True or False

[OldJim]

You don't want people treated differently, but you do want the pandora's to be produced faster and you do want a future for the pandora. You also acknowledge that they need money to make this possible.So how do you propose for this to happen?

I allrady did answer this Question:

For example sell the first 100 Pandoras of Batch2 to with a Signature on it from the OP-TEAM. This is just one Idea Im sure there are more out there.
So Yes I think its imported that the make sure that the Money comes in for the Pandora to go on... But there are ways to do that without treating some costumers different then others.

Sorry I do not know how to make my point more Clear. I really would try to explain more exact if I knew how to do so. So Sorry if that explaining is not clear enough - someone else out there will have to help me

 

[mahousaru]

You don't want people treated differently, but you do want the pandora's to be produced faster and you do want a future for the pandora. You also acknowledge that they need money to make this possible.So how do you propose for this to happen?

I allrady did answer this Question:

For example sell the first 100 Pandoras of Batch2 to with a Signature on it from the OP-TEAM. This is just one Idea Im sure there are more out there.
So Yes I think its imported that the make sure that the Money comes in for the Pandora to go on... But there are ways to do that without treating some costumers different then others.

Sorry I do not know how to make my point more Clear. I really would try to explain more exact if I knew how to do so. So Sorry if that explaining is not clear enough - someone else out there will have to help me

I believe that the first 100 have already been sold, and they are pre-orders at the old price so how does that generate more cash? Also batch 1 customers are already treated differently from others. Hopefully ours will be worth more when the Pandora goes super global and become collectors items. Lets just tweak your idea and say if you haven't received your order yet, you can pay more and OPT will sign it. Now that generates more cash for basically nothing right now which sounds like a great idea, but doesn't it break your point about treating people differently for money? These signed pandoras from a batch 2+ might be worth more then my unsigned pandora from batch 1!!!


You see what I mean about not tracking? In my mind trying to impose moral restrictions on business practices are required, but when having issues about money buying more oommmpppfff then that gets hypocritically messy real quick.


Also Craig has already offered to sign mine when Pandy goes super global

 

[moxie]

You don't want people treated differently, but you do want the pandora's to be produced faster and you do want a future for the pandora. You also acknowledge that they need money to make this possible.So how do you propose for this to happen?

I allrady did answer this Question:

For example sell the first 100 Pandoras of Batch2 to with a Signature on it from the OP-TEAM. This is just one Idea Im sure there are more out there.
So Yes I think its imported that the make sure that the Money comes in for the Pandora to go on... But there are ways to do that without treating some costumers different then others.

Sorry I do not know how to make my point more Clear. I really would try to explain more exact if I knew how to do so. So Sorry if that explaining is not clear enough - someone else out there will have to help me

This also is treating people differently. With the very important distinction that it will happen after you get yours, so that you don't have to care about it. Not very unselfish or ethical, methinks.

 

[OldJim]

i think its a different if you make a extra offer that effects others or if you offer a upgrade that wont effect the ones that don't upgrade. But thats just my POV.

 

[moxie]

i think its a different if you make a extra offer that effects others or if you offer a upgrade that wont effect the ones that don't upgrade. But thats just my POV.

...and the difference here being? Since that offer will effect others, specifically all those that already has orders in batch 2? But I suppose that those plebes in batch two are not as equal as those in batch one...

 

[Anihil8ion2199]

That seems a bit selfish. Aaaaaanywaaaay, I hope this can give you all a laugh. Particularly after the 1:14 mark...

 

[ZarkGhost]

i only know... that i dont see people from the original queue telling that they have the email... and each day that go, i will get more angry about this, cause... for me sounds like, they have our money already, we were waiting since day 1 or 2, then we can wait two months more. and the funniest, is that if we didnt pay in the beginning, maybe the pandora will not exists, and if you translate this amount of money to nowadays, we get the same price of the pandora premium. ¿fair? No way. And less to listen that we should be happy about all this.


10 premiums pandoras = 1000€ unless, you can pay someone to build pandoras from this amount. say, 20 premiums to get two more, or 30, but more than this amount... is just to pretend to earn money laughing of 3000 persons that have defended this project since the day one.


And yes, of course you can make money from this, is a business. But first, be fair... later, you can build how many premium pandoras you want.

 

[moxie]

No, you can't, because later the pandora will be dead. I'm afraid that there is no pussyfooting around that. If the boards are coming in at a speed that the current assembly team can't handle, then the whole thing will go more and more pearshaped. There won't be coming in any more orders unless there starts to be a visibility of OPT being able to handle the demand. Doing this the slow way means that even someone who orders in two months time won't get his machine until months later, not because it is not there, but because there hasn't been enough people to put the parts together. That would kill the whole thing.

 

[may88]

I'm not a fan of the "premium" Pandoras. Time may prove this to be a stroke of genius.


As long as the numbers are kept quite low then I can just about tolerate it.


I suspect if there was more money then the Taiwanese company may have won some business. With them being able to assemble too then this may be the answer for Batch 3+. CC sure have pulled there finger out and maybe keeping this existing US/UK production line running, will give the OPT a production rate to conquer the world.

 

[mahousaru]

i only know... that i dont see people from the original queue telling that they have the email... and each day that go, i will get more angry about this, cause... for me sounds like, they have our money already, we were waiting since day 1 or 2, then we can wait two months more. and the funniest, is that if we didnt pay in the beginning, maybe the pandora will not exists, and if you translate this amount of money to nowadays, we get the same price of the pandora premium. ¿fair? No way. And less to listen that we should be happy about all this.


10 premiums pandoras = 1000€ unless, you can pay someone to build pandoras from this amount. say, 20 premiums to get two more, or 30, but more than this amount... is just to pretend to earn money laughing of 3000 persons that have defended this project since the day one.


And yes, of course you can make money from this, is a business. But first, be fair... later, you can build how many premium pandoras you want.

original queue here with an email, sure it was a premium order on top of my original... but i'm sure I'll get my batch 1 sooner, and hopefully so will you!

 

[Zenbot]

There's a reason most project managers choose not to share information until they're ready to ship.


This project is run with an interesting philosophy: openness of the software, on the production issues and queues and all the rest. I can respect that, and I can also understand the emotion around this. At the end of the day, we all wanted our Pandoras and we wanted them to be near-flawless, which is why I think a lot of us could be patient and take the long-term gain (a better machine) over the short-term less-than-perfect product. Inherent in this approach is, of course, the fact that the closer to perfect you want, the more complex and unpredictable the whole project is. It's something I see often in my professional life (issues management at a utility, of all things) and the lessons apply to almost any project, I think.


But I would argue that OPT was too forthcoming in the information they gave. Despite frequent disclaimers about how what's true or what they understand may change from day to day, they tried their best to keep people informed. And they had to -- anything less would've caused concern about the legitimacy of this whole operation.


So really, the amount and quality of information given was a balancing act -- not a series of lies and over-optimistic thinking -- but a constant question of what you give to your consumers. And obviously, there were missteps. But I would challenge anyone to straddle this fence and get the message right 100% of the time, without ruffling any feathers.


Again, no disrespect to the critics. It's understandable that you question these things, but I do think you need to appreciate how difficult this game is, and realize that it's not necessarily the fault of any individual.

 

[Eridger]

There's a reason most project managers choose not to share information until they're ready to ship.


This project is run with an interesting philosophy: openness of the software, on the production issues and queues and all the rest. I can respect that, and I can also understand the emotion around this. At the end of the day, we all wanted our Pandoras and we wanted them to be near-flawless, which is why I think a lot of us could be patient and take the long-term gain (a better machine) over the short-term less-than-perfect product. Inherent in this approach is, of course, the fact that the closer to perfect you want, the more complex and unpredictable the whole project is. It's something I see often in my professional life (issues management at a utility, of all things) and the lessons apply to almost any project, I think.


But I would argue that OPT was too forthcoming in the information they gave. Despite frequent disclaimers about how what's true or what they understand may change from day to day, they tried their best to keep people informed. And they had to -- anything less would've caused concern about the legitimacy of this whole operation.


So really, the amount and quality of information given was a balancing act -- not a series of lies and over-optimistic thinking -- but a constant question of what you give to your consumers. And obviously, there were missteps. But I would challenge anyone to straddle this fence and get the message right 100% of the time, without ruffling any feathers.


Again, no disrespect to the critics. It's understandable that you question these things, but I do think you need to appreciate how difficult this game is, and realize that it's not necessarily the fault of any individual.

You put this into words better than I ever could have. These are my thoughts exactly.


You don't happen to have a newsletter, do you?

 

[Zenbot]

[


You put this into words better than I ever could have. These are my thoughts exactly.


You don't happen to have a newsletter, do you?

Heh. I know you're joking but in fact I do run a newsletter at work!


Cheers

 

[Anihil8ion2199]

There's a reason most project managers choose not to share information until they're ready to ship.


This project is run with an interesting philosophy: openness of the software, on the production issues and queues and all the rest. I can respect that, and I can also understand the emotion around this. At the end of the day, we all wanted our Pandoras and we wanted them to be near-flawless, which is why I think a lot of us could be patient and take the long-term gain (a better machine) over the short-term less-than-perfect product. Inherent in this approach is, of course, the fact that the closer to perfect you want, the more complex and unpredictable the whole project is. It's something I see often in my professional life (issues management at a utility, of all things) and the lessons apply to almost any project, I think.


But I would argue that OPT was too forthcoming in the information they gave. Despite frequent disclaimers about how what's true or what they understand may change from day to day, they tried their best to keep people informed. And they had to -- anything less would've caused concern about the legitimacy of this whole operation.


So really, the amount and quality of information given was a balancing act -- not a series of lies and over-optimistic thinking -- but a constant question of what you give to your consumers. And obviously, there were missteps. But I would challenge anyone to straddle this fence and get the message right 100% of the time, without ruffling any feathers.


Again, no disrespect to the critics. It's understandable that you question these things, but I do think you need to appreciate how difficult this game is, and realize that it's not necessarily the fault of any individual.

Excellently written! Seriously.

 

[OldJim]

@Zenbot, on 02 February 2011 - 02:25 AM


You made a very good point here. Thanx. And I would 100% Agree if the information that we get from the OP-Team would all be like the ones Posted here: http://openpandora.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=2&Itemid=2&lang=en


Tension like we experience in this discussion could be avoided if all the OP-TEAM members would watch there words as good as it is done at the link above.


Its the fussy Statements that can be interpreted in so many different ways and let hopes grow where there is non.


Statements like:

So if we have 5 people rather than the current 3, we can produce 150+ units/day rather than the current ~70.

we're building another 200 this week

2 Quotes same author less then a Week apart.


But the Math just not adds up. In one quote it says that the current Rate is ~70 and whit this Premium Thing it can boost up to 150+


Then just a few days later It sounds like the Week rate will be 200. And even if the would only work 3 Days a Week thats less then the rate of 70 a Day. Well I guess thats why there is a "~" in front of the 70. But I would assume that the work more then 3 Days a Week and then the Day rate is so far below 70 that even the "~" wont save it.


So its Quotes like the ones mentioned above that really can cause a lot of confusion and tension.


So before people rip me in to pieces again. Telling me that I'm just fabricate my own facts whit a patchwork of Quotes riped out of there Content.


I have a simple question for you:


Who out there believes that the PREMIUM ACT will speed production op to 150+? (I'm specially interested in how EvilDragon sees this)


@Morix a was thinking about your Healthcare example in


And for the people out there that do not share my POV about it not being Fair to treat PREMIUM differen I have also a simple Question:


Have you ever lost a Child because some one whit more Cash then you was privileged and you had to step back?


Just before we get all upset here again. I do see the Point of Mahou Saru

In my mind trying to impose moral restrictions on business practices are required, but when having issues about money buying more oommmpppfff then that gets hypocritically messy real quick.

- But I guess sometimes I'm a Dreamer Imagining a world where everybody is equal in the World of John Lennon "You may say I am a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us" And the world will be as one"

 

[moxie]

@Morix a was thinking about your Healthcare example in


And for the people out there that do not share my POV about it not being Fair to treat PREMIUM differen I have also a simple Question:


Have you ever lost a Child because some one whit more Cash then you was privileged and you had to step back?

Well, you see - It doesn't work like that. In the case of the healthcare system, nobody can buy their way past the standard queue. What they can do is go to some private clinic, possibly, and not in Sweden. So the only thing that happens is that the standard queue gets shorter for those that come after the rich guy. If somebody dies unnecessarily here, it is not because of someone barging past the line, but rather that the doctor at your local healthcare center is not too good, and it is a bit difficult to go somewhere else for a second opinion since, well, that would be a bit like mucking about with The Queue.


In the case of the pandora, I can't really see the analogy. Nobodys children dies from lack of pandora, I'm sure. Especially not since the pandora most likely will arrive earlier. Possibly your inner child of innocence will take a beating, but that is part of growing up in this world.

There's a reason most project managers choose not to share information until they're ready to ship.


[...]

Excellently written! Seriously.

Seconded.

 

[mahousaru]

There's a reason most project managers choose not to share information until they're ready to ship.


This project is run with an interesting philosophy: openness of the software, on the production issues and queues and all the rest. I can respect that, and I can also understand the emotion around this. At the end of the day, we all wanted our Pandoras and we wanted them to be near-flawless, which is why I think a lot of us could be patient and take the long-term gain (a better machine) over the short-term less-than-perfect product. Inherent in this approach is, of course, the fact that the closer to perfect you want, the more complex and unpredictable the whole project is. It's something I see often in my professional life (issues management at a utility, of all things) and the lessons apply to almost any project, I think.


But I would argue that OPT was too forthcoming in the information they gave. Despite frequent disclaimers about how what's true or what they understand may change from day to day, they tried their best to keep people informed. And they had to -- anything less would've caused concern about the legitimacy of this whole operation.


So really, the amount and quality of information given was a balancing act -- not a series of lies and over-optimistic thinking -- but a constant question of what you give to your consumers. And obviously, there were missteps. But I would challenge anyone to straddle this fence and get the message right 100% of the time, without ruffling any feathers.


Again, no disrespect to the critics. It's understandable that you question these things, but I do think you need to appreciate how difficult this game is, and realize that it's not necessarily the fault of any individual.

Great post!!!

 

[OldJim]

Well, you see - It doesn't work like that. In the case of the healthcare system, nobody can buy their way past the standard queue. the only thing that happens is that the standard queue gets shorter for those that come after the rich guy.

Not totally true, wen it comes for example to Organ Transplantation, because there are never enough Organs to be transplanted out there...

In the case of the pandora, I can't really see the analogy.

Well you came up whit this analogy of the Pandora and the healthcaresystem in the first place...


any How we are getting of Topic here.


I think I made my Point and most of you did now understand it, even if you do not agree...But thats Fine, because everybody has the right to have his own POV