You don't understand what crowd funding is or how it works

[MacAttak]

Out of so many forums I've used that avatar on, your the first to correctly identify the source.

This makes me happy

[Hardcorefs]

It is your view that is narrow which is why it leaves so many unanswered questions about what happens on crowd funding sites. It is your arrogance which judges backers of projects you think unworthy as being stupid or naive and believes other people should have your values and see the world as you do. This is the Internet, It's one big soapbox. I shared what I know, you decide if you care. I will carry on whether you like it or not. I didn't tell you which projects to support, and even if I did, which is entirely my right, your exclusive right is to ignore me. I can live with that.

The way you have described it sounds like a potential breeding ground for scam artists to sell worthless ideas to gullible people that would otherwise have no prospects of any sort of commercial interest. Sort of like selling a refrigerator to an Eskimo

regards

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/crypteks/crypteks-usbtm-encrypted-and-lockable-usb-solution/comments  (STILL nothing delivered....)
http://makezine.com/2013/08/02/crowdfunding-confusion/
http://qz.com/94597/kickstarter-almost-enabled-a-120000-fraud-and-its-not-the-first/

[voice of reason]

My take on Crowdfunding is this:

Kickstarter and Indiegogo appear to be the top players. But there are many other less well known sites, but that is not to say that there are not some genuine projects on the smaller ones.

It would seem to me that yes there are a lot of well and truly dodgy projects on any of those sites. I think it is a scammers playground.

Which is a real shame, because as this blog shows, there are occasionally some pretty brilliant and what would appear genuine projects well worth supporting.

However, I here reports from friends and colleagues everyday that the likes of Kickstarter and Indiegogo have become quite aloof and above their stations.

This is bad for those who try to fund projects (lets face it, the banks are not lending) and for contributioners who want to support a worth while project or just like the idea of getting a new gadget that their friends do not have.

[Corporate666]

One of the biggest problems with these crowdfunding sites (at least KS) is that if you are too established, they turn you down because you don't actually need the $$.  That may elicit a "duh, of course that's how they should do it!" response, but for anything other than a very simple project or something purely artistic, there is a lot of work required to get to where you have a prototype.  That goes for design projects and even more so for technology projects.  But by turning away companies who have done that groundwork and are "testing the waters" before committing $$ to production, they are actually making it a much more risky proposition for their users than if they embraced those project creators.

I know a lot of people are probably saying "bull, I see tons of such projects on KS!", but you are not seeing all the ones they turn down.  And it is a lot.  A real lot - more than I bet people think.  So they wind up with a disproportionately higher # of lesser business-savvy creators who tend to blow it. 

[Bored@Work]

But by turning away companies who have done that groundwork and are "testing the waters" before committing $$ to production, they are actually making it a much more risky proposition for their users than if they embraced those project creators.

When those companies want to test the waters they should pay $$ out of their own pocket. It is called business. Companies take risks, in return they can reap greater rewards. Welcome to capitalism.

Companies like, for example, Canonical, or all the mysterious companies you claim are turned down daily, are just crowd funding parasites. What? You say "but if they can't afford to test the waters?". Their problem. Market forces, to which they love to refer to when it hits someone else, will get them. Tough luck. And again, welcome to capitalism.

[Corporate666]

But by turning away companies who have done that groundwork and are "testing the waters" before committing $$ to production, they are actually making it a much more risky proposition for their users than if they embraced those project creators.

When those companies want to test the waters they should pay $$ out of their own pocket. It is called business. Companies take risks, in return they can reap greater rewards. Welcome to capitalism.

Companies like, for example, Canonical, or all the mysterious companies you claim are turned down daily, are just crowd funding parasites. What? You say "but if they can't afford to test the waters?". Their problem. Market forces, to which they love to refer to when it hits someone else, will get them. Tough luck. And again, welcome to capitalism.

You are incredibly naive if you think the projects you are seeing on KS/IGG and others are ones that require the $$$ to begin production.  That is especially true of KS where you really need a tangible object to get your project accepted in the first place.

It is a game and those who play it completely by the rules get rejected.  Those that game the system a little do well.  Look how many projects say "we need your help" without actually explaining why or for what.   That's the game... you play like you need the community to help you make your widget a success, but the vast majority are just getting the customer to find production.  It's genius.  I think your inherent angst of those you see as rich/powerful is clouding your vision.

[EEVblog]

NOTE: thread on artificial heart split and moved to Project & Technical forum.