I will hold off on asking for a refund.
But I am very unhappy of the downgrade to SD622 from SD835!
And especially unhappy about how you as a company have handled the situation towards me and us as customers.
You need to explain your situation, background, constraints and thereof choices openly and honestly.Not in intentionally muddled and veiled, almost nothing saying, sugar-coated, typical corporate official speak.
Be upfront with the downsides, just as well as you're being upfront with the upsides of the change - otherwise you just appear disingenuous and dishonest, as in trying to lure/trick/deceive people.
Otherwise your company will lose trust and reputation and have much less value in the future!
(Actually, this may be an owner "cash-out" through company suicide, maybe the amount of product interest and future prospect doesn't feel worth it...)
Make a Pro1.5 or something, with a ~20% higher price tag that is an upgrade (or at the very least on par) with the original Pro1-X offering, and give back maybe 10-20% to downgraded Pro1-X customers.
This way both camps will be happy. Personally, I am in the more premium specs camp.
Why did you not choose SD845?
What are the sunk and lost costs on SD835?
What are the sunk but reusable costs with remaining with your supplier and 662?
What do you need to redesign with 662?
What SoC's did you have available to choose from?
What constraints did you have to follow?
The SD835 was already below the edge for me, but the promise of such a unique concept, for a not great but acceptable price, brought it just over the edge.
Now the intended upgrade to the first Pro1, same - but with slightly more memory, turns out to actually be a downgrade! As the offering stands currently, if I were to have considered it now or from the beginning, I would have never looked twice even and kept my money.
So you know, I have filed a report with Qualcomm, of the situation, since it is not in their interest that actors handling their products do things like this, negatively affecting customers.
Hopefully they will show interest in the situation and do something with their influence to better the situation.
The following matter is regarding:
F(x)tec is a registered company in the United Kingdom trading as FX Technology Limited.
Company number 11602958. https://www.fxtec.com/
Misconduct or Inappropriate Behavior
Concerning or inappropriate behavior which may include intentional wrongdoing, violations of policies or behavior that does not represent Qualcomm in a positive manner.
Misleading sales, marketing or advertisement
False, misleading or deceptive advertising, packaging, point of purchase displays or promotional materials; deliberately misleading messages, omissions of important facts or false claims about the Corporation’s or competitors’ products.
Description:
This seems as a case of bait-and-switch.
A device with SD835 is promised and sold (pre-order), through cowdfunding.
2021-02-10 comes an update that all upcoming devices will instead feature SD622 SoC.
Communication is also through sporadic replies to comments: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pro1-x-smartphone-functionality-choice-control#/comments )
The claimed reason is end-of-life from Qualcomm (you) and of a supplier backing out on an agreed upon deal.
Second paragraph of the linked February update:
"On the manufacturing side we have an update regarding the chipset for the Pro1-X. The Qualcomm Snapdragon (SD) 835 is now end of life and we were informed last month that it can no longer be purchased from our suppliers, despite having paid for the components back in December when our campaign officially ended. Over the past few weeks, we have had long discussions with our manufacturer and various suppliers to look at the alternative chipsets options and have made the decision to go with the more recent Qualcomm Snapdragon 662 (2020 model)." -Team F(x)tec, 2021-02-10
Fxtec have delived as promised a number of Pro1 SD835.
The remaining to be delivered, originally promised SD835, Pro1 and Pro1-X (somewhat more memory), have both been converted to SD622.
They claim it is because of sunk costs into design, contracts, binding to a chip supplier and their licences.
Fxtec can either be truthful and as a munafacturer simply chose to use remaining budget on a cheaper chip they could afford, without changing any pricing, because the situation genuinely forced them, and hence innocent.
Or they could be the culprit who wanted to make a selfish gain by cheapening a product through bait-and-switch.
No matter, by someone's actions in the chain between you (Qualcomm) and the end consumer, someone has made actions that reflect badly on your reputation. Somebody that you (Qualcomm) are doing business with has not held up their commitments.
To give an idea about customer sentiments:
We as customers are very unhappy with this decision, because it means a performance downgrade, to roughly 75% overall performance, and not what was promised upfront.
To give an idea, in this* poll on the manufacturers (Fxtec) forum, out of 42 respondents only 10% are accepting of the announced situation.
In comments on the crowdfunding page (linked above) the amount and content of messages shows a significant amount want a refund (my estimate 1/4), almost no one is positive.
Same in the manufacturers (Fxtec) forum ( https://community.fxtec.com/ ), see linked threads below.
Two open letters, to Fxtec and Qualcomm
in Pro1 - Thoughts & questions
Posted
Tjenare Fxtec!
I will hold off on asking for a refund.
But I am very unhappy of the downgrade to SD622 from SD835!
And especially unhappy about how you as a company have handled the situation towards me and us as customers.
You need to explain your situation, background, constraints and thereof choices openly and honestly.Not in intentionally muddled and veiled, almost nothing saying, sugar-coated, typical corporate official speak.
Be upfront with the downsides, just as well as you're being upfront with the upsides of the change - otherwise you just appear disingenuous and dishonest, as in trying to lure/trick/deceive people.
Otherwise your company will lose trust and reputation and have much less value in the future!
(Actually, this may be an owner "cash-out" through company suicide, maybe the amount of product interest and future prospect doesn't feel worth it...)
Make a Pro1.5 or something, with a ~20% higher price tag that is an upgrade (or at the very least on par) with the original Pro1-X offering, and give back maybe 10-20% to downgraded Pro1-X customers.
This way both camps will be happy. Personally, I am in the more premium specs camp.
Why did you not choose SD845?
What are the sunk and lost costs on SD835?
What are the sunk but reusable costs with remaining with your supplier and 662?
What do you need to redesign with 662?
What SoC's did you have available to choose from?
What constraints did you have to follow?
The SD835 was already below the edge for me, but the promise of such a unique concept, for a not great but acceptable price, brought it just over the edge.
Now the intended upgrade to the first Pro1, same - but with slightly more memory, turns out to actually be a downgrade! As the offering stands currently, if I were to have considered it now or from the beginning, I would have never looked twice even and kept my money.
So you know, I have filed a report with Qualcomm, of the situation, since it is not in their interest that actors handling their products do things like this, negatively affecting customers.
Hopefully they will show interest in the situation and do something with their influence to better the situation.
Best regards,
/Vasilij Nokhrin
I have filed a report with Qualcomm here:
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/33575/index.html
Tjenare Qualcomm!
The following matter is regarding:
F(x)tec is a registered company in the United Kingdom trading as FX Technology Limited.
Company number 11602958.
https://www.fxtec.com/
And their product:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pro1-x-smartphone-functionality-choice-control#/updates/all
https://www.fxtec.com/pro1x
(and https://www.fxtec.com/pro1)
Affecting roghly 1.5K customers and $1M paid funds, for the Pro1-X case.
Announcement in question:
Pro1-X February Update, by FX Technology
Feb 10, 2021 9:42PM
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pro1-x-smartphone-functionality-choice-control#/updates/all
Possible articles/categories of misconduct:
(taken from https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/33575/report.html )
(Together with "The Qualcomm Way"
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/33575/index.html
and "Code of Business Conduct"
https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/en/link.asp?link=https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/the-qualcomm-way-the-code-of-business-conduct.pdf )
Misconduct or Inappropriate Behavior
Concerning or inappropriate behavior which may include intentional wrongdoing, violations of policies or behavior that does not represent Qualcomm in a positive manner.
Misleading sales, marketing or advertisement
False, misleading or deceptive advertising, packaging, point of purchase displays or promotional materials; deliberately misleading messages, omissions of important facts or false claims about the Corporation’s or competitors’ products.
Description:
This seems as a case of bait-and-switch.
A device with SD835 is promised and sold (pre-order), through cowdfunding.
2021-02-10 comes an update that all upcoming devices will instead feature SD622 SoC.
Communication is also through sporadic replies to comments: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pro1-x-smartphone-functionality-choice-control#/comments )
The claimed reason is end-of-life from Qualcomm (you) and of a supplier backing out on an agreed upon deal.
Second paragraph of the linked February update:
"On the manufacturing side we have an update regarding the chipset for the Pro1-X. The Qualcomm Snapdragon (SD) 835 is now end of life and we were informed last month that it can no longer be purchased from our suppliers, despite having paid for the components back in December when our campaign officially ended. Over the past few weeks, we have had long discussions with our manufacturer and various suppliers to look at the alternative chipsets options and have made the decision to go with the more recent Qualcomm Snapdragon 662 (2020 model)." -Team F(x)tec, 2021-02-10
Fxtec have delived as promised a number of Pro1 SD835.
The remaining to be delivered, originally promised SD835, Pro1 and Pro1-X (somewhat more memory), have both been converted to SD622.
They claim it is because of sunk costs into design, contracts, binding to a chip supplier and their licences.
Fxtec can either be truthful and as a munafacturer simply chose to use remaining budget on a cheaper chip they could afford, without changing any pricing, because the situation genuinely forced them, and hence innocent.
Or they could be the culprit who wanted to make a selfish gain by cheapening a product through bait-and-switch.
No matter, by someone's actions in the chain between you (Qualcomm) and the end consumer, someone has made actions that reflect badly on your reputation. Somebody that you (Qualcomm) are doing business with has not held up their commitments.
To give an idea about customer sentiments:
We as customers are very unhappy with this decision, because it means a performance downgrade, to roughly 75% overall performance, and not what was promised upfront.
To give an idea, in this* poll on the manufacturers (Fxtec) forum, out of 42 respondents only 10% are accepting of the announced situation.
In comments on the crowdfunding page (linked above) the amount and content of messages shows a significant amount want a refund (my estimate 1/4), almost no one is positive.
Same in the manufacturers (Fxtec) forum ( https://community.fxtec.com/ ), see linked threads below.
* https://community.fxtec.com/topic/3296-do-you-prefer-waiting-longer-for-a-better-soc-or-less-for-inferior/
https://community.fxtec.com/topic/3292-pro1-and-pro1-x-design-change-to-use-snapdragon-662-no-new-devices-before-august-2021/
Please look in to the matter and the relevant parties on behalf of us customers' interests and your (Qualcomm) own reputation and image.
I am not doing this secretly behind anybody's back, this can be regarded as an open letter.
Best regards,
Vasilij Nokhrin
P.S. look me up