From Brian Willoughby Sent Sat, Jun 2nd 2018, 07:45
From Brian Willoughby Sent Sat, Jun 2nd 2018, 07:45
On Jun 1, 2018, at 3:02 PM, neil harper <xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx> wrote: > > Wanted to pass this forward to AH if anyone is interested in the > > ContinuuMini with the same internal EaganMatrix as the full blown = model... >=20 > oh kickstarter.. shouldn't established companies have enough capital = to fund their own products? sorry if I got a shoulder-chip, had a few = bad experiences crowd funding. I think you answered your question. Established brands don=E2=80=99t = necessarily have capital. Companies that do have capital, like Apple, = get all kinds of pressure from journalists and shareholders to spend = that capital foolishly. So, I=E2=80=99m not surprised that small, = one-man companies have too little capital to launch a new product. Just because a company has a brand name that you recognize, that = doesn=E2=80=99t mean they actually have a positive cash flow. This is = especially true in the music industry. Kickstarter is great for a very specific situation, but that=E2=80=99s = not exactly right for every company, and even when it is the right = choice it doesn=E2=80=99t take care of the whole process. If your product is facing a single hurdle that is reasonably estimated = in dollars, after which you have no more challenges, then Kickstarter is = great. You can try to raise the money and if you fail everyone gets = their money back and if you succeed then everyone should get the = product. The problem with Kickstarter is that they only have one hurdle, and = there=E2=80=99s no guarantee after that. Anyone can make a bad estimate = without considering all the non-monetary hurdles that come during mass = production. If they get in over their head after raising all of that = money, Kickstarter has absolutely no penalty (that I know of) for = complete lack of delivery. I think it=E2=80=99s actually better when an established company works = through Kickstarter, because that saves them from wasting their limited = capital on a product idea that nobody will buy. At least the established = company knows what it takes to bring a prototype to mass production. Too = many Kickstarters are from complete amateurs who just pull a number out = of a hat with no idea about the difference between hand-built prototypes = and manufactured goods. What really bugs me about Kickstarter, with their single monetary goal = (and maybe even a stretch goal), is that it doesn=E2=80=99t model the = actual costs of electronics production. As anyone who has looked at = ordering parts knows, the more you buy, the less the parts cost. There = are discounts at quantity 10, 50, 100, 1000, and when you get beyond = 10,000 units you can probably buy parts direct from the chip makers at = negotiated discounts. Kickstarter is the reverse of reality, because the first few backers = expect to get a discount, and then the price goes up. But the real world = is the opposite because small quantities are expensive and things = actually get cheaper if you can decide to make more units up front. What = we need in the electronics world is a =E2=80=9CKickstarter=E2=80=9D that = calculates the reduced price as the number of backers increases. That = way, everyone has an incentive to encourage more people to join, because = the price will go down if more people are willing to pay up front. Such = a site could even show multiple goals, with multiple price points. If = only 100 people back the project, then it will be an expensive, but = exclusive product. If upwards of 10,000 people back the project, then = the price could go down dramatically for everyone - not just the first = backers. Last time I mentioned this, I recall a friend told me about a site that = actually works this way - or at least sort of like this. It still = wouldn=E2=80=99t guarantee that some amateur will realize how expensive = manufacturing setup is compared to prototype building, but at least it = would be more realistic. Brian