Corporate Responsiblity
#17
(05-19-2016, 12:57 PM)TheMonkeyKing Wrote: Here is my dissenting opinion.

You have an idea, you get people on board to develop hardware and software. Is this it though? Are you looking to see it through as a long term strategy, looking to be bought out, or is this just your way of getting your foot in door of the hot mess that is today's San Fran tech scene?

Today's inventors are queried by (large scale / angel) investors to answer questions like:
- What is your out?
- What is the company's pivot?

Both of these questions are a simple truth that no one expects to become another Apple or Microsoft. No, today's products are disposable and do not have much shelf life until the next big thing comes our way. By the way "your out" is the question of what do expect exit strategy to be as in, are you expecting this to be sold or are you looking to take your equity and cash out? The latter "pivot" is asking well, your idea won't be what you or others can realistically expect to achieve so what can you actually make with the resources you have on hand? (Usually the answer is invariably, yet another email service.)

All this started from the OLPC XO (look it up, youngsters) when they had the idea to create a computing (hardware and software) platform for the masses with a $100 per unit target price. Microsoft and Intel scoffed until they realized that this was the last untapped market for them. So while the idea was to maintain a long term project and company, it became undone by corporate greed and the failure of an educational institution to understand this greed. But this project did indeed open the floodgates to what we have now.

With all that in mind, what did the Pine founders actually think and believe they wanted from this? Clearly we've seen one move on, using this as his foot in the door to bigger things for himself. And I have no illusion that the Pine will exist as long as Apple or even Arduino as a separate company. It might just fall into the BTO category for place like Adafruit or MCM where you order the SoC and they send the order to a manufacturer in China to kit it together for you.

But it does make me wonder, if they seriously though about the Pine as a company, then any of those business courses they took or any of those early investors would have told them upfront, more than anything, that communication is vital to a company. In fact most people will tell you that the biggest lump of work does not come from actually designing and building the unit but more from customer and marketplace communication.

So with Pine I've had two beefs, both have been about communication. First, what is the plan for shipping units and backerkit add-ons, (would ordering parts or extras jeopardize the order fulfillment). Second, well you goofed, and that's okay but when you do, please provide updates. I don't want mea cuplas or stories; I want to know how you all are handling the issues and what steps you are taking to mitigating them.

Also, if you want to learn more about communication skills, check out the Onion.IO group who were another successfully KS funded venture. They've had issues with a LiPo (battery) dock add-on. Yes, they thought they would have had it ready by ship date but things happened and it still has not come out yet. (Fully 12 months from being funded last year, May 2015) But no one is having a cow over this and their community board is not flooded with all these types of forum threads.

Just adding my two cents that the overwhelming complaint is in fact not receiving the goods but the lack of good, steady communications. It makes us, the small time backers, feel as though this project is indeed a one-off for the creators as a resume builder instead of a community builder.

Maybe I'll make my own company that specializes in communication support for people who suddenly find their KS projects have been fully vested.

Thanks on the good article, agreed that we should have a better upfront communication.Pine64 still maintain as a ground up company and until now no accept investment so that the company can maintain as "independent". My goal is reducing "digital gap" but not as ambition as OLPC.


Messages In This Thread
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by Ghost - 05-17-2016, 04:46 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by gubaguba - 05-19-2016, 05:19 AM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by rahlquist - 05-17-2016, 05:22 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by gubaguba - 05-18-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by CaptainZalo - 05-18-2016, 12:55 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by Nitrogen_Widget - 05-18-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by richc - 05-18-2016, 03:05 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by Nitrogen_Widget - 05-18-2016, 07:33 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by TheMonkeyKing - 05-19-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by tllim - 05-19-2016, 08:02 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by RichT - 05-23-2016, 11:39 AM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by psychedup - 05-23-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by Luke - 05-23-2016, 05:25 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by Rick - 05-23-2016, 01:44 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by JCMPine64 - 05-23-2016, 05:45 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by aegrotatio - 06-08-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by gwizard - 06-08-2016, 08:36 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by tllim - 06-09-2016, 06:36 PM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by ccgmtl - 06-13-2016, 07:46 AM
RE: Corporate Responsiblity - by tllim - 06-13-2016, 04:34 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)