Big Companies Should Invest In Pandora-like Projects?

[Zoppe]

Ok, let me be a little silly

It's clear that Pandora is being made with all the love in world, and that means quality in first place, money in second place.

Exactly, all you need is love, they're aren't even making a profit in the first batch!

That's not possible in a big company, with investors, hierarchies, communication problems, ego fights, etc. This is not only a job for the team, and it's maybe a hobby for us, but this is going to be the best toy we could have for it, at the very least. And that's possible because there's not a big company behind it. This is not how big companies like to work, where earning money is not the main objective.

They aren't making a profit in the first batch(can't stop showing my appreciation to the team), which big name company would do that? and they're not even backed up with commercial software to cover the losses.

Tough decisions has been made that prioritize the long-term over the short-term, even when that means delays and the risk of loosing the clients they have now. Because there's the idea of making the best open handheld/umpc system to the date. It's possible for Openpandora because they're a very small team, they know each other well, and there is a specialized community behind it that helps. By believing that it's possible, by preordering, developing great software, or informing, or just talking and waiting.

A team of close people,(some which work voluntarly AFAIK(I'm talking about chip)) which takes community feedback, hears(reads?) mumbling ang complaining everyday, lose sleep working for NO profit(in the first batch) to make sure that we have the BEST handheld gaming device/umpc hybrid ever to date! now THAT's a dedicated team, where you can find a group of people like this???

You can look on the forums and remember when the decisions has been made, like when they decided not to buy the LCDs cheaper and sooner to another provider because those were of worse quality, or when once the 128MB was "set in stone" the opportunity arouse and they changed it to 256MB assuming the extra costs. The focus on openness, the absence of artificial limits in what you can or cannot do with it once you have it. Ask yourself if it would have been the same with a big company behind. (The answer is NO B) )

Quality lcds, extra memory, open console, freedom to the end user all provided to us by the super-awesome Pandora Team!!! We all thank them for valuing quality.

Even with all the problems, such as the banking one, or the delay, the surprises, the paypal thing, the untruthful providers... The way the things are now are the best they could realistically be. Yes, things happened that were far beyond anybody's reach. But we're on the final part now. We keep going.

Isn't it exciting?

A team who didn't give up when problems arose... AND found a way around all the problems WHILE still working hard on the pandora... even though unpredictable factors messed up the project they weren't shaken off. Who Can't trust this team??? the pandora experience is an exciting one that could only be provided from a small team of skillful, hopeful and caring people. we can only thank them. i hope you can see now what a big ride this is being and be a part of it enjoy the ride.

THANK YOU ALL PANDORA TEAM!


(Excellent post joseluizjazz, people like you make this community better)

 

[dagger]

QUOTE
Ask yourself if it would have been the same with a big company behind. (The answer is NO )

I agree. So the big companies should watch and learn a bit (in fact more then just a little bit). They must learn that it's possible to make money this way too. They must learn that investing in a group of developers that are enthusiastic and believe in what they do, and letting them to use their creative ideas can lead very profitable products. As I said, the developers can negotiate to make a Pandora model exactly like they want. As long as they can bring a cash cow to a big company, they can defenately convince that company to do some certain things. For example - to make two models:
1. Pandora exactly like the community wants it
2. Another variant, to meet the company specifications.
The company will bring extra cash, help the developers with extra specialists (that will do what developers want - not viceversa), so in the end both models will be made faster, cheaper and better.

When you have a gold mine, and you have investors interested to digg into it, you can defenately force them where they are allowed to digg, how to digg, and so on. And Pandora is just a gold mine

QUOTE
This is not only a job for the team, and it's maybe a hobby for us, but this is going to be the best toy we could have for it, at the very least

We who? You think your friends won't like to have the best toy at very least also? You think people won't get crazy to put their hands on a Pandora? I see a huge crowd reaching their hands to touch Pandora, when it will be reviewed on internet. At this very moment, very few people know about Pandora, but that will change when it will be launched. So, if millions of people would wish to have one too, is there any chance they will get one? A big investment is clearly needed, to produce it on a larger scale and deliver to all the people who will need a Pandora.

 

[Zoppe]

.... two models:
1. Pandora exactly like the community wants it
2. Another variant, to meet the company specifications.
The company will bring extra cash, help the developers with extra specialists (that will do what developers want - not viceversa), so in the end both models will be made faster, cheaper and better.....

by having a big company behind the team they could benefit from a few features, like an sliding keyboard, but as previously showed they would most likely put some deadlines. what i think that could be useful: an investor which only gave the money and freedom to the team do whatever they want with it, so the team themselves can handle patents, parts, personell and etc..

By making two models you'll end up splitting the community, and besides, i think that an company would make only the one that meets the expectations, which kinda cuts the open part of the andora1: .

@PoisonedV: Why do you take it this way?

 

[dagger]

QUOTE
what i think that could be useful: an investor which only gave the money and freedom to the team do whatever they want with it, so the team themselves can handle patents, parts, personell and etc..

Exactly !
That is what Google did to become the giant is today: they got money from investors that gave them a lot of freedom to handle the business on their own. Pandora team can also find a venture capital too, or a big company smart enough to give them the needed fredom, while helping them to produce the thing faster. IBM spent billions in Linux for example, both in developing AND sponsoring, so I think it's not that impossible to find a big technology company to invest big bucks, and that is open minded too.

QUOTE
By making two models you'll end up splitting the community, and besides, i think that an company would make only the one that meets the expectations, which kinda cuts the open part of the

Not sure you split the comunity, if you make two models. The second model can bring more people to the comunity, and a bigger community should be better. And old members should not have real reasons to leave, because they will have the model they need. Those who will leave because "It's not an elite community anymore" don't really make a nice community, imo. I'm pretty sure there are potential investors that will accept to make two models.

Honestly, I am trying to come with some ideeas in a constructive way. My ideas can be useless but sometimes even a bad idea can be usefull to spark other good ideas. Hopefully what I say will not be perceived as trolling.

 

[joseluisjazz]

I see a huge crowd reaching their hands to touch Pandora, when it will be reviewed on internet. At this very moment, very few people know about Pandora, but that will change when it will be launched. So, if millions of people would wish to have one too, is there any chance they will get one? A big investment is clearly needed, to produce it on a larger scale and deliver to all the people who will need a Pandora.

It's a possibility.
On one side I'm not sure how big could be the market for a device like this. Taking into account the homebrewing/retro emulation focus, lack of complete keyboard, not-x86, no dedicated commercial games, no biggy cpny behind... But who knows? Maybe there's a big market of appreciative people who like it being this way, and the second batch will sell 30000, and later another 70000 will be sold on the third one. That would be fantastic. But remember that a project can also die of successfulness. When you have a great demand, try to supply that demand by adding more resources, but it's not a simple add rule. Changes may happen. There's always a price to pay. But there's no reason to avoid that situation either. Just treat it with the same care put on the development, knowing when to say no, and it'll be fine. Do you remember the story of the OLPC project? It'd be sad Pandora followed the same path.

QUOTE
When you have a gold mine, and you have investors interested to digg into it, you can defenately force them where they are allowed to digg, how to digg, and so on. And Pandora is just a gold mine

When you have a goldmine, it's easy that it becomes a problem. The worst treated countries in the world by wars, and invasions, are the ones which have the best and biggest amounts of natural resources. Know why?

And about the part about the big ones learning from openpandora how to do business... I think they wont share your enthusiasm. With enough time more and more companies will try to make money and living with a more mid-term/ long-term sight, pluss less destructive, but I think it's just too soon yet. Though I'll be happy to be proved wrong on that.


@Zoppe: You just don't get PoisonedV. Don't take him so literally. It's just the sarcastic role he plays.

 

[Zeno Arrow]

The company will bring extra cash, help the developers with extra specialists (that will do what developers want - not viceversa), so in the end both models will be made faster, cheaper and better.

Faster, cheaper and better? Faster how exactly, the Pandora is based around the OMAP3, change this and you no longer have a Pandora 1, but a new device. We already (to my knowledge, can't be arsed to check) have the best OMAP3 processor on the market. Cheaper = either mass production (I'll come onto this issue in a minute), refinement of production process (only going to help to a certain degree) or cutting corners (i.e. inferior parts). Better? How exactly? Only ways I can see is by upgrading components (Wireless-N for example) or building more features into the Pandora (like GPS), but you can already get those features through USB and Bluetooth anyway, and these models fracture the market. Microsoft may have offered differing features with the 360, like Arcade, Elite, etc... Personally I don't think that was a smart move (esp. with the HDD-less Arcade) though feel free to disagree.

So, if millions of people would wish to have one too, is there any chance they will get one? A big investment is clearly needed, to produce it on a larger scale and deliver to all the people who will need a Pandora.

I think you misunderstand what Joe Public wants from a handheld device. The masses want a device they don't have to tinker with to get something running, they want firmware updates to be quick and with complexities hidden, they want ready made software to just plug in and go. Pandora could have all of these things in time... I think that's the issue I'm having with your ideas, you seem to be pushing for mass production as some kind of magic pill that will make the Pandora compelling to everyone.

I say let the market evolve naturally, let Pandora find its own place in the market, and go from there. Going back to the mass production thing, it's possible that the second batch will be larger than the first batch, third batch larger than the second, etc... The more the Pandora matures (both in terms of increased software base and ease of use), the more people will see it as a compelling device. The Pandora team can handle larger scale production if the numbers per batch increase steadily (as opposed to sharply) and that way they get all the benefits for their hard graft and belief in the Pandora.

 

[dagger]

QUOTE
emulation focus, lack of complete keyboard, not-x86, no dedicated commercial games, no biggy cpny behind... But who knows?

I know people who bought a netbook to use it just for messenger. And frankly, what do you think, from all the netbook users, how many of them you think they use the netbooks at just a fraction of their potential, like just for messenger, editing documents etc? I guess at very least 10%. In a market of 20 million netbooks / year, that means 2 million. Now, from those 10%, at very least 10% of them, would be happy to switch to a Pandora, just because it's lighter, and fits in a pocket. That means 200.000. So, a device like Pandora will sell 200 thousand very easy. But to be honest, I think 10% of 10% is an extremely modest evaluation. So I can't see why Pandora would not be able to sell at 1 million / year.

Right, the OLPC project is somewhat obsolete but let's look at some facts:
- it already sold 1 million laptops, which would be great if Pandora will do.
- but most important, it inspired ASUS to design the eeePC.
- now it's way behind the netbooks.

So, I think it's much more likely that Pandora will have the same fate if it won't start to produce on big scale: Will have small sale numbers, while others will do similar products,

I understand you caution, and I agree. However, risks are inevitable either way. And, once a big company can clearly see that Pandora has a potential to sell in millions, it can provide the financial support for the project to better resist in face of risks

QUOTE
When you have a goldmine, it's easy that it becomes a problem. The worst treated countries in the world by wars, and invasions, are the ones which have the best and biggest amounts of natural resources. Know why?

I get your point, but if you have that goldmine in USA, it's something else. When 2 young guys started Google, they had a goldmine in their heads. And they exploited it very efficient. So, it's not that deadly dangerous to have a goldmine, and can be exploited profitably - that's my point.

 

[PoisonedV]

That is horrible math and doesn't apply at all.

 

[Zoppe]

@dagger: you're surely not trolling, just showing your idea, that's good.
what second device would you make? i can't see the andora1: getting much better than it already is. i think you may want to add gps, 3g, maybe some BIG flash storage (since theorithycally they have funds based on the investor theory) and a camera? could you share your idea of the second model?

@joseluiz: ty for the advice, i know that poisonedv is the sarcastic one, i just didn't get the joke and wanted to understand (maybe i didn't get the joke because english isn't my mother language? or that's some silly excuse)

 

[dagger]

QUOTE
Faster how exactly, the Pandora is based around the OMAP3, change this and you no longer have a Pandora 1, but a new device. We already (to my knowledge, can't be arsed to check) have the best OMAP3 processor on the market. Cheaper = either mass production (I'll come onto this issue in a minute), refinement of production process (only going to help to a certain degree) or cutting corners (i.e. inferior parts). Better? How exactly? Only ways I can see is by upgrading components (Wireless-N for example) or building more features into the Pandora (like GPS), but you can already get those features through USB and Bluetooth anyway, and these models fracture the market.

I meant faster delivery to users, not faster processors. Cheaper by volume scaling. And better because there will be more money to develop the software and to make it more user (or noob) friendly; and improved models (for example Pandora 2) will be possible to be made (the way the community wants) and delivered in a shorter time frame.

QUOTE
they want ready made software to just plug in and go. Pandora could have all of these things in time...
With more money, you can make those things in shorter time

QUOTE
Going back to the mass production thing, it's possible that the second batch will be larger than the first batch, third batch larger than the second, etc... The more the Pandora matures (both in terms of increased software base and ease of use), the more people will see it as a compelling device. The Pandora team can handle larger scale production if the numbers per batch increase steadily (as opposed to sharply) and that way they get all the benefits for their hard graft and belief in the Pandora.

If the second batch comes 1 year after the first, the third after another one year, there is a big chance that meanwhile, a big company will try to do something similar, on a larger scale, and therefore cheaper - also making more profit, they will be able to develop it faster and better. So, there might be another risk - because a company will simply have more resources to build an equivalent product with better components and cheaper, there is the risk that people will leave Pandora to get that product. It is a possibility. When you make a great product, there is a chance that someone else will copy it and try to do that too. If you can't keep the pace, you can get way behind the other players.

 

[Zoppe]

1st batch had delays for sure, but the team said that onward batches will not have such delays(as far as i can remember) so, we shouldn't expect 2nd batch a full year later

 

[dagger]

That's awesome. What is the expected time between two consecutive batches?
Any chance we'll see Pandora delivered in January, by the way ?

 

[Zoppe]

...We may not send any Pandoras out the door in time for Christmas, but there is still a good chance that some will ship before the end of the year. It's looking very good to have every first batch Pandora shipped before the end of January.......

Sure, other problems might crop up that may delay things farther. It's certainly happened before. But based on everything we know right now, that's how it looks.

according to chip post, if things go as expected every first batch pandora should have shipped before the end of january, but delays can happen.

(dagger have you ever seen this? http://www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?showtopic=43063# it has answers to many of your questions)

 

[dagger]

thanks for that link. Its usefull to me since I heard about Pandora about 10 days ago. By the way, when did the project started?

 

[MSkull01]

I like OpenPandora as it's own little independent community as appose to a big well known company like Apple or Windows. The main reason is that I feel that our thoughts and suggestions for the device are actually heard and taken more to consideration. Plus, since it's not a big name company, not everyone that I know will own one and being the only one around me that owns a Pandora makes me feel unique and more stood-out.

I'm not a fan of popular things, personally. The more people I see with the same device, usually the more I'm repelled from it. So I rather keep it independent.

 

[dagger]

Ok but what you will tell to your friends that will wish to have a Pandora? "Sorry this is for a small number of people that want to stay far from popular things" ?
Will the developers have to make Pandora in small numbers, just to keep people like you feel unique? I think that's not a very good ideea.

QUOTE
So I rather keep it independent.

It is possible to be independent - the investor will just help the developer to bring Pandora to more people, and will share the profit. As I said before, the developers can ask for freedom to implement their vision. Just like the 2 guys that started Google did.

 

[Chip]

So, if millions of people would wish to have one too, is there any chance they will get one? A big investment is clearly needed, to produce it on a larger scale and deliver to all the people who will need a Pandora.
We can make as many as 5k per month at the current factory. In the unlikely event that the Pandora ends up selling millions, we may have to move to a bigger facility, but that isn't that big a deal. Obviously we'd like to see the Pandora become popular, but we're more interested in seeing it become successful.

The important thing to note is that the two are not necessarily the same.

I've made the comparison between the Pandora and the Amiga before, but I think it needs restating. The Amiga was not a popular computer by any standards. The company was around for less than ten years and sold less than five million systems worldwide during it's run. As recently as 1990, the Amiga was still being outsold by it's decrepit grandfather, the C64. No, the Amiga was not popular, but it is arguably the most successful computing platform created to date. Not financially successful perhaps, but successful in that it was (and still is) beloved by it's users. Amiga users were probably the first fanboys in the modern sense. They created a community and software library that was unmatched at the time. Long after physical production stopped, people kept using their systems and kept writing software, staunchly refusing to "upgrade" to competing systems.

Amiga was sort of the Linux of its day. It was the computer geek's computer. For a lot of Amiga owners, it wasn't just a business tool or a game system, it was a hobby. That's what we're going for with the Pandora. Obviously we'd love to sell a million Pandoras and make a boatload of money. Hell, if we move that many, Craig might actually pay me. But if that doesn't happen and we only move ten or twenty thousand, we'll be just fine with it so long as they go to ten or twenty thousand users who really use them.

So no, we do not have any plans to team up with a big player and have the Pandora get huge. It might get huge on its own, but if it does, it is going to be on our terms. Any big company would only care about big numbers. They wouldn't care about quality. They wouldn't care about catering to the sort of people that make a platform successful.

 

[dagger]

thanks for kind answer
I understand your point, It is a product designed to be the way it's users dream it. If it becomes very popular, there is a lot of chance to become even more sucessful. When a lot of people will have a chance to get a Pandora, at least a part of them would become the users that you are talking about: passionate users that use the device

What about doing a little market research, to see the potential of Pandora?

I am not sugesting I have visionary ideeas, but I just want to say, that when I first heard about the upcoming eeePC (I think it was in 2005 or 2006), I was convinced that it will be a huge success. Because the "portable" computers i.e. laptops are not really so portable. They are huge, heavy bricks in fact. People were more than happy to sacrifice a little processing power in favor of a lighter notebook. That is what will make Pandora to be popular too. Untill (maybe in 50-100 years) the notebooks will become the size of an USB Pen Drive, with a keyboard and display that can unfold, there will allways be a need for smaller notebooks. The "portable" computers of today (notebooks, netbooks, even UMPCs and MIDs) are not really that portable. So, as long as people can get something smaller that will do basic job like a messenger, editing documents, people will buy them, at reasonable prices.

I see Pandora's potential to be great, able to sell millions easy. How about convincing some venture capital to pour some millions of $cash$ into your accounts

Let's suppose a market research can reveal that Pandora would sell millions in case it will have a few more features (hdmi, ethernet, and webcam for example). How much would cost such a research by the way? I have no ideea.
Then, get the money from Sequoia capital (or other capital company)
Produce the thing as the market needs it, and if needed make another model exactly like you want.

With 500k / month instead of 5k, I think you can have more time to dedicate to the project, hire some more enthusiasts, and therefore be even more creative and productive. Securing some cash can defenately help.

I know, it's allways easier said then done, but it's just a sincere effort to come with a constructive ideea.

The main point is: you should be prepared to see even millions of people interested about Pandora, because I think that it's very likely to happend.

thanks

 

[salasq]

I know people who bought a netbook to use it just for messenger.

Sorry to tell you, but Pandora is unlikely to run any version of it.

We've got devs who try to build the best tool possible, and users who are wanting to use that tool. What would be gained by diluting either end of the equation? Mass appeal? Pandora has the potential to become big, and I hope it does, but it'll have to happen on Craig & Co's terms. The customer/user ratio is already perilously high, causing unnecessary diversions.

 

[mali]

@dagger

I see your point, but this project is different.
It might be possible to sell more, but what you suggest would kill a part of the project's identity IMO
Money is good, but identity isn't buyable.

I hope that other potential startups learn from this project rather than the big industry that spends half of the time with killing jobs, anyway. Trust the small and medium companies and ignore the industry, it's better for us all.