[dpryan]

This is we like the selfstarter model. Backers don't get charged until the product is ready. And project creators are incentivised to use efficient techniques that get their product to market quickly.

There are flaws with this too, which I touched upon in the post. I think this is an opportunity.

[pc86]

s/Backers/"People who just pre-ordered something that doesn't exist yet"

I thought the whole point of Kickstarter was to "kickstart" your project with an infusion of cash allowing you to quit your job/outsource more work/whatever to get to market?

[dpryan]

Yes - but it doesn't work for hardware. It leads to projects failing to deliver on their expectations. Failures hurt the Kickstarter brand. They know that. Which is why they're moving away from hardware.

The "kickstart" part is what's missing with the selfstarter approach. We're funded so we didn't have this problem.

Maybe a new model could be a hybrid of incubator and crowdfunding. You apply with an idea. The incubator provides some up-front capital to get you started. They have expertise in hardware mentoring. Logistics, manufacturing, customer support, IP, warranties etc.

The incubator could build a brand and network of supporters, but be purely focused on cultivating innovative consumer product ideas and getting them to market.

[DanBC2]

Hardware incubator sounds like a really good idea.

Many people are not interested in funding hardware projects at all - hardware just has a lousy reputation.

But having a hardware incubator means you concentrate expertise in all the stuff that's traditionally thought to be hard about hardware. Things like suppliers and distribution and stock control and sub-contracting etc etc.