Glasses Free Stereoscopic 3D Monitor Kickstarter
  6 / 7    
Lightboost is designed to partially offset the decrease in brightness as a result of wearing tinted glasses. As this is a glasses free display, that's not going to be a problem here. I don't know if strobing the backlight to reduce motion blur would be possible on this display, but I'd imagine it might interfere with the other tech that goes into the monitor.
Lightboost is designed to partially offset the decrease in brightness as a result of wearing tinted glasses.

As this is a glasses free display, that's not going to be a problem here. I don't know if strobing the backlight to reduce motion blur would be possible on this display, but I'd imagine it might interfere with the other tech that goes into the monitor.

#76
Posted 12/11/2014 01:10 PM   
Unfortunately it looks like the kickstarter is pretty much doomed at this point. They've got 29 monitor preorders, and they need a lot more to cross the finish line. They've been getting about 1-2 backers a day for the past week, and they'd need to be getting at least 10 a day for the rest of the campaign (at monitor purchase tiers) in order to make it.
Unfortunately it looks like the kickstarter is pretty much doomed at this point. They've got 29 monitor preorders, and they need a lot more to cross the finish line. They've been getting about 1-2 backers a day for the past week, and they'd need to be getting at least 10 a day for the rest of the campaign (at monitor purchase tiers) in order to make it.

#77
Posted 12/11/2014 01:14 PM   
All: I'd love to hear your feedback on the campaign. We thought that if we got our displays in front of the right people and gained endorsements from Gamers (Neil Schneider), 3D Creative Pros (James Stewart, Fangwei Lee), and Tech Experts (Jon Peddie, Tom's Hardware) that would give everyone confidence that we do in fact have something unique. I know $1,000 is a lot for a monitor; but breakthroughs like this (full resolution 3D/2D without glasses) rarely enter the market as a bargain. So was it the price? Or the fact that we are an unknown brand? Was the tone of the campaign wrong for Kickstarter? Honestly thought we'd get more support from people who just loved the tech and would throw in a few bucks just to give it a thumbs up.
All:

I'd love to hear your feedback on the campaign. We thought that if we got our displays in front of the right people and gained endorsements from Gamers (Neil Schneider), 3D Creative Pros (James Stewart, Fangwei Lee), and Tech Experts (Jon Peddie, Tom's Hardware) that would give everyone confidence that we do in fact have something unique. I know $1,000 is a lot for a monitor; but breakthroughs like this (full resolution 3D/2D without glasses) rarely enter the market as a bargain.

So was it the price? Or the fact that we are an unknown brand? Was the tone of the campaign wrong for Kickstarter? Honestly thought we'd get more support from people who just loved the tech and would throw in a few bucks just to give it a thumbs up.

#78
Posted 12/11/2014 03:34 PM   
I'd say there are a lot of factors at play. -Many people see 3D as a "fad", especially home 3D. This not only affects people looking at your kickstarter, but probably limited your press coverage significantly too. -Expecting to sell 150 monitors was probably aiming a bit too high when the other factors were considered. It may have been the only way to produce them economically though, which is unfortunate. -Hoping for more support from smaller pledges wasn't really going to happen. Very few people are going to want a poster/tshirt for a 3D monitor. I probably wouldn't wear an nVidia shirt unless I got it for free. Besides, you'd need to sell 200 shirts to match the income from one monitor pledge. I'd consider that unlikely, and people probably weren't going to donate much more than $20, maybe $50 to support a concept. For something like this, it seems like an all-or-nothing deal for most pledgers. Either you want a monitor, or you don't. -4k is the current "big thing" in monitors, and you're pricing a 1080p monitor above that. Over here, most of us realise that 4k gaming is already somewhat impractical, and adding 3D to that combination is only going to make it worse. But "4K" is the current buzzword, so seeing a monitor that's "only" 1080p for significantly more than you could find a "cheap" 4K monitor may be off-putting. -The campaign didn't feel particularly targeted. It seems to me like your two markets are gamers and possibly 3D artists. The problem with gamers is that they're highly cynical, and are going to need a lot of convincing, particularly in regards to knowing their favourite games would be supported. For that, you'd really need nVidia to be getting their act together and actually supporting 3D. Tridef has problems and development seems to have largely stopped, which kind of limits you to nVidia gamers. As you may be aware, nVidia backing of 3D is pretty poor as of late. You might have been able to point to the community fixes made by people here, but you'd have needed permission from those making the patches if you wanted to avoid backlash. In terms of 3D artists, I don't know how good the support is for stereoscopic displays in 3D packages. I don't think it's great. Plus if you're going after that market, you'd probably need to target the studios themselves, and kickstarter probably isn't the right platform for that.
I'd say there are a lot of factors at play.

-Many people see 3D as a "fad", especially home 3D. This not only affects people looking at your kickstarter, but probably limited your press coverage significantly too.

-Expecting to sell 150 monitors was probably aiming a bit too high when the other factors were considered. It may have been the only way to produce them economically though, which is unfortunate.

-Hoping for more support from smaller pledges wasn't really going to happen. Very few people are going to want a poster/tshirt for a 3D monitor. I probably wouldn't wear an nVidia shirt unless I got it for free. Besides, you'd need to sell 200 shirts to match the income from one monitor pledge. I'd consider that unlikely, and people probably weren't going to donate much more than $20, maybe $50 to support a concept. For something like this, it seems like an all-or-nothing deal for most pledgers. Either you want a monitor, or you don't.

-4k is the current "big thing" in monitors, and you're pricing a 1080p monitor above that. Over here, most of us realise that 4k gaming is already somewhat impractical, and adding 3D to that combination is only going to make it worse. But "4K" is the current buzzword, so seeing a monitor that's "only" 1080p for significantly more than you could find a "cheap" 4K monitor may be off-putting.

-The campaign didn't feel particularly targeted. It seems to me like your two markets are gamers and possibly 3D artists. The problem with gamers is that they're highly cynical, and are going to need a lot of convincing, particularly in regards to knowing their favourite games would be supported. For that, you'd really need nVidia to be getting their act together and actually supporting 3D. Tridef has problems and development seems to have largely stopped, which kind of limits you to nVidia gamers. As you may be aware, nVidia backing of 3D is pretty poor as of late. You might have been able to point to the community fixes made by people here, but you'd have needed permission from those making the patches if you wanted to avoid backlash.

In terms of 3D artists, I don't know how good the support is for stereoscopic displays in 3D packages. I don't think it's great. Plus if you're going after that market, you'd probably need to target the studios themselves, and kickstarter probably isn't the right platform for that.

#79
Posted 12/11/2014 04:14 PM   
@Pirateguybrush Excellent assessment. We thought that gamers were the right target to start, then as we continued to show our displays at events and meetups, it seemed the creative pros were the ones who really saw the value of 3D/2D with no loss of resolution or brightness. So we shifted the focus of the campaign. (Hard to do in mid-stream) Really appreciate all of your insight and support through this.
@Pirateguybrush
Excellent assessment.
We thought that gamers were the right target to start, then as we continued to show our displays at events and meetups, it seemed the creative pros were the ones who really saw the value of 3D/2D with no loss of resolution or brightness. So we shifted the focus of the campaign. (Hard to do in mid-stream)

Really appreciate all of your insight and support through this.

#80
Posted 12/11/2014 04:38 PM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]The campaign didn't feel particularly targeted. It seems to me like your two markets are gamers and possibly 3D artists.[/quote] +1 @Glasses-FreeTC You might want to target organisations like schools or NHS because these often have budgets that must be spent or they loose it. There is loads of money in education. Schools for instance have graphic departments and they also have refresh schemes where every 5 years or so they update their systems. As IT coordinator I've bought stuff and never used it. Admittedly a small budget but one person's £500 is another's £5000, which is another's £50K... My school, like many others in Norwich, has been given £250K for 'pupil premium' kids. £250K! We have 1200 students. The dude looking after this can't spend it fast enough! These are the people you want to target. 3D will benefit pupil premium kids (obviously); spend your budget here. Find successful schools which can afford to gamble or those interested in technology. Schools contain all sorts of specialists so continue to drop in big names like NASA. They also contain old boys and girls so make sure you mention how easy it will be for the IT guys to install and create some software that they could used in class etc. I remember a BBC clip featuring medical students/teachers bigging up 3D because they could better visualise the organ in 3D than 2D (obviously). That's a whole new market there too. Good luck!
Pirateguybrush said:The campaign didn't feel particularly targeted. It seems to me like your two markets are gamers and possibly 3D artists.


+1

@Glasses-FreeTC

You might want to target organisations like schools or NHS because these often have budgets that must be spent or they loose it.

There is loads of money in education. Schools for instance have graphic departments and they also have refresh schemes where every 5 years or so they update their systems. As IT coordinator I've bought stuff and never used it. Admittedly a small budget but one person's £500 is another's £5000, which is another's £50K...

My school, like many others in Norwich, has been given £250K for 'pupil premium' kids. £250K! We have 1200 students. The dude looking after this can't spend it fast enough! These are the people you want to target. 3D will benefit pupil premium kids (obviously); spend your budget here. Find successful schools which can afford to gamble or those interested in technology. Schools contain all sorts of specialists so continue to drop in big names like NASA. They also contain old boys and girls so make sure you mention how easy it will be for the IT guys to install and create some software that they could used in class etc.

I remember a BBC clip featuring medical students/teachers bigging up 3D because they could better visualise the organ in 3D than 2D (obviously). That's a whole new market there too.

Good luck!

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#81
Posted 12/11/2014 05:05 PM   
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]Lightboost is designed to partially offset the decrease in brightness as a result of wearing tinted glasses. As this is a glasses free display, that's not going to be a problem here. I don't know if strobing the backlight to reduce motion blur would be possible on this display, but I'd imagine it might interfere with the other tech that goes into the monitor.[/quote] The point quite clearly wasn't LightBoost giving more brightness to the image, it is 100% about the strobing effect in 2D. There's displays popping up to take advantage of this feature without even offering 3D. Simply because the CRT-like effects of extremely little motion blur is just great. No offense, but you imagining that it might interfere with something is really of no value at all when you have no knowledge upon the subject. It does not help in me trying to assess whether it would be worth it to pull the trigger on a product by some relatively unknown company or not. It's of equal value as me not being able to imagine what a toggleable strobe could possibly interfere with. There's the actual guy in charge giving answers here. Someone who knows the actual specs and what they can fiddle with. That's the guy I'm trying to reach.
Pirateguybrush said:Lightboost is designed to partially offset the decrease in brightness as a result of wearing tinted glasses.

As this is a glasses free display, that's not going to be a problem here. I don't know if strobing the backlight to reduce motion blur would be possible on this display, but I'd imagine it might interfere with the other tech that goes into the monitor.

The point quite clearly wasn't LightBoost giving more brightness to the image, it is 100% about the strobing effect in 2D. There's displays popping up to take advantage of this feature without even offering 3D. Simply because the CRT-like effects of extremely little motion blur is just great.

No offense, but you imagining that it might interfere with something is really of no value at all when you have no knowledge upon the subject. It does not help in me trying to assess whether it would be worth it to pull the trigger on a product by some relatively unknown company or not. It's of equal value as me not being able to imagine what a toggleable strobe could possibly interfere with.


There's the actual guy in charge giving answers here. Someone who knows the actual specs and what they can fiddle with. That's the guy I'm trying to reach.

#82
Posted 12/11/2014 05:44 PM   
[quote="Glasses-FreeTC"]I'd love to hear your feedback on the campaign.[/quote] The campaign wasn't spectacular. What I _am_ impressed by is that you have worked at this for ages, especially with NASA, and that you apparently can produce a good product. Your references seem to check out. There's so many scummy Kickstarters around that I can't trust any of that at face value, especially when none of the endorsements are "super known" if that makes sense. Those endorsements, sadly, seem dime a dozen and I can't place any value at them in 99% of products. It takes away from the value of actual genuine endorsements. It's really an age old dilemma and there's very few ways of going around it. The thing is, the display _is_ expensive. And while glasses-free 3D is incredible, the other features are slightly lacking compared to the price. There's no going around that. And marketing this type of product over the internet isn't taking advantage of the strong points of the monitor. This is something that needs to be seen live to have people be impressed by it. It's the same deal as with 3D Vision, really - all the negative stereotypes and common myths apply by default. Yet, when you actually show people the product, majority of them are blown away and are wondering why the hell this hasn't picked up big time. There's several other layers to this. But I really have no doubt that this product would sell if you could do live presentations across the globe. What you'd want are making deals with trustworthy local entities where you send a showcase model for people to experience it. Electronics/hardware/whatever stores, as long as they're big enough. If possible, 1440p would of course be great. But personally I'd get this even at 1080p. Just know that this will be a factor for quite a few people. 4K is just unrealistic at this point. I'm still not guaranteed I'd place an order over Kickstarter, but I'd buy one from a local trustworthy brick & mortar store. They are forced by law to honor their warranties etc.. while on the other hand, dealing with an unknown entity who's finances I know nothing about is always sketchy. I could have a dead monitor within a month without a guarantee that I'd get a proper replacement. What happens if the company goes belly up? These are all questions that responsible consumers will have.
Glasses-FreeTC said:I'd love to hear your feedback on the campaign.

The campaign wasn't spectacular. What I _am_ impressed by is that you have worked at this for ages, especially with NASA, and that you apparently can produce a good product. Your references seem to check out. There's so many scummy Kickstarters around that I can't trust any of that at face value, especially when none of the endorsements are "super known" if that makes sense. Those endorsements, sadly, seem dime a dozen and I can't place any value at them in 99% of products. It takes away from the value of actual genuine endorsements. It's really an age old dilemma and there's very few ways of going around it.

The thing is, the display _is_ expensive. And while glasses-free 3D is incredible, the other features are slightly lacking compared to the price. There's no going around that. And marketing this type of product over the internet isn't taking advantage of the strong points of the monitor. This is something that needs to be seen live to have people be impressed by it. It's the same deal as with 3D Vision, really - all the negative stereotypes and common myths apply by default. Yet, when you actually show people the product, majority of them are blown away and are wondering why the hell this hasn't picked up big time.


There's several other layers to this. But I really have no doubt that this product would sell if you could do live presentations across the globe. What you'd want are making deals with trustworthy local entities where you send a showcase model for people to experience it. Electronics/hardware/whatever stores, as long as they're big enough.

If possible, 1440p would of course be great. But personally I'd get this even at 1080p. Just know that this will be a factor for quite a few people. 4K is just unrealistic at this point.


I'm still not guaranteed I'd place an order over Kickstarter, but I'd buy one from a local trustworthy brick & mortar store. They are forced by law to honor their warranties etc.. while on the other hand, dealing with an unknown entity who's finances I know nothing about is always sketchy. I could have a dead monitor within a month without a guarantee that I'd get a proper replacement. What happens if the company goes belly up? These are all questions that responsible consumers will have.

#83
Posted 12/11/2014 06:05 PM   
@zynerd Fantastic feedback. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Much appreciated.
@zynerd
Fantastic feedback. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Much appreciated.

#84
Posted 12/11/2014 06:48 PM   
I would buy one of these monitors in an instant. However, it looks like the kickstarter is not gonna meet your goal. What is your plan should the kickstarter fail? I hope you don't give up, and somehow make these available somehow for purchase. With a small team you should be able to make at least a few a week right? and then release them slowly and watch the hype build and after you've made some money, you can slowly hire more and more people and grow your business. I'd love to beta test one of these monitors :) What did you need the 150 grand for? and do you think you could still sell these monitors for under 1g if you had to slowly role them out? I will promise you that if you get closer to your goal, I will definetley put down my money as well.
I would buy one of these monitors in an instant. However, it looks like the kickstarter is not gonna meet your goal. What is your plan should the kickstarter fail? I hope you don't give up, and somehow make these available somehow for purchase.

With a small team you should be able to make at least a few a week right? and then release them slowly and watch the hype build and after you've made some money, you can slowly hire more and more people and grow your business. I'd love to beta test one of these monitors :)

What did you need the 150 grand for? and do you think you could still sell these monitors for under 1g if you had to slowly role them out? I will promise you that if you get closer to your goal, I will definetley put down my money as well.

#85
Posted 12/11/2014 11:13 PM   
@andy - Schools are a good idea, but what software out there would support it? For a software company to develop something worthwhile, you'd need to demonstrate there was demand and hardware to support it, which there doesn't seem to be. There's the possibility of using it to show educational 3D video, but that would be much cheaper with a TV+passive glasses, or even a projector. @zynerd - I was trying to help you out regarding your question. The blur reduction feature of lightboost is a happy side-effect of it's intended purpose. They're putting in a custom backlight system, and I'd be surprised if lightboost was a consideration. I'd be interested in a proper answer too though, if Glasses-FreeTC would oblige. @Conan - I'd imagine an on-demand production run would be far more costly than doing it in bulk. It's probably a lot cheaper for them to order everything they need at once, rather than a few per week. Likely to the point where they'd need to make 150 before it became possible to make a profit at the $1000 price point.
@andy - Schools are a good idea, but what software out there would support it? For a software company to develop something worthwhile, you'd need to demonstrate there was demand and hardware to support it, which there doesn't seem to be. There's the possibility of using it to show educational 3D video, but that would be much cheaper with a TV+passive glasses, or even a projector.

@zynerd - I was trying to help you out regarding your question. The blur reduction feature of lightboost is a happy side-effect of it's intended purpose. They're putting in a custom backlight system, and I'd be surprised if lightboost was a consideration. I'd be interested in a proper answer too though, if Glasses-FreeTC would oblige.

@Conan - I'd imagine an on-demand production run would be far more costly than doing it in bulk. It's probably a lot cheaper for them to order everything they need at once, rather than a few per week. Likely to the point where they'd need to make 150 before it became possible to make a profit at the $1000 price point.

#86
Posted 12/12/2014 01:23 AM   
It seems to me that targeting the hard-core 3D gamers like us is not the right spot. Just my opinion, but probably everyone here is already willing to accept the clunky glasses as the price of entry, so glasses free is not as big a draw for us. For me personally, I thought long and hard about backing you, but decided I didn't need yet another monitor that is only marginally better (to me) in that I don't have to wear glasses. Maybe, maybe, the gamer market in general would be open to it, but I think the 3D gamer crowd is already pretty happy with what we have. I know I'm personally extremely happy with my 3D projector with zero ghosting, and it requires the glasses. I've used DK2, and find it to be marginal because of the resolution. Given the choice, I've played Alien Isolation on projector, not DK2. I've often wondered if the "I hate 3D glasses" crowd is not just using that as an excuse for something else, like not liking how it dims the image, or wanting to be a hipster or something. Clearly at the movies, the "I hate 3D glasses" crowd is completely ignored. People willing pay extra for 3D movies. For people that I see using their 3D TVs, the glasses are just one step too many. They don't really object to them, it's just too much bother, and 3D is not compelling enough to bring them out. This would be another avenue to explore. If you could make a 3D TV that is glasses free, that would possibly be enough of a draw. One other avenue you've already mentioned is point-of-sale displays. Having glasses free 3D there would be a real surprise, and capture some imagination and attention. I think that andysonofbob's idea is good- target education as a clear winner with no glasses. To solve the software point that Pirate raises, anything that runs under 3D Vision will run there, including stuff like Google Earth. Best of luck to you, I'd very much like to see you succeed.
It seems to me that targeting the hard-core 3D gamers like us is not the right spot. Just my opinion, but probably everyone here is already willing to accept the clunky glasses as the price of entry, so glasses free is not as big a draw for us.

For me personally, I thought long and hard about backing you, but decided I didn't need yet another monitor that is only marginally better (to me) in that I don't have to wear glasses.

Maybe, maybe, the gamer market in general would be open to it, but I think the 3D gamer crowd is already pretty happy with what we have. I know I'm personally extremely happy with my 3D projector with zero ghosting, and it requires the glasses. I've used DK2, and find it to be marginal because of the resolution. Given the choice, I've played Alien Isolation on projector, not DK2.


I've often wondered if the "I hate 3D glasses" crowd is not just using that as an excuse for something else, like not liking how it dims the image, or wanting to be a hipster or something. Clearly at the movies, the "I hate 3D glasses" crowd is completely ignored. People willing pay extra for 3D movies.

For people that I see using their 3D TVs, the glasses are just one step too many. They don't really object to them, it's just too much bother, and 3D is not compelling enough to bring them out. This would be another avenue to explore. If you could make a 3D TV that is glasses free, that would possibly be enough of a draw.


One other avenue you've already mentioned is point-of-sale displays. Having glasses free 3D there would be a real surprise, and capture some imagination and attention.


I think that andysonofbob's idea is good- target education as a clear winner with no glasses. To solve the software point that Pirate raises, anything that runs under 3D Vision will run there, including stuff like Google Earth.

Best of luck to you, I'd very much like to see you succeed.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#87
Posted 12/12/2014 11:36 AM   
This is the article I was referring to. [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11891753[/url] That school spent money on a class set of glasses and a projector. I would imagine they have a number of classrooms set up too. For medium+ sized schools (1200+ students on role), money really isn't an issue. In fact spending money can become an issue. As I said, schools have yearly budgets to spend and on top of that, temporary incentives like Pupil Premium (free school meal etc. students) which really need to get spent. Believe it or not, finding new things to spend the budget on is a time consuming task. Time is something teachers do not have. If you can show the benefit educationally, even if it is a gimmick and might be only used once, schools will be interested. If you can convince the Head of Department that your equipment, membership or whatever is used just once but fulfils an educational purpose, a specific learning objective, the Head/Governors will be happy. (Not that they care anyway, as it is up to the departments to decide what they spend their money on.) As I said, a successful or leading edge school will even encourage forward thinking. I think a 3D monitor will genuinely benefit the Sciences (see article); it will also benefit students taking Graphics. It will be an interesting lesson or two for subjects like Computing (after the exams) and could easily be used in clubs. Your challenge will be to find relevant teachers who have time to listen. Attending the annual BETT shows might be a good medium for this. People at these shows are looking for technical innovations for education - Better Education Through Technology. Demonstrating a heart or a cell etc. in 3D at BETT would blow any scientist away. Just make sure to tell them, 'Yes, you can write student reports on them!' ;)
This is the article I was referring to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11891753

That school spent money on a class set of glasses and a projector. I would imagine they have a number of classrooms set up too. For medium+ sized schools (1200+ students on role), money really isn't an issue. In fact spending money can become an issue. As I said, schools have yearly budgets to spend and on top of that, temporary incentives like Pupil Premium (free school meal etc. students) which really need to get spent.

Believe it or not, finding new things to spend the budget on is a time consuming task. Time is something teachers do not have. If you can show the benefit educationally, even if it is a gimmick and might be only used once, schools will be interested.

If you can convince the Head of Department that your equipment, membership or whatever is used just once but fulfils an educational purpose, a specific learning objective, the Head/Governors will be happy. (Not that they care anyway, as it is up to the departments to decide what they spend their money on.) As I said, a successful or leading edge school will even encourage forward thinking.

I think a 3D monitor will genuinely benefit the Sciences (see article); it will also benefit students taking Graphics. It will be an interesting lesson or two for subjects like Computing (after the exams) and could easily be used in clubs.

Your challenge will be to find relevant teachers who have time to listen. Attending the annual BETT shows might be a good medium for this. People at these shows are looking for technical innovations for education - Better Education Through Technology.

Demonstrating a heart or a cell etc. in 3D at BETT would blow any scientist away. Just make sure to tell them, 'Yes, you can write student reports on them!' ;)

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#88
Posted 12/12/2014 01:12 PM   
ALL: First off let me again thank all of you for the thoughtful feedback. When I first signed on here I was expecting the usual collection of cynics and trolls that one encounters online. What a refreshing discovery -- intelligent conversation, respectful people, and great ideas. The Kickstarter is a market test for us -- not the end; just the beginning of a process. The feedback we received and conversations that we have started will guide the next phase. Please stay tuned.
ALL:
First off let me again thank all of you for the thoughtful feedback. When I first signed on here I was expecting the usual collection of cynics and trolls that one encounters online. What a refreshing discovery -- intelligent conversation, respectful people, and great ideas.

The Kickstarter is a market test for us -- not the end; just the beginning of a process. The feedback we received and conversations that we have started will guide the next phase.

Please stay tuned.

#89
Posted 12/13/2014 01:53 PM   
Good luck!
Good luck!

#90
Posted 12/13/2014 02:16 PM   
  6 / 7    
Scroll To Top