I think it's highly unlikely that Pebble didn't negotiate that 5% way down. While it's a symbiotic relationship, I think that at this point it's safe to say that it benefits Kickstarter more than Pebble.
Pebble is getting a very cheap line of credit with theoretically no obligation to repay (hence why any money you give in a KS is a 'donation' or 'pledge').
If a creator is unable to complete their project and fulfill rewards, they’ve failed to live up to the basic obligations of this agreement. To right this, they must make every reasonable effort to find another way of bringing the project to the best possible conclusion for backers.
I was burnt by Kickstarter when a project didn't deliver. In this case, it was obvious fraud -- the guy walked away with about $15k. There was an article written about it:
The response that I got from Kickstarter was basically "Sorry, that sucks" and "Try contacting the creator through Kickstarter or through Facebook". They wouldn't provide any other contact information for the product creator.
I understand that they're responsible for the production of the product, but they do profit from the transaction. The right thing to do would have been to at least refund the 5% that they collect as a gesture of goodwill. I understand that projects fail, but they should be at least partially responsible for outright fraud.
"partially responsible for outright fraud" gets them into the business of deciding when outright fraud has occurred. I can see why they don't want to do that.
I also think that encouraging skeptical backers is going to be better for the ecosystem in the long term than doing more and more to make it 'safe'.
I'm guessing they have a understanding with Kickstarter. Pebble is guaranteed to break some records with Kickstarter and it will get great press. With competitors like GoFundMe and Indiegogo I'm sure that Kickstarter welcomed Pebble back with open arms. Good for them!
Does it matter? That's just how Kickstarter makes money. The idea that they wouldn't welcome Pebble because it's low-risk and somehow makes them appear more "store-like" is unrealistic.
I think that before we get to be immortal we have to fix the basic vagaries of the human mind. I feel like the only way we can advance as human beings is by having the old with their backwards ideas (apartheid, anti-homosexuality) die and be replaced by new people with new ideas.
If we can fix the mind first then I'm all for immortality but not before.
Perhaps they are both linked, perhaps it's the way we are wired, I frankly don't know. I am just suggesting that we should fix the way we think before we change how long we live. Just my $.02
I have never used either, but both look so much better than working off static PSD comps. I would be curious if a person who has used both can chime in on their impressions.
We use both at work (along with Pixate depending on the situation) and based on conversations I had today with our IX guys the main difference seems to be that Form makes it easy to mirror on your phone and actually play with the interactions, where as you can't do that with Quartz/Origami (the playing with interactions). I'm sure there are other differences as well (I'll see if one of our guys will come and comment here), but at the end of the day they both seem to have their place depending on the situation.
I definitely agree it's 100x better than PSD/static mocks however and I hope Google continues to put resources into this.
Once you "get" doing AutoLayout you will never want to go back. I'm speaking as a guy who swore up and down to frames. All it takes is doing some adaptive stuff for 3.5, 4, 4.7 and 5.5 inch screens to make you want to jump out your window.
By the time you create a good system to get the frames to work with an adaptive layout, you just implemented a poor man's version of AutoLayout.
Just my $0.02. I think it saves me a lot of time. I try to avoid AutoLayout in IB and just use code, either a third party DSL or apple's own visual format language.
It's actually easier depending on the animation you want to do. You can set an NSLayoutConstraint to an IBOutlet and then change it's constant in an animation block.
You just have to store the constraint in your VC or custom view. You still need to use frames sometimes though. I have found that scrollviews and AutoLayout are arch-nemesises.
I went to the Meetup yesterday. Matt was talking about how it's not a replacement for AFNetworking, It's a completely rethought framework.
Also AFNetworking is going to be still maintained. He made it sound like if you're working in Obj-C you should use AFNetworking, Alamofire for Swift; two completely different entities.
> YoYo is nothing*. It's a joke. But it could be something, I guess. It could be like Yo, but maybe it automatically responds to a Yo with another Yo...creating an infinite loop of Yo's
