Slashdot Mirror


How Not To Launch a Gadget

An anonymous reader writes "Starfish sells itself with this slogan: 'The next biggest thing is the next smallest thing: The world's first ever interactive iPhone and iPad mirroring device on your wrist.' The reality is that building products is hard. Building products with amazing feature sets is harder still. And, as the old saying goes, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is. From the article: 'On Thursday morning when the show floor opened, Starfish’s booth was completely empty—no product, no marketing materials, not even any people. Come Friday, various permutations of representatives appeared at the booth intermittently. ... Saturday arrived, but the watch didn’t, at least not at first. After hourly promises of its imminent arrival, a single prototype of the Starfish watch appeared sometime before 1 p.m. My colleague Dan Moren got to the booth before I did, and the Starfish device wasn't working then. It had apparently worked, briefly, in some sense of the word "worked," when a reporter for TUAW visited the booth. ... The sole representative at the booth when I returned wouldn't give his name. What information he did give me didn’t mesh with what [the CEO] had told TUAW. ... "Why did he send you to man the booth if you can’t answer questions about the watch?" I asked the rep. "I’m done talking to you," he said, as he moved to position himself directly in front of my face. His expression had gone from brusque to combative. "Did you hear me? I’m done talking to you." My accompanying colleagues and I took the unsubtle hint. We left the booth.'"

160 comments

  1. Recipe for disaster ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If you think 3D printing can solve everything, you will be in for a very big surprise !!

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet with a 3d printer I can print about what you have in mind....

      (of course a wood lathe should work too, provided you don't mind splinters)

    2. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell it to the freaks who wildly exaggerate 3D printing every day!

    3. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      It will take time but I can see printing out circuit boards after 20-30 years of material science and studies.

      Before that though I can see a 3D printer that prints gaskets, o-rings, etc's other on demand. Eliminating the need for companies to stock them. After that will come aluminum, nickel, steel and zinc parts,screws, nuts, bolts primarily single piece of metal options.

      Complex parts will take longer, but you get those two and industries will be transformed.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Eliminating the need for companies to stock them"

      Yes, and replacing it with raw feedstock (shelf life?) and a machine that will break down (remember how we are all against mechanical things on slashdot?) and inferior products. Wow, what a glorious future that awaits us.

    5. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      you can already order a huge number of expensive things custom 3d printed in a vast array of metals and have them mailed to your door. I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed from stainless steel. The same company will print in various plastics, silver, gold, or even glass and ceramic. Anything you design that will fit the dimensions their hardware can print, you can order. (they may have a ban on sexually explicit items and weapons, i've never checked). Based on that, I think the idea of printing a working circuit board is more like 5-7 years out, on an experimental scale, and 10-15 on a 'I designed this board, and they printed and mailed it to me' scale.

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    6. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is this better than "I designed this board, and they made it the same way we've always made boards and they mailed it to me"?

    7. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by egcagrac0 · · Score: 2

      You can already get "quick turn" circuit boards in a few days from real board houses.

      I don't see 3D printing speeding it up any, especially when the boards produced may not be continuity tested or have 94V-0 approval.

      Besides, once you make the board, it needs to be populated, soldered, functional tested, and possibly safety tested (hipot).

      Slowing it down can save money - standard turn & assembly may take a few weeks, but the cost may be 1/100th of quick turn (economies of scale, no expedite charges, standard freight instead of expedited...).

    8. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will take time but I can see printing out circuit boards after 20-30 years of material science and studies.

      I would agree that is likely. I think one of the main impetus' will likely be security (both DRM and physical device protection and obfuscation).....and they probably won't be called "circuit boards" when you print it all in one mass (we may stick with "chip").

      Before that though I can see a 3D printer that prints gaskets, o-rings, etc's other on demand.

      We already make gaskets and such with 3D printing and I see no impetus to make that process more expensive and of less quality. They will increasingly be laminated into place using cheaper, simpler, and more automated methods but the process will be much closer to how we form them today than what is known as "3D printing".

      After that will come aluminum, nickel, steel and zinc parts,screws, nuts, bolts primarily single piece of metal options.

      I don't see this happening before we develop "mass effect" fields, though do not be disappointed. Only realize that all these things are already being made with 3D printers that are designed for efficiency over customization.

    9. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed with stainless steel.

      FTFY

      It's a small but important distinction. The ability to print stainless steel would be revolutionary, while the ability to powder cast has been around for millennia. A hyped convolution of the mold making process is not going to change much besides the number of shitty knives and dice in pawn shop display cases.

    10. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      It will take time but I can see printing out circuit boards after 20-30 years of material science and studies.

      Before that though I can see a 3D printer that prints gaskets, o-rings, etc's other on demand. Eliminating the need for companies to stock them. After that will come aluminum, nickel, steel and zinc parts,screws, nuts, bolts primarily single piece of metal options.

      Complex parts will take longer, but you get those two and industries will be transformed.

      Gaskets and o-rings are already doable today, with some limits on materials. Metal is doable today, like that lady who got a 3d-printed titanium jawbone replacement.

    11. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Custard+Horse · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes but these dice were *3D*, can you imagine such a thing? 3D gaming dice - the possibilities!

    12. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Niedi · · Score: 3, Informative

      I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed with stainless steel.

      FTFY

      It's a small but important distinction. The ability to print stainless steel would be revolutionary, while the ability to powder cast has been around for millennia. A hyped convolution of the mold making process is not going to change much besides the number of shitty knives and dice in pawn shop display cases.

      It is indeed possible to print IN stainless steel, titanium etc.... Using a technique called selective laser sintering, fine metal powder is selectively melted/fused by a high power laser, allowing you to directly print custom parts from metal.

    13. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      And why is this better than "I designed this board, and they made it the same way we've always made boards and they mailed it to me"?

      because you can make every part snap fit..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    14. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed with stainless steel.

      FTFY

      It's a small but important distinction. The ability to print stainless steel would be revolutionary, while the ability to powder cast has been around for millennia. A hyped convolution of the mold making process is not going to change much besides the number of shitty knives and dice in pawn shop display cases.

      you seem to misunderstand the possibilities with expensive equipment on the market..

      http://www.shapeways.com/materials/steel

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Maxx169 · · Score: 1

      Mmmm 3D printed D3...

    16. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      One of these days I'd be very tempted to special order a custom chess set this way.

    17. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      you can already order a huge number of expensive things custom 3d printed in a vast array of metals and have them mailed to your door. I personally have purchased a set of gaming dice 3d printed from stainless steel. The same company will print in various plastics, silver, gold, or even glass and ceramic. Anything you design that will fit the dimensions their hardware can print, you can order. (they may have a ban on sexually explicit items and weapons, i've never checked). Based on that, I think the idea of printing a working circuit board is more like 5-7 years out, on an experimental scale, and 10-15 on a 'I designed this board, and they printed and mailed it to me' scale.

      It would probably be trivial to etch a board with a subtractive laser device like most maker shops have. It would be easier, of course, to go to radio shack and get a DIY circuit board kit with pretty much consists of a fully copper clad board, a bottle of etchant solution, and a magic marker. I think I bought my first one about 15 years ago - they were probably around long before that.
      If you require precision, you can print iron-on patters rather than hand drawing with a marker.
      My point is that there are already solutions out there for this problem that are easier than 3d printing copper or some other material for circuits. Until we are able to 3d print carbon nanotubes, that is.

      More info: http://www.eham.net/articles/20120

    18. Re:Recipe for disaster ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are already places that will run off single PCBs for you using a CNC mill to cut the traces. Cleaner and safer than a laser or etchant, no vapor, sputter or acids to worry about. Of course neither of these will do multilayer like a truly capable additive setup could.

  2. Fake Product, Real News? by DavidClarkeHR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unfortunately, so many companies have bought into the idea that hype - any hype - will lead to funding, which will lead to product development .... which will lead to the product that was being hyped.

    And we keep falling for it ... *sigh*

    --
    - Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
    1. Re:Fake Product, Real News? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sometimes funding is enough to keep the hypers happy.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Fake Product, Real News? by lucm · · Score: 1

      "According to statistics, 9 out of 10 businesses fail."
      -Lousy Wikipedia article [1]

      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Turn_Your_Million_Dollar_Idea_into_a_Reality

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Fake Product, Real News? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > And we keep falling for it ... *sigh*

      Well, stop it. We don't keep falling for it. You lot need to be more cynical!

    4. Re:Fake Product, Real News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when do we keep falling for it? Hell, it's downright common for "awesome thing coming in the next few years" to be called vapourware, and when it inevitably doesn't become reality, everyone says "Yep... saw this one coming a mile away".

      Or do you mean that INVESTORS keep falling for it? Because as history has taught us, many, many investors are absolutely dirt-stupid and at least 3 years behind what's actually relevant and cutting edge. It's an honest to god joke of society nowadays to make fun of companies that inevitably latch onto something LONG after its strongest growth, and then feebly try to make a profit on whatever meme they're leeching off of slides down towards obscurity and obsolescence.

      So yes, many investors are absolutely as dumb as a bag of hammers, but for the public at large, they either a) never hear about it or don't care until they can physically buy it in Walmart, or b) hear about it, but safely assume it's vapourware.

    5. Re:Fake Product, Real News? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      According to statistics, 9 out of 10 businesses fail

      Fine. But if in fact the average ROI on business that don't fail is > 10 + epsilon :1 , you still come out ahead in the long run.

      I'm not saying that is what happens, just that you need to analyze a larger picture.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  3. Captain Obvious strikes again by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Having people who have terrible people skills represent your interests usually ends badly. Just ask the LAPD. Or [hated political group]. If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it. This isn't rocket science...

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Macgrrl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.

      Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    2. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by PessimysticRaven · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.

      Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

      If it weren't for the fact that it works, it wouldn't be perpetuated.

      Lowest common denominator love socially-acceptable bags of fat.

      --
      Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screw-up.
    3. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry to break it to you, but sex sells. Always did, always will.

    4. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Monstr · · Score: 1

      If you can't manage that, at least bring scantily-clad women to the party... nobody expects them to answer questions about the device, and as a bonus, you'll get a lot of pictures of it.

      Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

      Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well. This works on two fronts (or "y fronts" as I prefer to say) - it turns off some straight guys while attracting some women.

    5. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quite, nerds would never show an interest in a computer game or new electronic gadget unless there's a young woman in a short dress in front of it.

      It's a wonder anyone ever visits websites that aren't porn really.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    6. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even in jest, can we not continue to perpetuate this as a good idea for tech expos. And people wonder why it's hard to get women interested in IT.

      Speaking as a woman in IT, I don't mind. Girls demoing products are not even in the same league as me; They're not going back to work as network admins, programmers, etc. They're there to look good and by extension make the product look good. To me, it's no different than being a cheerleader for a sports team. Would I do it? Probably not. Am I going to judge another woman who does? No. I've met enough aggressive feminists in college that bitch and moan about the objectification of women and get angry when I point out they're just enforcing a different set of values on others. Whether it's a bikini or a burka, the message is the same: You have to conform to others' ideas about your femininity. And that's not cool. If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves... and if they want to be a cheerleader for Tech Product X, I say, "you go girl." Just don't ask me to do the pom-pom thing... it's not my thing.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    7. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what anybody wants, IT is currently a male-dominated field. Therefore, marketers will use women if it helps sell their product. OTOH, this doesn't seem to keep women out of a field. For example, in medicine, 80% of practicing physicians are male. Thus, pharmaceutical companies often have former cheerleaders or similarly attractive women go to physicians' offices to sell their product. However, medical students are now mostly female (~52/48), so apparently this practice didn't stop women from entering the field.

    8. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      It is a small vocal set of women that don't like scantily clad women almost as much as men do. By using booth babes, you attract both genders.

    9. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by postbigbang · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, but one of the genders is ready to kick your podiums over, throw coffee into your routers, and strangle various exhibitor functionaires with Cat6 after they set fire to your expensive literature.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by tsa · · Score: 2

      Which is exactly the reason why we don't see scantily clad males in booths. They scare away your clientele.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    11. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girls demoing products are not even in the same league as me; They're not going back to work as network admins, programmers, etc.

      Oh, you never know--maybe they're doing shows while temporarily unemployed as a database admin, or maybe they are comp sci majors trying to pay back their scholarship debt a bit earlier, and actually write emacs macros in their spare time. Yeah, yeah, one can dream.

    12. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I cite the American Economy as an obvious reason why that's not necessarily How Shit Works.

    13. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You understand that you are a guy, right?

    14. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about some well-hung gentlemen wearing crotch-less chaps?

    15. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but one of the genders is ready to kick your podiums over, throw coffee into your routers, and strangle various exhibitor functionaires with Cat6 after they set fire to your expensive literature.

      And the other will just stand around, scratching and belching inappropriately.

    16. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't want those people as customers anyway. High complaint raito. Higher support costs.

    17. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1, Troll

      If we're a free society, then every woman should feel free to define that for themselves...

      Is that what you think 'scantily clad booth babes' are? Its free women deciding for themselves how to define their femininity? Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

      I'm finding it hard to swallow that there are any women out there looking to define their own femininity for themselves who ended up deciding that the best way to express their femininity is "scantily clad booth babe"

      I'm pretty confident the women who have that option open to them aren't doing any lofty self-definition. Its a paycheck. And its better hours, working conditions, and pay than their other options.

    18. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      have you watched modern US style TV lately?

      I took a long break from TV and recently had a look again (was traveling and so was hotel bound and resorted to looking at what's on, these days).

      its really IQ-insulting in every single way. very hard to find anything that could keep my interest and didn't talk down to me or assume I was a neanderthal.

      TV has gone to hell and shows no signs of reversing the trend.

      this is a fair yardstick to compare where our 'attention span' sits. and its not a very flattering statement to what the media thinks the US viewers want.

      internet for the populous is not much different.

      dancing pigs will always have a market...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course it's about a paycheck, any idiot knows that. So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck? If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    20. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by tooyoung · · Score: 1

      And its better hours, working conditions, and pay than their other options

      And how dare someone choose a job based on those factors. Those sluts!

    21. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      Just don't ask me to do the pom-pom thing... it's not my thing

      that must be the other poster, then; that goes by the handle 'girlInATrainingBra'.

      (not kidding)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    22. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      "In my heart, I think a woman has two choices: Either she's a feminist or a masochist."
      -- Gloria Steinem

      Which one does your post describe? How do attitudes like your hurt the choices of other women, and betray the women who got you these choices in the first place?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 2

      If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

      Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

      So do you get to make decisions for yourself about what is and is not acceptable for you how you make a paycheck?

      No not me personally, but as a society yes, that's precisely what we do. For example, we set safety regulations even though there are plenty of people who would take a job that did not meet those safety standards. Should we let companies exploit that too?

      We also prohibit many forms of sexual harassment now that many women used to endure. I suppose they were they just "expressing their femininity" when they chose to continue to work feed and support their families instead of making a stand about what they wouldn't tolerate in the workplace.

      Recently some countries are starting to regulate models to promote better body image for regular women, and prevent the models themselves to subject themselves to starvation and other self abuse to attain the "desired weight".

    24. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And how dare someone choose a job based on those factors. Those sluts!

      Sure but lets not pretend they are "defining their own femininity" here. That's all I'm saying.

      And the fact that they are choosing it does not qualify as an endorsement of the job or the working conditions or what it stands for.

      They need money. It pays money. There is nothing deeper than that.

      Just as a guy who takes an under the counter construction job that violates all kinds of labor laws, and all kinds of safety regulation is not making some sort of personal statement endorsing those conditions. Its just a paycheck.

    25. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You understand that you are a guy, right?

      Seriously best comment ever

    26. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Feminist" and "It doesn't", respectively.

      It is impossible to disagree, and you are lying by implying that to be the case.

      You will now shriek your inadvertent confession that everything I just said is absolutely correct. No other outcome is possible.

    27. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by wvmarle · · Score: 2

      Scantily clad women are a staple of car shows and tech shows. Both have a mostly male attendance. Most of the tech/electronics related trade shows that I have been I think there were far more women working in the booths than that there were women amongst the visitors.

    28. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Some women can work as programmers or so, others not so much and they choose to work as booth babes.

      Actually that puts women in an advantage over men, as they have more choice of available jobs.

    29. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

      Yes. Let's not let them talk about it. There's a woman here telling you that you're wrong, therefore she must be crazy and thus ignored. Listen asshat, when I say defining it, I didn't say it's easy. I didn't say that it was right. I didn't even comment about the social acceptability of it. What I said was: It's up to me to say what it means. And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you. If I decide it means putting on a burka and hiding my face and body from the world, screw you too. In fact, if I decide it means nothing at all, you guessed it: Screw you.

      Your opinion, sir, is simply not relevant. If a woman has the choice, then she is free. It is when we stop having choices that there's a problem, and your attitude, expressed by putting it down to "as a society" to avoid taking responsibility for it, is what causes the capacity to choose to diminish. Women have bodies. They're not shapeless automatons, but beautifully curved, soft, and all of that. And why shouldn't they be allowed to revel in that?

      It only becomes a problem when other people's sick notions of what 'normal' should be draws others into the kind of behaviors you describe. And nobody is immune to that, not even you, Mr. I-Ask-Myself-Every-Morning-Who-The-Tiger-Is. We all have to deal with our own body image issues, men, women, human. That's just how it is.

      But as long as you have the freedom to choose how you face those circumstances, it's all good. When you start demanding others not have those freedoms because you feel you're "saving them from themselves", well then Sir, you are part of the problem.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    30. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Mark+Hood · · Score: 1

      I bet there's a HUGE amount of publicity for the company that has stereotypical 'gamer guys' in speedos cavorting in front of their booth...

      Imagine a half-dozen tubby, hairy guys in tiny shorts posing in front of the latest gadget or game.

      You're welcome.

      --
      Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
    31. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and how excatly are scantilly-clad women on booths in any way limited to tech expos and/or IT?
      They are omnipresent on occasions ranging from car expos, medical expos and holiday maker expos to boat shows. And there's plenty of women working in those industries.

    32. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's some good stuff out there. It's rare, pretty much all of it is on AMC, and it's fiction only (Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Mad Men). Also, Netflix has House of Cards, which is surprisingly good.

      Other than those I'll agree, TV is uniformly awful.

    33. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by richlv · · Score: 1
      --
      Rich
    34. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by tsa · · Score: 1

      Oh man! Nightmares will haunt me for a long time now. I do not thank you, unkind sir. ;)

      --

      -- Cheers!

    35. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by r33per · · Score: 1

      This isn't rocket science...

      I thought Rocketry was an engineering subject.

    36. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that women should have the freedom to use their appearance and sexuality how they please, and I wouldn't go up to a model and tell her she's doing something wrong. However, I still think it's fair to call for the tech industry to stop hiring models to advertise their products. It might seem like there is a contradiction here, but it's because of the distinction between the morality of individual rights and the morality of cultural trends.

      There are plenty of things in life that are not individually morally wrong, but when present in general trends, can cause a lot of damage. To give you a really basic example, consider a joking insult about your weight. If you had a single friend who occasionally joked that you're fat, (but you joked back that she's ugly), it would probably be okay. If every single person you met joked that you're fat, you'd probably get a complex. Likewise, a single flame over the Internet doesn't really mean anything, but when an Internet mob forms, even tough-guys crumble and cry. The issue of racism and art is full of examples like this. There are a vast array of films, songs and music videos which, when taken in isolation, are perfectly fine. Take Jackie Brown for example. Spike Lee thought that film was racist, and Tarantino naturally disagreed. They were both correct. On the one hand, Jackie Brown has no racist intent, it joyfully plays with the tropes of blacksploitation cinema, and only uses slightly cartoonish characters as a way to evoke the films it references and entertain the audience in the same way those movies did. On the other hand, Samuel L. Jackson's character embodies a trope that enforces a negative stereotype about black people. He is a barely fleshed out racist cartoon character. Taken individually the movie isn't particularly racist. However, when you look at hollywood movies as a whole, you can't help but notice that "ghetto" mannerisms almost always appear on a violent or stupid character.

      It's the same thing with getting female models to advertise products. Paying women to look attractive isn't necessarily a bad thing, and I certainly don't feel like it should be banned in a free society. However, I feel like the commercial exploitation of desire belongs in places like the fashion and sex industries, where there is a decent reason for them to be there. It doesn't belong in the tech industry. I would like companies to stop using models to advertise their products. And I would like for individuals to respond to that kind of advertising more reasonably. Instead of allowing themselves to be sexually manipulated, I would like people to look on this kind of advertising as unprofessional and desperate.

      Really, in terms of legal rights and gender issues, things are pretty good. However, there's still a host of battles to fight over cultural norms. These battles are much harder, because you can point to a trend and say "this is wrong", and people can look at each individual case and say "well there's nothing particular wrong about this one" and other people can say "stopping people from doing this would be wrong" and they'd all be right. Worse still, you will get people who campaign about cultural trends using absolute moral terms, which actually damages their own cause. Aggressive feminists have done this to you over the issue of objectification. You now think of objectification as a non-issue, even though it is still a real problem. Would you really not prefer it if female sexuality was used a bit less in advertising, if movies had more genuinely smart or complex female characters or if there were fewer computer games where men are covered from head to toe in armour and women look like two beach balls on a matchstick in a shiny bikini? In an ideal world, art containing hypersexual female objectification would still exist, but it would be kept away from developing minds and would be balanced out by hypersexual male objectification and more complex realistic representations of women.

      Honestly, I wish more smart people were able to see that there are s

    37. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what is your problem then? You just made OP's point I think.

    38. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      It's not that nobody would demonstrate interest in the device if there wasn't a pair of tits in a tight dress demoing the device, it's that the common person - nerds included - are more likely to at least take a look at an unknown product from an unknown company if there is said tits + short dress pictures. What other incentive would they have when the company is (basically) just selling yet another futuristic vaporware?

      Unless the product or company is known and can muster interest on the strength of their brand alone, they need something - anything - to gain them eyeballs. Something like a pair of breasts on an attractive woman is going to be a fairly easy and inexpensive advertising campaign. (For instance, the "BSD Girl" pictures from what, 12+ years ago? Those are still traveling the Internet. So much so that they've become a convention meme for attractive women. And I dare say that I'd wager money on at least a couple lonely geeks risking their hard drives for the lustre of tight red spandex.)

      It's a wonder anyone ever visits websites that aren't porn really.

      I imagine that for every normal page that's loaded in a tab at home, there are 2 pages of porn loaded. That'd just be a guess.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    39. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably explains the Brony phenomena. That My Little Pony cartoon originally intended to help sell girl's toys is just as if not more intellectually stimulating than what's on live TV right now. There's definitely more cleverness involved than what one would expect. (And I suppose if you're sleepy and close your eyes, the main voice actors could be considered a bit of phone sex. lol)

    40. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amém to that bitch ;)

    41. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      There's never been some golden age where everything on TV was awesome. And there are some superb shows on TV right now, from Breaking Bad to Person of Interest. In fact, I'd say some of the best television ever made has been produced in the last decade or so in the US.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    42. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Just as a guy who takes an under the counter construction job that violates all kinds of labor laws, and all kinds of safety regulation is not making some sort
      > of personal statement endorsing those conditions. Its just a paycheck.

      So anybody will do anything for a paycheck? Nobody has any kind of personal level beneath which they will not stoop? Even in america it's still possible to survive without a job, so people do have the option of turning down work. Boothbabes and hypothetical illegal construction workers are making a statement. They are saying, at the very least, "I would rather do this than live off welfare."

      Which may not be as big a statement as "I fully endorse my employer and all their policies and gender politics" but is a statement nonetheless.

      But yeah, giving women freedom of choice means some women choosing things you don't like, just as freedom of speech means letting nazis print leaflets and hold meetings. Not that I'm equating boothbabes with nazis. Did I just get Godwinned? Oh shit...

    43. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I personally know a very independent, very intelligent geek women who has in the past and intends in the future to work as a stripper, because she enjoys it and it makes her feel good about her body. Also consider Dr. Brooke Magnanti, who is very vocal in defending women who work in the sex industry and claims to have no regrets for having worked as a call girl herself.

      The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?

    44. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How do attitudes like your hurt the choices of other women, and betray the women who got you these choices in the first place?

      You want to force women to conform to a standard and you're arguing that someone else is betraying them by refusing to do so? Irony, it's not just for your mom any more.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you want women in IT? Sounds sexist to me.
      Also, women are in IT.

    46. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If so, then so should these women, for themselves.

      Sure, but lets not pretend they are "defining what femininity" is for themselves.

      Let's not pretend that you're trying to do anything else but define what femininity is for other people.

      The root problem here is that we have created a society in which people must do things they don't want to do for money because if you don't have money they will put you in jail because they can make money doing that and it's easier than fighting violent crime. It isn't objectification of women, it's objectification of humans. This is why I do not take anyone who self-declares as a "feminist" seriously. It's another case of rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. Fighting over how we treat women when it's a mere symptom of how we treat humans (not very well) is a fat waste of time. Men are treated like crap too, but we appear to be in control more often so we take the blame for objectifying women when it's really that most humans treat most humans like shit.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    47. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      internet for the populous is not much different.

      Populous didn't have an internet mode. If it had, the populace would surely re-embrace it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    48. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >. If every single person you met joked that you're fat, you'd probably get a complex

      Rightly so, cause it means you are just that: fat....deal with it and eat less....or move more. And do not say it it not your fault....cause it most likely is.
      People have every right to laugh at you for being a lazy pig because that is what you are. Want them to stop ? Just stop being a lazy pig.

    49. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, how much does it pay?

    50. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by markass530 · · Score: 1

      It's always hard when I get women, It's rather ineffective unless it is.

    51. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tells us more about your intelligence level than it tells us about the current state of television.

    52. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Having people who have terrible people skills represent your interests usually ends badly.

      Sounds like that was only the start of their problems. The fact that what they were lying about what they were selling and how they were selling it is probably a bigger problem.

      This seems like an even flimsier scam than the phantom console. It boggles the mind that these people get anyone to give them money or have money long enough to pay for the booth. They evidently hadn't even gone to kickstarter yet. Seems like anyone can get a little money from kickstarter.

    53. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a woman here telling you that you're wrong

      You're not a woman, and the sooner we can get that out of the way the sooner you can have a real opportunity to get your point across. But starting out with a lie isn't going to help things.

    54. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Harvey+Manfrenjenson · · Score: 1

      The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?

      Mod this up! Really, is there anything more to be said?

    55. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some of us don't wonder. Why does it matter? Some professions attract one gender more than another. Why does everyone fret over it? I keep hearing "We need more women in IT!" and never a logical, pragmatic reason for it.

      I also doubt booth babes are a major contributing factor. The fact that IT is full of geeks who are some of the most annoying and unpleasant people in this world probably has more to do with it. Remember, most *men* don't go into IT, either.

    56. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by operagost · · Score: 1

      They could have at least put up a big red sign that said, "Starfish is about to make you its bitch" and leaked nude pics of the CEO's girlfriend.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by sproot · · Score: 1

      And someone scored it 'troll'!

    58. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Applekid · · Score: 1

      So why is it that men are free, nay, celebrated, to exploit their bodies in a chosen profession (pro sports, dangerous jobs for which women don't bother to apply), yet women that exploit their bodies (modeling, sex work) reflects poorly on society? Both are objectification, both are exploitative, and both represent some natural attributes and potential that makes them desirable.

      If you're born with the natural aptitude towards intelligence, choose to become educated (education is compulsory in the 1st world, but not all students actually let themselves soak it all in), and you choose to work for a living where your asset is your smarts, awesome. If you're born with the beautiful genes, choose to cultivate that and watch what you eat and how you exercise, and you choose to work for a living where your asset is your body, that too is awesome because you took what God / Parents / Evolution gave you and made it work for you.

      The truth is that, if you give people freedom to decide their own destiny within the limits of what is biologically possible, what results may fall short of some artificial fantasy ideal. You can lament the society produced by this and say it's unethical, unfair, or wrong. But in my opinion, personal freedom, personal choice, and being master of your own destiny trumps enforcing the ideal.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    59. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >. If every single person you met joked that you're fat, you'd probably get a complex

      Rightly so, cause it means you are just that: fat....deal with it and eat less....or move more. And do not say it it not your fault....cause it most likely is.
      People have every right to laugh at you for being a lazy pig because that is what you are. Want them to stop ? Just stop being a lazy pig.

      Or you can just deal with it. Getting a complex because people put you down? Poor baby. Fucking grow up.

    60. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Person of Interest? Are you fucking kidding?

    61. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That tells us more about your intelligence level than it tells us about the current state of television.

    62. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a societies based around wealth and economic power as success, people become objects that are measured in terms of their ability to produce wealth. What can this person do to make me money? How can I make money off the person? Is this person a threat to me making money? How little can I give and how much can I get from this person?

      Human needs, desires, and feelings are less important in such a society, and it shows. People do things they don't want to for a pay check, people aren't as happy with what they do, people aren't treated well by the organizations they work for, people become divided into classes; judged, scorned, or praised for their ability to make money.

      We can't be truly free under such a system.

    63. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      And if I decide it means running around in a miniskirt and pom poms, well... screw you.

      And if you decide to do that on your own time, I don't have any criticism of it.

      Me, if I lived in a world where I didn't need money, I'd still do what I do for a living for the enjoyment of doing it.

      How many people would get up in the morning, with the actual freedom to decide how they want to spend their time instead of being constrained to get a paycheck, and decide to be a booth-babe?

      You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes. Their might be a few and that's fine, but it wouldn't be most of them, not by a longshot. And to top it off many of the women who might freely choose to be a 'booth babe' probably couldn't get hired as one due to not living up to the standards of femininity and attractiveness set by OTHERS.

      So much for calling the choice to be a booth babe "SELF EXPRESSION".

    64. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: do you have any evidence that girlintraining is not a woman? Other than "posting on Slashdot", which is the same as "no, none at all"?

    65. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we could increase the percentage of women interested in IT by having scantily clad men at the booths as well.

      Well, despite that you'd probably have better luck with good looking men dressed in a tailored suit when dealing with women, it still doesn't work that way. Males show a higher degree of impulsive behavior when exposed to scantily clad women which is why it works and that approach is used in advertising. Women might enjoy it but do not show the same impulsive behavior when exposed to sexualized males which is why it is not used as much.

    66. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most slashdot regulars remember that the poster in question has stated several times in the past that (s)he was a MtF transsexual.

    67. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I personally know a very independent, very intelligent geek women who has in the past and intends in the future to work as a stripper, because she enjoys it and it makes her feel good about her body.

      And I really don't see how that is at all relevant to the conversation. I don't dispute that you have a friend who likes being a stripper.

      The women you find at booths are models. This is their chosen profession. Why should you denigrate them for it?

      How many of them would show up for work as a booth babe if there wasn't a paycheck? I highly doubt many would.

      Calling it their 'chosen profession' is absurd. As far as modelling gigs go "booth babe" isn't exactly what most models aspire to.

      And more importantly did they set the standard of attractiveness to qualify as a model to get the booth babe job? Absolutely Not.

      They happen to fit (and likely work at maintaining their fit) to an external view of femininity imposed on them and are taking advantage of that to make a living. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but I am disputing that it represents some sort high brow freedom of self expression or liberation, because it is nothing of the sort.

    68. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Mod this up! Really, is there anything more to be said?

      Just because someone chose to be a model doesn't mean they look forward to going to work as a booth babe. It doesn't mean they endorse the job, the working conditions, or anything else. Its a job, they have the skills for it, and they happen to fit the EXTERNALLY IMPOSED definitions of 'attractiveness'.

      Just because out of the jobs they were able to get they picked 'booth babe' that does not represent some lofty ideal concerning letting women define what it means to be feminine for themselves.

    69. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You know, some women enjoying doing just that.

    70. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      You want to talk about "freedom" fine, lets remove the requirement that they collect a paycheck, and see how many of them would freely choose to spend their days as booth babes.

      Probably more than you think. While they may not choose "booth babes," it isn't for the reason you would think. Booth babes is a long boring job, standing on your feet all day. Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that, but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time. Some girls like to show off their body.

    71. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      I agree that women should have the freedom to use their appearance and sexuality how they please, and I wouldn't go up to a model and tell her she's doing something wrong. However, I still think it's fair to call for the tech industry to stop hiring models to advertise their products

      Why? Who can advertise the product then? Only users? Only people who created the products? Dogs? Or maybe a pet sock?
      Do you know what models do? Their main job? THEY ADVERTISE PRODUCTS. Some of those products are for the tech industry, some of those products are for other industries.

    72. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I realize that many women tend to be overly violent, but it isn't fair to lump all women into that category just because some of them don't know how to control their behavior.

    73. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Car shows, tech shows and women's magazines.

    74. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Many girls probably wouldn't choose to do that

      Nuff said?

      but would still choose to do something similar, for a shorter amount of time.

      Like actual modelling? Fashion shows. Magazine covers, cover girl for a lipstick brand, the sort of thing models actually aspire to?

      But not booth babes.

      Some girls like to show off their body.

      And I don't dispute that. However, I will again point out that the cross section of women who like to show off their bodies includes a lot of women who could not get a job as a booth babe because they do not meet the 'standards of attractiveness' imposed on them.

      Which circles round back to my argument that the booth babe job (and other 'model' class jobs) is not an example of women 'expressing themselves' and 'defining femininity for themselves'.

    75. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not really being very coherent. What are you saying, if everyone advertised responsibly then there'd be less work for sexy models? Boo hoo, cry me a river.
      If you're so dumb that you confuse the existence of a job with some form of moral imperative then please stop debating things on the Internet, you're not qualified.

    76. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by vux984 · · Score: 1

      But yeah, giving women freedom of choice means some women choosing things you don't like

      What made you think I objected to women choosing to be booth babes?

      I am disputing the idea that many women actually are "choosing" to be booth babes in the sense that it is a positive choice they are making vs it being the 'least objectionable option' they have available.

      And I object to calling "taking the least objectionable option" some sort of "freedom of expression" and an example of women defining their own femininity for themselves.

      So anybody will do anything for a paycheck? Nobody has any kind of personal level beneath which they will not stoop?

      How does this help your argument? Anyone making choices along that boundary line is doing so because they have to, not because they want to. To try and talk about "freedom" in that context is absurd -- if they had actual freedom they'd choose something they wanted to do.

      If for example they wanted to show of their bodies then instead of being booth babes they'd head to the beach.

      Where they can do what they want, dress how they want, and they don't have to conform to any one elses standards of attractiveness to be there.

      If you want to see women who are defining femininity for themselves... go to the beach. Everyone there chose to be there, and chose to wear what they are wearing.

    77. Re:Captain Obvious strikes again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got to be as ugly as sin for how much effort you've spent complaining about those who get paid for being attractive.

  4. OMG! by hduff · · Score: 1

    iPhone-ista Outrage!

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  5. Another Kickstarter failure by DogDude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surprise, surprise. It was funded, at least in part, by Kickstarter. Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding. The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest, so they ultimately end up on Kickstarter, begging for handouts from the clueless general public. Of course, some Kickstarter projects are run by intelligent, capable people who use Kickstarter because some kind of principles that they may have, but the vast majority of the projects are there because the owners didn't have any other options.

    Personally, I see it as a real karmic kick in the ass to the people starting these "projects" every time one falls over. Inevitably, they're people who think they've got the next idea for the next big Apple accessory, but they pooh-pooh the mundane details of engineering, manufacturing, marketing, and distribution, all of which they look down their noses at (an attitude often espoused by Slashthink, too). As an actual business owner, that provides actual services for people, and deals with actual, physical products, I have to smile every time I see one of these holier-than-thou fools fall flat on their proverbial faces because they can't figure out the nuts and bolts of running a business.

    Running a business is hard. It's very hard. Coming up with an idea for some new gee gaw is about 1% of the effort required to do something like this project. The other 99% is the fun, yet very difficult business-y stuff that these kinds of people try to ignore.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by mcl630 · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to TFA, they are *going to* use Kickstarter to fund the project. It's not even on Kickstarter yet.

      With the bad press, they'll have a really hard time raising those funds (assuming people take the 2 minutes to actually google the company before giving their money).

    2. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by LordLucless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Surprise, surprise. It was funded, at least in part, by Kickstarter. Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding.

      So what you're saying is the nature of the funding determines the quality of a venture? Not the product, not the experience of the people running it, the funding source. Why not check the tea-leaves or the entrails of your pet chook?

      The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest

      Assumption. it is not necessary to seek other types of funding before going to Kickstarter

      begging for handouts

      It's not a hand-out when you're getting something in return. I guess companies like Rockstar and Bioware are asking for handouts when they offer pre-orders too?

      from the clueless general public

      Unlike you educated business types. Glad to see elitism is alive and well.

      Personally, I see it as a real karmic kick in the ass to the people starting these "projects" every time one falls over.

      You enjoy seeing other people fail because they didn't sell their soul to a banker to finance a new idea. Gotcha.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree with the assumption that company founders choose kickstarter only after they couldn,t borrow the money or get anybody to invest - frankly, kickstarter is easier that the traditional methods of fundraising. It allows you to raise funds from potential customers, people who want the product, rather than investors, people who want to make money off the product. Kickstarter investors don't need to know how much money the product will make to make a good choice, just whether or not they want it to be made, and they can tailor their investment to their own financial capabilities and desires for the end product.

    4. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by flimflammer · · Score: 2

      This has nothing to do with Kickstarter, yet.

    5. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding. The company founders couldn't borrow the money, they couldn't get anybody to invest, so they ultimately end up on Kickstarter, begging for handouts from the clueless general public.

      Just scratch the surface a little bit, and you'll find that 99% of the kickstarters projects that get funded in the first place are started by people that already have a very large audience and an existing reputation of some kind.

      Now I'm not saying that the clueless general public won't invest in those types of projects, but generally speaking, the clueless general public tend not to invest in a project unless many other people have invested in it already. That's why having a core audience that already believes in you is crucial in getting the initial momentum going. Kickstarters is definitely not as easy as you think.

    6. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      As much as taking joy in other people failing makes him an ass, he did not say that the nature of funding determines the quality of a venture. He said that the quality of the venture determines funding.

    7. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Tauvix · · Score: 1

      I will say that having stayed away from most technology related kickstarters that I've actually had really really good luck with the board games and RPG modules. I've backed about 20 projects, and received the items so far from about a third of them. The games I've received have been good quality and generally lots of fun. Of the remaining 2/3 a few are late, but have been very upfront about unexpected delays and what they're doing to resolve problems. The remainder are still being very communicative, but haven't passed their due dates yet.

      That's not to say that I haven't funded some technology based projects, but they've all been from reputable companies that I've already known (Double Fine, for example), or people I've been able to research and see that they are reputable.

      Would it surprise me if one or two of the projects I've backed failed? No, or perhaps a little, but that's more because I feel the law of averages has to kick in eventually.

      But ultimately, you're correct when it comes to hardware or other technology based kickstarters. Most people don't know what it takes to bring a new gadget to market, or build a new video game, or other software. And the people who back them probably know even less. At the end of the experiment, I expect that you're going to find that funding will almost dry up completely for the Next Big Thing In Personal Gadgetry, after so many people get burned repeatedly, but the game, art, clothing, music, etc. projects will continue on. Relatively small projects where the amount of money raised is in the small thousands, if that much. Maybe tens of thousands if it's really popular (board games tend to reach this point if they show well on boardgamegeek.com).

      On the other hand... There's a sucker born every minute, and if people keep not doing their research, they're going to end up backing crappy, ill-managed projects.

    8. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Roogna · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, the Pebble watch (http://getpebble.com) was also funded on Kickstarter, and last news I saw said that the first batches were arriving for backers.

    9. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kickstarter businesses, by definition, are almost always going to be the worst of the worst simply because of the nature of funding.

      If you must say 'by definition' then at least use it for something that is, in fact, by definition definitively defined otherwise it just looks like you couldn't come up with a proper argument. I fund very few Kickstarters and have a real doubt about many; certainly some will be because no formal lender would touch the idea. However I know plenty who are using Kickstarter because of other reasons. It can act as pre-sales and publicity, it can 'involve' buyers in building a community, it allows them to maintain full ownership, it allows more flexibility and it's simple.

      I looked at releasing a product via a Kickstarter. I could fund it out of my own money but using Kickstart provides numerous other benefits, as mentioned above. In the end I decided the product category I was considering was over-saturated on KickStarter and the likely return on the time required wasn't justified.

    10. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      kickstarter is better than selling shares or borrowing money.

      however.. it seems they got some sucker to give them some cash on the basis that they're going to get more cash on kickstarter..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, he quite literally said that anything from kickstarter was doomed to fail.

    12. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that there is already another similar Kickstarter project that does the same thing and seems to be run by more competent people might be part of the problem: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android

    13. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't laugh too hard. How many "failed" kickstarter projects have gathered a loads of money, not bothered to produce a product and then run off with the cash?
      There are probably a fair few "failed" kickstarters sitting on tropical beaches right now, sipping from coconut shells through bendy straws and laughing right back at you.

    14. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by DogDude · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is the nature of the funding determines the quality of a venture? Not the product, not the experience of the people running it, the funding source.

      Yes, that is what I'm saying. There are millions of businesses that have been successfully started without begging for money. I started mine with a credit card, and some personal loans. If you aren't willing to put your own personal assets on the line, and nobody else is willing to put their assets on the line, then yes, it's probably either a bad idea, or the people starting it are incompetent.

      It's not a hand-out when you're getting something in return

      That's normally called "selling" a product or service. Begging for money before there is a product or service and promising to deliver (maybe) is called a hand-out.

      Unlike you educated business types.

      It takes an extra low IQ to give money to people in exchange for a non-legally binding promise of goods or services. I'll invest in a startup, but only in exchange for interest or equity. Throwing money at strangers in exchange for nothing is not investing, and it's certainly not smart.

      You enjoy seeing other people fail because they didn't sell their soul to a banker to finance a new idea. Gotcha.

      Aaah, You have never started a business. If you ever had, then you'd know that banks don't give loans for startups. But, to be clear, I enjoy seeing these people fail because they generally give little to no consideration towards actually creating a viable business. I admire a person who starts a plumbing business. Or a gas station. Or a cleaning service. Or a restaurant. Or a manufacturing business. Those are all very, very difficult to do. To come up with some idea for some gadget,, beg strangers for money, and ignore the nuts and bolts of actually starting a company is easy.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    15. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      (assuming people take the 2 minutes to actually google the company before giving their money).

      With the kinds of circlejerks that happen so regularly on sites like /. and reddit, this is the problem. People see shiny. People want shiny. Piss on the details . . . .

    16. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most new businesses fail. When they fail they take the founders money, the parents money, the friends money and make it all vanish in a puff of smoke with nothing but hard feelings left behind. This is the traditional funding method. This is the model that you seem to venerate. Kickstarter and it's ilk has added a new funding model in recent years. One that spreads the risk among many and reduces the damage in case of failure. In addition, it does not start out diluting ownership of your new company before you even get it off the ground. I can't see this as a bad thing. I am sure that there will be just as many failures there as with more conventionally funded ventures, but so what? You may admire those who fail at plumbing, gas stations, etc. but I don't find them any more noble than anyone else. They were just as delusional about how hard it is to start a business. Some few will even succeed, learning a lot of lessons along the way. Perhaps you are a bit harsh on a model simply because it does not appeal to you.

    17. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      "If you aren't willing to put your own personal assets on the line, and nobody else is willing to put their assets on the line, then yes, it's probably either a bad idea, or the people starting it are incompetent."
      Kickstarter is the very definition of 'other people willing to put their assets on the line'. Whether funded by kickstarter or a loan from a bank any idea that gets funded by definition has people willing to put their assets on the line.

      Or is it only big name bank assets that count in your worldview?

      "That's normally called "selling" a product or service. Begging for money before there is a product or service and promising to deliver (maybe) is called a hand-out."

      Or a pre-order. You know, the thing businesses have been doing for decades. I've pre-ordered plenty of games from big companies before they were ready to ship, same thing.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    18. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...There are millions of businesses that have been successfully started without begging for money. I started mine with a credit card, and some personal loans...."

      I see, so when it's you, it's called having "a personal loan"; when it's a KS company, it's someone "begging for money". Riiiight.

      "...It takes an extra low IQ to give money to people in exchange for a non-legally binding promise of goods or services..."

      So everyone who pays taxes, all alumni giving money to universities...these are all groups with low IQ's? Riiight.

      "...Aaah, You have never started a business. If you ever had, then you'd know that banks don't give loans for startups..."

      Yes they do, and you are a fucking idiot. You seem so proud of having invested your own money in your business. You know what that means don't you? It means you're a moron. You don't ever touch your own capital you ignorant fuck, you use someone else's. You use your own money ~after~ places like Kickstarter resulted in no investment. Not before. Get a fucking clue.

    19. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'll invest in a startup, but only in exchange for interest or equity."

      Cool! For $2 million, you can have 100% interest/equity in my startup.

    20. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      I started mine with a credit card, and some personal loans.

      Well, I'm glad you certainly never went "begging for money" then, and that people weren't giving you money when you didn't have a product.

      If you aren't willing to put your own personal assets on the line, and nobody else is willing to put their assets on the line, then yes, it's probably either a bad idea, or the people starting it are incompetent.

      So, a Kickstarter user's money doesn't count as an asset. It's only a real business if you run the risk of your parents' losing their house when you fail.

      Begging for money before there is a product or service and promising to deliver (maybe) is called a hand-out.

      What product or service did you have before you got your credit card and loan again? Why did you get those lines of credit? Could it possibly have been on the promise to deliver (maybe) interest on the loan?

      It takes an extra low IQ to give money to people in exchange for a non-legally binding promise of goods or services.

      Damn straight. That's why I never exercise generosity. It's a sign of a low IQ.

      I admire a person who starts a plumbing business. Or a gas station. Or a cleaning service. Or a restaurant.

      As long as they don't run a Kickstarter to start their project. Then they deserve to be laughed at as beggars and failures.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    21. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Why the hate for kickstarter? Some projects succeed, some projects fail. Whether or not they are funded by kickstarter.

    22. Re:Another Kickstarter failure by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      There are millions of businesses that have been successfully started without begging for money.

      VERY few business have successfully started without begging for money.

      But, to be clear, I enjoy seeing these people fail because they generally give little to no consideration towards actually creating a viable business.

      The point behind kickstarter isn't necessarily to start a business. It is to crowd fund a project. You know the kind, "Hey if we get 10 people to go in together, we can get this done." I'm not saying people aren't using it to start a business, but I would claim that most aren't.

  6. Re:hmm. . . starfish. . . by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    Yes, but you have to wash it down with hot dog flavored water.

    Also, you have to listen to shrill, horrible music.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  7. Blowing smoke? by Media_Scumbag · · Score: 3, Funny

    A device called "starfish" turns out to be vaporware? Color me surprised.

  8. creeper by Georules · · Score: 2

    Am I the only one a little concerned by how intent Lex Friedman (author of TFA) was on getting information from the representative that clearly didn't know anything. He took pictures of the booth while he waited around for the CEO to show.

    1. Re:creeper by Rizimar · · Score: 1

      Considering this was a booth for what sounds like an interesting product, it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone or something to be at that booth to illustrate what it is, exactly. Having an empty booth is a waste of floor space and of people's time.

    2. Re:creeper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a /booth/ at a /show/. How the heck is it creepy that the guy watching the chairs of the no-show company has people viewing the show ask him a lot of pointed questions?

      So no, I'm not concerned at all. Starfish hyped a product for the public market, and rented a frigging booth at Macworld. And, holy cow, Lex Friedman "Senior Writer, Macworld" took time try to find WTF was up. No, it'd be a concern if that didn't happen. Good for Lex.

      Seriously, why are you bothered by that? Please expand.

      Was it this: "who clearly didn't know anything"? Rubbish. He knew something, right or wrong. He's taken the public seat, and I don't mind reporters trying to get something other than his personal script out of him. They'd be bad reporters if they didn't.

    3. Re:creeper by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      Yes, you're the only one. A booth is effectively a public face for the company/product and a representative should, by definition, represent the company/product. Taking photos of the booth isn't at all creepy - taking photos of the toilets would be creepy.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    4. Re:creeper by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Had we not been talking about a product expo, where the point is to get attention, yes. If Lex included pictures from his car outside the guy's house, that would be over the line.

      It said he was interested in the product initially. At some point he probably was more interested in how weird the spectacle was going. Then at some point he realized it was a scam and he could prevent at least some people on kickstarter from wasting their money.

    5. Re:creeper by lexfri · · Score: 2

      Well... I was doing my job, and I definitely don't feel like I harassed the guy impolitely. He told me the CEO would be return. When I came back and he said the CEO wouldn't return, I asked him why the CEO had him manning the booth if he didn't know the answers to questions folks would have about the product. That's when he threatened me. I definitely didn't take the 20/20 investigative reporter approach of trying to get a rise out of him. I actually wanted the answer to the question.

    6. Re:creeper by Georules · · Score: 1

      Wow, didn't expect to get a reply from the author. I just got a bit of a feeling that you were trying to get a rise out of him and stalking the booth. My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions.

  9. Re:hmm. . . starfish. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. The inspiration came from having their heads up their asses.

  10. He does seem to want to MAKE the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Without being so annoying as to be told to f-off, he wouldn't have a story. So he does seem to be trying to get a reaction.

    As it is, it's just a product planned for launch that wasn't ready to launch. Well that's same as usual for new products. Once you realize the guy there isn't a rep with any knowledge, hassling him for knowledge you know he doesn't have, is designed to illicit a negative response.

    Perhaps it was a slow show and he had no story.

    1. Re:He does seem to want to MAKE the story by Georules · · Score: 1

      Thanks AC, this is pretty much how I felt about the article.

  11. 1. Don't call it starfish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starfish? Really? I bet their product umm... stinks. It probably comes in Zune brown too.

  12. What Nobody likes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a tattle-tell

  13. Looks like a wannabe Pebble Watch by DaTrueDave · · Score: 1

    Now the Pebble has definitely caught my eye as a way to put your phone on your wrist like this: http://getpebble.com/

    1. Re:Looks like a wannabe Pebble Watch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and the Pebble actually exists!

  14. Just sayin' by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

    Looks awfully like this here thing http://getpebble.com/ but I was only going off the look from the photo in the first link. Still, it's a poor showing on their part to not have anything to ...show. I hope Pebble goes better, or at least something decent in both price and and function.

    Also, if they were rude, you should have just gone away - don't give them the time or exposure; just let them be dicks and lose everyone's respect.

  15. and yet any time I mention RMS... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and his lack of personal hygiene, confrontational nature, total lack of empathy or ability to understand or identify with any viewpoint except his own, complete obliviousness to how he comes off to others (remember the pages-long travel missives?)...

    ...I'm modded "flamebait" or "troll." Heaven forbid there are people who point out the man's numerous flaws. Ordinarily it'd be ad hominem, but he's a spokesman and figurehead, which makes every single one of the points above completely relevant.

    1. Re:and yet any time I mention RMS... by Microlith · · Score: 2

      If only people didn't do so every time a comment of his is brought up for the sole purpose of derailing any actual useful discussion. It's done deliberately to drive discussion into the ground and ensure that a possibly useful conversation does not take place simply because there are people far more concerned about spreading hatred of the man than doing something useful.

      he's a spokesman and figurehead, which makes every single one of the points above completely relevant.

      Only in the context of discussing him in his role of "spokesman" and "figurehead." Not "any time RMS is ever mentioned."

    2. Re:and yet any time I mention RMS... by hawkinspeter · · Score: 1

      It's very rarely relevant to discussions as most discussions aren't about RMS as ambassador/spokesman/figurehead, but about the issues that he is raising awareness of.

      What you do is more like always bringing up Einstein's unruly hairstyle in every discussion about relativity.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    3. Re:and yet any time I mention RMS... by SuperBanana · · Score: 1

      It's done deliberately to drive discussion into the ground and ensure that a possibly useful conversation does not take place simply because there are people far more concerned about spreading hatred of the man than doing something useful.

      Right, because everyone who mentions RMS's flaws is doing it to "drive discussion into the ground". It couldn't possibly be that those people are tired of RMS representing their movement, or that there are other reasons. Nice try, though.

      It is not "hatred of the man" to point out the extensive personality flaws he possesses and refuses to do anything about. Again: nice try.

      Only in the context of discussing him in his role of "spokesman" and "figurehead."

      Which is precisely how I mentioned him this time.

  16. "Did you hear me? Iâ(TM)m done talking to you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what's the legal definition of assault? Was he just threatened?

  17. What's new about this? by Animats · · Score: 1

    What's new about a wrist phone? Swatch had the Swatch Talk wrist phone in 1998. Samsung had one in 2001. If you want one right now, there are several on Amazon. They're cheap, too; well under $100 for an unlocked phone.

    There's even a full Android device in a watch size announced. This thing can supposedly make phone calls, shoot video, browse the web, get your location, etc.

  18. Looks very much like a MetaWatch SDK by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

    Looks very much like a MetaWatch SDK to me. Anyone with some programming skills can slap together something like that -or something that actually works in some way- for $200.

    --
    Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
  19. I expected even less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from starfish since they're a company who's website is a facebook profile...

  20. Bye bye by scotts13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Did you hear me? I’m done talking to you."

    And thus, with nine words, a company dies. They clearly have no manufacturing capability, little-or-no software development capability, and have done no market research. The have a half-baked idea, and a part of a marketing plan. Probably saw a piece of existing hardware, and figured they could customize it to do something different - and were wrong. There have been successful products that launched way too soon, but not with THAT kind of press. Done for, now.

  21. The more interresting question is? by Casandro · · Score: 1

    How can a company be _so_ ignorant of it's own abilities.
    I mean the main problem is getting a proper case and interfacing with iOS. The rest is just a wristwatch sized computer with Bluetooth. Give a good engineer some time and it'll find a way to resize the screen. It probably won't be perfect, but hey what do you expect?

    The problem inside those companies is that three problems come together.
    First of all, you have people to stupid to realise that they are wrong.
    Second, the people who know a bit more, don't interfere with bad decisions for various reasons.
    Third, people who actually know what they are doing will be worn out struggling against the idiots and simply leave the company.

    Granted, this is an extreme example, but it happens quite often. There are 'idiot companies' out there. They are the ones thinking that OPC is a good idea. They are the ones basing their company on some VBA scripts.

    In lighter cases you get all those little gadget which require you to have some complex software products to use them, and which will end on the dump once installing the software is more effort than the device is worth.

  22. I see.. by slashmojo · · Score: 2

    you've met my wife!