Pro1 and Pro1 X design change to use Snapdragon 662, no new devices before August 2021

[Doktor Oswaldo 904]

19 hours ago, lawliett said:

True, I'm speaking based on personal experience as an American. No idea how chargebacks work in other parts of the world. Here you just open up a dispute with your credit card company, they do an investigation and communicate with the company and payment processor and then within around 60 days they make a ruling. You won't be charged for the investigation, but you could potentially get banned from the service (Playstation bans anyone who tries to do a chargeback, even in cases of fraud).

We know how chargebacks work. But there is a big difference between how they are done and what is in the law.
This is how it works for you, but this could be different for every lender/country combination.

19 hours ago, lawliett said:

However, a company can't choose to allow or disallow chargebacks. Any credit card lender has the ability to do a chargeback and pull money back out. It's not something that IGG or Fxtec has any control over, but they can fight the dispute during the investigation. That's why you should always try to work something out with the company first.

Nobody has any doubts that you CAN file a chargeback. My doubt is that you are entitled to one.

15 hours ago, lawliett said:

Long story short, I lost the dispute, my account was closed due to fraudulent activity and I was given a life ban from ever opening an account at that bank again. So chargebacks are a very powerful tool, but they must be used with discretion. It's less a magic wand, and more a nuclear option that can blow up in your face.

And that could happen here. Just because one Person was successful doesn't mean it is law. I guess in most countries that chargeback is not backed by law. Fxtec may not have done anything about it, because they just don't want to fuck people up. After all they are not scams. But if people will start to use chargebacks as common instrument, I bet they may have to dispute them.

So while in some countries like Denmark (Not sure, just had a discussion in the chat about that) you can step down from a IGG contract for a certain time, I don't think there is any general form of customer protection law that supports the chargeback here.

My guess would be that in most cases the chargeback is not covered by law. This may not even be that important, if the lender is mighty enough, he can likely enforce his own rules. But I don't see why they should want to do that here. So in the end I if you are gonna do a chargeback you must be aware of possible consequences.

A quick wiki search list this reason for a chargeback:

• Technical: Expired authorization, non-sufficient funds, or bank processing error.
• Clerical: Duplicate billing, incorrect amount billed, or refund never issued.
• Quality: Consumer claims to have never received the goods as promised at the time of purchase.
• Fraud: Consumer claims they did not authorize the purchase or was a victim of identity theft.

Well the only thing fitting here is "Quality" and that is a hard thing to proof. Is the slower SoC lower in Quality, even though it has other features and is newer? Does this even impact the Quality of this phone, since the Focus is obviously the keyboard? I guess you can't even answer that for every person. For someone just doing texting and calling the increased battery time and newer Android may lead to an overall increase in Quality.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by Doktor Oswaldo

[EskeRahn 5,459]

3 hours ago, Doktor Oswaldo said:

..... the goods as promised at the time of purchase

And the interesting words here are "goods" and "purchase", as we with crowdfunding do not purchase a defined product. So we would be talking the quality of the investment in potentially hoping to get a specified product as being the product. And that will be (even) harder to evaluate and thus also to dispute being "as promised".

Note also that there aren't a fifth bullet for regret of investments or gifts, so this is clearly intended to handle purchasing defined products. So a pre-order of a product would be included, but not investments including crowdfunded perks for a product.

[Doktor Oswaldo 904]

3 minutes ago, EskeRahn said:

And the interesting words here are "goods" and "purchase", as we with crowdfunding do not purchase a defined product. So we would be talking the quality of the investment in potentially hoping to get a specified product as being the product. And that will be (even) harder to evaluate and thus also to dispute being "as promised".

Note also that there aren't a fifth bullet for regret of investments or gifts, so this is clearly intended to handle purchasing defined products. So a pre-order of a product would be included, but not investments including crowdfunded perks for a product.

Exaclty, and the bottom line is, if a charge back worked, there is a not all to small chance that it worked because fxtec did allow it to work.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Doktor Oswaldo

[lawliett 77]

13 hours ago, Doktor Oswaldo said:

A quick wiki search list this reason for a chargeback:

• Technical: Expired authorization, non-sufficient funds, or bank processing error.
• Clerical: Duplicate billing, incorrect amount billed, or refund never issued.
• Quality: Consumer claims to have never received the goods as promised at the time of purchase.
• Fraud: Consumer claims they did not authorize the purchase or was a victim of identity theft.

 

9 hours ago, EskeRahn said:

And the interesting words here are "goods" and "purchase", as we with crowdfunding do not purchase a defined product. So we would be talking the quality of the investment in potentially hoping to get a specified product as being the product. And that will be (even) harder to evaluate and thus also to dispute being "as promised".

 

Yes, I don't see any language referring to crowdfunding, so I assume the credit lender would regard them as pre-orders rather than investments. So a change in date of delivery and specs may qualify for a chargeback. That being said every lender is going to have their own internal policies in how they view crowdfunding, so it's impossible to say with any certainty.

As for whether people are entitled to a refund, that's an ethical question every person needs to decide for themselves. 

 I'm personally fine with the changes, so I won't be seeking  refund. So I have absolutely no idea whether a chargeback would be successful or even valid in this instance.

Although some people originally bought the pro1 directly from fxtec website and then were switched to igg, so I think they would likely qualify for a chargeback since they never agreed to crowdfund the device in the first place.

Also people who bought a perk between the time fxtec first realized the possibility of a downgrade to the point where they actually provided that info publicly through the update would have a fairly strong case for getting a refund. Since they could say fxtec solicited funds from backers while knowing they could not provide the stated specs.

Fxtec could've provided an update within 24 hours of finding out about the SoC issue telling people not to buy perks til the next update, since there's a possibility that the specs might change. Or they could have frozen perks and not allowed anyone to purchase a perk while they were investigating the SoC issue. They didn't and I don't think it was malicious, but they did withhold information, so you could potentially use that as a reason to collect a refund.

However, this depends on the exact date when fxtec first found out about the SoC issue and whether your purchase falls after this date.

That being said, always try to work something out with the company first.

And personally, I think it's better to get the device in August and just sell it on ebay. Because it could take months to investigate the dispute and if you were to lose, it could take months for your perk to be reinstated leaving you in limbo the whole time. So it's far from a magic bullet.

Edited March 2, 2021 by lawliett

[EskeRahn 5,459]

7 hours ago, lawliett said:

I assume the credit lender would regard them as pre-orders rather than investments.

That would be pretty absurd. Why would we even have the term "crowd funding" if it should just be considered a "pre-order"? The whole point is that WE as investors take the risk rather than those that tries to create the product... And that is why the price for a perk is lower than a pre_order price. (despite IGG also taking their not unsubstantial cut)

For the rest I to a large degree agree. Though it can be hard for us to tell how fast they would have been able to update the campaign with something sensible not just causing a panic. Information in fine but can cause all kind of rumours and speculations if not complete. I'm sure if they posted "Oh we have been swindled and can no longer get the cpu's we paid for, we will be back with information when we know more". That would have stirred up an even bigger commotion during the intermediate weeks...

[lawliett 77]

8 minutes ago, EskeRahn said:

That would be pretty absurd. Why would we even have the term "crowd funding" if it should just be considered a "pre-order"? The whole point is that WE as investors take the risk rather than those that tries to create the product... And that is why the price for a perk is lower than a pre_order price. (despite IGG also taking their not unsubstantial cut)

I definitely agree that crowd funding isn't the same as a purchase. The question is how does the credit lender view them? If there's no explicit mention of crowdfunding in their chargeback policy, it's entirely possible they'll view it as a purchase instead of an investment. That's what I meant when I said the credit lenders have all the power, since their decision is all that matters regardless of how we or IGG define an investment versus a purchase.

And yes from a business point of view, it makes sense that Fxtec wouldn't want to scare away potential investors by revealing information publicly too quickly. But for someone who wants to get a refund, it would be a completely legitimate argument for receiving one.

But just to re-iterate, I wouldn't advise people getting a chargeback as it's risky, and it's better to work things out with the company or sell the phone on ebay. But I won't hold it against anyone who seeks to get a refund even though I personally am fine with the downgrade.

 

Edited March 2, 2021 by lawliett

[EskeRahn 5,459]

4 minutes ago, lawliett said:

If there's no explicit mention of crowdfunding in their chargeback policy, it's entirely possible they'll view it as a purchase instead of an investment

...Or they don't mention them because they obviously falls outside chargeback  like gifts, loans, and other investments, that aren't mentioned either... 😜

[Doktor Oswaldo 904]

15 hours ago, lawliett said:

Yes, I don't see any language referring to crowdfunding, so I assume the credit lender would regard them as pre-orders rather than investments.

Sorry I have to get back to that. This list is from a Wikipedia article and not specific rules for a lender. SOME lenders MAY have rules about crowdfunding.
But in general terms, it is wrong to assume something is not listed must be covered by something else. This is not how law works (at least in western countries) and also not company rules (which are mostly based on the concept of laws, and quite often also backed/regulated by some laws). If something is not listed, there is either no rule on that, and a new rule must be made (Or in reality, it is quite often the case, that it depends on which person does process the matter...). Or the authority on it has to judge it (this could be a court or a company memo or whatever).

15 hours ago, lawliett said:

As for whether people are entitled to a refund, that's an ethical question every person needs to decide for themselves.

Here entitled was meant in a law/rule context, not in a moral context.

[PsyDucky 20]

I asked nicely an got refused a refund.
According to Danish law i have 14 days refund, even on reward based crowfunding. And even goes a bit deeper on that.
That potential delays can entitle you to a refund as well

So trying to decide if i really wanna go down that path. Since i did refund 12 days after my order when the annouced the downgrade.....feels a bit sad that i might have to push that option.

Think i would really be fine with the pro1x if it was 20% cheaper, but in the current state i cant help to think i  funded some an internal screwup. I hope the courtcase and all that is true, but from my point of view it technical all could be a scam. As their communication does not really do much to dispell rumors or even confirm thir own claims.

And lets say they win a potential courtcase, then i technical donated to that courtcase as well ?
(i doubt they will) 

I just dont think Fx is really painting a bright future for themselves mostly by lacking communication.


 

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by PsyDucky

[Doktor Oswaldo 904]

1 hour ago, PsyDucky said:

I asked nicely an got refused a refund.
According to Danish law i have 14 days refund, even on reward based crowfunding. And even goes a bit deeper on that.
That potential delays can entitle you to a refund as well

So trying to decide if i really wanna go down that path. Since i did refund 12 days after my order when the annouced the downgrade.....feels a bit sad that i might have to push that option.

Think i would really be fine with the pro1x if it was 20% cheaper, but in the current state i cant help to think i  funded some an internal screwup. I hope the courtcase and all that is true, but from my point of view it technical all could be a scam. As their communication does not really do much to dispell rumors or even confirm thir own claims.

And lets say they win a potential courtcase, then i technical donated to that courtcase as well ?
(i doubt they will) 

I just dont think Fx is really painting a bright future for themselves mostly by lacking communication.

I understand the anger with the missing communication and downgrades. Mostly because I was in a similar position 1.5 years ago. But It is highly unlikely that FxTec is a scam. They have delivered phones, why should they in a scam? I am pretty sure they had the most money 2 year ago, when all the preorders paid. That would have been the moment to cash out in a scam, not after fabricating and licensing a few thousand phones.

And I don't think their current communication is bad, what information are you missing? And even if it is bad, you should have seen the communication 1.5 years ago. The only thing we heard, was "soon" for a year. Sure that doesn't make the current state of communication better, but I just wanna say most of us are happy to have gone through now 🙂

[PsyDucky 20]

12 minutes ago, Doktor Oswaldo said:

I understand the anger with the missing communication and downgrades. Mostly because I was in a similar position 1.5 years ago. But It is highly unlikely that FxTec is a scam. They have delivered phones, why should they in a scam? I am pretty sure they had the most money 2 year ago, when all the preorders paid. That would have been the moment to cash out in a scam, not after fabricating and licensing a few thousand phones.

And I don't think their current communication is bad, what information are you missing? And even if it is bad, you should have seen the communication 1.5 years ago. The only thing we heard, was "soon" for a year. Sure that doesn't make the current state of communication better, but I just wanna say most of us are happy to have gone through now 🙂

Yea...that it used to be worse is not a good argument for bad Communications! 
But its still in my opinion that i have to read tru 500 very mixed comments  and opinions to find any kind of info beyond what has been posted in a monthly news letter. To me at least thats poor damage control. (stopped reading them like 200 comments ago, Since its mostly a shitshow)

Just make a damn update with at least some of this extra info and that would be a huge stone of my heart. 
and forgive me for not resting on history or tradition!  But that does not really make me feel more confident!  Concurrent and faily regular timed updated that would  make me understand where everything is at, that  would make it all feel a bit less shady to me.

 

[Rob. S. 1,660]

29 minutes ago, PsyDucky said:

Yea...that it used to be worse is not a good argument for bad Communications! 
But its still in my opinion that i have to read tru 500 very mixed comments  and opinions to find any kind of info beyond what has been posted in a monthly news letter. To me at least thats poor damage control. (stopped reading them like 200 comments ago, Since its mostly a shitshow)

Just make a damn update with at least some of this extra info and that would be a huge stone of my heart. 
and forgive me for not resting on history or tradition!  But that does not really make me feel more confident!  Concurrent and faily regular timed updated that would  make me understand where everything is at, that  would make it all feel a bit less shady to me.

The thing is, if they were set out on a scam, what they're doing now just wouldn't make sense, it wouldn't be logical: openly telling not only existing customers, but also prospective customers, that they have to wait another half year for their phones if they'll put in an order now. No, they would rather be doing something more similar to what they did most of last year, it's just that they also did deliver quite some phones over time: they would try to put off customers for another few weeks, and then another few weeks, then perhaps offer some shady explanation, then stall customers for another few weeks and so on, until finally it would be over and they'd run with the money. But they're not doing that, and they won't do that. They've proven to be honest and honorable on so many different occasions, starting with refunding all those who wanted to be refunded for their earlier failed (clearly not because of them, by the way) IndieGogo item, a Moto Z addon keyboard, so that it is not even remotely probable they would start doing something like that now. They're keyboard phone geeks like us and they're business people who want to do business and to keep doing business, and they won't risk their reputation as honest, law-abiding businesspeople just because they have to navigate through rough waters due to a pandemic and maybe other mishaps.

Regarding updates of their going-ons, they have published their planned timeline which is divided into five phases. Since January, they're in the mainboard redesign phase. The next phase would be due to start in April. Expect an update then, but not earlier. There's just nothing to report until then, as long are going as planned. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Rob. S.

[PsyDucky 20]

I guess if i had to add to that i dont really know how big the pro1 orders que  was  and  what % of the pro1 orders  has actually been delivered. Just know that some have still not gotten their pro1 after very long waits.
 

[flx 42]

Crowdfunding does not exist in Europe, as of now. A law is in preparation to regulate it but it's not yet in place.

In the meantime it falls in whatever laws exist. You can't just invent a word and say it does not fall in any current laws. Or I will create my business doing zuchzmouech and say, "as it's not defined in the law I can define mine".

 

(But yes, credit card chargeback in Europe should not be used to settle a commercial dispute and it's not an easy process like in the US.)

 

But to comeback to the investment argument. Let's go back to the base of the base of the laws, contracts.

An investment is also a contract, in exchange of 100€ I get 20 shares in company "Bidule". If company "Bidule" never give my 20 shares this contract is null and void and they will need to give me my "investment" back.

So now call it investment as much as you want if I "invest" in exchange of a product and I don't get it, this "investment" contract is null and they have to give you your money back.

[PsyDucky 20]

Personally i dont really think there is any money to run with and i never said it was a scam i said it feels shady or feels like scam.  their history does still not change that fact.

And i think i have to agree with FLX to some extend there is more blind faith here than i think Fx Deserves.

Edited March 3, 2021 by PsyDucky

[Rob. S. 1,660]

24 minutes ago, PsyDucky said:

I guess if i had to add to that i dont really know how big the pro1 orders que  was  and  what % of the pro1 orders  has actually been delivered. Just know that some have still not gotten their pro1 after very long waits.
 

Some, yes. How many? The complaints in this forum could be an indication for how many, given that the percentage of unhappy customers who will find this forum in the end will probably be larger than average for a device like this. By the way, when "I don't really know" it is not my habit to always assume the worst. I will consider that the worst could happen, after all, but I don't construct accusations just because of the remote possibility. Most importantly, I don't let such occasions make my life harder than it already is. Patience is not only a virtue, it is good for one's own blood pressure.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Rob. S.

[Rob. S. 1,660]

21 minutes ago, PsyDucky said:

Personally i dont really think there is any money to run with and i never said it was a scam i said it feels shady or feels like scam.  their history does still not change that fact.

And i think i have to agree with FLX to some extend there is more blind faith here than i think Fx Deserves.

This is not "blind faith", and it doesn't even matter what they "deserve", and if it would, their history would be the one and only thing to decide whether some "faith" was justified or not.

But it doesn't. This is simply a situation we as customers can do nothing about, as much as we might want to jump and shout. If they would finally fold, we would be without our ordered phones and without our money. For me, that's two phones and the price of two phones. The only way I can help improve the chances that I'll get those phones (as there's no chance anymore to get the money back) is to trust them, not to make their lives even worse than they already must be, and maybe help them if there would turn up a way.

Doubting and shouting won't change a thing and won't help anyone. And drowning them in useless status requests or refund requests at this point won't, either. On the contrary, it will make things worse – and thereby even reduce the chance of a good outcome for all of us.

[Hook 3,017]

They said clearly they would update monthly.  Given how small they are and everything they are managing, that seems good.  So I expect an update this week or next.  Monthly is fine with me.  I want them focusing on getting me my Pro1x rather than swatting at IGG comments.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Hook

[Rob. S. 1,660]

58 minutes ago, flx said:

So now call it investment as much as you want if I "invest" in exchange of a product and I don't get it, this "investment" contract is null and they have to give you your money back

How naïve and out of touch with reality can someone be? Do you really think you're the first person to think you don't get what you deserve, or to fear you might not get a product you helped crowdfund? Do you know how many people already did lose substantial amounts of money by not getting a product they helped crowdfund in 20 years of crowdfunding being a thing on the internet?

And do you honestly think none of them would have thought they might have had a right to get their money back, and tried, even though every crowdfunding platform warns them of the risk that they might not, which every backer agrees to in the act of backing a campaign? Have you heard of even just one case that succeeded in an even just remotely similar case? Do you really think you, now, of all people, could now succeed, becoming the first one to do so? Did it occur to you that you simply might not know jack about even just the basics of what you're talking about, especially not the legal basics?

And there's another thing – as soon as a campaigner is out of money, you'd be out of luck even if you could, by some yet unknown-of magic, successfully claim a "right" to get your crowdfunder's money back. You still won't see a penny or a cent of it.

And the only effect exerting pressure on a campaigner who's already in rough waters will bring about is that the chances of them keeping afloat, and thereby the chances they'll eventually produce and deliver your phone, will be reduced.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Rob. S.

[Rob. S. 1,660]

5 minutes ago, Hook said:

They said clearly they would update monthly

Thanks, I wasn't even aware of that. That's even better, and gives even less reason to complain (as long as those updates actually come)... 

[flx 42]

And did it occurs to you that that you simply might not know shit about even just the basics of European laws ?

 

Seriously, it's pretty insulting that you call me naive for defending what is our rights in this public forum. 

Stating how it falls legally is a complete different things than saying that I'm going to go alone like Don Quichotte fighting against them.

 

 

Oh and yes I'm not a lawyer but as part of my Engineering training I've followed ITC laws courses and as parts of my jobs I regularly had to implement them (mostly GDPR but also some consumer laws). So yes I'm not an expert but please don't call me stupid.

And I have posted a lot of sources in my previous post with cases and analysis about Crowdfunding and consumer laws in Europe, I'm not just stating things out of my pocket.

Edited March 3, 2021 by flx

[lawliett 77]

1 hour ago, flx said:

But to comeback to the investment argument. Let's go back to the base of the base of the laws, contracts.

An investment is also a contract, in exchange of 100€ I get 20 shares in company "Bidule". If company "Bidule" never give my 20 shares this contract is null and void and they will need to give me my "investment" back.

So now call it investment as much as you want if I "invest" in exchange of a product and I don't get it, this "investment" contract is null and they have to give you your money back.

This analogy isn't quite right. The "shares" in your analogy aren't the phone, what you're buying is the "perk" not the phone. You're buying the opportunity to receive a phone. You're not buying the phone itself.

So you have already received your 20 shares (ie. your perk). Now if fxtec delivers a phone, you are essentially cashing in your shares to receive something of actual value (the phone) rather the paper you currently own (your perk). But if Fxtec is unable to deliver the phone, your paper just became worthless as the "stocks" value dropped to 0. 

Due to the downgrade, the value of your stocks (perk) just decreased, but that's the risk you take when you buy shares in a company. The can go up and down.

If you buy shares in a company, and then the shares value go down, you can't ask for a refund. That's the risk you took when you invest in the stock market (crowdfunding).

I suppose you could try selling your shares (perk), but that only works if you can find someone willing to buy it off you. Since in the stock market you don't sell the shares (perk)  back to the company, but to other investors in the market.

IGG should have a way for investors to sell perks to each other. Then it would be a real stock market!

Edited March 3, 2021 by lawliett

[Rob. S. 1,660]

27 minutes ago, flx said:

Seriously, it's pretty insulting that you call me naive for defending what is our rights in this public forum. 

Stating how it falls legally is a complete different things than saying that I'm going to go alone like Don Quichotte fighting against them.

Calling you naïve is just stating the obvious if you try to defend "rights" which aren't there, and which nobody sees except you. And you really ought to consider the possibility that when you're the only one who sees something that something might actually not exist.

More importantly, please read my last two paragraphs above again. They're applicable even in the improbable case the thing you're seeing would actually exist, against all odds.

In this reality we're in, we don't even need to fight about whether that "right" might somehow exist or not (and I'm not going to continue to in any case) .

38 minutes ago, Rob. S. said:

And there's another thing – as soon as a campaigner is out of money, you'd be out of luck even if you could, by some yet unknown-of magic, successfully claim a "right" to get your crowdfunder's money back. You still won't see a penny or a cent of it.

And the only effect exerting pressure on a campaigner who's already in rough waters will bring about is that the chances of them keeping afloat, and thereby the chances they'll eventually produce and deliver your phone, will be reduced.

 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Rob. S.

[flx 42]

5 minutes ago, lawliett said:

This analogy isn't quite right. The "shares" in your analogy aren't the phone, what you're buying is the "perk" not the phone. You're buying the opportunity to receive a phone. You're not buying the phone itself.

So you have already received your 20 shares (ie. your perk). Now if fxtec delivers a phone, you are essentially cashing in your shares to receive something of actual value (the phone) rather the paper you currently own (your perk). But if Fxtec is unable to deliver the phone, your paper just became worthless as the "stocks" value dropped to 0. 

Due to the downgrade, the value of your stocks (perk) just decreased, but that's the risk you take when you buy shares in a company. The can go up and down.

If you buy shares in a company, and then the shares value go down, you can't ask for a refund. That's the risk you took when you invest in the stock market (crowdfunding).

I suppose you could try selling your shares (perk), but that only works if you can find someone willing to buy it off you. Since in the stock market you don't sell the shares (perk)  back to the company, but to other investors in the market.

I agree my analogy isn't quite right, because this is not really an investment.

But I don't think yours is either.the name of the perk i give money in exchange is "Pro1 X Early Bird". And yes shares can lose value but when you buy them they never promise you any return on investment.

Trying to say that a reward base crowfunding is an investment is really trying to fit a square in a circle, no analogy will ever fit perfectly.

 

Oh and a big company like Thinktankphoto using crowdfunding as a marketing tool to preorder their newest bag which production has already started, can them avoid consumer laws just because they used Kickstarter ?
And a company like Niche that now has a released product and just keep using IGG to sell the new batches instead of a classical eshop platform, can them avoid consumer laws just because they use IGG ?

They don't pretend to and they don't.

[Rob. S. 1,660]

5 minutes ago, flx said:

Oh and a big company like Thinktankphoto using crowdfunding as a marketing tool to preorder their newest bag which production has already started, can them avoid consumer laws just because they used Kickstarter ?

Yes. Because no-one is forcing you to buy from them – or to preorder their bag on Kickstarter. You know what you get involved with beforehand.