[kevets]

From the KS comments:

The Android version will be at the very least 2.3.3. We will be able to confirm the exact version soon - it's a question of timeline and budget that we're trying to work out

They need to get more vocal if there is any chance of a newer ACL being in the mix here, because that would be a big development. Could drive a new wave of donations in as well.

[thg]

Your absolutely right, this may indeed be an OpenMobile extortion deal with PIC as a pawn or PIC may actually be directly involved in the extortion - time will tell. I take no objections to you warning the community and I have taken your concerns very seriously.

this was absolutely useless.

It's a kickstarter project initiated by PIC and they are the people I have to trust, not OM.

But if PIC trusts OM, I have no concerns to trust them too.

And I have no problems when OM gets money from PIC for the work they made in the past and present, this is just fair. If the kickstarter project fails, I haven't lost any cent, if the kickstarter project has success and the product fails, I will loose some dollars, I don't care and nothing I have to be warned.

But if PIC has success with the ACL project, it is a great opportunity for many TP users.

So I have no concerns in "risking" some dollars, if I have a good chance to get a great value for it!

[geekpeter]

this is a forum for discussions about varying opinions, in this matter i dont think it matters if your for/against the PIC/OM subject at hand, what matters if that people get all the facts they can to make a decision they are 100% clear about.

Again kickstarter is a known place where there are often made mistakes or misassumptions have happened as people have misunderstood how it works, things have gone bad and people have been left out of pocket, this is rare ofc, very rare but non the less still happens.

provided people are well aware of all this tho, its no problem, it is a problem tho when people arent aware, have had things go bad, then they rush to forums to complain but dont really have a leg to stand on as they didnt quite get what it was all about and how it worked.

As for ACL, i still think its a type of required technology for webOS new and old, be it the OM solution, a revamp of chompers old chroid work or the new russian dev (i should really remember his name tbh) trying the same for webOS phones.

It shouldnt be any surprise tho if users are promised something and after a while they lose hope and faith, same applies to other tech, its why i wont be getting a PS4 even tho i was/am still a massive fan of playstations/psp/vita, sony have made far too many promises about what their future tech will do only to drop it all as it doesnt earn them $$/££, so in my case its not like im singling out just 1 company here, id take the same course of action with anyone.

[geekpeter]

If the kickstarter project fails, I haven't lost any cent, if the kickstarter project has success and the product fails, I will loose some dollars, I don't care and nothing I have to be warned.

at least your someone who understands that fully, there are many however who dont and have gone on raving sprees on various forums or attacking kickstarter under the massive assumption that they 100% made a product purchace, im also like you tho and ive used kickstarter for weird random stuff im interested in and provided people know excatly how it works id happily encourage others to look around kickstarter, just be careful is all i ask.

last project i funded btw was - The X500 Plus computer case by Loriano Pagni — Kickstarter in which i made a particularly large donation, esp when compared to what acl asks for, the difference between the 2 tho is a man whos known to have delivered on other projects and has a good reputation on various forums and a company who doesnt have a good rep so its not like cost is the only factor involved.

[bluenote]

I don't know the Phoenix people although its possible I met one of them at a webOS gathering and did not know it.

I appreciate their passion for webOS and their willingness to try to add to the community.

I haven't seen anything concrete from them delivered to date and when they first came on the scene, I think some of their statements were confusing to the webOS community and it took some time to sort this out.

Since today they are reaching out to the community for moeny, I would like to see them: sign an NDA with Webos internals and show Rod their technology to date. I would trust Rod's assessment.

I also would like to see them create more realistic targets for the kickstarter.

Steps like these would show prudence, a good sign of management, and lower the risk for the community, who is acting as funder for this project and therefore is assuming all the risk but does not know what the project entails or what its outcome could realistically be (still).

[geekpeter]

OM/PIC can always assess the idea of something more manageable and realistic "if" the targets not met (can easily happen just fine, plenty of time left tbh) come the final pledge date, in my "dont know squat about business" mind id have thought that at least having the chance of 1 real sort of flagship product thats factual and "out there" would do them the world of good and pretty much shut up any/all negative comments from potential buyers on any/every target platform.

That would ofc probably mean something important if their site site didnt already suggest that they have ACL available on all their target platforms already.

I mean is it just me that thinks it would only take 1 "success" story for them on any platform they provide for so they stand a better chance of snowballing into something better/more for them in the long run?

[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.

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.

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.


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.


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) It 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

[etphoto]

Here is why I think people should seriously consider backing this kick-starter project

-- Rod

Good post. Well said.



Sent from my HTC6990LVW using Board Express

[ananimus]

If you want to cause PIC and 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.

That alone is actually a pretty compelling point...

Really though, we've had a couple pages now deliberating on trust and feelings and other moonlight campfire stuff. Many good points and valid facts were exposed, but I hope we can get back to some of the nuts and bolts here.

The point was raised that this is 2.3, a.k.a. not a tablet version of Android. Okay, that's the promise and that's the expectation at this stage. Still, have PIC or OM offered any insight yet into the question of what particular technical barriers currently prevent updating to ICS or JB? Base kernel incompatibility with webOS, etc?

[dignitary]

The point was raised that this is 2.3, a.k.a. not a tablet version of Android.

There were a good number of different tablets sold with Android 2.3, including the first Samsung Galaxy Tab. In fact, originally the first Galaxy Tab ran Froyo (2.2). Keep in mind the Touchpad, prior to HP purchasing webOS, was running Android 2.2 just fine prior to webOS replacing it before it hit the market.

2.3 worked perfectly fine for tablets; the problem was that there weren't enough applications at the time written to take that larger real estate into account, so it got a bad rap as a smartphone OS being shoehorned onto tablets, when that in fact couldn't be further from the truth.

Once 3.x and 4.x made it out, though, it was clear that those releases were ready for tablet prime-time in earnest, with 3.x being tablet-only. By 4.x, tablets had become popular enough to draw in developers to help fill the app gap on Android which is why 4.x is really seen as the first version of Android where tablets made up a significant portion of the user base--the time was finally right.

It's not that 2.3 wasn't a decent version of Android for tablets, it's that Android just wasn't popular enough on tablets at the time to make it a target for application devs to make it known as a good tablet OS. Which, at the time, it was actually pretty good.

Now 4.x just kicks the living crap out of it up and down the block, but that's what time, app support, plentiful good hardware available, and a healthy dose of refinement gets you. 2.3 at this point is just old, lacking crucial support for hardware features smartphones have gained over the past year or so, and dying a rapid death due to the huge push to upgrade everyone out of the 2.x era.

The only 2.x branch of Android we support at work anymore is 2.3.x on smartphones because there are so few 2.3 tablets out there browsing the web in 2013; a vast majority (~95% vs ~5% based on our analytics) of that 39% remaining on Android 2.3 amongst Android users are smartphone.

[rwhitby]

The current KickStarter status:
3429 Backers
$16,634 pledged of $35,000 goal

Needed to reach the targeted amount.:
368 more people to pledge $50 (average)
or
386 more people to pledge at the current average of $47.66

I have asked @phxdevices on Twitter whether for the $250 pledge level the Beta Testers are under an NDA or can they publicly share their beta testing experiences ...

-- Rod

[eblade]

pic has so far answered all but one of my questions, maybe rod can help since hes apparently communicating with them more -- my big question is, who owns the rights to tjis, when its all said and done? Does openmobile still own it, or does pic own the webos version after that? I know that neither of them can or will promise a release for anything other than touchpad 305, at this time, but id really like to know if its pic that will have the code, if they were to want to go ahead and do that in the future, or if openmobile will retain all of that. Because pic has a lot better record than open mobile does right now, and a lot more incentive to support us than openmobile does, as well.

[Preemptive]

Having read the preceeding posts, I'm a little wary of posting, but...

From what I've read so far, it seems that the OM 'process' is this:

They developed ACL from concept to alpha. Presumably the demos they have at the trade shows can be interacted with as is shown on PIC's kickstarter video. There is therefore a product - it is not vapourware unless you think all the videos are animated fakes.

However, for each particular device, the ACL needs to be optimised for the hardware - in this case the Touchpad. It is probable that it accesses parts of the system that Palm/HP wish to protect - like some of the Preware we use to optimise our devices. It wouldn't normally pass the app-catalogue policies, but OM need to access that market place AND perhaps get specific details about the hardware from HP. They need HP's cooperation either on the hardware or app-catalogue access or both.

The OM pitch is: "Your platform doesn't have as many apps as Android. We have a product that solves the problem. We just need your help to finish it." They also pitch to the users in the hope that the promise of all those apps will cause them to ask the OEM to deliver the ACL for the platform.

I think that one of the answers on the Kickstarter site mentions licensing problems previously that have now been resolved. So possibly (and this is my big assumption), HP said they weren't interested (note also the Palm/HP history with Motionapps Classic here), then that they were pulling the plug on webOS and are now possibly relaxed about allowing access to hardware and software they have largely washed their hands of.

If this was the case, then it is entirely understandable that OM would waste no more resources on ACL for webOS until PIC cleared a path for them. The reasons for their lack of success on other platforms may be many and varied and may or may not be relevant to this project. It is notable that Blackberry and Sailfish are doing similar things as they must be aware they will need all the help they can get. HP was a company that thought the Touchpad would directly compete with the ipad and priced it accordingly...

It's fair to say the statements to OEMs & Users on the OM site are not strictly true as they imply the software is ready to go and be downloaded, but if you view it as marketing, you can understand the exaggeration (a bit). A statement to an OEM along the lines of, "You can have this! (but our software will directly access your hardware)" might cause concern. And no user wants to hear, "You can have all these apps! (if HP allows it and in the coming months)". OM can be accused of dishonesty as their statements are in the present tense when they should be in the (indeterminate) future tense.

Certainly OM's statements are bad marketing but if they were recast as, "The product exists and will simply require some tailoring to your hardware specifics prior to final release" or "Please tell HP that you want to run Android apps on your phone - we have the product that can do it", then as far as we can tell from videos and demos there is some truth there.

Finally, there is no download link and no payment option. No one has posted here that I have seen, saying that they have paid money and downloaded ACL - only to find that it was rubbish/buggy/actual vapourware. I don't see where any accusations of fraud would stand up. They first have to take your money.

This post is a load of assumptions and like a previous poster, I also had a work colleague who said, "Never assume.", but in the light of the limited information we have, I think this interpretation is reasonable.

So maybe OM's lack of delivery was beyond their control and their marketing statements over-hyped the product's readiness. Having delivered nothing I'm aware of, I'm a bit surprised they're still around. Maybe they no longer have the money to complete the project themselves or are simply unwilling to risk it on webOS. Perhaps PIC are throwing OM a lifeline and conversely, perhaps OM are offering a decent price for the work as they only have one customer...

Even with everyone acting in good faith, the project could fail at the final optimisation hurdle.

Maybe PIC will raise the money, maybe OM will deliver, maybe it'll even support Android 4. Maybe it won't work. Maybe it'll only be 2.3. Maybe OM won't deliver. Maybe PIC won't raise the money.

I think the questions we all need to ask ourselves are: Do I want this either personally or because I think it will boost webOS? And, Can OM deliver? Our answers will be based on faith as no one can tell the outcome until it happens. You know the state of webOS and you know even a success here will only be a start. If you decide to pledge, pledge an amount based on what you think it is worth to you and how much you can afford to lose.

If PIC are listening still, I suppose I'm still curious about what they get out of this. ACL have the product and will do the development - it's reasonable that they should then receive the revenue. But on the other hand, PIC's fundraising, if successful will create that finished product, shop-window & revenue stream. It also seems reasonable that they might get a share of the income to reinvest in webOS development or perhaps some exclusive rights over the webOS version of ACL.

[rnld]

A question is will this also work with Open WebOS if that ever gets to a point to put on other hardware. Otherwise this is for 2 year old unsupported hardware and OS.

[rwhitby]

pic has so far answered all but one of my questions, maybe rod can help since hes apparently communicating with them more -- my big question is, who owns the rights to tjis, when its all said and done? Does openmobile still own it, or does pic own the webos version after that? I know that neither of them can or will promise a release for anything other than touchpad 305, at this time, but id really like to know if its pic that will have the code, if they were to want to go ahead and do that in the future, or if openmobile will retain all of that. Because pic has a lot better record than open mobile does right now, and a lot more incentive to support us than openmobile does, as well.

I've only had one thread of communication with PIC, and information about licensing was not shared.

I could not see OM giving modification rights for only $35K (less PIC expenses) unless it was a last ditch closure fire sale scenario.

-- Rod

[Remy X]

Now it is my turn to ask a question that the polite society would prefer to neither hear nor know the answer to, but i feel is important to bring up..

Assuming the project does pan out in the best way possible, and a cracked copy of the ACL VM becomes available for download (as it inevitably will), who is left holding the bag? Or is the 35K the threshold where the product has been largely paid for and no-one is expecting much of a profit past that?

I say this, because there's so much enmity and distrust towards OM, that has built up over the years they've been dangling their product in front of our faces, and only a fraction of the webOS userbase will consider forking over the $35 for a product license

I'm not the pirate here, but yes, there are plenty..

PS, the real reason I ask this, is because the 35 grand goes into the pockets of OM and not towards an open-source solution that will stay with us forever and can be improved over time... Yes, the Dalvik VM, a derivative of Java, was/is originally free and open, and not a bottomless pit of for profit motivations... So I'm not the only one questioning the value of this investment.. I hope I have made my point.

PPS, maybe people are looking for instant gratification in choosing OM over a homegrown solution, but IMHO, any work done by them has been far from instant

[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

"
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.

"
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.

"
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.

"
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.

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.

[rwhitby]

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.

"
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.

"
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.

"
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.

"
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.

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

[bluenote]

Rod, thanks for the clarification. A big help.

edit: advisors are typically included under NDAs. If not, an NDA can be modified easily to include adding an advisor to review the agreements, commitments and technology status.

Likewise, the clause referred to by Marc some pages back where the software cannot be shown to outsiders and the devices cannot leave the possession of Phoenix--the nda can be emended to include a third party appraiser under nda--someone knowledgable and trusted by the community to render an opinion.

But these types of modifications are typically done when the project realizes they need this to gain the credibility of the investor community.

An org chart of at least the devs willing to work on this project, or at least those devs showing up here under a pseudonym would be appreciated as well.

quote from Rod:
"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."

Agreed.

[Marc_PIC]

PS, the real reason I ask this, is because the 35 grand goes into the pockets of OM and not towards an open-source solution that will stay with us forever and can be improved over time... Yes, the Dalvik VM, a derivative of Java, was/is originally free and open, and not a bottomless pit of for profit motivations... So I'm not the only one questioning the value of this investment.. I hope I have made my point.

PPS, maybe people are looking for instant gratification in choosing OM over a homegrown solution, but IMHO, any work done by them has been far from instant

The problem with this approach is that people are already moving on.A home grown solution that you are describing is going to take a lot of time and resources, and by the time such a solution delivers something usable, webOS will have fallen far behind when compared to other mobile operating systems. As the number of active users drops it becomes more and more difficult to raise the funds needed to do the bigger things, such as produce hardware. If we do not preserve the existing user base by addressing the apps availability issue very soon, and then follow it up by getting new hardware out there reasonably quickly (hardware that also has the ability to run Android apps in webOS) we can forget about ever seeing new webOS hardware, and porting to hardware shipped with Android becomes the only option.