ago
    You are unfortunately so right... and that's also why I don't like this move:(

justonepost 11y ago

No, classic bait n switch doesn't involve refunding money...

zach 11y ago
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".
javert 11y ago
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.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  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.
- CognitiveLens 11y ago
  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.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    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.
- mikeash 11y ago
  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.
coderjames 11y ago
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?

hermanmerman 11y ago

I am completely out of the loop and hove no idea what the project is about, but apparently every one on the KS page is basically saying that they couldn't care less about this feature. I'm curious now at what really happened and why they shut it down, if their biggest hurdle is something so few people want.

thieving_magpie 11y ago

The old "Take their money then give it back to them 11 months later" con. Great theory ya got there.

javert 11y ago
I'm pretty sure I could make money if I had $470K to hold on to for 11 months. Of course, I could just get a job, that would be easier.
- dsjoerg 11y ago
  https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS1/ https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/DGS1/
  - javert 11y ago
    I've never looked into treasury notes. Am I right in interpreting this graph as showing how much you would make holding treasury notes over a one year period? So roughly between . 05 and .4 percent? Point being that it's not necessarily that easy to make money holding $400k for a year? If so, I agree with that---hence my point that it would be easier to work.
- davnicwil 11y ago
  Yeah, for sure. I remember once I bought tickets for a large stadium gig. The gig was postponed at a late stage, for a year, and the options were: 1) get a refund, lose the ticket you'd been lucky to get at face value back into the pool, probably never to be seen again for the same price. 2) hold onto your ticket, wait a year, go see the gig It therefore resulted in $millions being held by the organisers for over a year - there are extremely low risk ways to gain a meaningful profit from a large amount of capital. Intentionally or not, and whether or not it was invested by them during that year, this situation turned out to be a great way to get a huge, zero-interest loan of said capital. I'm not sure if there are laws that prevent this kind of thing from happening, but it's certainly easy money in theory.

zz1 11y ago

Agree! I even sent them e-mail telling them I didn't care about DRM, and, even though I got why, and I didn't wanted to oppose them, I DIDN'T WANTED THEM TO WASTE TIME ON DRM! And I am sooo deceived now: they can't handle DRM? NO PROBLEM! They are running late? NO PROBLEM! Just get me what you promised me whenever you get there! I wish I was offered a choice, here, instead of being forced to take my money back.

Sanddancer 11y ago
Given a half million dollars doesn't fund a hardware company with a few dozen employees, it sounds like they have other investors, with deeper pockets, that do want DRM. At that point, the KS money becomes more a liability than an asset, and refunding the money is a wise business decision. This frees them to make potentially necessary design decisions that would upset their kickstarter backers, like migrating from Firefox OS and adding DRM features, that would please their other backers.
- zz1 11y ago
  You are unfortunately so right... and that's also why I don't like this move:(