Slashdot Mirror


After Kickstarter Record, Pebble Smartwatch Lands $15M From VCs

LeadSongDog writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that the 'Pebble' smartwatch has matched the $15M record for Kickstarter funding after initially being panned by the VC crowd." One advantage that the Pebble has over rumored watches from big names like Google and Apple is existing.

120 comments

  1. I want one by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the flip phone was all the rage it often reminded me of an 1890's station master pulling out his pocket watch and flipping it open/closed and then sliding it back into his pocket. The wristwatch basically put the pocket watch out of action. I suspect that history is going to repeat itself as I am now pulling out my smartphone repeatedly to quickly check various things such as the time, the weather, certain stocks, who just called, GPS, who just messaged, ebay alerts, fiddle with the audio, etc. Rarely do I pull out my smartphone to use the larger screen for things such surfing, typing, or talking.

    So for at least 90% of my smartphone interfacing it would be awesome to interface with a convenient wrist watch to reach the phone in my pocket or pack. The key is that the watch does not stray into any territory where the phone excels. An example would be mapping. Don't try to put a small map on my watch; that will just drive me nuts. But a navigation app that just distance, direction, and turning instructions would be perfect for a watch.

    Where I am presently confused is how to interface with my audio. I guess I could either use a bluetooth earpiece (loser) or headphones with a microphone and that would be fine.

    The smartphone interface watch will be far more successful than google glasses. I think that google glasses will be cool for the most part at fulfilling our terminator fantasies but not for meeting our boring needs such as: What time is it?

    1. Re:I want one by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Thats interesting. I too made the 'cellphone is pocketwatch' observation. I even bought a prop pocketwatch to explore making it into a modern device.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:I want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's a smartphone? And why would anyone want this? Sundials still rule!

    3. Re:I want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe short term you are correct. Long term I doubt it. Once google comes up with HD recording + waterproof + motion stabilization + battery life + phone + sunglasses / software based adjustable lenses + always online it will be expensive but people will pay for it..

    4. Re:I want one by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's a great stepping stone on the way to a contact lens display.

      --

      Liberty.

    5. Re:I want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Difference is you only needed pocket watch OR wristwatch, but you'll need phone AND smartwatch.

      For me, and I presume for most men, taking out the phone from pants pocket takes not much longer than sliding sleeve back to look at the watch. It might make difference for women - their phones are usually in the purse, but the watch's huge and reducing it for female wrists will shrink its usefulness as well - and for sportsmen, but there I believe HUD devices are much more promising.

    6. Re:I want one by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I just google imaged it, and from that I can say I won't be buying one. I think they are ugly as hell. Plus they are the size of a large wristwatch, which are already too big for my tastes, but are at least round. These Pebbles are a huge square computer screen on the wrist.

      No thanks, I'll pass.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    7. Re:I want one by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      You seem to be insinuating that the pocketwatch was wrong somehow. How does that follow?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:I want one by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Where I am presently confused is how to interface with my audio. I guess I could either use a bluetooth earpiece (loser) or headphones with a microphone and that would be fine.

      You could walk around with your hand against your head, but you'd run the risk of being mistaken for a folkie.

      [sing, badly] As I roved out one sunny morn ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:I want one by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Sundials still rule!

      I used to know an [Irishman|Polack|Belgian] who thought that. I pointed out that they're no good for telling the time at night.

      Next day I saw him buying a tin of luminous paint.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:I want one by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of a comment I read somewhere: The only thing I like about bluetooth earpieces is that now I can walk around talking to myself and nobody looks at me funny.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:I want one by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Of course, when you walk around not talking to yourself with a bluetooth earpiece in place, everyone will still look at you funny..

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    12. Re:I want one by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      The pocketwatch wasn't wrong, any more than the horse and carriage was wrong. However, like the horse and carriage, you don't see many pocketwatches around anymore. Noting that A has been superceded by B doesn't imply any moral failing on the part of A.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:I want one by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      I guess I could either use a bluetooth earpiece (loser) or headphones with a microphone and that would be fine.

      I don't understand why having a headphone and a microphone is fine, whereas having a headphone and microphone without the cable makes you a loser. I guess it's the same reason why wearing the wrong brand of clothing makes you a loser. All hail the arbitrary dictates of fashion.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    14. Re:I want one by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

      The key here is who seems to wear the earpieces. It just doesn't seem to be a class of "Winners".

      If you have seen the movie Oblivion and remember Tom Cruise's earpiece, then I could live with one of those. But the USB memory stick in my ear, those just suck. They should come with propeller hats (something I would have killed for age 9).

    15. Re: I want one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too was skeptical, until I handled one. Smaller than the pics made it seem.

    16. Re:I want one by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I disagree - it does. If only in retrospect. "Pocketwatch" has the insinuation of "those morons were too dumb to figure out the wristwatch." Our current culture is really really bad about 20/20 hindsight. Anything that was thought of ten minutes ago should have been thought of ten years ago and those people who didn't think of it are stupid. I wish I was wrong, but sadly this attitude is quite common.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  2. Re:Oh, my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I get that you're trying to provoke a reaction. The problem is, no one's offended by that kind of thing anymore. It's 2013, and we've all been desensitized by goatse and shitting dick-nipples. Plain obscentiy won't work anymore; you have to move on to something new and fresh.

  3. "7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Would be impressive if this product wasn't being sold as a watch. It's nice to imagine "a watch that can do all this stuff", but for me a defining factor of a watch is something I don't have to worry about recharging (or replacing the battery of).

    1. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by tibman · · Score: 1

      Remember when your phone had 7 days of battery life? (mine still does, but only because it's ancient)

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    2. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Would be impressive if this product wasn't being sold as a watch. It's nice to imagine "a watch that can do all this stuff", but for me a defining factor of a watch is something I don't have to worry about recharging (or replacing the battery of).

      well the thing sending data to this is going to be need daily charging.. or dual daily.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I remember when you would forget a watch in a closet for 3 years and it would still be running when you took it out again.

      This is a truly atrocious battery life for a watch. If it cannot even last the length of a vacation or a camp in some situation, what good is it as a watch? At least with a old fashioned Wind-up watch you can recharge it in seconds anywhere.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A smart phone is a general purpose computer that goes in your pocket. If it was only a phone it'd last 9 days as well. Nobody wants to talk on their iPhone, that's just a vestigial appendage more or less.

      -s

    5. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      My watch hasn't had a battery change in 7 years and still works fine.

    6. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      But it's a tremendous battery life for a desktop computer. Try seeing how long a desktop computer lasts if you unplug it from the charger.
      Ofcourse this new type of phone-connected watch is just as much a desktop computer as it is a watch, so that comparison is just irrational..

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    7. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      But it is being called a smartWATCH and it absolutely sucks at being a watch.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Fencepost · · Score: 1

      This may actually improve battery life on some devices - those big bright displays are serious battery hogs.

      --
      fencepost
      just a little off
    9. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Ruprecht+the+Monkeyb · · Score: 2

      A 747 gets terrible gas mileage for a car, too.

    10. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      keeping the radios on and device out of sleep is a real hog. updating stock widget and so forth.

      then again my phone has an oled display showing the time all the time and I need to charge it every 3rd day or so..(I usually use it to take one picture a day and to read news on the john..)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    11. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      You mean the airplane? You mean the airplane that has a fuel economy of about 100 mpg(per person)? Which is about 5-10 times what a car gets.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    12. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      I have one like that, but sometimes I forget to wind it.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I've yet to come across a smartphone that actually works half as well as a *phone* as your average "free with $15 prepaid card" flip phone.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Immerman · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well that's about right then - a smartPHONE generally sucks at being a phone. I think someone changed the meaning of "smart" when we weren't looking...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re: "7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Using your metric my car gets about 120mog (per person)

    16. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it cannot even last the length of a vacation or a camp in some situation, what good is it as a watch?

      Aww, has someone not found out about these yet?
      http://www.amazon.com/Lightning-Thunderbolt-Blackberry-connectors-customized/dp/B009USAJCC/ref=sr_1_1
      If you're going somewhere where you can't recharge for more than a week, yeah, a smartwatch isn't the thing to pack. Get a G-shock or hell, don't worry about the time, you're on vacation in the wilderness! But most of /. lives near a power grid and wireless data is available to us, so some may find uses for this "watch".

    17. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, keeping the radios on uses power, but not absurdly so, keeping the device awake doesn't matter (not doing heavy processing does). It's also two things that 7-day standby phones also have to do. Big screens (not tiny oleds) on the other hand are absolute battery hogs. If you can keep the processing to a dull roar and keep the display off you'll win a day or two for sure.

    18. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the one seater car? I think that one's around 100 mpg too.

    19. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by jimbo · · Score: 1

      People often say smartphones are bad phones but IMHO some smartphones are surprisingly good at being phones. For example top models from Samsung and Apple supports AMR-WB and voice quality is impressive where networks support it. Ofcourse it's subjective what a good phone is, considering UI, size, battery, voice quality, etc.

      So, it's not clear cut. For my personal opinion I've tried several Apple and Samsung smartphones and I consider them all to be excellent phones.
      The battery on my current [smart]phone probably lasts five days unless I start doing lots of shit. I think that's fair. In reality I do charge it every couple of days but I've been doing that since my first mobile phone, the Nokia 2110.

    20. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      If A 747 was being sold as a smart car then that would be a valid analogy. However it isn't because people realise that would be moronic, just like selling a watch that sucks at actually being a watch.

    21. Re:"7+ days of battery life" by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 1

      That's a very clever observation. You must be a very smart person.

  4. They've proven to have a seller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and they only took 15 million? One can only hope they didn't give up their rights in return.

    1. Re:They've proven to have a seller by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      and they only took 15 million? One can only hope they didn't give up their rights in return.

      it might not be a seller two years from now.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:They've proven to have a seller by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      and they only took 15 million? One can only hope they didn't give up their rights in return.

      I have to wonder why they talked to the VCs at all... I can imagine taking the risk if you've just started somebullshitwithnorevenuemodel.com and crazy guys in suits are offering you a giant stack of pretend internet money for it; but why would a company with an actual shipping product, and sales, and such, risk going up against the elite equity-diluting and value extraction skills of a hardened VC?

    3. Re:They've proven to have a seller by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because with all the extra money you can do better marketing, promotion, sales and even product development.
      If you can make 4x the money by giving away half, it's still double the money in your own pocket.

      Ofcourse this does not account for giving up more subjective values such as control over your own product and being able to "not be evil".

      Or simply put; selling your soul does make you rich.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:They've proven to have a seller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couple of reasons to go with VC $:

      - The smartwatch folks are in a good negotiating position and they can probably sell some of their stock as part of the funding. It's nice to cash in a little of your equity up front, because statistically most startups return nada to the founders;

      - The VCs are always motivated for a liquidity event that cashes them out and transfers their risk to somebody else like a corporate buyer or the public in case of an IPO. Smartwatch founders can tag along for this ride, again because they have a good negotiating position coming off the Kickstarter success, and can get favorable participation rights built in up front.

      VCs suck, but they are herd animals and they can be used to your advantage if you have a big enough fiscal stick to whack them with.

    5. Re:They've proven to have a seller by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      The Geek Chic people who went on Shark Tank recently have an ongoing business. They've been in business for several years, attend BGG Con each year, and have sold incredibly expensive tables to several people I know.

      On the other hand, they have like an 18 month backlog, and once you order and make your down payment they'll ignore your emails for about a year until they're ready to deal with you, and ask you for your customizations. You can customize /everything/ on the table, even though it's marketed as a modular system, and it takes a while to figure all that out.

      I suspect they went to a VC because they believed that they could be a bigger and more successful business, but they don't have anyone on board that knows how to become that business. Making the person who gives you the money have a stake in the company helps ensure that they'll actually help you succeed. I think they took $300k for a 25% stake or something like that.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  5. why? by dlb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    who still wears a watch?

    1. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look around you, a lot of people do.

    2. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wherever I look, they're mostly worn as fashion item or status symbol.

      These don't look too fashionable, and "nerd/geek" as status is not really desirable.

    3. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my case i use my watch as its far simpler to check the time on my wrist than pulling out a phone. Sure its 'pretty' ( in that its what i want to see ), but its not a fashion statement as i don't care what others think.

    4. Re:why? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      Wherever I look, they're mostly worn as fashion item or status symbol.

      These don't look too fashionable, and "nerd/geek" as status is not really desirable.

      but people are buying these to use as niche fashion items - and telling everyone they're buying one.

      btw do you know how you spot a watch hipster? has a watch - but uses a phone to check the time.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:why? by twistedcubic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Teachers. I can glance at my watch during lectures. It's kinda disruptive and inappropriate to pull out a cell phone while lecturing to students.

    6. Re:why? by Libertarian001 · · Score: 1

      I do. All of you pulling out your smartphone to check the time look pretty stupid.

      I do have a smartphone. I don't use it to see what time it is.

    7. Re:why? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      Obviously plenty do. But to your point it seems a bit of a niche market. Considering a pretty good portion of those that do prefer the classic aesthetics I'm not sure how many are left to target.

    8. Re:why? by dlb · · Score: 1

      That's a good point.

      The answer I was looking for was either
      a) as a suit accessory, like cufflinks or a tie clip, or
      b) for fitness reasons (heart monitor, lap timer, diving, etc)

    9. Re:why? by RawsonDR · · Score: 1

      You're right, nobody wears a watch anymore. But that's the point of this device, not a counter point.

    10. Re:why? by lxs · · Score: 1

      I only wear a watch on my days off. I can't stand having one on when I'm working, but I suppose if most of your work revolves around talking and some light typing then a watch is a perfectly reasonable thing to wear.

    11. Re:why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I only wear a watch when I am going out socially and then it is more jewelry than function. Pretty bling to help attract a mate.

    12. Re:why? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I do. All of you pulling out your smartphone to check the time look pretty stupid.

      Maybe you look stupid for wearing a watch. Or maybe it's just personal taste and isn't worth the insults?

  6. Re:Oh, my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How old are you? 14? Your troll is lame. Work on it.

  7. not an advantage by SuperBanana · · Score: 2

    One advantage that the Pebble has over rumored watches from big names like Google and Apple is existing.

    Apple has rarely entered a market first. iPod, iPhone, iPad, Air, etc. Hasn't stopped them from being successful, and in some cases reshaping or redefining the market.

    Do you want to be the first to jump into the water, or see what happens to the other person when they jump in the water?

    1. Re:not an advantage by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Do you want to be the first to jump into the water, or see what happens to the other person when they jump in the water?

      Ask Micrososft how waiting for a market to have established itself first has been working out for them lately...

    2. Re:not an advantage by fermion · · Score: 0
      Really they are not the first. They are a group of early manufacturers trying to develop a market for connected watches. About the only company that appears to be manufacturing and shipping actual watches to actual customers, as opposed to just promising to ship watches to customers eventually, is Cookoo. Yes I know that Pebble is shipping watches, but those are to those to are to kickstarter people, that is investors.

      Apple will take over the market because only Apple has the means to integrate the watch and the phone. Fair or unfair that is the way it will be. Therefore, while Pebble has said it is the watch to integrate with iPhone(at the time iPhone had all the market) really what needs to happen now is they need to be the preeminent Android phone. Given the new funding I would say drop iPhone support completely. Be the first fully functional Android watch. Why make a sucky watch that works with iPhone when they could make a mass market watch that works with Android. Also, they need to get some fashion and industrial designers in there so the watch is not so ugly and can be made efficiently.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:not an advantage by Telvin_3d · · Score: 2

      Being first to market can have advantages. Coming later to the market with an improved product can have advantages. Coming later to the market with a product that is no better than what is already out there has no advantages at all.

    4. Re:not an advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you want to be the first to jump into the water, or see what happens to the other person when they jump in the water?

      Ask Micrososft how waiting for a market to have established itself first has been working out for them lately...

      Err... you're completely missing the fact that Microsoft was that person who jumped into the water first. For both tablets and smartphones. They did a lot wrong, but they also showed others what doesn't work.

    5. Re:not an advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First mover has advantages in some markets (if there are high switching costs). Fast follower has advantages in others (if there are low switching costs, but high R&D risk).

    6. Re: not an advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we looking for sharks, or for the "diamond to shame all other diamonds"?

    7. Re:not an advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Coming later to the market with a product that is no better than what is already out there has no advantages at all."

      Unless you have a monopoly position to prop you up (MS obviously). And Apple could apply here too, given their many years of walled garden lock in, they don't need to be good any more. They can weasel their way into the smart TV market just through the vast number of Apple IDs out there. I suspect that's right around the corner.

    8. Re:not an advantage by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that Sony's Android watch has been out for quite some time now, and is slightly less clunky than the pebble too.
      I don't know whether it's been rooted yet (by others than Sony...), but if it hasn't, it's just a question of time.

      Me, I prefer to use a watch that does the primary function quite well - tell the time without requiring me to use my fingers, and no matter whether it's night or snow or direct sunshine or underwater or on a bike or I haven't given maintenance to it in months. It's just there, does its job, and I can depend on it doing so.

    9. Re:not an advantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft was also first to market with smart watches (see the SPOT watches). Things keep coming full circle here.

  8. Re:Oh, my! by tibman · · Score: 1

    I've never heard someone under 30 years old use the word "rancid". It has really fallen out of use. That guy is probably old and sad.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  9. I'd be pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    If I contributed to the kickstarter, I'd be royally pissed. Kickstarters basically gave $15M to the VCs, who are going to basically own this device. Kickstarters paid for development and initial manufacturing so the VCs wouldn't have to.

    1. Re:I'd be pissed by synaptik · · Score: 2

      Kickstarters are not angel investors. Usually-- and this was the case with Pebble-- Kickstarters are prepaying for the device, and those prepayments fund development and initial manufacturing.
      Yes, I was a Kickstarter backer for Pebble. And, I received mine, at the stated discount. So I got my expected ROI.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    2. Re:I'd be pissed by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Which is why I'll never do a kickstarter- I'm not going to pay extra for early access to a product that I can't test and may never be made. I'd be willing to invest for a share of the profits, but not pay extra for a presale.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    3. Re:I'd be pissed by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 2
      You miss the point of kickstarter.

      Non-kickstarter: Bankers, corporate stiffs have 100% control of what can raise capital

      kickstarter concept: A bit of democracy possibility to bypass that control.

      I don't personally feel Kickstarter is about investment but taking control --- and near stranglehold --- away from the kind of corporate culture unwilling to roll dice or uninterested in small yield/high interest projects.

      Note: I am not arguing "kickstarter" is perfect.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    4. Re:I'd be pissed by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Then let me invest, rather than prebuy. Let me buy a tiny part of the profits. But I'm not going to pay to pre-purchase an item that doesn't exist yet from a company with little to no track record. That puts all the risk on me, the consumer, rather than the entrepeneur. That's ass backwards.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    5. Re:I'd be pissed by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I did get a tiny part of the profits... in the form of a 27% discount on the smartwatch.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    6. Re:I'd be pissed by AuMatar · · Score: 0

      I'm going to hope that was a joke. I don't have the heart to explain all of economics tonight.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:I'd be pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you aren't under the impression that all investments result in an ongoing share of profits. Or that you're under the impression that bonds aren't investments.

    8. Re:I'd be pissed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Yes. And I feel like the community is being abused by the VC people, if they can just get kickstarter funding, and then go grab additional VC funding at the same time.

      Why the VC people can just make 'starting a kickstarter' project as a precondition to obtaining VC funding, and approve the funding, after success of the kickstarter project; so the venture capitalists take the equity of the business, anyways, instead of the project founders.

      If they could get VC funding, from the bankers, then the VC should be funding development too.

      I don't see the resolution as to ban VC funding.

      I think Kickstarter project creators should be required to disclose, if they are also seeking or obtaining VC funding, or other investments, prior to the completion of their project and fullfillment; In other words, any other funding should be disclosed.

      That way, the crowd can if they choose to, rank/sort their projects that they are considering gifting to, based on their perceived need for those funds.

    9. Re:I'd be pissed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Then let me invest, rather than prebuy. Let me buy a tiny part of the profits.

      This would be in violation of SEC regulations against selling unregistered securities to the public.

      The only way they would potentially be able to do so would be to require that all site members prove they are accredited investors; E.g. by providing a copy of their paystub, showing sufficient income to meet the $200,000 per year income minimum set by the government for accredited investor status.

    10. Re:I'd be pissed by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      They're more of an investment than stocks are (outside of public offerings). But buying an item at a discount isn't an investment. It's like coming home from the mall with 20 shirts you didn't intend to buy and saying "but I saved money, they were on sale!"

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    11. Re:I'd be pissed by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity. Although you could make a decent argument for waiving those restrictions for very small investments (say sub-100 dollars per investor with a cap on total investment as well).

      But that's fine- if you can't do it you can't do it legally. That still doesn't mean that Kickstarter is anything other than a complete rip-off, transfering risk from the business to the buyer. The way its supposed to be is you make a product, taking the risk, and profiting for doing so. Its not supposed to be you con people into giving you money, let them take the risk that you can't complete development (or that you're just a scam), and then profit as well.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:I'd be pissed by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      if you can't do it you can't do it legally. That still doesn't mean that Kickstarter is anything other than a complete rip-off, transfering risk from the business to the buyer. The way its supposed to be is you make a product, taking the risk, and profiting for doing so. Its not supposed to be you con people into giving you money, let them take the risk that you can't complete development (or that you're just a scam), and then profit as well.

      Is that any different than the risk of "pre-orders" of games or products that don't exist yet? Or buying a product that doesn't achieve critical mass and dies (The Barnes & Noble Nook, a Zune, etc.) I agree with you, by the way --- but look at Craigslist. Caveat Emptor.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    13. Re:I'd be pissed by TrollstonButterbeans · · Score: 1

      Don't most of them fail to achieve their goal? Kickstarter also does another service ... someone with a crap idea who is overexcited finds himself shot down and brought back to reality with minimal pain and with a bit of efficiency. The "best" solution to whatever issues Kickstarter has would be a competitor.

      --
      Priest: "Universe from nothing, no laws of physics, sped up time"+ huge discrepancies. Creationism? No. Big Bang Theory
    14. Re:I'd be pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have proven your product (e.g. with a successful Kickstarter project), you should be able to convince VCs to take a smaller percentage of your firm in return for their money because it is a less risky investment that an unproven product that needs VC capital just to get off the ground.

    15. Re:I'd be pissed by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      Then let me invest, rather than prebuy. Let me buy a tiny part of the profits. But I'm not going to pay to pre-purchase an item that doesn't exist yet from a company with little to no track record. That puts all the risk on me, the consumer, rather than the entrepeneur. That's ass backwards.

      Fair enough, you choice. There are lots of people though who will be willing to fund something *just for the joy of seeing it happen*. Not everything in life has to be an 'investment' to get a return. Sometimes, you take a punt on an unknown on the gamble that they are not going to scam you. Recently I got a Radian time-lapse motion photography thing delivered from a Kickstarter. It's a product that didn't exist and now does, and I'm pleased to have helped it happen. I believed in the people who wanted to create it and they didn't let me down.

      If it had failed I'd have been annoyed, of course, but that's the risk. My reward is a (pretty good) product cheaper and earlier than anyone else can get.

      Not everything is about making money.

    16. Re:I'd be pissed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.

      Are you familiar with the case of Prosper.com ?

      On November 24, 2008, the SEC found Prosper.com to be in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. As a result of these findings, the SEC imposed a cease and desist order on Prosper.[11] Due primarily to the novel nature of the peer to peer lending models, the SEC, after review, now treats all peer to peer lending transactions as sales of securities and requires that all platforms must register with the SEC.

    17. Re:I'd be pissed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Its not supposed to be you con people into giving you money, let them take the risk that you can't complete development (or that you're just a scam), and then profit as well.

      Kickstarter doesn't fully transfer the risk. According to the terms of the site, if the project creator cannot deliver the rewards, they are liable to the contributors, to refund the amount of their contributions; otherwise, they could be sued by the contributors.

      So the contributors have the risk if the project creator becomes insolvent, but they don't have the risk if the project creator has other resources, or is not insolvent but just fails to deliver

      It would be interesting to have some statistics about Kickstarter projects that were funded but failed to deliver, regarding... what exactly the result was.

      Did the contributors just accept their loss, with no legal issues; was the project creator insolvent (as in unable to pay their liabilities to the contributors); did they refund; or did a class action lawsuit result?

    18. Re:I'd be pissed by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I'm going to hope that was a joke. I don't have the heart to explain all of economics tonight.

      Dude, I get it. This and other Kickstarters aren't typical venture-capital investments. In fact, I think that is by design; I think that in the U.S., there are regulatory issues with crowd-funding venture capital, and so Kickstarter is intentionally structured this way.
      I see below where you replied to an AC with:

      But buying an item at a discount isn't an investment. It's like coming home from the mall with 20 shirts you didn't intend to buy and saying "but I saved money, they were on sale!"

      That is not what happened in the case of Pebble. What happened is: I ponied up $110 in a "pledge" (read: angel investment,) for what amounted to a 0.001% stake. Then, prior to the first VC round, the future value of my equity was discounted back to present value, and paid to me in the currency of a Pebble watch, currently valued at $150.

      Yes, I am saying the above somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But my primary point is: the only reason it is done this way is to work around regulatory issues.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    19. Re:I'd be pissed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Except there are ways to get around that. Ever known anyone who got a loan from parents/friends/ to start a business? Spin it as debt rather than equity.

      If you could avoid it looking to the government like a fixed income security; maybe they could work out a mechanism involving an optional promise to return contributors money after giving out the reward, plus the imputed interest to compensate for cost of capital at the fair market value for consumer debt; conditioned on the project generating revenue or obtaining future funding; less the fixed cost of production.

      In other words: a promise that you as an enabling contributor will recapture your contribution, before the project creator is allowed to generate revenue from the project and pocket profit.

      It makes sense; but I think the liability to the contributor would have to be a liability from Kickstarter's to the contributor; instead of a liability of the project creator in order for it to possibly be legal.
      Because I don't see every project creator going through the paperwork and expense to register individuall with the SEC.

  10. Why VCs? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    Why do they need VCs, they have millions in the bank already.

  11. Re:kickstarter: by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    That's basically what kickstarter is - it's a way for VCs to crowdsource initial investments without having to give any stock in return. As an AC noted below, in this case, it would appear that the kickstarters basically gave the VCs a gift of $15M, since now the VCs won't have to make any investment for initial development, prototyping, and manufacturing.

    It's a pretty sweet deal if you're a VC - just snap up these kickstarters that someone else paid to develop, and laugh all the way to the bank.

  12. And what's with the 'Nam-speak? by denzacar · · Score: 1

    There haven't been any Viet Cong for decades now. They're all simply Vietnamese now.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  13. Re:kickstarter: by synaptik · · Score: 1

    Kickstarters are not angel investors. Usually-- and this was the case with Pebble-- Kickstarters are prepaying for the device, and those prepayments fund development and initial manufacturing. And, the amount raised through Kickstarter was $10M, not $15M. (The latter is the figure that the VC is adding.)
    Yes, I was a Kickstarter backer for Pebble. And, I received mine, at the stated discount. So I got my expected ROI.

    --
    HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
    NO CARRIER
  14. Pebble Owner Checking In by WoodburyMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have now owned my Pebble for a month and have been using it with my iPhone 4S the entire time. I absolutely love it. The ability to keep my phone on silent while still seeing text messages, and who's calling without pulling my phone out is great. I backed it back in May 2012 when it was first featured here. One thing I love about the Pebble is it's usable! The E-Paper display and 7 day battery life got me. I once owned a Fossil Abacus (Look it up) back in 2006. It ran PalmOS 4. Battery like was dismal, a day at best, and it didn't even display the time unless you pressed the button. There was no connectivity, as smart phones were just coming into existence. After a month of use I called it quits because of the dismal battery life, always needing charging. Why I got the pebble is because I already have to charge my iPhone daily, or every other day. I don't want another device I use all the time always needing a charge. I regularly get 6 days battery life on my Pebble, and that's when Low Battery comes on. If i let it go no doubt it would go a full 7 days. Why I think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Google etc will fail in this market. I believe if any of them got into the SmartWatch market, they would use Full-Color LCD's. This means a dismal 2-3 days of battery. And the average Android and iOS user would want Video's, Songs,and all their favorite Android and iOS apps to work on it, like a tiny iPod Touch. This means battery draining graphics and higher end processors. The Pebble is great in this market because it accepts it's a Watch and a Companion device to a phone, where I dont think Apple and the other big players would try to market it as such.

    1. Re:Pebble Owner Checking In by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      This^ but without the insult

      Otherwise, a nice review, thank you (GP, not P)

    2. Re:Pebble Owner Checking In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because minor grammatical errors totally undermine his entire argument, thereby proving your intellectual superiority. Truly you are a god among men.

    3. Re:Pebble Owner Checking In by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 5, Informative

      The E-Paper display and 7 day battery life got me.

      Yes, E-Paper and not eInk. If it was the latter your battery life could perhaps be several weeks.

      E-Paper is a clever marketing term for ... a Sharp monochrome LCD display. It still requires a low current to maintain the display, even when the graphic is static.

    4. Re:Pebble Owner Checking In by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The killer for me is battery life, until they work out a way to measure it in at least months not days I will stick to a traditional watch.

    5. Re:Pebble Owner Checking In by FragHARD · · Score: 0

      I know people that got in on the pebble..... now after having it for a while they want to sell it??? I guess it wears off fast :)

      --
      FragHARD or don't frag at all
  15. Cool people like you by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    don't but use mare morals don't don't always want to pull out our brick of a phone out of our pocket do.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Cool people like you by Rob_Bryerton · · Score: 4, Funny

      He uses the morals of a female horse to... what????

  16. Re:kickstarter: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it's not that simple. The Pebble people aren't idiots, surely the investors got substantially less of the company in return for their $15 million dollars when the company already has an existing product and people who know about it on the internet and so forth.

    Whereas if they gave $15 million to a company with no product and no recognition, they could get whatever they wanted. $15 million buys you more when you get in on the ground floor, and they didn't.

  17. Re:kickstarter: by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    The new and easy way for the Rothchilds, Banker barons, and CIA to filter any new technology coming up and actively controlling it and distributing it to their liking.

    If you cocksuckers didn't notice this is what the entertainment industry did with American Idol when it started: A systematic system of filtering all of the talent in the world so that in the end they can be controlled by said Rothchilds, Banker Barons and CIA

    Americans are fucking stupid.

    funniest thing I've read all day! someone mod this funny (esp. the american idol bit).

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  18. Another Pebble Owner here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My thoughts, for what it's worth:

    Appearance - not bad but not great. I wouldn't get one in any of the bright colors that they offer (but if that's your look, then there you go), but my plain black Pebble looks okay. It's a bit big, but not as big as I thought it'd be. It looks 'normal' enough to not get a whole lot of looks in a typical business-casual environment, but it's not going to win any design contests. However, for me, I wanted it for the functionality, so the look isn't that important to me.

    Build quality - so so. I don't feel like it's going to break if I drop it, but it's mostly plastic and doesn't feel as rock-solid as, say, an iPhone 4/4S/5.

    Battery life - Great, now. It was pretty poor at first (when sync'ed w/ an iPhone; I heard Android users had better luck), but a recent software update has improved the battery life tremendously. I now get 7+ days regularly (though I usually turn the bluetooth off at night).

    Watch - it tells time well enough. :-) I love the ability to change watch faces. They just recently opened up the SDK, so I expect more watch faces to be available as well as other apps.

    Accelerometer -- I'm sure this will be used in many apps in the future, but for now, it's still kind of a cool feature that I can just flick my wrist to turn on the backlight. :-)

    Phone sync - this is what it's all about. It's...okay, but it has potential, and keeps improving rapidly. There is currently an annoying iOS bug where it doesn't always sync up with all the services (SMS, email, calendar, etc) you want it to, and you have to toggle the alert in the iOS settings for it to see the connection again. I usually do this once a day whether it needs it or not, since it only takes a few seconds. Regardless, it's GREAT to have. My personal favorite is the calendar reminders (I'm in a out of meetings a lot all day at work). It's great to check quick text messages without pulling out my phone too. Emails are usually too long to be worth reading on a watch, but it can do some of that if you want. You can also control media playback with it, pretty much out of the box. And it displays the number or name of someone calling you, or whoever you're on the line with, so for example you can check your watch and ignore a call without taking out your phone.

    Apps are finally starting to arrive. Supposedly Runkeeper has some Pebble integration now, though I don't use that app personally.

    There definitely seems to be more you can do with it on Android, but I'm an iPhone user at the moment, so I can't speak to that at all.

    Recently released updates seem to have enabled some key functionality for someone to possibly make a "killer app", so I am anxious to see what starts showing up in the near future.

    It's well worth keeping an eye on if you consider yourself to be even a little bit of an early adopter:
    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts

    1. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying that other than just looking plain ugly (seriously ugly) it provides you with a lot of the functionality that your iPhone already provides. Tells you whose calling...iPhone does that. Shows you a text message...iPhone does that. Controls your music...iPhone does that. Calendar...iPhone does that. Read e-mail....yup iPhone does that too.

      Redundant technology is redundant.

    2. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by lxs · · Score: 1

      It's big and ugly and it needs to be teathered to a phone...It's like strapping a RIM Playbook on your wrist!

    3. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why have a tablet when your laptop does everything it does and more? What have a smartphone when your tablet does almost everything it does, and a dumbphone is way cheaper and arguably better for phone calls?

      And yet millions of people buy tablets and smartphones. Huh, I wonder if they add some value in some way that you simply don't understand? :-)

        - I can check my Pebble when both my hands are full, I can't do that with my phone or tablet.
        - It's easier to glance at my watch to see who's calling than it is to pull out my phone (especially when driving).
        - I don't have to press a button on it to see the time/date (and hopefully soon, the weather and other data).
        - I don't have to unlock it at all.

      Don't like it? Don't buy one. But make no mistake, there's a market here, potentially a big one.

    4. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by SilentTristero · · Score: 1

      My experience with mine is that it's smaller than my last watch (not big), the faces are quite attractive (not ugly), and tethering to a phone isn't a bug, it's the #1 feature. I keep my phone on silent all the time now and just route the notifications to my watch. Quick glance at it during meetings to see if the email/text/whatever is important, and the phone stays in my pocket.

    5. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's big and ugly and it needs to be teathered to a phone...It's like strapping a RIM Playbook on your wrist!

      It's big and ugly like every watch out there these days. Watch style is just stupid. Huge watches with fake diving rings. Ugly as an American car. What happened to elegance?

    6. Re:Another Pebble Owner here by phorm · · Score: 1

      though I usually turn the bluetooth off at night

      Can this be set on a schedule or does it require manual intervention?

  19. Re:Oh, my! by tibman · · Score: 1

    FYI, people generally go with "gross" or "nasty" now. Also, assholes generally smell bad anyways however the smell of death should never emanate from a living person. Get that guy to the hospital.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  20. Which might be OK for a watch by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure that e-Ink would be better in this case, depending on how you configure the watch-face. For an ebook reader, you read for approximately an hour, changing pages every 2-3 seconds. For a watch, it may be updating every second (assuming you have a "seconds" counter of some sort showing, or a chronometer etc). E-ink might not be fast enough to refresh, and with 1-update-per-sec it also might have have much advantage battery-wise.

    The naming is a bit sneaky, though.