Openpandora Ltd (UK) Struck off email

[vcoleiro1]

There was no wage  from ICP2 that factors in this (if fixed contracts took place).  Product 3 ,  owned by Link,  was the owning company of ICP2. Product 3 would have paid other companies certain amounts to deliver specific aspects of the product.   Let me explain that more clearly, it would be like one company (A) paid another company (X) $10.000 for 500 LEDs - $10,000 being what company X quoted. You wouldn't expect company X to come back and say they took a salary and now all the money is gone, they are obligated to  deliver to company (A) 500 LEDs regardless of their internal material and salary costs. OF course this is all good in practice assuming standard purchase orders or fixed contracts took place. But in reality , who knows what contracts or deals happened if at all.

Probably should stick to the to the thread topic though, which isn't about ICP2

 

[ramboky]

^^ Looks like we agree again

 

[Rockthesmurf]

@Exophase, agree with the KickStarter suggestions, they don't even need to be mandatory, but backers should expect and explicitly ask for breakdowns, if a trend establishes projects would probably be frowned up/ignored if they don't provide basic breakdowns. For a software development project, it is probably assumed most of the money goes to development time, but for something that is heavily on parts/products/manufacturing it is currently very unclear where the money is spent.

One problem though, if someone lies and claims a product is almost ready (2 months away) when it isn't, a year later it is clear it was a lie, what should happen then? It is hard for KickStarter to take the money back, as the money is gone, and trying to prove the difference between corruption and stupidity is quite hard. Certainly the project owners reputation ideally gets tarnished enough to stop future projects (although clearly not always the case), but as has been said elsewhere, a 'bad' kick starter can still work on other projects, just with a different name or through a different person etc. 

It certainly feels like KickStarter backers need to become more and more thorough in their investigations to be aware of potentially risky projects (even with careful users, the iCP2 project arguably had a good chance of succeeding, it is easy now to say it was doomed from the start, but if lessons were learned from Pandora it felt like it could have worked).

For what is it worth, I am not taking sides, certainly not backing Craig, I didn't even back iCP2, just a interesting point of discussion.

 

[Exophase]

I guess this is a big reason why Kickstarter requires working prototypes for hardware. That right there shows that for hardware it should really be more about funding production than funding development. If you also require a complete release BOM with quotes, a complete cost breakdown, and a detailed project plan and schedule, you'll make it a lot harder to grossly miscalculate or outright lie about the expected ship date.

Another thing you could do is stagger out the financial disbursement around separate milestones (this could be derived from and defined in part by the cost breakdown and schedule). Like for iCP2, they would have gotten money for the case, then would have had to actually make the cases before he got money for anything else. It'd make the whole thing take longer but it'd lower risk and force the developers to at least communicate. It'd also be closer to how firm fixed price contracts work in the industry.

In the end products can then be rated for execution by KS and/or people blessed with some qualified status by KS, and maybe a very high rating would allow some relaxation of the review process for future products.

This is all probably a much higher level of involvement than KS is willing to engage in but they need to at least start doing something, right now their involvement is close to zero and they can afford to do a lot better.

 

[Klumpen]

the iCP2 project arguably had a good chance of succeeding, it is easy now to say it was doomed from the start, but if lessons were learned from Pandora it felt like it could have worked).

No, people that never admit mistakes do not learn out of theiy mistakes, because for them, they are not existent.

The whole way Craig tried to blame others (including ED) and never felt/said sorry or that he did a mistake, showed very clearly, that nothing will change

and the ICP2 was doomed from the beginning indeed, that's what I always thought.

 

[notaz]

This is all probably a much higher level of involvement than KS is willing to engage in but they need to at least start doing something, right now their involvement is close to zero and they can afford to do a lot better.

Why would they? Even failed projects are profitable for them, they aren't taking any risks, so unless high amount of projects start to fail and backers begin losing faith in the whole platform, there is no need for them to do anything.

 

[vcoleiro1]

KS needing working prototypes is a myth, I even posted about it in the past.  The rules actually say something different, ie that you need to show the project in its current state , and not use high res imagery to show its final state (there are rules on this though).  People miss-interpreted the rules to mean you need to show a working prototype - in fact they actually say to show a prototype in its current state of development .  

The rules are all about presenting your project in its current state and not miss-representing it by showing high res images of what the final product will look like in a way that presents as though your showing the product as it exists now.

Actually here are the rules on HW

Hardware and Product Design guidelines

• Show your work
  
  Projects must be clear about their state of development, and cannot be presented as preorders of finished products. Projects must show details (photos, videos, sketches) of their progress so far, along with a prototype demonstrating the product's current functionality. Projects must explain how the final design is likely to differ from the prototype, and include a production plan (i.e., how you're going to make it) and an estimated timeline.
  
• No product simulations or photorealistic renderings
  
  Technical drawings, CAD designs, sketches, and other parts of the design process are awesome and encouraged. Photorealistic renderings and simulations that could be mistaken for finished products or real events, however, are not allowed.
  
• Single servings
  
  Product Design and Hardware projects can only offer one reward per pledge. Offering multiple quantities can imply that rewards are shrink-wrapped and ready to ship when they’re not. With some projects, we'll make exceptions for what we consider sensible sets — things like salt and pepper shakers, notebooks, building blocks, etc.
  

Some further reading on the topic:  http://www.kickstarter.com/blog/kickstarter-is-not-a-store

 

[Morn]

Why would they? Even failed projects are profitable for them, they aren't taking any risks, so unless high amount of projects start to fail and backers begin losing faith in the whole platform, there is no need for them to do anything.

This. 10% interest with minimal involvement it's a business model of dreams.

 

[vcoleiro1]

The number of projects that actually fail to deliver is surprisingly small from experience .  I think one day you will see the following happen, enough bad press will be generated by the failed projects  (perhaps a few spectacular ones) that KS will start charging %10-%15 with the extra percentage covering a backer insurance.  So that if the project fails , backers get their cash back.  

 

[Exophase]

Why would they? Even failed projects are profitable for them, they aren't taking any risks, so unless high amount of projects start to fail and backers begin losing faith in the whole platform, there is no need for them to do anything.

 Because people ARE starting to lose faith, negative articles are starting to be written, and they have an F rating with the Better Business Bureau. People do actually notice these things. If KS fails to react then eventually other crowdfunding sites will.

I think they do care though, or else they never would have instated stricter requirements for hardware projects, ie needing prototypes.

This. 10% interest with minimal involvement it's a business model of dreams.

It's 5% and it's downright piddly compared to the 30% cut off the top of app stores while offering a similar level of services and involvement. I think the real problem is that the whole blew up faster than they were really prepared for and they haven't (yet) reacted much to it.

 

[ramboky]

Why would they? Even failed projects are profitable for them, they aren't taking any risks, so unless high amount of projects start to fail and backers begin losing faith in the whole platform, there is no need for them to do anything.

 
Because people ARE starting to lose faith, negative articles are starting to be written, and they have an F rating with the Better Business Bureau. People do actually notice these things. If KS fails to react then eventually other crowdfunding sites will.


I think they do care though, or else they never would have instated stricter requirements for hardware projects, ie needing prototypes.

This. 10% interest with minimal involvement it's a business model of dreams.

It's 5% and it's downright piddly compared to the 30% cut off the top of app stores while offering a similar level of services and involvement. I think the real problem is that the whole blew up faster than they were really prepared for and they haven't (yet) reacted much to it.

As vcoleiro stated, you don't actually need a working prototype. And the wording around creator responsibility is carefully written so Kickstarter have no responsibility at all. They're a business, if it doesn't affect their bottom line, they don't care. And at the moment the impact is probably negligible. 

As for their fee, Kickstarter received $10,455 from Product 3 LLC for providing a web portal and comments system with Amazon payments tacked on. The vast majority of that is pure profit. App stores provide considerably more: digital distribution, payments, micro payments, feedback, reviews, beta programs etc. 

 

[Exophase]

No, you don't need to have a working prototype if your current functionality is "nothing." This is moot when considering a project like iCP2. They were claiming further development than they could really show in a prototype and they didn't clearly outline what wasn't in the prototype that still needed to be developed.

The fact is that KS DID make a change that tightened down on what the projects needed to provide and probably increased their own workload in evaluating projects. They did this because poorly performing and especially outright failed projects do actually pose a risk to them. There are people who are saying they will never use KS again after something like iCP2. Some people will react this way even after having backed other successful projects in the past.

 

[vcoleiro1]

Having a ICP2 prototype that has no functionality, part functionality or full functionality are all ok by KS rules, so long as the current functionality and limitations are clearly spelled out . As I mentioned before, the rule was implemented to ensure project creators were truthful in how they portrayed the current state of the product. 

The issue for ICP2 as Exo has pointed out, is that the ICP2 could be deemed to be breaking this rule of truthfully describing the state of the ICP2 at the time of the KS.  The biggest concern is this KS statement below, that to me is clearly misleading and breaking the KS rule I previously mentioned.  For a starters , as we now know, the firmware was far from finished at the time.

Ready to go to market Now: The iControlPad2 isn't dreamland, it's a real working prototype which builds on the successful iControlPad technology. If we're funded, we're ready to start mass producing in time for Christmas. And, where possible, we always use local companies in Europe and the USA for all production (The iCP1 was made entirely in Europe).

 

[moz]

^ But wouldn't this make Link legally responsible? I'd hate to see him go down for this.

 

[ramboky]

^ But wouldn't this make Link legally responsible? I'd hate to see him go down for this.

Possibly. It's the unfortunate nature of things like this. The backers would go after Product 3 LLC and in turn Product 3 LLC would go after Craig.

 

[vcoleiro1]

Just doing some quick searches re the rules about being truthful on where the product is at , ie in drawings , prototypes and descriptions.  It appears the rule was only added on the 20th of Sept 2012 (someone else should check this).  The ICP2 KS commenced on Sept 13th - 1 week before the rule on truthfull representation was introduced.  May have dodged a bullet by a whisker. Not that it means anything now, not like KS would have done anything about it.

 

[Klumpen]

Ready to go to market Now: The iControlPad2 isn't dreamland, it's a real working prototype which builds on the successful iControlPad technology. If we're funded, we're ready to start mass producing in time for Christmas. And, where possible, we always use local companies in Europe and the USA for all production (The iCP1 was made entirely in Europe).

I remember this one, it always made my day.

 

[stuart]

So - Companies house have suspended the strike off until Feb next year. This gives everyone more time to make it clear that you need a refund. If you ask for a refund be sure to use Open Pandora Ltd's full company name and address in the email. This email can then be used as evidence to further delay the company strike off as they can not be struck off when there are creditors actively pursuing a resolution.

I will be using my refund to top up the 200 euros I'll pay with the voucher to the full retail price of the 1GHZ unit.

For me this is all I want, to have the latest Pandora, to pay no more than a new customer, and to not be a burden on the project.

I suggest more people actually do this. I'll help via pm if you want.

 

[andmaz777]

"it's a real working prototype "


My only thought with the statement above is that the ICP2 had a prototype that had been put together at some considerable cost but it was working and money was only required for mass production.


How else can that statement be taken?

 

[Klumpen]

I think, that the prototype was just an ICP1 with a fake keyboard.

Even I could make that.