The Kickstarter Blog

FAQ: Guidelines for Hardware and Product Design Projects

On Thursday we announced new guidelines for Hardware and Product Design projects on Kickstarter, including prohibiting product simulations, renderings, and offering multiple quantities of a reward. Today we wanted to answer some common questions we've seen in response. Thanks for reading.

Kickstarter announced that it's prohibiting product renderings in the Hardware and Product Design categories, but "rendering" can mean a lot of things. What does Kickstarter mean?

To clarify, we mean photorealistic renderings of a product concept. Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process will continue to be allowed. Seeing the guts of the creative process is important. We love that stuff. However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited.

Do the new guidelines mean that Kickstarter will only accept Hardware and Product Design projects with finished products?

Not at all. We simply ask creators to share with backers exactly what’s been done so far, show how the product currently works, and explain how it will be completed. In short, we expect creators to show their work. Backers have shown that they're happy to get involved in projects that are in earlier stages when the creator is clear about the remaining work and their ability to complete it.

Do the new guidelines apply beyond Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products?

No. The new guidelines only apply to Hardware and Product Design projects that are developing new products. These guidelines do not apply to Design projects like the LowLine and +Pool or Hardware projects like Stompy: The Giant Rideable Walking Robot. Why? They aren’t developing new products that backers are expecting in their mailboxes.

How will Kickstarter know whether something is a simulation or rendering?

We may not know. We do only a quick review to make sure a project meets our guidelines. If an obvious simulation or photorealistic rendering is spotted during that review, that project will not be allowed to launch. If a simulation or photorealistic rendering is discovered after a project launches, that project will be canceled. Everyone should continue to use their best judgment when deciding whether or not to back a project.

Kickstarter announced that Hardware and Product Design rewards could only be offered in single quantities. What if my product works best as a pair or as a set of five?

As we noted in the announcement, sensible sets are fine. If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece. Creators will have to decide what works best for their project.

Final thoughts?

We created Kickstarter so more creative work could exist in the world, and last week's changes are in service of that mission. We're confident that these updates will lead to an even better Kickstarter. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, and thanks for being a part of it!

Comments

    1. Creator Jonathan Nation on September 24, 2012

      "single quantities" will cause multiple accounts & a bigger headache in fufillment.

    2. Creator Project Hexapod on September 24, 2012

      Thanks for the clarification! We're glad to know Kickstarter remains a good home for us. I suggest modifying the definition in your previous blog post to mention that these rules are targeting products being made to be distributed to backers, just to be clear.

    3. Creator Jessica Ross on September 24, 2012

      Those fixed quantity rules are still going to cause a headache.

    4. Creator Gabriel Meunier on September 24, 2012

      Thanks for the clarification!

    5. Creator Willie Blount on September 24, 2012

      Everything (except such quantity limitation) makes more sense now - renders are cool, photorealistic renders are not. Just like the renders (photorealistic vs none), there's a middle ground --- CAD/non-photorealistic. Isn't there some sort of middle ground for the quantity (unlimited vs 1)... maybe limit to 10 or a certain value.

    6. Creator Corwin Whitefield on September 24, 2012

      The quantity rules still don't make sense. There have been and will continue to be plenty of new hardware product Kickstarters where the same product makes sense as both a single unit and in multiples or packaged with companion products. If a backer wants to take the risk of backing for multiples of a product, that's their right. Especially with the rules being made for risks and for eliminating photorealistic renders, there's no good reason to punish backers and creators like this.

    7. Creator Chevykid on September 24, 2012

      as long as this quantity rules stay in effect i will NOT back another project!!!

    8. Creator Martin Kessler on September 24, 2012

      "The quantity rules still don't make sense. There have been and will continue to be plenty of new hardware product Kickstarters where the same product makes sense as both a single unit and in multiples or packaged with companion products. If a backer wants to take the risk of backing for multiples of a product, that's their right. Especially with the rules being made for risks and for eliminating photorealistic renders, there's no good reason to punish backers and creators like this.“

      I second that, what about products that can be used both in singles as well as in pairs (or even more). We are working on game controllers that can be used for 1-4 player games. So wanting to back one, two, three or four makes all perfect sense for the backer.

    9. Creator Amateurasu on September 24, 2012

      The quantity rule is still ridiculous. No matter what quantity the creator decides is "sensible", there are going to be backers for whom something else is sensible, and may not back the project as a result. There is no possible way this rule could bring more backers, and it could easily drive some away.
      You're jerking everybody around for the sake of people who, despite everything, don't understand what they are getting into with KickStarter. Even with all these extra rules, there are no guarantees. So you are helping those people get even more of a sense of false security than they already have, and making an even stronger implication of a guarantee that simply doesn't exist.
      You're better off just really hammering in the notion that this is venture capital, and it's entirely possible that a project could come to nothing. Sugarcoating it will only make the problem worse. Better for these people to take their lumps, learn their lesson, and either invest more wisely in the future (or at least with a better understanding of the risks), or leave KS entirely and take their whining with them. Either outcome would be beneficial.

    10. Creator Catherine Wiener on September 25, 2012

      As a backer of many projects, again I say, if the designers have them I WANT TO SEE PHOTOREALISTIC RENDERINGS OF WHAT THE PRODUCT WILL LOOK LIKE!! That's the entire point. Slap "RENDERING" all over the pics with disclaimers everywhere, but let the potential backers see them. Banning them altogether is still wrong. Ditto with the multiple purchases for many reasons stated above and in the previous blog.

      I am an informed consumers and *I* should be responsible for what projects I do and do not back with ALL the information the designers/creators can provide to me.

      EDUCATE THE CONSUMER/BACKER... DON'T PENALIZE THE DESIGNERS/CREATORS.

    11. Creator Irx on September 25, 2012

      "Backers are idiots and should be overprotected".

    12. Creator Eric Chu on September 25, 2012

      "However renderings that could be mistaken for finished products are prohibited."

      Please, reconsider banning renders. If you're making a product, having a render is an important step in developing it. If gives people an idea of what the end product would look like. Like many people have said, please allow renders but make sure there's a disclaimer that states it's a render.

    13. Creator KOLOS, Inc. on September 25, 2012

      Again, nothing new and that makes sense.

      Photo-realistic renderings are the most important part of the decision-making. They are STILL not allowed.
      How are we, project creators, supposed to show to backers what are they going to get in the mailbox - whats the finish, whats the color, what does it feel like (you can guess sometimes by watching A REAL RENDER!)

      Single quantity rule - non sense. Not so 'creative' project creators in Hardware will offer only ONE reward level - their product in a single quantity. How will this not make it a store ? How will this reduce price for multiple quantities and ease backers?

      A question not answered - how come these changes apply for a over a single day with no warning in advance?

      I, as a project creator, am deeply disappointed with those new anti-creator and anti-backer rules and I am seriously considering moving away from Kickstarter with my project. And believe me, it is worthy.

    14. Creator Manuel Desrochers on September 25, 2012

      "Today we wanted to answer some common questions we've seen in response. Thanks for reading." Are your serious KS, "common questions"? The 450+ comments posted in reaction to your new set of rules are not "common questions" but rather unanimously against it as it is. Please don't act as if there was no concern your community and change the no renders rule and the single quantity rule to something more flexible. Acknowledge the comments and suggestions of all those who took the time to give you constructive feedbacks on this sudden and drastic change.

    15. Creator David Hawkins on September 25, 2012

      Thanks for the update.

      I will note, however, that CAD software becomes more photo-realistic year-on-year (as it should). If my future project is rejected I will have to spend extra time putting my renders through Photoshop to make them more fake looking - not the most productive use of my time. I still favor a disclaimer for 'Product Render Only - Not Actual Product'...

      Also, if there is a valid legal reason for limiting quantities please explain! Without explanation, the crowds won't settle. :)

      Anyway, thanks again for clarifying things KS.

    16. Creator Tiffany Ross on September 25, 2012

      Repeat: Quantity rules do not work. I have people who pledged for duplicates of some items so they could give them as gifts for Christmas.

    17. Creator Olaf on September 25, 2012

      Repeat: Quantity rules do not work :-(

    18. Creator Terence Tam on September 25, 2012

      Give them some credit - at least they are now seeing that their knee-jerk reaction on Thursday is the equivalent of blowing their leg off with a shotgun.

      At the end of the day, you can't fix stupid. Take a look at this project, for example:

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1202837765/z-torque-bicycle-cranks-ride-faster-longer-easier…

      Despite a bunch of comments explaining why it doesn't work, people are still pledging money for it. If no amount of backer education can convince these backers that it's a bad idea, they deserve to lose their money.

      Here's a suggestion: How about finding someone that is technically competent to add to your staff to evaluate engineering and product design projects. Put up disclaimers on photo-realistic renderings, and put up a big warning sign that the user must scroll to the bottom to click through explaining that their pledge is not a purchase / pre order and the risks involved. You will never be able to protect the lowest on the IQ totem pole no matter what you do, but this way your ass is covered, and you are not penalizing the project creators - a good percentage of them are probably eyeing alternatives now.

      The quantity rules are still not very well thought out. Somehow, I don't trust Kickstarter to review and decide what constitutes a "sensible set", after this fiasco.

    19. Creator jeff bare on September 25, 2012

      Why a stylized unphotorealistic rendering is preferred over a photorealistic render is a mystery to me. Allow renders with a "This is a render" disclaimer requirement.

    20. Creator Doug and Cheri Sohn on September 25, 2012

      I agree that the quantity rule is a mistake. Our U-Dot Creative Space System was originally rejected under the "quantity" rule and I had to point out that this is a modular system that can only be used by combining multiple pieces--something that I would have thought would be obvious. Trying to deal with the problem by saying "sensible sets are fine" gives project founders no predictability as to what will be acceptable. This is a rule that has no valid basis and is so ill-defined that it is only going to cause a large "quantity" of problems.

      The "rendering" rule is just as bad--no reasonable definition, no valid basis. It would be far more clearly defined, far more easy to predict what is acceptable, and would far better accomplish the desired result to have a simple requirement that anything that is not an actual photo have a caption that explains what it is--rendering, CAD drawing, etc..

      I can tell you, as a lawyer (my "day job") that if these were laws, they would be invalid as being unenforceably vague.

    21. Creator Naveed Ghalib on September 25, 2012

      agree with Jeff above. I am in the process of making a product and making prototypes. However I dont want to make colored prototypes as its VERY costly and time consuming. I would rather show the actual product in the SLA prototype and show the colored options in the rendering with a disclaimer.

    22. Creator Wessel on September 25, 2012

      The clarification on the rendering limit means that hardware projects are able to show their intend, just not in a possible misleading photorealistic way. That's fine with me, thanks for the clarification there.

      The quantity limitation does remain a bit of an issue, but it's not the end of the world.

    23. Creator Bobby Davis on September 25, 2012

      Terence, yes , let's add more layers to the approval process by having Kickstarter hire interpretive engineers . Let's have Kickstarter hire engineers and then they can form an engineering committee that meet once a week to evaluate projects and they forward their recommendation to the approval committee who then makes a recommendation to the project approval manager who then submits the request to the approval supervisor who then reviews the project before sending the final approval to the approver and chief who after three weeks of deliberation sends the project approval to the senior engineering committee who then makes their recommendation that the project be approved but not before the sub-engineering committee and the senior engineer committee agree that they understand what the project is.
      Kickstarter's minimalist approval guidelines are a good thing and actually pretty streamlined and quick. In this regard, Kickstarter does let the backer decide for themselves to back a project based on it's own merits.

    24. Creator Dennis J. Jackson II on September 25, 2012

      About product renderings..
      I agree that you need to see, no BS where are you at right now.. today.. with you product ... but I still want to see what the ultimate vision is. What are you aiming for?.

      For a lot of products (see Apple) the design of the final product IS the key factor that will determine if it is viewed as a success. I am ok with a HUGE FLASHING RED LABEL that says CONCEPT RENDERING all over the place, but I think that high fidelity renderings are key to a funding decision for me.

      Like why I backed pebble and not metawatch strata. The design wasn't there.

      So bottom line, kudos on forcing the open view of exactly where you are with prototypes (revolights did a good job) but the No renderings is too limiting.

    25. Creator Dynamo Innovations Group, Inc. on September 25, 2012

      This is a bit silly, since many of the most successful products on Kickstarter have had rewards with multiple products offered. This will decrease the amount that project creators can bring in, and thus decreases Kickstarter's profit.

    26. Creator Chuck Marshall on September 25, 2012

      KS should allow a rendering IF the page also contains a side-by-side reference of the current prototype. The rendering should be required to bear a label stating somethign like "THIS IS A PICTURE OF WHAT WE EXPECT THE PRODUCT TO LOOK LIKE. IT DOES NOT YET EXIST. PLEASE SEE THE RISKS AND CHALLENGES SECTION BELOW."

      As for the quantities, I understand that KS does not want to give the appearane of a store, but all you are really doing is channeling backers into multiple accounts. This will create accounting trouble for frequent backers (no central spot to monitor activity), shipping issues (mutliple rewards being fulfilled to the same address), and assumes that a creator knows how the product will be utliized (do people who backed Ubi want 1 Ubi for a single room, 2 for multiple rooms/ homes, or more to cover more rooms across). By turning a blind eye to multi-accounting, you are not insulating yourself from possible liability, or even insulating people from possible dissapointment. You are just changing how liability will attach or how people will be dissapointed. I better approach than micor-managing the quantities, is to to provide better education about what the purpose of Kickstarter is, make people clearly acknowledge (for your records) that they've read the approproiate disclaimers about risk, and let people manage the risk on their own.

    27. Creator Cole Busse on September 25, 2012

      The multiple quantities will be a problem. I think further consideration is required there.

    28. Creator Sky Kruse on September 25, 2012

      I largely agree with the above commentary: speculative pictures should be clearly labeled as such ("artist's conception" or the like) and multiple products make sense in many categories (for instance, buying just one kid's toy would be a bad idea in my household...)

    29. Creator Don Pattee on September 25, 2012

      Well, you somewhat listened. Now just need to go and finish reverting the 'quantity' rules.

      Great example: remote camera/flash controllers. A single unit allows person to remotely control of a camera. A pair of units allows a camera to remotely control a flash. A trio of units allows a person to remotely control a camera and flash, or a camera to control two flashes.

      Those are all extremely common scenarios, they are all 'reasonable' and they are all the 'minimum' that certain people would need to be able to actually use the item.

    30. Creator Don Pattee on September 25, 2012

      Oh, and photorealistic renders are so easy to make in design programs, prohibiting them is silly. Make a requirement for a "THIS IS A RENDERING" banner to be superimposed on each one.

    31. Creator Michael Meissner on September 25, 2012

      Like others, the quantities limit still is a thorn in my side, and frankly it will be factor in my decision on whether to back any more KS projects. At this point, I am leaning towards not backing anything new on KS. I will still log onto KS to check on projects I have funded previously, and the two projects that I have backed that are still open (Deck of Extraordinary Voyages and RadioBlock), I will still fund. However, I probably won't go searching for new, neat projects like I used to. As I said previously, have a nice life KS.

    32. Creator jamesbh on September 25, 2012

      The multiple quantities is a massive issue for those of us who live in Europe - postage at $10-15 dollars a time is annoyingly prohibitive on cheaper items. I probably wouldn't back any physical product worth less than $25 if I couldn't go in with others. Of the projects I have backed, 75% have had multiple purchase options of one sort or another.

      I also feel sure if you messaged and asked for an extra of something, most creators would oblige for a corresponding bump in pledge, making this a pretty unenforceable rule.

      I can (barely) see where KS is coming from, not wanting to have creators promising to send out store sized shipments before the product is completed, but banning all multiple quantities for non-set items is a really terrible idea.

    33. Creator Ramon Gomez on September 25, 2012

      I for one will voice my support of the quantity limits. The reason why many of you are against it is because you're still largely looking at the KS experience as you BUYING something when that's not what it is. KS is meant to be a way to enable creativity and innovation, not an alternative place to buy things.
      The quantity limit is a philosophically consistent way to get that message across.

    34. Creator Terence Tam on September 25, 2012

      @Bobby Davis: No need to be a snarky ass - unless the approval process you've described is how things actually happen at your work.

      There are just tons of projects that gets through the approval process that has zero chance of working as described. See below:

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1202837765/z-torque-bicycle-cranks-ride-faster-longer-easier…

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/277210494/call-key…

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/277210494/paint-be-gone…

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/277210494/a-just-a-level…

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/277210494/key-pad-case…

      It wouldn't hurt to have some basic filtering to stop these projects from being posted in the first place. Would be more appropriate use of time than limiting "photo realistic rendering" and vague / unenforceable "sensible multiple" rule, IMHO.

    35. Creator Janice Schroeder on September 25, 2012

      maybe some real examples of what created this need for new requirements would help. Buying Christmas presents isn't the point of crowd funding...some people don't understand that.

    36. Creator Bobby Davis on September 25, 2012

      @Terence Tam. The project filtering you advocate already exist and it's called Quirky. To say a project has "zero" chance is sooo what Kickstarter isn't.

    37. Creator Jonathan Nation on September 25, 2012

      @Ramon Gomez

      Read the first post as a comment to this. It is plain and simple - this artificual limitation will not stop people from "ordering" multiple copies, it'll just cuase the person to open multiple KS accounts.

      What the quantity rules will do is cause the "number of backers" to artificially be raised, while adding headaches to the creator when going to fufill.

      The other thing it does is it removes the option for bulk discounts:
      Previously lets say that the creater would do:
      $10 for 1
      $18 for 2
      $25 for 3

      The reason the economics works is because of the shipping.
      Now it'll be either:
      $30 for 3 (on three seperate accounts) or within the campaign docs it'll say, add an additional or $9 more. Which some campaigns already do.

      KS cannot stop people from "ordering" multiple copies by limiting what the creator does.

    38. Creator Ben Phipps on September 25, 2012

      the quanty rule is no good at all

    39. Creator Ben Phipps on September 25, 2012

      and why can't I delete my own post or at least edit it?

    40. Creator sgllama on September 25, 2012

      As others do, I still strongly disagree with the quantities issue.

      At the risk of repeating what others have said above, and in no particular order:

      For UK (and probably other international) backers the charges attached to customs charges mean that it can be very costly to order just one item around the $25 mark, because you'll pay an extra $12 flat rate plus proportional taxes; order two or more and the flat rate can be absorbed until it is - reasonable - on a per unit basis.
      If you open multiple KS accounts to order the extras, as will no doubt happen - it happens already - you're putting a lot of extra hassle on the project creator (as you'll certainly be begging for all the items to be shipped together or be paying $12 on each).

      For technology projects there is often no way you can put a sensible number of items together. It is easy to quickly find projects such as Tod
      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/rowdyrobot/tod-connect-real-world-actions-to-mobile-devices-a
      Digispark
      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/digistump/digispark-the-tiny-arduino-enabled-usb-dev-board
      or RadioBlocks
      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/545073874/radioblock-simple-radio-for-arduino-or-any-embedde
      where many people would find a single unit to be the perfect number (RadioBlocks, maybe two is a more sensible minimum) whilst others only have a valid use for them if they have a dozen.

      Or just the desire to give them as gifts (without causing family fights - which of all the nieces and nephews do you give your one Makey Makey to?)

    41. Creator Ramon Gomez on September 25, 2012

      @Jonathan Nation:
      Your first point is immaterial. People cheat on their taxes every year. Does that mean we shouldn't have taxes any more?
      Your second point is still more "I'm buying stuff" logic, which is clearly what KS is trying to move away from.

    42. Creator jamesbh on September 25, 2012

      One more quick thought: Kickstarter is primarily about providing a service to two groups - project creators and project backers.

      The rendering change does make things more difficult for creators, but at least there is an argument that it improves the service for the backers. (Clear labelling of renders seems a more reasonable response, but whatever)

      The quantity change on the other hand hurts both creators (who will raise less money) and backers (who lose choice and possibly money). It will even screw with KS data analytics as more people use multiple accounts and top up pledging to get around the change. There is NO party in the whole exchange that is better off!

    43. Creator Laurel S on September 25, 2012

      Although I do understand that Kickstarter shouldn't be viewed as "a store", I don't think restricting access to either photorealistic renderings or quantity limiting is going to do anything to make Kickstarter seem less of a 'store'.

      I do agree that there should be some heavy-duty watermarking or big red flashing signs saying something is a rendering, and I also like the idea of seeing where the creators are in the process (and along the process) - heck this is actually 75% of why I like backing creators, and in fact back some projects that if I'd seen them just sitting on a store shelf, more likely than not just walked by, but because I get to "see" where the creators are, and where they want to go (yes, in shiny renderings sometimes), it makes me more interested in backing the work. In effect I'm "paying" to get an insider peek into how something goes and I'm quite happy with that.

      As others have pointed out, the quantity choking is difficult to measure, and as someone who has used 2 accounts to back a project, I'd really rather not do that again, and as has been pointed out, there are lots of us who want to buy more than one piece of what is really a "one piece" set (i.e. a pebble watch), either for presents, or for groups of people who want to save a bit on shipping costs, or even for some of us who have friends who 'love' a project, but don't have an amazon account or credit card etc but still want to 'back' a project.

      I would also support larger "delivary date" information, make it bigger/bolder/in red - something other than that tiny black text hidden in the reward tiers. At the same time, you might also change the wording to say "Expected delivary" to further put across the idea that projects aren't box & go ready to ship immediately. Or on the 2nd page of backing when you're selecting the reward, add the expected delivary there too. Have it in the e-mails that go out saying you've backed a project.

      As far as delays go, I understand that there are always hiccups and issues, this is after all a new product and a lot of new entrepreneurs going for the first times to overseas manufacturing & shipping and all that, but for every angry comment I see in a "sorry, we're delayed" project update, there's usually 5-10 saying "thanks for letting us know, we're looking forward to seeing it". Don't let the bad apples ruin it for the rest of us!

      Please reconsider KS, the changes really don't help make KS not a "store", but they do harm the ability for creators & backers to communicate and come up with reward solutions that work for everyone.

    44. Creator Erik Berls on September 25, 2012

      @Ramon Gomez,
      I can see why you don't think quantity matters. Given your choice of projects to back, I can see little reason why one would want more than one. Card games, video, recipe books, etc. Technology projects are different. It's not that hard to accidentally fry a Teensy. Digisparks were designed to be "disposable". Come back when you've backed some Technology.

    45. Creator Greg K, of the ∞ on September 25, 2012

      Kickstarter doesn't want to be a pre-order store front. People! Stop saying "but we WANT a store front" .... you just won’t win this argument.

      Kickstarter doesn't want people funding projects "to get Christmas gifts for their friends" or to "get an extra for someone that doesn't use kickstarter" nor even to "stock a store shelf full of them". This is not what Kickstarter (the company) wants to be. Period. They want you to fund a project because you LIKE it, not for the ‘reward’.
      If you want multiples of an item wait for it to be sold via the project creators own website, a retail store, or whatever - AFTER the project has funded and has progressed to a Retail phase.

      While I personally wish that Kickstarter DIDN'T have this opinion of themselves, in the end, they DO. Arguing about how bad this will be for people that want to "stock up" on some item just re-enforces to Kickstarter that people HAVE been using this site as Store. And will cause them to dig their heals in deeper.

    46. Creator Steve Bausch on September 25, 2012

      I most definitely agree with Terence Tam and his skepticism of many projects requiring manufacturing, and if you think Mr. Tam's opinion is specific to a demographic stratum, I assure you he and I would have rather stilted conversations, unless we were discussing Kickstarter's need to have a manufacturing engineer (or two, or three) vet the projects that require moving parts, electronics, more than ten thousand lines of source code, etc.

      Terence, I noticed you didn't mention Shimi, http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/143402057/shimi-a-smart-musical-robot-for-your-iphone…. Am I the only one thinking the "photorealistic" prohibitions should apply to Shimi? That device seems to have over 2-3 dozen unique injection-molded components, and several motor drives, with either open-loop or closed-loop control systems.

      How is THAT going to happen for $100,000 ???

      In closing, THANK YOU KICKSTARTER for acknowledging that perhaps some of the project "protoypes" are vaporware, and photorealistic animations are NOT in the best interest of Kickstarter. I think the rule changes are moving in the right direction, even the limit on bulk rewards.

      Kickstarter, if you want to continue with allowing "moving parts" projects, I seriously urge you have a few manufacturing engineers on the vetting staff.

      If I am allowed to make a few predictions, they are:

      The JOBS act and the forthcoming SEC rules will be a healthy but disruptive influence for many crowdfunding platforms.

      Kickstarter will raise the limit on Technology projects to $1,000,000 and may actually force some technology projects to ask for more money, to be released when milestones are met.

      Kickstarter may need to create or sponsor a third-party to monitor technology projects.

      [\ rant off]

    47. Creator Mark Johnson on September 25, 2012

      "If your piece of hardware is best offered as a set of five, that's okay, however you couldn’t also offer it as a single piece."

      Ummm, what? Why? I haven't bought hardware products yet but have a few games. This doesn't really make sense though. Whether it be games, hardware, or something else there will always be reasons why you could get anywhere between 1 to 4 of an item, or even more and publishers need to be able to cater for these different audience.

      Sorry, but this seems like a silly change.

      If it's to "protect" pledgers, then you're treating pledgers as idiots and that's not a good look.

    48. Creator MOKU on September 25, 2012

      A project that needs 100K can't get funding on a single quantity...

    49. Creator JR Sanchez on September 25, 2012

      Please reconsider both rules.

      We need renderings to show what the final product will look like. I agree that it's a good idea to label rendered pictures with "Rendering not actual product"...or something like that.

      Also for reward quantities

      We need higher quantities rewards to reach minimum orders. Many factories require 500-1000 units minimum per color. It's very difficult to reach those minimums if our rewards have lower quantities.

      Thank you

    50. Creator Rebecca Brown on September 25, 2012

      I can understand the frustration creators feel about not being able to offer multiple units, as that is an easy way to try to meet your $ goals. However, you can still raise more money by offering other types of rewards, you aren't limited to the product itself! The extra capital you raise can go towards extra units that you can sell after the Kickstarter campaign.

      As for backers who want multiples, the goal of many hardware projects is to bring items to market, so if the project is successful then hopefully you should get an opportunity to purchase as many as you want. I think that Kickstarter is doing what it can to make the platform feel less like a shopping market, and the more "multiples" you can order the more it seems like you are shopping and the less like you are backing a project. As a backer I feel that the point of kickstarter isn't about me, but it is about the creators and helping them reach their goals. Even if I want to give a really cool item as Christmas gifts... my reward isn't the sole reason to back a campaign.