Hacker News Reader

Comment by kobeya | Hacker News Reader

Pre-sales have always been a thing. Tesla is a $60B company. Can they not presell the Model 3? Calling it crowdfunding is just a new branding of an old idea.

I would argue the opposite—as a consumer I am considerably safer putting my presale funds into a product of an established company as they are more likely to honor the arrangement. They can’t just go belly up and move on to the next big thing.

View on HN

That it is a rebranding of an old idea shows you exactly what it is - an attempt to sell a business model.

If established companies were just a tiny bit better with the way they do presales, this might be okay. But I've bought too many products in the last five years that were literally broken (videogames are the prime example) after forking over $60. Some of those products have remained broken for months. That's unethical. What shocks me most is this has happened with flagship franchises, which tells me those companies simply don't give a damn. Why should they, when the pay now, deliver later business model works?

Companies need to prove that their product is valuable, you can't do that when you flip the relationship, the power dynamic is completely out of whack - we're the billion dollar company, but we want you, the consumer, to give us money now for a product which we promise will be good later.

As consumers, we should expect more.

Imvestors beware! I've only ever purchased 3 pre-release games and all delivered. With a keen enough eye it's pretty easy to tell if a game is going to deliver on its promises in a satisfactory manner. If you are having trouble discerning the lemons from the good stuff, maybe you shouldn't be investing in games.

I was referring to Microsoft's Master Chief Collection which was almost unplayable until six months and multiple patches after release.

You're putting all the onus on "investors" (really, consumers, because these aren't actual investments). They're expected to pay money if they want new products and then they get victim blamed if they aren't careful enough. They're not the ones at fault.

I’m with you here. But I’m not sure how I’d actually articulate why this practice is unethical. There’s an at least theoretical risk that the more pressure (of any kind) we put on the expected launch quality of so called crowdfunded or pre-sales models, the less risky the industry is going to be in aggregate, in terms of taking on bolder steps. While I’m sure there are numerous instances where this gets abused, I’m not sure on which side of the sweet spot we are.

It's definitely unethical sometimes. Like the No Man's Sky incident.

i love that victimology has made it to consumer goods. i was just thinking how gamer-whining needed a good round of overintellectualization.

What expectations would you consider reasonable in this instance?

Companies do have to prove their product is valuable when its not a pre-sale - via reviews, popularity, word of mouth etc. If you choose to buy a product when none of those signals exist.. well.. expect to get screwed once in a while. The deal is pretty transparent - no one is lying or misrepresenting the good (a promise of a game) being sold, so its on the buyer to exercise judgment on whether to buy it. You are entering a contract to take on some risk in exchange for a better price/bonus features - don't be surprised when that risk materializes occasionally.

Not just unethical. Illegal in many regions. I will not hesitate to charge back a software purchase if the software cannot be returned but does not work.

It's fuzzy because of the definition of working, but I get to decide that.

I imagine that presales would come with a greater set of legal protections for consumers than crowdfunding. IIRC both Kickstarter and Indiegogo specifically state that rewards are not a sale.

> I am considerably safer putting my presale funds into a product of an established company as they are more likely to honor the arrangement. They can’t just go belly up and move on to the next big thing.

Sure, compared to an unestablished company. But why would you ever want to do that when you can buy something that's out there and has been proven? You are much safer buying a product that's been put through it's paces no matter who's making it. You don't have to worry about honoring any type of arrangement because the product exists. You want a new Ford a year from now, then buy it a year from now. You've been told your model 3 will be delivered a year from now? Don't hold your breath. These companies are pre-selling little more than hype.

They can’t just go belly up and move on to the next big thing.

If Tesla goes bankrupt then what?

Then potentially you’re out your deposit, depending on the whims of the bankruptcy court. That’s life, and you knew what you were getting into (or should have known the risks).

Existing owners would be in an interesting pickle.

(At least Pebble decoupled the continued running of their watches from their servers, as their last update.)

Don't you get your money back if a presale fails to deliver? Crowdfunding is a donation that might yield a reward if it succeeds.

Not necessarily, no. It’s just that a big company won’t take the publicity hit that would come from reneging on the pinky promise that they’d refund the deposit. Even where it is contractually provided for, the contract could be forceably renegotiated in bankruptcy.

I don't imagine "going out of business" is a preferred outcome for a billion dollar business to avoid refunding presales for a failed product. But your right, unsecured creditors are screwed in a bankruptcy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com