xhajt03 23 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 18 hours ago, claude0001 said: To be fair, the Pro1-X was initially quite close to that same idea. At the start of the IGG campaign, the Pro1 not only existed, but had been field-tested by quite a few customers already. The alternative OS's -- then the "big thing" about the Pro1-X -- were already available in either rock-solid (LineageOS) or beta-quality (UBTouch) form. Yes, you could add more memory and get a shiny blue body with custom engraving. But no one really expected any showstoppers there, given that the phone would technically remain a Pro1. In my view, the Pro1-X campaign was initially intended purely as a vehicle to generate (additional) funds. Which is totally OK, as those funds were at least partly meant for e.g. Ubuntu development. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the funding has been needed also due to the new CPU requiring changes in the codebase (remember that the CPUs are not only pure computing power, but they embed rather significant amount of functionality including the communications, etc., and a different CPU thus leads to a necessity to update and test the drivers specific to the particular device)... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VaZso 1,946 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 hours ago, xhajt03 said: I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the funding has been needed also due to the new CPU requiring changes in the codebase Absolutely wrong. Funding was basically needed for further manufacturing of Pro1... ...slight modification is one thing, but that was only included some change in BOM list and nothing else, so nothing what needs PCB design, certification, external testings, SoC-related developments, anything. SoC change became a problem long after Pro1-X campaign was started. So Pro1-X was intended to earn some money of the project but financially became a close-to null-profit or even a loss project... so it is a really sad story. Maybe if software could be improved, they may continue manufacturing and earn some real profit, but it is not possible without stable hardware and software... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, xhajt03 said: I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the funding has been needed also due to the new CPU requiring changes in the codebase Nope. The Pro1-X was initially intended to be a trivial variant of the Pro1, using the same SoC (Qualcomm Snapdragon 835). It was only after the start of the campaign that they realised they could no longer purchase the SD835 and hence had to redesign the entire phone. This was not initially planned and explains the very long resulting delays. Edited February 10 by claude0001 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 15 minutes ago, claude0001 said: It was only after the start of the campaign that they realised they could no longer purchase the SD835 and hence had to redesign the entire phone. This was not initially planned and explains the very long resulting delays. Actually, I believe this is incorrect. According to the Feb 2021 update, they did indeed purchase the SD835 SOCs and then then their source failed to deliver. They gave no details of what happened to that money, which was from our contributions, but I don't think they were given a quick refund and it probably set off legal challenges. Edited February 10 by Hook 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 5 minutes ago, Hook said: Actually, I believe this is incorrect. According to the Feb 2021 update, they did indeed purchase the SD835 SOCs and then then their source failed to deliver. You basically confirm what I wrote: The IGG campaign -- which ran from October to December 2020 -- was initially meant to produce more Pro1's, not to develop a new phone. Hence their attempt to order the SD835, which is the SoC used in the original Pro1. Only in early 2021, when it became clear that the SD835 could not be delivered, they repurposed the campaign money to redesign the entire hardware. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, claude0001 said: You basically confirm what I wrote: The IGG campaign -- which ran from October to December 2020 -- was initially meant to produce more Pro1's, not to develop a new phone. Hence their attempt to order the SD835, which is the SoC used in the original Pro1. Only in early 2021, when it became clear that the SD835 could not be delivered, they repurposed the campaign money to redesign the entire hardware. Sorry, I wasn't clear. The only thing I disagreed about was the "realized they could no longer purchase" part of the quote because it implied they hadn't yet spent (and lost, I believe) the money. The rest was spot on. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 hours ago, Hook said: [...] The only thing I disagreed about was the "realized they could no longer purchase" part [...] I see your point. It is true that -- probably knowing that the SD835 was getting EOL'ed -- they tried to secure a few thousand specimens of that SoC already in December 2020 (let's not forget that, in this business, these chips are usually sold in lots of hundreds of thousands at least!). However, in that very February 2021 update you mention, they wrote that they "were informed last month that it can no longer be purchased from our suppliers". That's the wording I adopted in my post. I do no know what happened to the money they reportedly payed in advance to some reseller. But it is quite clear that, by basing the Pro1-X campaign on continued availability of the SD835, they were riding a dead horse -- something they realised only when it was too late ... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 8 minutes ago, claude0001 said: However, in that very February 2021 update you mention, they wrote that they "were informed last month that it can no longer be purchased from our suppliers". The second part of that same sentence was "...despite having paid for the components back in December when our campaign officially ended." 😉 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 6 minutes ago, Hook said: "...despite having paid for the components back in December when our campaign officially ended." Let's not get into a nitpicking fight about this. In my view, "paying" for some good without ever receiving that same good is not "purchasing". I think F(x)tec would agree to that. Do not get me wrong: I do think hat F(x)tec genuinely believed (or were led to believe) they could get another round of Pro1s produced before the SD835 would fade from the market. But does it matter? Retrospectively, we now know that it was a wrong decision to base a late 2020 IGG project on that chip. It explains why the project is such a disaster: Instead of investing the crowdfunding money into alternative-OS development as intended, they had to burn it all in development and certification of an ill-fated copy of the Pro1 based on a technically inferior SoC. That's what @xhajt03's post and my reply to it were about. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EskeRahn 5,046 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/purchase 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VaZso 1,946 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 43 minutes ago, claude0001 said: In my view, "paying" for some good without ever receiving that same good is not "purchasing". I think F(x)tec would agree to that. I don't know how phone manufacturing works as a small company, so if you only have an option to be in contract with a company to do the full manufacturing (even Covid may reduced other possibilities), but if we are speaking of much smaller part of the whole, PCB manufacturing and assembly (which may also be separated to only PCB manufacturing, then only assembly), that works a bit differently... ...so, these companies may have an option to pre-order necessary components, which they will use for manufacturing... or a bigger company who does full manufacturing may have an option to pre-order (and pre-pay) necessary components, so when manufacturing starts, they are available. Usually it does not work a way I order components to my home, then I will send them to manufacturer when manufacturing starts... especially not when I am in Europe and manufacturing is in Chinese - postage is relatively slow, TAX-handling may appear in both directions and components may get damage. It rather works in a way I tell them to order these components from wholesaler companies prior assembly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 22 minutes ago, EskeRahn said: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/purchase Do you really believe this is anywhere helpful? 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 3 hours ago, claude0001 said: Let's not get into a nitpicking fight about this. I'm sorry you see it that way. I certainly am not fighting with you and mostly agree with you. I'm merely pointing out, and I think it more than trivial, that even more money was needed than just for starting a new phone, FxTec ran an IGG campaign to create a special edition of the Pro1 with more memory and alternate OSs. This was a device already in production, they just needed parts. Lineage was ready to go and UT was well on it's way (I don't know the latter, just the impression I had from others). They raised money for this limited scope project with the IGG campaign. They later found out they couldn't get the SD 835 SOCs (and, yes, maybe, in hindsight, they should have known better, but if they had assurances from their supplier...) and thus were forced to find a different SOC to create an almost new phone, which is a much more expensive proposition than merely continuing to make an already in production phone with minor modifications. But the step that seemed to me to be getting short shrift in this discussion ( @VaZsoalluded to it) , which had very important consequences, is that they paid for those SD 835 SOC that were never provided, probably as soon as IGG released the money, which they would do at the official end of the campaign in December of 2020. This put FxTec in a deep hole before they could decide how to come up with a different phone, and severely limited the choices they could make going forward. I just thought it was a relevant aspect to the discussion. 2 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 (edited) 8 hours ago, Hook said: I just thought it was a relevant aspect to the discussion. If it is true that the money paid for pre-ordering the 835 parts was lost to them, then you have a good point, indeed. But, admittedly, I've always wondered whether there was actual evidence for that 'bastards-took-the-money-and-ran' narrative ... They way I read F(x)tec's statements was that they (pre-)ordered the 835 SoCs and related parts in late 2020 and made an advance payment for those things. As @VaZso points out, part of this pre-ordering may have been done by their manufacturer, rather than by themselves. Then, in early 2021, their suppliers informed them they could no longer provide the 835 after all. These things happen. Especially as it was about a quite small number of chips, I do not find it unplausible that, two months earlier, some reseller had really thought they could still get a few SD835s from somewhere. So, after that, F(x)tec sat together with their manufacturer and suppliers and thought of what alternative parts they could get for their money and that would require the least redesign of the Pro1's body and antenna system. At least that's been my interpretation up to now: Somewhat bad timing (too close to SD835 EoL) with the crowdfunding campaign, some over-optimism on the supplier side regarding sourcing of those old SoCs, and a lot of bad luck. No gangsters in my story. Please correct me where I'm wrong. Edited February 11 by claude0001 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
halfpastsix 0 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 So the phone I paid for that would be shipped in 90 days 2 years ago isn't even being prepared? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 11 Share Posted February 11 1 hour ago, halfpastsix said: So the phone I paid for that would be shipped in 90 days 2 years ago isn't even being prepared? No, our understanding is that they have been manufactured and are finally shipping slowly after being held up by the logistics contractor. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Schket 0 Posted February 12 Share Posted February 12 On 2/7/2023 at 4:56 PM, sequestris said: 3 months (ish) for a refund. The 3 months(ish) are already passed... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
halfpastsix 0 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 On 2/11/2023 at 9:34 PM, Hook said: No, our understanding is that they have been manufactured and are finally shipping slowly after being held up by the logistics contractor. So when then? It's been 'the end of next month' for 2 years. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 11 minutes ago, halfpastsix said: So when then? It's been 'the end of next month' for 2 years. This is a user to user forum. We know as much as you do. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sequestris 679 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 On 2/12/2023 at 11:40 AM, Schket said: The 3 months(ish) are already passed... I don't expect to see the money this year. I will be surprised if I get it next year. Don't get me wrong, love my Pro1, but at this point other than their good intentions, I have doubts that they have the capability to living up to expectations or promises. I mean, these are good guys. I truly believe that. But they are so far over their heads. 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
VaZso 1,946 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Another update has published here: Quote by FX Technology Feb 16, 2023 • 1:03PM 2 hours ago Pro1-X - February Update Dear Pro1-X backers, The most recent shipping updates are as follows: We have resumed shipping after a brief delay due to the Chinese New Year. We will be sending out more Pro1-X shipments over the following weeks. Please keep an eye out for your tracking information and get in touch with the courier if you experience any delays. OS Developments: We have been in touch with a number of incredibly supportive Pro1-X owners to help troubleshoot the cellular connectivity issue occurring in the stock OS. We are also investigating another issue where data packets occasionally drop on LTE B1 and B3. We will continue to follow up with community members who’ve raised this problem. Overall, we have steadily progressed over the last few months and will aim to release new beta firmware for our beta testers next month. Many may have heard that LineageOS 20 for Pro1-X is now available for testing! A big thanks to our community developers who worked tirelessly to make this happen! This release aims to collect user feedback and help developers identify bugs. Feel free to give this a go and comment in the “LineageOS 20 for Pro1-X” thread on XDA if you spot anything! Developments for Ubuntu Touch OS are also progressing steadily, but at this time, we do not have anything concrete to share just yet. We will update you all next month. Stay tuned! Lastly, our support team is on hand to assist with any additional questions related to your order, shipping, delivery, or technical support. You can reach us at info at fxtec.com Thank you for your support and patience! Team Fxtec 🙂 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
steff 35 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, VaZso said: Another update has published here: There is no update in this update 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
claude0001 1,115 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 Unfortunately the long paragraph on cellular connectivity sounds like they have no clue what the problem is, let alone how to solve it. 😞 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jlavi 111 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 7 hours ago, steff said: There is no update in this update The update was that I received the update via email. The previous update by email was sent to me on Aug 11. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Hook 2,538 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 59 minutes ago, jlavi said: The update was that I received the update via email. The previous update by email was sent to me on Aug 11. Same here. Curious. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.