|
05/04/2013, 03:19 AM
#278
 Originally Posted by bluenote
Taking each statement by RWhitby:
"Here is why I think people should seriously consider backing this kick-starter project:
1) At this point in time, it is clear that PIC is well aware of the technical and reputation risks associated with this project, and they have people in management with experience in software development projects and addressing such risks. "
IF I AM READING THIS CORRECTLY, ROD FEELS PHOENIX PEOPLE ARE EXPERIENCED AND HE IS VOUCHING FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE AS WELL. I MIGHT BE OVER READING THIS, IF NOT< THIS IS A GOOD ENDORSEMENT FROM SOMEONE VERY TRUSTWORTHY IN OUR COMMUNITY
You are over reading my statement. I have been told by PIC management that they have management staff who are experienced in running software development projects. I have no direct knowledge of the veracity of that statement, but have no reason to not believe it. I have no direct experience with the knowledge of PIC staff, and (as far as I know) have never worked with any of them directly.
Unlike http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/WhoIsWho, there is no public organisation chart or staff member list for PIC, so there is no way to independently verify statements about the experience or knowledge of PIC staff.
 Originally Posted by bluenote
"
PIC believes they have the relationship management, project management, and legal agreements in place to complete this project and successfully deliver a finished ACL product to webOS users world-wide that allows them to run perfectly any Android 2.3 application that they can side-load onto their TouchPad running webOS 3.0.5. "
THIS STATEMENT LESS COMPELLING TO ME AS IT READS "PIC BELIEVES." IF I DON"T KNOW PHOENIX MGT AND THEY HAVEN"T SHARED WHAT IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP MGT, PROJ MGT AND LEGAL AGREEMENTS WITH SOMEONE TRUSTED WHO COULD REVIEW THEM, THEN MY DUE DILIGENCE AS INVESTOR HAS NOT BEEN UNDERTAKEN.
Such aspects of the relationship and legal agreements between PIC and OM are confidential to PIC and OM, and I doubt that they would ever be shared publicly. They certainly have not been shared with me, and I do not expect them to be. We are all going on what PIC is telling us here, nothing more.
 Originally Posted by bluenote
"
That is a clear and unambiguous commitment, with not much wiggle room. They cannot say "we didn't know about this or that'. They have done their due diligence, and have put forward their case based on that.
The risk to PIC is high if this project fails to deliver - basically they would be crucified by the community, and would probably have to close down the company completely. PIC has clearly stated that if the project fails, the blame should be placed at PIC's feet, not anyone else.
2) The risk to OM is also high - this is the first time where there will be a legal contractual obligation for them to deliver a product to an end-customer in it's final form. If this kick-starter succeeds, they will have nowhere to hide - any failure to deliver will be attributed directly to OM by the community.
They have stated on their website for over a year that they have the finished product already available to end customers, so it should be a simple case of wrap it and ship it - there is no excuse here for any technical, cosmetic, or interoperability issues with the final product."
THESE STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW PHOENIX OR OM MIGHT FEEL ABOUT THEIR REPUTATION iS UNKNOWN TO ME. I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD GUESS ABOUT HOW WEBOS INTERNALS FEELS ABOUT ITS REPUTATION BASED ON WHAT ITS DONE OVER THE YEARS, BUT I DONT KNOW EITHER PHOENIX OR OM. AND I COULD EVEN ARGUE THAT OM DOESN"T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS OR ITS WEBSITE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE SCRUPULOUS.
Note that I have made no statement about whether PIC or OM cares about their reputation - I have simply stated what I believe the impact on their reputation would be if this project fails to deliver.
 Originally Posted by bluenote
"
3) The risk to individual backers is quite small - the amount that you pledged, and nothing more."
If it succeeds, you get something new to use with your TouchPad. If it fails, you get to say "PIC and OM sucks, never deal with them again", and no-one will be able to argue with your statement in any way. You get to determine now whether that is worth the amount of your pledge that you will 100% lose without any recourse if the project fails to deliver."
THIS TO ME IS POWERFUL THAT THE RISK TO ANY INDIVIDUAL IS SMALL.
Indeed, any individual backer risks only the amount they pledge, nothing more.
 Originally Posted by bluenote
"
If nothing else, this kick-starter campaign allows the webOS community to get closure on a number of fronts:
1) It requires PIC to produce an end-user installable product which extends the useable lifetime of the TouchPad by allowing Android 2.3 applications to run on it. This is a make-or-break baptism of fire for PIC. If they pull this off, then they have a track record in place to allow the community to get more interested in their wider goal of producing new webOS devices.
2) If requires OM to deliver on the promises that they have been making for many years, and to actually finish and deliver a product for end-customers. No more hiding behind OEMs - OM's reputation (at least what is left of it) will be open and bared naked for all to see. If this project does not succeed, OM should throw in the towel and never been seen of again courting a mobile device end-user community.
3) Those people who actually want Android 2.3 applications may quite possibly get their wish answered, one way or the other, for good. There will never be another attempt at this by anyone else, so this is the last chance. If it fails, people who needs such apps will sell their webOS devices and move on. If it succeeds, people who need such apps will be able to continue to use their webOS devices as they do today, just with additional apps for an outlay of $20 to $35.
So, if you want Android 2.3 apps to run on an TouchPad running HP webOS 3.0.5 (as opposed to dual-booting CM to run Android exclusively on the TouchPad), then backing this kick-starter is basically your only option. There is no other organisation working towards this goal, and I doubt that there ever will be. Just don't make a pledge based on anything more than Android 2.3 apps running on a TouchPad running HP webOS 3.0.5 - no phones, no ICS, no OpenWebOS. Back the kick-starter for what it is, not what you hope it might be.
If you want to cause OM to "put up or shut up", backing this kick-starter is one way that you can spend a limited outlay to make that happen. If the kick-starter succeeds, but both PIC and OM jointly fail to deliver (and the blame will clearly be placed 100% on both organisations), then they both will have no ability to garner any shred of trust or respect from this community (or any other community for that matter) in the future.
If you just want to donate to the webOS community cause you have spare cash, then I consider this a better use of your funds at this particular point in time than donating to WebOS Internals (or it's WebOS Ports sub-project). We have enough cash remaining from the last web-a-thon to cover our needs at least until our next big release (and we would not be running another web-a-thon before we make such a future release).
So, it's your money, take the above into account and make your own decision whether to back or not.
-- Rod"
ALL THIS TO ME IS INTERESTING BUT LESS COMPELLING THAN THE TWO STATEMENTS ABOVE THAT ROD THINKS PHOENIX IS EXPERIENCED AND KNOWLEDGABLE. AND RISK TO ANY ONE BACKER IS SMALL.
Again, be very clear that I have not stated that I think that PIC is experienced and knowledgable. I have stated that they are aware of the issues, and have people in management positions who say they have experience in running software development projects. My statements are not vouching for PIC in any way.
 Originally Posted by bluenote
However, what arises in me from reading these last statements is the sense that webOS management was a big disappointment for whatever reason. And the most powerful great thing that came out of the webOS experience was the sense that the webOS volunteer development community never let us down. They gave their hearts and experience and time and delivered on everything they said in big contrast to management. And we loyallly supported their efforts financially even after webOS was killed by Leo.
What I am saying here is that community was the one thing we could faithfully count on. Which did not let us down. Which gave us LUNACE and the kernels even as they looked forward to open webOS.
So do I want to risk ending this chapter on such a high note? (and when android can be gotten by dual booting?).
I am strangely reluctant to gamble this history (and knowing also that android 4.X can be dual booted).
I am more interested in knowing what the next chapter for webOS Ports and LG might be for webOS and the community.
I, also, as a professional, can't escape the fact that some due diligence is not properly being done here. Unlike the real world where it is very hard to get money without doing this--very hard indeed. I don't feel at all that what is being asked here of Phoenix in this pages is strange. It very much corresponds to the real world as I know it.
So I am still waiting here--still somewhat on the fence, although more softened than before.
Indeed, potential backers should continue to demand whatever information they require from PIC to determine whether they should back this kick-starter or not. PIC is asking for your money, and the onus is on PIC to prove to you that it is a good investment.
What I have done in post #267 in this thread is give some other reasons why one may decide to back this kick-starter regardless of whether one believes the project will deliver or not, and to caution people to only pledge on what has been promised, not on what they might hope to additionally happen in the future.
-- Rod
|
|
|