If they were principled, they would have followed through with the original product. Instead they used the money to start building something slightly different. It was a bait and switch.
Giving people's money back is saving face to avoid a huge backlash.
Speaking as someone who has, several times in his life, tried to create various things, to object to a pivot of this infinitesimal magnitude seems mad. By this standard every successful entrepreneur on the face of the planet is dishonest.
> So Kickstarter companies aren't allowed to pivot.
In a word, no. Kickstarter explicitly forbids using Kickstarter to create and fund a company. You fund products on Kickstarter and if a company cannot deliver that product without "pivoting" or changing it dramatically, then give me my fucking money back. I'm not funding your adventures in learning how to run a business. I'm funding a fucking product.
Not without consulting their backers. 'Pivoting' means not delivering the item people backed. On the other hand, I think the refunds should be the end of complaints.
Refunds + appropriate interest rates for such a high-risk “investment” + penalty for not upholding their end of a promise + …. I don’t see how they could afford to satisfy any morally (if not legally) reasonable demands.
It's definitely not an investment (as Kickstarter continually remind you), and there were no penalties agreed upfront. Seriously, do you want more restrictive consumer protection on KS projects than when you buy offered products at retail that have the order cancelled because it wasn't in stock?
I'm normally the last person to get libertarian about "you agreed to this contract", but this seems to be one case where it's appropriate. Or does it need more warning that you're not buying an extant product?
AndrewDucker’s comment above, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10002117 , does not look like “you’re not buying an extant product” to me. In fact, it looks like the exact opposite of that, more like “we’re finished and can start making these now”.
If they were principled, they would have followed through with the original product. Instead they used the money to start building something slightly different. It was a bait and switch.
Giving people's money back is saving face to avoid a huge backlash.