[johnfactorial]

> If you gave $700 to a company who promised to deliver you a scooter a few years down the line if all of the dominoes fell exactly as planned... I would argue that you got what you paid for even if it amounts to nothing tangible in the long run.

Is that what happened with this company? That's the model of kickstarters and the like, but this story sounds like it was a real company offering a product for sale. If a company can form, offer a product, sell 350 units, pay employees & expenses, then fold without delivering product or refund, nor facing any legal repercussions, what's to stop the same employees and founders from following that method ad infinitum? Form company #2, offer a different vapor, take in money from sales of the never-to-be product, spend it on salaries, declare that the product won't be delivered nor refunds given, and move on to company #3. If that's what this company has done, and the court systems are never burdened with tackling such an issue, it is a viable if entirely unethical model for the people involved.

[ghshephard]

You don't really "sell" products on kickstarter, you try and convince people that you'll actually follow through on your vision.

I've backed a dozen or so, and I've got about a 50% hit rate of anything coming through. The failures are always interesting. Trying to guess, ahead of time, which ones are failures (or scams) - is an education into itself. They always seem so earnest in the beginning.

But, yeah - go into kickstarters with your eyes open. Particularly with people who don't have a track record of deliverying - that, in my mind, is the best signal around. If they've come through more then 3 or 4 times in the past, that's a good indication they may come through on this one.

[alistairSH]

You don't really "sell" products on kickstarter,

The link doesn't mention Kickstarter at all - I assumed Unicorn was selling through their own website?

[djshelleyshell]

Correct. This was not a Kickstarter or anything like it. They represented like they had product at the time that I ordered.

[mrandish]

Then you have a legitimate claim. Unfortunately, it sounds like you are an unsecured creditor, thus you can get in line at the bankruptcy hearing (metaphorically speaking) but you are going to be second to last in line after the secured creditors, employee wages, taxes, etc thus are not likely to see anything.

[noonespecial]

I consider kickstarter an entertainment product. You pay to watch and participate a bit. The physical product/non-product at the end is part of the "story".

[braindeath]

> real company

This is a bit nebulous. Every consumer, especially where the expense is a lot of money for them would do well to give this idea more thought.

A pretty website, a few employees and some prototypes doesn’t hit a meaningful bar, let alone millions of dollars in capital (which this joint didn’t even have), TBH. Too bad fuckedcompany is no longer around, it did a great service.

[jascii]

Prototypes? This company was essentially selling a rebranded Segway ES2.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/25/segway-n...

[braindeath]

How is that link related to this company? Do you have some information they were even the same supplier?

Regardless, doesn't change my basic point, which is that "real company" is a nebulous concept and not prudent for a consumer. My neighbor's venture without even a business certificate may be a more "real company" because if he fucks me over he has at least has to see me everyday for years.

[jascii]

Your right, I copied the wrong link.. This article touches on the subject: https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/20/18691357/unicorn-electric...

I agree with you and didn't mean to dispute your point, just add to it.

[jberm123]

>what's to stop the same employees and founders from following that method ad infinitum?

Informed consumers

[TeMPOraL]

Part of the task of marketing is to disinform customers. Companies existing to scam people are necessarily marketing-heavy.

[flyGuyOnTheSly]

>Companies existing to scam people are necessarily marketing-heavy.

Consumers can absolutely that.

I certainly have.

If you're screaming in my face and hurrying me along to pull out my wallet and buy something ASAP, 99 times out of 100 it's a scam.

[sieabahlpark]

I didn't realize scamming was a legal business venture.

[lotsofpulp]

Depends who you’re scamming. Quite a few powerful and rich people who I would classify as being “scammers”, but their victim is usually a group of people such as taxpayers.

[jberm123]

Did I say I support scamming?

[mehhh]

Plenty of companies never deliver a product, hence chargebacks being built into our credit & debit systems (and being available for checks in a restricted form)

[johnfactorial]

Informing all consumers in the market is not a legitimately accomplishable solution to the problem. As long as there are 350 consumers unaware that these people have done this before, and they never have a day in court over it, this story can repeat itself forever.

Maybe informed lenders is a solution, though.

[jberm123]

Assuming this is as easy as you make it out to be, don't you think it would be relatively easy to host this scam business' site offshore/anonymously and scam people outside the jurisdiction of the US courts?

[mcbuilder]

"There is a sucker born every minute"

[djshelleyshell]

I don’t think I’m a sucker for ordering a product promised to be in stock.

[jberm123]

I don't think you are either. But it's a risk you're taking buying a product from a fledgling internet-based startup. Shall we make it easier to start an internet-based business over a brick and mortar shop with laws that benefit the former with the latter's inherent advantage?

[johnfactorial]

> But it's a risk you're taking buying a product from a fledgling internet-based startup.

This is my problem. It is not reasonable to expect a purchase of a product online to be a gamble, a risk that you will get nothing in exchange for your money. No matter whether they're internet based, no matter how old they are, if a company offers a product for sale, it should not be "risky" to purchase it.

The comment I replied to said we shouldn't burden the courts with taking the people behind such companies to task. But if we don't, there's nothing stopping them from doing it again and again.

[jberm123]

When I buy a product from a brick and mortar store, there is NO risk to not receiving the product.

When I buy a product online, this is ALWAYS a risk, no matter what.

Your solution uses my tax dollars to make online businesses more competitive with brick and mortar stores, thereby making it more difficult to run a profitable brick and mortar store/mom and pop shop.

>No matter whether they're internet based, no matter how old they are, if a company offers a product for sale, it should not be "risky" to purchase it.

Your solution offloads some risk from the consumer onto everyone else. I agree with the comment, you put the burden on the courts and by extension, me, to pay taxes to support other people's poor ability to reason about what businesses may or may not be scams and encourage risk-taking buying products from risky businesses.

>But if we don't, there's nothing stopping them from doing it again and again.

Again, informed consumers... Accept you're taking a risk buying a product from a fledgling internet-based startup, a risk that wouldn't just go away even if we all incur the large expense getting the courts involved.

We're both basically just saying everything we've already said. No sense in going in circles