[hellonnnewman]

Hi,

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm not seeing what the substantive difference between asking for donations with a donate button to finish and release ACL, and asking for donations via a Kickstarter Campaign to finish and release ACL is.

Thank you for doing this! I'm sure you'll get a lot of questions and feedback.

@ webOS Nations members - please be kind and respectful (as you always are) in this discussion

[rwhitby]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to let you know that I have opened this account in order to be able to communicate with you regarding questions that are being raised with respect to the ACL for HP Touchpad Kickstarter Campaign. Hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion so that at least you can have a clear picture on what is going on.

Marc
Development Manager
PIC

Hi Marc,

Here is a list of things that I expect the community would want to know about when making a decision whether to back this kickstarter or not:

1) Honesty of previous OpenMobile (OM) claims about availability of ACL.

For over a year now, OM's website has stated that ACL for webOS (and many other platforms) is available to consumers (not just available to OEMs). This is clearly not the case. What is PIC's position on these claims made on the OM website? Is webOS ACL already available to end consumers? If not, why does the website still say that even today? If that part of the website is false, which other claims about ACL should the community trust and which are also false?

2) Technical viability of webOS ACL distribution.

Previously, it had been stated (I'm not sure if it was directly, or second-hand), that the reason why webOS ACL had not been released into the HP webOS App Catalog was due to technical issues which prevented such a release. Is PIC in a position to state what those issues were, and how they intend to resolve these issues to allow webOS ACL to be released and installed by end consumers? Is release through the HP webOS App Catalog still the intended delivery mechanism? Is there an alternate delivery mechanism planned?

Note that I am talking about distribution of the ACL platform itself here, not distribution of Android applications. The demonstration of a working Amazon app store covers the distribution of Android applications.

3) Compatibility of Android applications.

I expect that PIC is not guaranteeing 100% compatibility of every single Android application in existence. Please give a technical description of what types of Android applications will *NOT* be supported, and why.

4) Guarantee of delivery, or refund of money.

Please state whether PIC guarantees delivery of webOS ACL to end consumers by a certain date. Please state whether PIC will refund kickstarter funds if that delivery guarantee is not met.

Whilst a guarantee of delivery is not required by kickstarter, and is not necessarily something that PIC needs to make even if the kickstarter is successful, the community should indeed know clearly whether or not PIC is making such a guarantee or not.


The webOS community seems to want to back this initiative, but satisfactory answers to these questions seem to be getting in the way. Please take the time to be very open about these issues, and trust that the community will probably even accept less than perfect answers, as long as the answers are clear, unambiguous, and reflect reality.

Thanks,

-- Rod

[Marc_PIC]

The upsetting part about the cost of this is that where Phoenix will make their money is from companies that want to use something other than Android on their phone or tablet, but want their customers to have access to all of the Android apps.

No, won't. The project we are running is for the HP Touchpad. We do not earn any money from whatever OpenMobile does with the software outside of this project.

Charging the Touchpad users money for this in my opinion is almost criminal. Personally, with this being a "kickstarter project" it would make sense to me to release it to Touchpad users and call it your pilot. Assuming we love it, that sells your case for it to be sold to companies.

It would be great if it could be free, but the economics of the situation make that impossible. HP could do it and make it free. LG could do it and make it free. Unfortunately PIC, a small startup comprised of regular people with bills to pay and families to feed, do not have the resources to do it for free.

[Marc_PIC]

Hi Marc,

Here is a list of things that I expect the community would want to know about when making a decision whether to back this kickstarter or not:

1) Honesty of previous OpenMobile (OM) claims about availability of ACL.

For over a year now, OM's website has stated that ACL for webOS (and many other platforms) is available to consumers (not just available to OEMs). This is clearly not the case. What is PIC's position on these claims made on the OM website? Is webOS ACL already available to end consumers? If not, why does the website still say that even today? If that part of the website is false, which other claims about ACL should the community trust and which are also false?

I do not at this time know why that statement is on their website. If I had to guess, I would guess that some kind of deal had been made, the marketing department got ahead of the development department, and through basic laziness or carelessness of someone or some department, and a failure to follow up by their manager, the error was left uncorrected. This is pure speculation on my part however. I will raise the question to their marketing head when next I speak with her.

2) Technical viability of webOS ACL distribution.

Previously, it had been stated (I'm not sure if it was directly, or second-hand), that the reason why webOS ACL had not been released into the HP webOS App Catalog was due to technical issues which prevented such a release. Is PIC in a position to state what those issues were, and how they intend to resolve these issues to allow webOS ACL to be released and installed by end consumers? Is release through the HP webOS App Catalog still the intended delivery mechanism? Is there an alternate delivery mechanism planned?

Note that I am talking about distribution of the ACL platform itself here, not distribution of Android applications. The demonstration of a working Amazon app store covers the distribution of Android applications.

Yes. OM required some technical information about the TP from HP in order to complete their work. I do not know what the exact information was, but my understanding is that it had to do with the customization of the software rather than any peculiarities relating to deploying an App through the App Catalog. However the fact that information was needed, and that it was supplied to OM at some point (I don't know when), has been confirmed to me personally by a former HP employee who was involved in the process, and so these issues no longer exist.

Our preference is that ACL be distributed via the HP App Catalog. However, we have been told by an HP/Gram representative in a position to be knowledgeable of such matters, is that with HP's current attitude regarding webOS, such an approval is EXTREMELY unlikely. We will nevertheless apply, but have already started working on an alternate delivery mechanism which will be make ready to go with immediately should HP tell us no.

3) Compatibility of Android applications.

I expect that PIC is not guaranteeing 100% compatibility of every single Android application in existence. Please give a technical description of what types of Android applications will *NOT* be supported, and why.

I personally am not guaranteeing 100% compatibility at this time. I have worked on too many projects where practice and theory are at odds with each other. However, having spoken with members of OM's engineering team, I am suspending final judgment on this for the time being.

4) Guarantee of delivery, or refund of money.

Please state whether PIC guarantees delivery of webOS ACL to end consumers by a certain date. Please state whether PIC will refund kickstarter funds if that delivery guarantee is not met.

Whilst a guarantee of delivery is not required by kickstarter, and is not necessarily something that PIC needs to make even if the kickstarter is successful, the community should indeed know clearly whether or not PIC is making such a guarantee or not.

It is impossible to guarantee delivery by a certain date. Although I am confident that the technology is sound and will work as promised, as with any technology project things can go off the rails and result in delays. From what I have seen, that is simply an inherent and unavoidable part of software development projects. However, I can guarantee you this, that we will spare no effort to keep things on schedule and deliver the product on time, and will hold OpenMobile to the same standard. That is the best we can do.

The webOS community seems to want to back this initiative, but satisfactory answers to these questions seem to be getting in the way. Please take the time to be very open about these issues, and trust that the community will probably even accept less than perfect answers, as long as the answers are clear, unambiguous, and reflect reality.

Thanks,

-- Rod

Thanks Rod - I really appreciate your willingness to get involved to try and bring clarity to the situation.

[ananimus]

Hi,

Can you clarify this a bit? I'm not seeing what the substantive difference between asking for donations with a donate button to finish and release ACL, and asking for donations via a Kickstarter Campaign to finish and release ACL is.

Yes, I realized later that sounded odd. The "just donate" link would come along with an "as-is" mentality that someone would get paid to finish it, then it would be released. Open sourced at best, as others could learn how the hooks work and possibly expand upon it. Released as a free app otherwise. I'm speaking to the lack of any stated goals beyond making the (now dated and dying) TouchPad do a fantastic new trick.

At this point, for what we know about the state of ACL and its long term usability, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask for donations so that you can turn around and further sell it at $30 per copy to the unsuspecting until it limps off. If we're chipping in to help you develop a proprietary app, that's fine, but I expect to hear more about solid long term plans. How long will it be maintained? Is there a plan for expanding ACL to support all webOS devices or Open webOS?

So yes: if it's short term, then collect a pool and state the terms clearly: "As-is basis. When we release it, we're done." But if we're talking sustainable business, then please elaborate. I'd rather not support a company that provides vague terms.

For the record, I genuinely appreciate that, at the heart of it, you're trying to force the completion of ACL. Thank you for that.

[Brok3n Halo]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to let you know that I have opened this account in order to be able to communicate with you regarding questions that are being raised with respect to the ACL for HP Touchpad Kickstarter Campaign. Hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion so that at least you can have a clear picture on what is going on.

Marc
Development Manager
PIC

Hi Marc, good to see you jumping directly into the community to answer questions. I'm one of the early supporters in the $30 tier.

I see talk earlier in the thread about only being compatible with 2.x versions of android, is this true and is there a plan in place to migrate to 4.2 compatibility post launch? As a developer myself it makes sense that there is no way to get more modern support in the initial release and most apps support back to then currently, but it seems like this could be limiting in the not to distant future.

Relatedly, I understand what you mentioned on the Kickstarter Q&A about not making commitments regarding other projects and ACL needing to be optimized for hardware, but the days of webOS 3.0.5 are looking a bit numbered at this point. Open WebOS running on a TouchPad seems like a realistic progression for the die hard webOS user. Is supporting Open WebOS on supported hardware something that' in your long term plans?

Finally, how does ACL fit into PIC's long term playbook? If I'm not mistaken your organizations end goal is to produce new hardware built for Open WebOS. Do you see ACL integration as necessary step in Open WebOS's modernization to make new hardware viable? How does this fit with the other PIC project of running webOS in Android?

[rwhitby]

I do not at this time know why that statement is on their website. If I had to guess, I would guess that some kind of deal had been made, the marketing department got ahead of the development department, and through basic laziness or carelessness of someone or some department, and a failure to follow up by their manager, the error was left uncorrected. This is pure speculation on my part however. I will raise the question to their marketing head when next I speak with her.

Please do let us know (if possible) what the response from OM is on this issue.

Yes. OM required some technical information about the TP from HP in order to complete their work. I do not know what the exact information was, but my understanding is that it had to do with the customization of the software rather than any peculiarities relating to deploying an App through the App Catalog. However the fact that information was needed, and that it was supplied to OM at some point (I don't know when), has been confirmed to me personally by a former HP employee who was involved in the process, and so these issues no longer exist.

Our preference is that ACL be distributed via the HP App Catalog. However, we have been told by an HP/Gram representative in a position to be knowledgeable of such matters, is that with HP's current attitude regarding webOS, such an approval is EXTREMELY unlikely. We will nevertheless apply, but have already started working on an alternate delivery mechanism which will be make ready to go with immediately should HP tell us no.

This appears to be a reasonable strategy to deal with this issue.

I personally am not guaranteeing 100% compatibility at this time. I have worked on too many projects where practice and theory are at odds with each other. However, having spoken with members of OM's engineering team, I am suspending final judgment on this for the time being.

This answer still sounds too good to be true. Issues such as graphics acceleration, sufficient response time of sensors, and other device-specific compatibility issues must come into play here. I expect that PIC have made their own technical evaluation of any inherent limitations, and are not simply trusting the word of OM here. I personally would find an answer of "We'll support almost all types of apps, which these specific exceptions being known about at this time, but we have some ideas on how to get around those limitations" to be more trust-engendering than "Don't worry about limitations, we will get to 100% eventually".

Note that 100% is not necessary for a successful product. The PalmOS Classic app was not 100%, but was still very useful to many people.

It is impossible to guarantee delivery by a certain date. Although I am confident that the technology is sound and will work as promised, as with any technology project things can go off the rails and result in delays. From what I have seen, that is simply an inherent and unavoidable part of software development projects. However, I can guarantee you this, that we will spare no effort to keep things on schedule and deliver the product on time, and will hold OpenMobile to the same standard. That is the best we can do.

To be clear, what I understand you to be saying here is that there shall be no refunds regardless of the outcome, and PIC will do whatever they can to ensure a positive outcome, but cannot guarantee that.

Thanks Rod - I really appreciate your willingness to get involved to try and bring clarity to the situation.

I think that you joining the discussion here will go a long way to helping people make their personal decision on whether to back this project or not.

Thanks,

-- Rod

[ananimus]

Also, I apologize if came off aggressive there. It's great that you're here taking the time to address all these concerns, and that goes a long way.

[RumoredNow]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to let you know that I have opened this account in order to be able to communicate with you regarding questions that are being raised with respect to the ACL for HP Touchpad Kickstarter Campaign. Hopefully I can clear up some of the confusion so that at least you can have a clear picture on what is going on.

Marc
Development Manager
PIC

Thank you for coming into the discussion. Many here are appreciative of the chance to get some first hand information...

A couple of follow up questions, though, due to the first line in your introductory statement. You were not previously a member of webOS Nation? How much hands on experience do you have with webOS?

...1) Honesty of previous OpenMobile (OM) claims about availability of ACL.

For over a year now, OM's website has stated that ACL for webOS (and many other platforms) is available to consumers (not just available to OEMs). This is clearly not the case. What is PIC's position on these claims made on the OM website? Is webOS ACL already available to end consumers? If not, why does the website still say that even today? If that part of the website is false, which other claims about ACL should the community trust and which are also false?...

...I do not at this time know why that statement is on their website. If I had to guess, I would guess that some kind of deal had been made, the marketing department got ahead of the development department, and through basic laziness or carelessness of someone or some department, and a failure to follow up by their manager, the error was left uncorrected. This is pure speculation on my part however. I will raise the question to their marketing head when next I speak with her...

As you may be able to tell from my other posts, my major concern has nothing to do with PIC directly, but rather with OpenMobile and their approach to doing business. Make no mistake, it is not a simple error of one or two phrases on their website. Please take the time to look the site over. They make claims on every page that ACL is a current product ready for immediate consumption at a functional level. Not just for webOS but for many mobile and desktop platforms.

This isn't a "whoops, we got ahead of ourselves" error. It is a concerted strategy to claim they have more than they do. It's akin to the Enron fiasco. Claiming assets that exist only in the imagination is not a marketing glitch, a snafu that has gone uncorrected. It is an intentional deception of the public regarding their business worth.


I do not expect Phoenix International Communications to explain anything on OpenMobile's behalf in reagrds to this - although I'm mighty curious to hear what they will tell PIC.

And I in no way think PIC is accountable for that part of OM's behavior, but feel I should warn anyone/everyone about the huge discrepancy between what they claim they have done and what they have actually released.

It would be nice if AnitaOM or some other OpenMobile rep would address that issue directly - PIC should not have to answer that point as they did not create the situation.


Thank you for your efforts to support our community.

[dignitary]

see talk earlier in the thread about only being compatible with 2.x versions of android, is this true and is there a plan in place to migrate to 4.2 compatibility post launch? As a developer myself it makes sense that there is no way to get more modern support in the initial release and most apps support back to then currently, but it seems like this could be limiting in the not to distant future.

I think, given the precipitous drop in Android 2.2/2.3 device share per Google's own Android dashboard over just the past 6 months, this is a very important question that needs to be addressed. As I've posted previously, more and more developers are beginning to baseline or rebase their applications to 4.x (mostly 4.0.x), fewer and fewer actively-supported applications will remain for these users, and top-tier applications will begin similarly rebasing as that 2.2/2.3 device share continues to drop.

2013 is the first year that Android 2.3 devices come up for contract renewal as it was released in 2011, so that drop in usage share is only going to become a river as these users tip the 4.0+ scales strongly as the year progresses. Developers will accordingly follow suit in their support matrices in order to incorporate newer features into their applications, much as web developers do whenever an obsolete browser finally falls below a substantial enough threshold to discontinue support.

Does PIC intend to advance the ACL to incorporate 4.x+ applications into its compatibility matrix, and if so, does it currently have the talent to push that into the fold for its initial release or will additional resources be necessary to do so?

The current Kickstarter provides to backers zero information over what the expectations are as to the actual level of application support in terms of Android version; while astute eyes can pick out that all the interfaces scream Gingerbread, many other backers may attempt to ditch their dual-boot configurations (which vastly tilted at 4.x) in favor of what amounts to a monumental application support downgrade. How does PIC intend to address this publicly to Kickstarter backers in the name of transparency?

[dignitary]

Very glad to see PIC here in this thread addressing these questions. Here's my contribution:

see talk earlier in the thread about only being compatible with 2.x versions of android, is this true and is there a plan in place to migrate to 4.2 compatibility post launch? As a developer myself it makes sense that there is no way to get more modern support in the initial release and most apps support back to then currently, but it seems like this could be limiting in the not to distant future.

As someone who leads multiple teams of developers dealing day-to-day with the shifting mobile landscape, I can personally tell you that we can't wait for the moment we can drop Android 2.3. And it's a widely-held and shared industry sentiment. It's our IE6 so to speak, if you're familiar with the metaphor.

Anyway, given the accelerating drop in Android 2.3 usage share amongst Android users per Google's own Android dashboard over just the past 6 months, this is a vital question that needs to be addressed and immediately communicated to Kickstarter backers. As I've posted previously, as more and more developers are beginning to baseline new or rebase existing applications to "modern Android" 4.x (mostly 4.0.x), fewer actively-supported applications will remain for these users, and top-tier applications like Netflix will begin similarly rebasing when 2.3 share drops to even lower levels than most other devs would bother with. Keep firmly in mind that 4.0.x has been available since Late 2011, currently taking over 50% of the share when combined with 4.1/4.2 and growing rapidly month-over-month as a group.

Current Android Version Usage Share Stats: http://developer.android.com/about/d...rds/index.html
(Heck 4.1 is already within a hair of overtaking 4.0.x and we're sitting here talking about 2.3.)

Anyhow, let me put a finer--but blunt--point on it: 2013 is the first year that Android 2.3 devices come up for contract renewal as it was released in 2011, so that (rain)drop in usage share is going to become a pretty big wave as these users tip the 4.x+ scales strongly as the year progresses. Much as web developers do whenever an obsolete browser finally falls below a substantial enough threshold to justify discontinuing support, the application rebase I mentioned above is only going to happen much faster as it typically does during contract cycles when usage shares shift drastically--and there's no shortage of advantages for developers to move to a 4.x baseline due to the major optimization opportunities and new features available to them.

Does PIC intend to advance the ACL to incorporate 4.x+ applications into its compatibility matrix, and if so, does it currently have the talent to push that into the fold for its initial release or will additional resources be necessary to do so for a future release? Does this mean more money from the community? More developers? A Kickstarter-type effort for each major release? If 4.x compatibility doesn't make it to the initial release, realistically what are the ballparked chances that 2.3 support is the highest the PIC release will ever see given the technical complexity of just getting the existing version out, or is the architectural roadmap amenable to in-place upgrades with user data persistence intact?

So, let's say 4.x is on the roadmap. If we look at CyanogenMod as a relatively comparative model given the scope of effort, going from CM7 (2.3.x) to CM9 (4.0.x) took their legions of expert-level Android developers quite a considerable time to stabilize and deploy, without factoring in the additional development and testing necessary for specific devices. In the end, each major CM release is in fact a new product (usually without the luxury of user data persistence) for this reason. Does PIC see ACL having to follow a similar model based on the existing application architecture?

The crux of why I'm asking for all of this to be addressed: The current Kickstarter provides to backers zero information over what the expectations are as to the actual level of application support in terms of Android version; while astute eyes can pick out that all the interfaces scream Gingerbread, many other backers may attempt to ditch their dual-boot configurations (which vastly tilted at 4.x) in favor of what amounts to an unanticipated and monumental application support downgrade. Many others may back this project with the expectation of "modern Android" (4.x) support when in fact that's not what they may get. If they get 2.3 support without assurance that they'll ever get 4.x support, why would they want to take the downgrade in order to back this project? Others will, without realizing it, back this project and discover that the apps their friends on 4.x use can't be used on ACL because the project didn't explicitly set expectations by disclosing the ACL's limitations.

How does PIC intend to address this publicly to Kickstarter backers in the name of transparency?

[ajguns]

Please consider the vastly unsupported countries when selling the ACL. I once had a credit card working but all of the sudden it stoped and now the app catalog won't even let me introduce any credit card without showing "the credit card your using could be fraudulent" error. I've tried several-several times! I would even suggest making it available through the Play Store or a link on PIC official web where we could buy through paypal or credit card and download the .ipk directly. This would give a true world wide access to the great and long enough awaited piece of software.

Pleas consider this or a lot of people will be left out once again (something that has been pointed out in the webOS Nation forums to be one of the reason why webOS user base doesn't expand).

Best of hopes PIC and OM.

[checkmate]

Great to see Marc responding directly to questions the community is asking.

I wonder if we could get any comment regarding possible future ACL implementation on webOS phones like my Pre3. I know there are many members here who'd have a lot more interest in this project (and may donate) if this is on the agenda at some point.

[Marc_PIC]

At this point, for what we know about the state of ACL and its long term usability, it doesn't seem reasonable to ask for donations so that you can turn around and further sell it at $30 per copy to the unsuspecting until it limps off. If we're chipping in to help you develop a proprietary app, that's fine, but I expect to hear more about solid long term plans. How long will it be maintained? Is there a plan for expanding ACL to support all webOS devices or Open webOS?

The plan is to launch ACL for the TP first, because it is reasonably close to completion. There is some indication that with not too major modifications it could run on at least the Pre3 as well, but that is not something that we can commit to at this point - in the interests of getting this done within a reasonable time frame only committing to TP support seems the best way to proceed. The same goes for the version of Android - the jury is still out over whether it could be swapped out with Android 4 and still be ready by July, and we don't want to get people's hopes up until we have a better idea.

So yes: if it's short term, then collect a pool and state the terms clearly: "As-is basis. When we release it, we're done." But if we're talking sustainable business, then please elaborate. I'd rather not support a company that provides vague terms.

For the record, I genuinely appreciate that, at the heart of it, you're trying to force the completion of ACL. Thank you for that.

In terms of maintenance, we are in it for the long term. Our plan is not only to support it on as many existing webOS devices as we can, but also to have versions of it on future devices should they ever appear, and update them as needed. We see ACL technology as something that open webOS desperately needs if it is going to be anything more than an expensive hobby for those of us who love the platform, and we want to see if have multiple releases and made as current in respect to Android support as we possibly can.

[Marc_PIC]

Hi Marc, good to see you jumping directly into the community to answer questions. I'm one of the early supporters in the $30 tier.

I see talk earlier in the thread about only being compatible with 2.x versions of android, is this true and is there a plan in place to migrate to 4.2 compatibility post launch? As a developer myself it makes sense that there is no way to get more modern support in the initial release and most apps support back to then currently, but it seems like this could be limiting in the not to distant future.

Yes, there is a plan in the works. We are looking into what the switch to 4.x would involve in terms of time and added expense, and will make the decision based on the impact to timeline and budget. If the initial release s constrained by these to remain on version 2.3.3, we will put together a plan for what a post-launch upgrade will take.

Relatedly, I understand what you mentioned on the Kickstarter Q&A about not making commitments regarding other projects and ACL needing to be optimized for hardware, but the days of webOS 3.0.5 are looking a bit numbered at this point. Open WebOS running on a TouchPad seems like a realistic progression for the die hard webOS user. Is supporting Open WebOS on supported hardware something that' in your long term plans?

Yes. The primary objective of PIC from day one has been to develop and release a webOS smartphone, and that has not changed. Projects like these are necessary steps that we need to take to get there.

Finally, how does ACL fit into PIC's long term playbook? If I'm not mistaken your organizations end goal is to produce new hardware built for Open WebOS. Do you see ACL integration as necessary step in Open WebOS's modernization to make new hardware viable? How does this fit with the other PIC project of running webOS in Android?

Yes, we see ACL as essential if Open webOS is to move forward. Regarding the hybrid project, we have not discussed ACL being involved with that as on the face of it there wouldn't be a real need for it. The hybrid approach is aimed more at allowing users to switch back and forth between the 2 environments without needing to reboot - using webOS for some things (most things we hope), and Android for the other things that webOS couldn't do due to lack of apps (eg. Netflix, banking app from your bank, etc etc).

[Marc_PIC]

This answer still sounds too good to be true. Issues such as graphics acceleration, sufficient response time of sensors, and other device-specific compatibility issues must come into play here. I expect that PIC have made their own technical evaluation of any inherent limitations, and are not simply trusting the word of OM here. I personally would find an answer of "We'll support almost all types of apps, which these specific exceptions being known about at this time, but we have some ideas on how to get around those limitations" to be more trust-engendering than "Don't worry about limitations, we will get to 100% eventually".

Note that 100% is not necessary for a successful product. The PalmOS Classic app was not 100%, but was still very useful to many people.

Actually, "Don't worry about limitations, we will get to 100% eventually", is not at all what I was saying, so let me try and make it a little clearer. I don't believe 100% compatibility exists. Ever. With anything. Even when you swap out a hardware component with another supposedly compatible one, small differences in how they behave can introduce problems that can interfere with the software running on them. "100% compatible", "fully compatible", "hardware agnostic" - these are all really marketing terms that people in that profession utilize to convey the reality that anything you try will most likely work without any problems. And with a system like this, I would expect there to be more issues. OM have their reasoning why they believe their won't be more issues than is already inherent in getting software and hardware to work together, and I have my reservations about it, but am open to the possibility of being proven wrong - that's what I'm saying. I think looking at the Cyanogenmod example makes things even clearer - Google Play works on it, but not every single release of Google Play works on it and users have to stick with the ones that do.

To be clear, what I understand you to be saying here is that there shall be no refunds regardless of the outcome, and PIC will do whatever they can to ensure a positive outcome, but cannot guarantee that.

That's not really what I'm saying....what I was trying to get at was that in software development, anyone who still believes that they can guarantee an actual date on the calendar for a product delivery has either not been doing it long enough, or is not been working on particularly challenging projects, or has a time machine in their development center - I think that's something that you are probably even more cognizant of than I am!

On the issue of refunds - PIC does not have the resources to guarantee a refund to everyone if things don't work out and they are not satisfied with the product or delivery was late. If absolutely EVERYONE wanted their money back, the numbers dictate that either some wouldn't get anything back, or that everyone will get less back than they paid. Unless we get external Angel investment the money simply would not be there. Our calculation though is the same as pretty much all startup businesses in the same position - that the number of satisfied customers will be greater than the number of dissatisfied ones, and in such a ratio that we are able to reach reasonable accommodations with those dissatisfied. Some customers may feel that only a 100% refund will satisfy them, others may feel a partial refund is fair, others may be satisfied with an upgrade to a later version that addresses their issue, others may be satisfied with knowing that we made a good faith effort, and other customers (and we're going to do everything in our power to make sure the vast majority fall in to this category) are going to love the software and be looking forward to getting it on more devices.

[barryb20]

Hi Marc,

I add my thanks to that of others to you and PIC having a presence in the Forums, I was wary at first but thanks to your answers I will now be heading to contribute to the cause.

Thanks,

Barry

[bluenote]

There are apps that will not work on the alpha currently, but will work as development progresses. Netflix is not one of them however - it is currently 'working' in the alpha, but the video playback is a choppy. messy experience! It will get better however.


Let me know what else you need to know and I will do my best.

Thanks Marc. I'd like to hear specifics that Rod was asking about on what technical hurdles are being seen right now in the alpha version or whatever version is being inspected.
I'd like to hear this directly from the person (s) working on the project as I understand Phoenix is made up of volunteers and my understanding of volunteer organizations, it is always best to hear from the volunteer doing the direct work (as no one is a boss over them and so no one can speak for them and take responsibility for their work).

Also since the pace of contributing to the kickstarter has slowed considerably, I suggest the group look into talking to kickstarter about redoing the fundraising with a more realistic goal given the size of our community, I'm not sure if kickstarter would require you to cancel this one and put up another one or if they would allow you to modify this one.
Given the pace of fundraising, a more realistic goal looks like about half, and I think if you put a $17.5K goal and then lowered the expected price of the software to $10-$20, it might be more realistic to your market (many of whom have access to android on touchpad directly or other means of getting apps). Being more realistic to your market would make your group more trustworthy and in the future, as you deliver and then need funds to advance to a 4x model or some project that supports openWebOS, you might find the next kickstarter easier to raise more money.

[Marc_PIC]

Thank you for coming into the discussion. Many here are appreciative of the chance to get some first hand information...

A couple of follow up questions, though, due to the first line in your introductory statement. You were not previously a member of webOS Nation? How much hands on experience do you have with webOS?

I've been a member of webOS Nation since the firesale, the Touchpad being the first webOS product I actually owned. Previously I had a Palm Pilot V, but was not a fan of smartphones and avoided them completely. After my experiences working in projects for WAP devices and the iPAQ (way back when it was from Compaq), I quickly formed the opinion that the tech was just not ready enough to satisfy me - it's only in the last few years that my opinion on this changed.

I used to contribute regularly to the discussions here, particularly when it came around to the future and survival of webOS. Eventually things got to the point where I realized that my time would be better spent doing something for webOS rather than talking about what others should do for webOS, and so since September or so I have posted here only very infrequently.

I've created a separate account on Derek's suggestion because I'm of the old-school belief that there should be a clear line of delineation between one's personal communications and official company communications when something is being posted in a public forum.

As you may be able to tell from my other posts, my major concern has nothing to do with PIC directly, but rather with OpenMobile and their approach to doing business. Make no mistake, it is not a simple error of one or two phrases on their website. Please take the time to look the site over. They make claims on every page that ACL is a current product ready for immediate consumption at a functional level. Not just for webOS but for many mobile and desktop platforms.

This isn't a "whoops, we got ahead of ourselves" error. It is a concerted strategy to claim they have more than they do. It's akin to the Enron fiasco. Claiming assets that exist only in the imagination is not a marketing glitch, a snafu that has gone uncorrected. It is an intentional deception of the public regarding their business worth.

Another thing that has also occurred to me that might shed some light on this. OpenMobile has not to date been a consumer facing company. They were founded by a someone whose experience was not in consumer facing companies, and their business up to this point has been focused on OEM's - again, not consumer facing. To a consumer, immediately available means that you can pull out cash or a credit card, pay, and get it either immediately or the next day if you want to pay for express shipping. For an OEM however, an immediately available technology is completely different. Products from OEM's have months of lead time (prototyping, testing, refinement, certification, production, shipping, best launch time depending on whether your competitors are launching something new as well), and I would imagine that a product like ACL that can be 'tuned' to their specific hardware spec within a few weeks and beta tested and finalized all within a 2 to 3 month period may well meet an OEM's definition of being immediately available for their upcoming product. This does not excuse OpenMobile however - if they are aware of the controversy regarding this (did anyone actually contact them directly on this, or was it just assumed that by posting to the forum it would reach the attention of someone responsible enough to care?), they should have acted quickly to clarify things ( f it really is a misunderstanding).

[Greg Mair]

Thanks Marc. I'd like to hear specifics that Rod was asking about on what technical hurdles are being seen right now in the alpha version or whatever version is being inspected.
I'd like to hear this directly from the person (s) working on the project as I understand Phoenix is made up of volunteers and my understanding of volunteer organizations, it is always best to hear from the volunteer doing the direct work (as no one is a boss over them and so no one can speak for them and take responsibility for their work).

Also since the pace of contributing to the kickstarter has slowed considerably, I suggest the group look into talking to kickstarter about redoing the fundraising with a more realistic goal given the size of our community, I'm not sure if kickstarter would require you to cancel this one and put up another one or if they would allow you to modify this one.
Given the pace of fundraising, a more realistic goal looks like about half, and I think if you put a $17.5K goal and then lowered the expected price of the software to $10-$20, it might be more realistic to your market (many of whom have access to android on touchpad directly or other means of getting apps). Being more realistic to your market would make your group more trustworthy and in the future, as you deliver and then need funds to advance to a 4x model or some project that supports openWebOS, you might find the next kickstarter easier to raise more money.

that's a very bad business model stopping a kickstarter and asking for less. That would look very silly.

They are at over 40% in less then a week which is not bad at all. I still think lots of people are holding out till they see more stuff and teasers and maybe openmobile come out and address everyones concerns.

Just like most startups the first and last weeks are the key weeks in getting funds.