Watch One Kickstarter Creator Self-Destruct As People Call Him Out For Scam Project
from the borderline-scams dept
There have been a few stories over the past year or so of Kickstarter projects simply taking products found elsewhere (often China) slapping a new label on them and claiming they’re new. This pretty clearly violates Kickstarter rules, which includes the following:
Projects cannot resell items or offer rewards not produced by the project or its creator.
There have been a few cases in the past where this has popped up. Last year there was the Ambiolight and earlier this year there was the machined gamers dice — both of which were called out by people in the comments as being mere reselling of products made by others already on the market.
It appears that others keep trying to do these kinds of reseller setups, tricking users along the way. A few weeks ago, I saw the projects for “Full of Fuel” external batteries. I have a bit of an obsession with external battery packs, and have been personally using a fantastic Anker Astro Pro 20,000mAh battery — which looked nearly identical to one of the Fuel of Fire batteries. The other two Fuel of Fire batteries also looked like other external batteries already on the market. Thankfully, plenty of people started pointing out similar things in the comments. The guy behind the project initially defended it, claiming that they had “changed the design” but many didn’t believe it. The guy behind the project apparently promised to send a sample to one of the most vocal critics to prove that it was different… but then stopped responding altogether, and the project was cancelled (apparently by Kickstarter).
It appears that something similar is happening with the so-called Rock Smartwatch, which launched with a bit of hype, including some odd claims such as that the watch had 1080p resolution (huh? on a watch?!?) and 4GB of RAM. Some folks quickly pointed out that the watch appeared to be nothing more than a rebranded Z3 watch from China. There was a fair bit of evidence to support this. The creator of the project, “Vak Sambath” first started claiming that he was devastated and suggesting that their manufacturing partner had somehow leaked or made different versions of their work.


Because, he then posted a different, but equally unintelligible comment claiming those first comments in which he defended the watch weren’t really from him, but were because his computer got hacked:
Hey Guys… first and foremost… I’d like to apologize for whatever happened to do. It wasn’t me. I wasn’t in front of my computer all day. Someone got into my account. When it rains it pours guys. This is the real Vak. My account got hacked from some freaking hot mess reason. This hasn’t been easy.


We appreciate kickstarter for allowing small companies to enter new markets with new ideas, that may not be popular with a small sector that does not like change.
The rock is taking a more innovative approach that some may find hard to understand since it is a new direction.



On Saturday morning, things took an even weirder twist, as Vak suddenly decided to just start posting over and over and over again in the comments pretending that they were getting lots of “great encouragement” from their backers, and those backers were asking questions. So he started answering them, but each time he posted, plenty of critics just kept commenting about Vak’s own ridiculous claims and calling out that the whole thing was a scam. And rather than respond, Vak just kept posting the same exact “email answers” over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, perhaps in the faulty belief that this would somehow drown out all those calling him out.
The other odd thing was that some folks noticed that even as a ton of people bailed from the project earlier in the week, there was suddenly an influx of new buyers, according to Kicktraq’s data:

Finally, around noon on Saturday, Kickstarter stepped in and cancelled the deal, at about the same time Vak was insisting the fact that Kickstarter had approved the campaign was proof that it was legit. In an email to backers, Kickstarter’s Trust & Safety team admitted that the project clearly violated numbers rules:
A review of the project uncovered evidence of one or more violations of Kickstarter’s rules, which include:
- A related party posing as an independent, supportive party in project comments or elsewhere
- Misrepresenting support by pledging to your own project
- Misrepresenting or failing to disclose relevant facts about the project or its creator
- Providing inaccurate or incomplete user information to Kickstarter or one of our partners
Accordingly, all funding has been stopped and backers will not be charged for their pledges. No further action is required on your part.
Vak then went quiet on Kickstarter, but it didn’t stop him from continue fighting the bizarre fight on Twitter. First, he pretended that people were just upset because they were “using parts from China.” But, of course, that wasn’t what anyone was claiming. Then he claimed that what he “learned” from the project is that “what we have isn’t for Kickstarter.”

Either way, I expect we’ll see more of this sort of thing happening over time, but it’s kind of neat to see the community itself work all of the details out and help out these questionable projects (even as it’s funny to see the project creators try to tap dance around their claims).
Filed Under: vak sambath
Companies: kickstarter
Comments on “Watch One Kickstarter Creator Self-Destruct As People Call Him Out For Scam Project”
As they say with open source, “with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow”. I suppose with enough eyes, all scams are shallow as well.
But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
And how in any way could its TEN PERCENT OFF THE TOP TAKE be justified?
Kickstarter is the grifter ideal: (poor) people come up with and finance ideas; ten percent off-the-top take for little more than a web-site and money transfers; no responsibility for failures or even scans.
10:27:52[l-730-7]
Re:
You strike me as very similar to Vak Sambath, only you haven’t been banned from your platform of choice yet.
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service? That’s rather anti-capitalism of you (in the bad sense). If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it.
And eBay can’t be held responsible for the scams some users try to get away with there either.
Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
Blue believes that anybody who isn’t engaged in manufacturing is “grifting,” and so all service-only businesses are immoral and shouldn’t exist. So it’s no surprise that he’d hate Kickstarter.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny how he still refuses to claim that the RIAA/MPAA are grifters. They’re not labels, they’re not unions, they don’t produce jack shit.
out_of_the_blue must really hate it when due process is enforced.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Thank you, AC.
The RIAA and MPAA are indeed grifters in the same way as Blue accuses us of being.
They take what is not theirs and actually steal it from the artists by claiming it as their property and their sole right to exploit it for profit.
So, Blue, why are you all over copyright like a rash when only the rich can benefit from it?
Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
“Are you saying that Kickstarter deserves no reward for its service?”
Yes, he is. Go back to any story about Kickstarter and you’ll see him whining that they don’t deserve money for their service. The usual hilarity is when he bothers to try and explain his position – he either demonstrates absolute ignorance of what they actually do, or ties himself into logical knots to avoid admitting they provide a useful service that’s successfully created a non-legacy model outlet for creators and consumers alike.
“If there is a better value-for-money option that artists can find in other crowdfunding websites, they will take it.”
Or, they will use another funding method altogether. Or use a combination, raising money elsewhere but using Kickstarter to generate seed money, make up any deficit or create initial demand for the first batch of sales. Mental midgets like ootb like to try attacking articles on this site because it won’t back a single, one-size-fits-all business model that works for everybody. The fact that this doesn’t, and cannot, exist in the real world is one of the many reasons why people like this are a joke.
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
I don’t know, maybe you should ask all the Kickstarter creators who decided that the 10% take was well worth it?
Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
“And how in any way could its TEN PERCENT OFF THE TOP TAKE be justified?”
How can the studios take of 95+% of all monies from the actual creators be justified?
Re: Re: But Kickstarter disclaims all responsibility as a "platform".
One presumes the people who use Kickstarter are forced to do so by the evil government, etc.
Wait, what? They’re not? And they’re not giving up any rights to or ownership of their work?
Oh, right. They can’t be that bad, then, can they?
People have chosen to use a service that works for them. Go for it, I say, and good luck to them and to Kickstarter.
He keeps hyping the “fact” that the Rock will use patented technology. As a consumer, why would I ever care about that? Whether I’m buying sprockets or cogs, all I care is whether the product meets my needs.
Re: Re:
He also claimed that the cost of obtaining patents was a big part of the startup cost. I wonder if it occurred to him that he could have saved a bundle by not getting any patents at all (assuming that he did).
Startups chasing patents is a waste of the one thing a startup can’t waste: money. There are easier and cheaper ways of protecting yourself.
Well, he’s technically right. What he has is a shameless rebrand of an existing product, and rebrands of existing products are no for Kickstarter.
Oh man this is going to be Charles Carreon awesome!
It's not lying!
It’s marketing!
?including some odd claims such as that the watch had 1080p resolution (huh? on a watch?!?)?
In the category of comments that will be amusing in fifteen years.
Re: Re:
Unless you have a massive watch (like 20″ widescreen on your wrist) you could not perceive that resolution. But who needs Full HD to show a clock anyway?
Re: 1080p res on a watch
There is a ceiling on how much resolution the human eye can see. Like a display screen, the human retina has a resolution too, the number of light-sensitive receptors per square centimetre.
At about a foot away from your nose, with good eyesight, you can see pixels larger than around 200-250 dpi. Let’s say a large watch has a display 2×2 inches, that means any resolution above 500×500 pixels is just wasted. At that scale, a VGA 800×600 display would be just fine.
It all changes with scale, though – a “full HD” picture at 1080p on an IMAX screen would look terrible, as you need a 4K image or better at that size.
…and so ends Team Prendas first foray into patent law
He’s right, what they have his not for Kickstarter. He should try releasing his rebranded Z3 on the open market, ebay and in shopping mall kiosks, it would probably do quite well with all the other rebranded chinese goods out there and in that arena he’d be pretty legit.
I was happy Kickstarter FINALLY stepped in
As one of the backers (I really only became a backer in order to comment and help take this project down as I saw it was a scam) that helped take this down… while it took them longer than I thought it should have… I was glad that KS finally stepped in.
I’ve backed quite a few projects and this one just stunk! I believe that I’ve been burned on one of them as the production date has now been delayed by more than 6 months. Time will tell… on that one it didn’t become apparent until AFTER the funding time limit ran out.
THIS one on the other hand became apparent a couple of weeks ago with silliness, as you pointed out, of a product description that included 1080P on a 240×240 display… and 4GB of RAM (my Note 3 “only” has 3GB… lol).
It was clear that the creator himself had no idea what product he was even trying to sell!
Anyway. Good article and summary of the events! Cheers!
Vak's Back
It would seem that Vak is back with a new website:
http://www.rocksmartwatch.com/#
Stay well clear and keep others posted to avoid.
Rick, that is just bizzare..
So that new website is totally empty apart from a countdown counter counting 110 days) and the Galaxy Gear commercial playing in the background.
I was joking while trying to bring the KS project down, but this seriously brings me to fear Vak is missing a few key screws in critical places.
Re: Rick, that is just bizzare..
It must be Vak, it’s the same web address as the old website that was pushing the original ‘Rock Smartwatch’ (I clicked it in my laptop’s history) – Vak seriously has issues.
He’s obviously crazy. Or a con man. But it appears crazy. He also seems to have some money to throw around. In either event, this is one way that a software patent troll is born.
Omate
I think Omate do the same thing. What can backers do?
Omate
This looks a lot like what Omate is doing. Please investigate!
They're back!
Looks like the same guys tried another “smart” watch on indiegogo – https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/first-womens-bluetooth-quartz-smart-watch-89-looks-like-a-7-000-designer-watch
Both the Rock watch domain and “smartcoolwatch.com” are registered to a ‘mav hoeven’… the plot thickens!