Doesn't that apply to all projects on Kickstarter? Or Diaspora's call for cash when it was mostly just an idea?
I think many of these projects aren't selling the product as much as the magic of being part of something and helping it come to fruition. Putting a bit of money down is so much easier than e.g. donating two hours a week to coding on the project. Donate money, drink beer, feel good.
"Geeks of the world unite" :-). What's wrong with betting $50 that someone with a little talent can accomplish something big. I'm hoping John Carmack will do a Kickstarter rocket project. SpaceX needs a little more competition.
Nothing wrong with it at all, I just find it kind of amazing is all :) Personally I haven't purchased software in a very long time, because I use exclusively open source products. Here is a way for open source developers to actually get paid up-front before the work is done, which is kind of crazy but seems to be working better than asking for donations after delivering something workable. Just something I didn't see coming.
As a fellow Visual Studio alum, I am sorely disappointed that Chris elected not to include SCREAMING CAPITALIZED MENUS or a superhero mask logo, and is instead focusing on pushing the state of the art in programming tools.
All this story is somewhat confusing. In fact, I was pondering about jumping in... Until I found the bit about Python support, what made me grab my wallet. But then, the model here is quite tricky. If not enough people pledge, then I won't get what I want. Then, external funding comes. But somehow it's still crucial that I throw in my couple bucks, just because otherwise the project may not be what I wanted. But if I finally pledge, what do I get in return? Again, it's somewhat confusing. I'm buying a license. But the thing maybe will get open sourced. What is a license to an open source software? What are my incentives to pay for it? Equally, what are the incentives of unknown other people to pay for it? If I can't establish that, I have no idea what are the chances of me getting what I wanted in the first place... Thanks, I'll pass, despite all the enthusiasm I had at an impulse. I just won't put $0.01 into anything that is not clear.
I agree. This goes against one of the key principles of Kickstarter: if a project you are funding doesn't get funded you get your money back. It is a difficult problem though. On one hand you don't want to fund half a project but on the other if they wildly exceed their funding goal it would be nice of them to spend the extra money on new features.
Kickstarter should implement feature/subproject goals to fix these problems. To illustrate:
Say the main project needs $200k to get funded. This becomes the main target goal. If this is reached, the core is funded and those backers pay up.
Then you have the feature/subproject goals. These are separate counters for those who will only back a project if the feature/subproject will be implemented. So say you need $50k on top of the core goal to support Mac OSX and another $50k to support Linux. Supporters for Mac OSX & Linux support can choose to fund the platform they want directly. That way if the main project hits 200k but Mac OSX and Linux each get $25k each (which in the current setup would probably mean only support for one of them, whichever is listed first), then those separate $25k pots are just dropped as if the project were not funded. That way supporters aren't forced to pay up and get nothing of value in return.
In the case that the core support spills over, say it hits $225k, then the project owner can choose which extra feature to pick up and they will get that donation money (if they pick Mac OSX, they get those donations but the Linux supporters don't have to pay up, and vice-versa).
I think very few kickstarter projects (which are primarily works of art) have any utility for this. It seems like quite the feature creep for what really just looks like a project using the model poorly (though effectively).
Then how about restricting it to being a feature for design and technology projects? Per their own guidelines and vision, they have very few requirements for these types of projects. Additionally, these "we will support X" type extra goals are seen in a lot of technology projects (software and video games primarily for the "support X operating system" goals) and actually make sense to list as "bonus" goals. So for these types of projects, I think the model isn't being used poorly. Instead, the model is insufficient to properly fund these types of projects.
I would argue that Kickstarter funding is basically equivalent to a sale, and dissimilar to angel or venture funding. For one, you don't give up equity for Kickstarter funding.
In general, regardless of how much funding one might have, one would also like to have the maximum dollar value of sales possible. Kickstarter facilitates this both by enabling sales-like revenue in the first place, and by enabling price discrimination. I'd need to learn more about the Kickstarter funding mechanism to understand whether the sales analogy is totally appropriate or just partially so, but it seems to me to be the far better analogy when compared to venture funding.
This is definitely somewhat true for a project like this. It's basically generating an initial batch of sales to fund the production of the product, which is great in my opinion.
What's amazing about this is that this -- funding development through sales -- is incredibly difficult to do for free software projects otherwise. You have to front all the costs and rely on the generosity of donations or recoup the money through support and services.
Edit: And I think the point stands notwithstanding the fact that Light Table won't be free software.
This is silly. I'm not against funding projects through Kickstarter, but "If we hit $300k, Python will be the third language to be supported out of the gate." sounds almost like an ultimatum. What if they don't hit $300k? Will Ruby be the third language then?
Given how close they are, I imagine they'll do Python anyway. It's more a "if we get an extra $100k, then we'll spend your money on hiring developers to have Python support alongside the languages we promised to focus on first".
This whole discussion is getting out of hand. Light Table is on Kickstarter, because an awful lot of people screamed for it being funded, when they saw the first prototype of this thing.
Now it is on there and all I see everytime it get's up here is people complaining, saying they won't fund because of xyz or don't think it will succeed without blurb. Even better: Some get destructive and say how much better Eclipse or the likes are.
Please stop this shit, don't fund, don't use, don't complain and please don't raise such shitstorms on every single Light Table discussion. Can we probably focus a little on being constructive about projects like this?
Another way of framing this is that we don't know what the actual cost of a license will be, and you can get one for $15. Comparatively, Sublime Text 2 is $60 and Textmate is €45.
Even though they say it'll be open source, that doesn't exclude the possibility of a commercial license that could be far more expensive.
Maybe this is a bad argument to make. But if it interests you, $15 isn't a massive expense if you think you'll get a lot out of it.
Darn, and here I thought open source projects were supposed to be free. I think the pay what you want model would be appropriate - and I think that may be what Granger hinted at, not sure.
Darn, and here I thought open source projects were supposed to be free.
Well, there's two core parts to open source and free software and neither have much to do with not having to pay for it (though that often is the case). First, there's the availability of source code and second is free as in freedom, not as in beer. But we don't yet know what license this will be released under, so we don't know what rights or restrictions may apply. Presumably, by the sounds of the text about Light Table being open source, it will be a standard Free and Open source license (GPL seems most likely to me) and he also says that the paid license will probably apply to prebuilt packaged releases, so if you don't mind building everything yourself, you may well get it for free after all.
I think the pay what you want model would be appropriate
I agree, for Free & Open Source Software, pay what you want seems like a very suitable model.
This is a $15 bet for a product that should at the very least get other people thinking about the potential that exists in the commercial sense for IDEs. Not only that, there's a peer group watching that is very active, very vocal, and will increase the chances something is actually produced.
I'm not against money in any way whatsoever, but, really, you don't do this kind of stuff for cash. You just don't. It should have been done already and the money should be flowing in without kickstarter to YC or other means. You build it, and if it's any good the money will swamp you...
"You build it, and if it's any good the money will swamp you..."
There are probably thousands of game developers, filmmakers, mobile app creators, artists, etc... who would disagree with you there.
Marketing and promotion is sadly necessary to rise above the noise. Kickstarter is basically a way to do a pre-sale which looks like it's going to work out well for all those involved.
Not to mention that it's a pretty big luxury to be able to afford working on something great and revolutionary for the love of it with no remuneration.
This is not a weekend project, I imagine Chris enjoys eating, shelter and meeting the other basic needs he has. On top of this, it sounds like someone needs to be hired in order to support other languages like Python. If he builds it and it's not good, he's in the red considerably. I find it completely understandable that he might not want to take that risk.
This is not a trivial project and it's clear the market disagrees with you.
I agree with him. I'm happy for Chris that he got funding and all. But I really wished it was first and foremost a work of love and passion than something he's doing for cash.But, you need cash to execute you say? I get that, but still.
I am not opposed to anything. Kickstarter included. Kickstarter is inherently against the system and all the classical financial theory as it is known. If you invest in something (even a minuscule amount) you should expect a fraction of the return (small or big). Investors should be rewarded for making the right choice (and punished for making the wrong choice). The only reward for investment is return. This is not about money either - it can be time, effort, or attention.
Kickstarter does not provide enough difference between bad and good choices. You get a t-shirt or nothing. It's an option that nobody would buy in an open market.
This is not necessarily bad. Or good. It's ok. But it is not a market that is in any way fair with respect to capital. And capital does not mean Big Money! Capital means ordinary Joe giving away cash they saved for worse days based on the emotional appeal of something, instead of any rational assessment of its worth.
You're completely correct. Where I have trouble with the model is that Kickstarter does not do enough to correct the spread of misinformation concerning the precise character of your "pledge." It's not a donation and it's not an investment; both of those terms beget some serious legal issues. Instead, it's a purchase of goods, namely, the "rewards." So why even refer to these purchased goods as "rewards"? To me, a reward is something extra you get for some unrelated action. For example, you wouldn't refer to groceries as a "reward" for the money you gave to the cashier...
Moreover, there's a secondary issue with the confusion of market norms and social norms. Ostensibly, this project spawned from a passion for programming. Now, however, that passion is unclear, because it seems to be about money, given the quasi-ultimatum for python support.
I guess I just don't understand your original comment. What is ibdnox (creator of LightTable) doing wrong? It seems like you were accusing him of being a money-grubber but I'm not sure. In the response comment you seem to be saying that Kickstarter project backers are making financially irrational decisions, which is unfair "with respect to capital" (not sure what that means beyond 'is not capitalism'). All I know for sure is that you're asserting that Kickstarter is a different model than the typical capitalist route, but I have no idea what you're trying to express beyond that.
It's an exciting project and I'd try it if there was Python support (I'm a vim user myself), but the FAQ answer to the open source question really put me off.
If I recall correctly, when Light Table was accepted into YC, Chris sent out an e-mail saying that Light Table was now guaranteed to happen and that if the only reason you donated was to make sure the project went through, you can feel free to retract the pledge (no money is withdrawn until the actual end date).
He also mentioned that with YC backing Python support was likely to happen sooner or later, but the $300k mark still puts Python in the "sooner" bucket.
It does seem a little silly that they're requiring so much more money for a language that obviously has such significant support.
Also, I'm not sure how it would work for people who donated solely in hopes that Python would be supported. Since they've long passed their actual kickstarter funding amount, does that leave ~$100k worth of donors that won't get what they tried to buy, but can't get their money refunded?
They'll probably get the money and we'll never know, but I would be interested to find out how they're planning to handle these issues.
Chris programs Clojure, and Light Table's demos have (so far) been about Clojure. It's not a ransom: it's "if we get another $100k, we will spend that money on hiring developers to work explicitly on this feature". It's a notice informing pledgers (is that a word?) about where any extra funding will go.
I believe I saw a link in the comment of another light table submission that had Chris Granger saying they'd "probably" be implementing python one way or another.
I could have also imagined the whole thing, so while that may serve to answer your question, you shouldn't take only my word on it.
It's a strange scenario to be in. Obviously he wants the extra 100k, but if he said "even if we don't get it I will still add python support" then no one would have donated that extra 93k. And then if he doesn't get the 100k and still adds it, then we have the feeling of "why did we donate extra if you were going to add it anyway?".
