Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurus | Hacker News Reader

Except it wasn't a mistake. Just because it failed doesn't mean it was a mistake.

We should be admiring them for taking risks like these. If it worked, it would have been quite awesome. And now that it's failed, everyone received their money back, so no harm was done whatsoever.

Yes, it was their choice to return the money rather than pivot the project, but that's irrelevant -- the fact is that they returned all the money to the backers and chose to absorb the $11k loss themselves. This is behavior we should be encouraging, rather than trying to discourage people from daring to dream and to take harmless risks.

View on HN

I admire them for taking risks.

But just I hate to see anyone having to eat credit card fees on $139,170 for something that was preventable.

Power connectors have historically been low-risk parts so it's an understandable mistake. But sourcing and costing all the needed custom parts should have been one of the first steps in the hardware design process.

But just I hate to see anyone having to eat credit card fees on $139,170 for something that was preventable.

It was their risk to take! Why do you care?

So what if they didn't? It's their decision.

I'm struggling to understand what your point is. "Here's why [I think] they failed." Well, yes, in hindsight, mistakes are obvious. But in the moment, things aren't so clear-cut.

> It was their risk to take! Why do you care?

I care. My reasons are my own.

> So what if they didn't?

Then the credit card companies and Kickstarter gain $11000, the entrepreneur loses $11000, and we all have a friendly discussion on HN.

> It's their decision.

Yes, absolutely.

> I'm struggling to understand what your point is.

I have two points. I'll repeat them, they're pretty simple:

1. Don't make business promises to deliver interoperability with proprietary interfaces without having your agreements in place first.

2. Sourcing and costing all the needed custom parts should be done early in the hardware design process.

> in hindsight, mistakes are obvious. But in the moment, things aren't so clear-cut.

Words to live by.

It would have taken a single phone call to Apple's licensing group to learn that this would be a problem. They didn't make that phone call. That was a mistake.

It would have taken a single phone call to Apple's licensing group to learn that this would be a problem.

That's not true. Apple saying "no" when there is no money on the table and no popular interest means nothing.

Apple saying "no" when you have customers beating down your door and $130k to divide between licensing and manufacturing is a different matter. Apple chose to pass up this money. There was no way to foresee this until the choice was on the table.

A rule book is not immutable.

Building first and asking permission later is sometimes admirable.

But one ought to weigh in advance whether or not 1000 customers and funds on the order of $130k is likely to provide enough leverage to bend the rules of a company with, literally, the most money in the whole world and a famously proprietary attitude.

Looks like it may prove to have been a good bet after all!

http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/21/apple-statement-on-cancell...

According to the article it sounds like they started on the design before Apple announced the new connector, and then updated their design once the connector was announced. Also it seems they did contact Apple but "[they] didn’t get a yes or a no up front,”. Once they finally got a straight answer from Apple they canceled the product. So apparently they did make that phone call and it wasn't as simple as you seem to want to make it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com