When you are designing a product for Kickstarter and you show prototypes, backers will assume you have worked all the bugs out first.
Do backers on Kickstarter really assume that all the bugs will be worked out before the prototype is shown? I'm not familiar with how the community works, but would assume that the prototypes would be used to identify more bugs and design flaws, as well as elicit feedback from early users.
Yes. Backers on kickstarter are not sophisticated startup people. They're regular consumers. Most kickstarter projects are ones that appeal to them, and are also low tech. If a project expects a lengthy development process they can say it in the project.
I've done some mechanical engineering, but I'm no mechanical engineer. I can't know whether an iPhone dock is going to require 3 prototypes and 4 nearly complete versions before being ready to ship, and all this will take 9 months, or if what they're showing in the picture can be manufactured in 60 days in volume, all they need is the money for the injection molding forms, which are very expensive.
Hell, I bet most people who fund kickstarter projects don't even know injection molding forms are expensive.
So, if the project has high risk, and this isn't disclosed by the leader of the project when asking for funding, that's an error on their part.
The problem projects I've seen (that are products, rather than pieces of art) tend to pitch themselves as completed products that just need manufacturing help.
Let's see a public statement by the CEO that not only says "we've been removed from a list" but also "we will never support SOPA or any other far-reaching legislation designed to undermine the Internet."
I agree. I'd want to see some statement about why they've been removed from this list. As of right now, this "press release" doesn't say anything interesting, and seems to have a "grudging" tone.
Additionally, Before I changed my mind about them I'd need to see some statement that shows they understand their users concerns about SOPA and are not just flopping from an unpopular viewpoint. Sadly, I suspect the honest answer to be that they're stance is costing them money.
The problem is that GoDaddy CEO can issue a statement like that, but the company will go back on it in a jiffy if need be. The company simply has no ethic backbone.
Here's one problem with screening: A colonoscopy is a $2000+ procedure, and insurance won't always pay for it unless it's medically necessary.
So, if you have a family history of colon cancer and you've entered the age range where screening typically starts, you may be out of luck. Yes, treating cancer is vastly more expensive than screening for it. So why not pay for regular screenings? I think health insurance companies (and employers) probably do a cost analysis and determine that the cost of detecting and catching stage 1 colon cancer in a screening is more expensive than the cost of waiting for it to develop into something that requires treatment, because by that time there's a very good chance that the worker will no longer be at the same company.
I'm hopeful the costs and effectiveness of non-invasive imaging technologies and auto-analysis will come down in the next 10 years to the point where "screenings" can be done for a fraction of a colonoscopy. But, of course, the manufacturers of the current generation of imaging technologies -- the Siemens and Intels of the world -- are perfectly happy with the jaw-dropping price tags that hospitals and clinics have to pay and pass onto the consumer. If some smart startup comes along with a cheaper solution, just buy 'em out or use monopoly muscle to take them out of the picture.
Colonoscopies cost loads of money because they are performed in a Dr's. office. Insurance won't pay for them because they don't want you to actually go to a Dr's. office.
Screenings can come down in price if they can be performed outside of Dr's. offices which they completely can. We need to separate these things out so we can move insurance out of the day to day choices about your health. That way you are in control of our health and improve your health on your own dollar with your own choices. It won't happen overnight, but getting people to think about the problem differently is the first step.
Also, is a follow-up to "Founders At Work" planned? It's a really inspirational book, and I am sure there is a huge new crop of potential subjects from the last three years of ups and downs in the startup space.
One of the things I liked about the original is that it wasn't just in a limited time period, so you could see how things worked differently in various time periods.
I hate to say it, because I haven't played the game or read the case study, but maybe Schilling would be better as an angel as opposed to a startup founder.
As for spending his personal fortune, he has a lifetime of employment as an ad pitchman in the Boston area -- at least if he wants it. He broke the Curse for the Red Sox, and people here will never forget that.
Ditto for both Boston newspapers. It can literally ruin your day reading some of the comments below even mundane articles.
The NYT has a good approach: Approve only those comments which present reasoned arguments in a semi-intelligent way. There's a lag, but the comment threads are excellent reading.
Another approach: Force everyone to use real names when leaving a comment. I am not sure how that would work, but the trolling would drop away if real identities were tied to people's words.
Unfortunately, it might also inhibit people from commenting, too. Anonymity is a great way to say what you actually think.
A radio industry forum did that a few years ago - fed up of the vitriol being spouted anonymously, the forum owner closed it down and reopened it with a verified real name policy. You have to register with an employer email address and the forums are invisible to all but the registered users.
The result? The forum is quiet and discussions very boring - for a start, Google isn't picking up the topics to pull in new users and besides, no one wants to say what they think when they know either their current boss or a potential employer is reading it under their real name. (The British radio industry is a small place.)
Worse still, you get the odd threat. "I know such-and-such a radio boss and you're never going to be employed again if you keep posting that station X is pants." It's just not a pleasant atmosphere.
Do backers on Kickstarter really assume that all the bugs will be worked out before the prototype is shown? I'm not familiar with how the community works, but would assume that the prototypes would be used to identify more bugs and design flaws, as well as elicit feedback from early users.