I'm quite sure you already knew that. But again... what are you questioning?
Glad you acknowledge this. The question still stands...
200 or so employees, most of them engineers, working on the OS. Working with potential partners, ODM's... trips and consulting as well as revisions and research into future iterations of hardware.
Shipping, sales, consumer support and marketing. It all adds up. As a business owner, I've seen budgets of 2.5 million come and go in under a year and I had less than 30 employees.
This is a good question.
Sure, but updates are not related to tablet we were promised to have once a month which is not true for a long time already. So if IGG was an extra money and it was spent on OS presumably on tablet part, i want to understand what is that tablet part, it should be one that hard to miss.
BTW, you can add taxes and cases money that went that way, minus shipping as there was no shipping.
But you should add cost of the "award winning" "reviews" of tablet with back than no adapted app for it or you include those in marketing?
Sure, but updates are not related to tablet we were promised to have once a month which is not true for a long time already.
Burden of proof is on you for this one. The very last update, folks are complaining about how the tablet got updates without any real amount of tablets out there and the phones were ignored.
Which is it? 2.0.1.7 updated tablet features or it did not? I'd say that it did - the complaints are hard to ignore (see above).
Originally Posted by
So if IGG was an extra money and it was spent on OS presumably on tablet part, i want to understand what is that tablet part, it should be one that hard to miss.
There's a much better way to ask this question. Perhaps this is one of them?
Originally Posted by Suggested Question
What is the exact breakdown on how the IGG money was utilized?
And if that is the case, there was somewhat of a breakdown of costs posted before - as shown here. You want specifics, I'd suggest going to the source. Makes better sense to me.
Originally Posted by
BTW, you can add taxes and cases money that went that way, minus shipping as there was no shipping.
They shipped out phones still. There was shipping. You're just isolating the tablets - and there was shipments of those too.
Originally Posted by
But you should add cost of the "award winning" "reviews" of tablet with back than no adapted app for it or you include those in marketing?
No, I shouldn't add the cost of that. But to be "award winning", you do have to ship a product. That bolsters my argument, not yours though. Not sure you meant to do that intentionally.
At the end, circular, masturbatory conversations as such start to inevitably force me to question if you've run a business with more than just a few deliverables and/or pieces to that "puzzle". Running a business is not a mystery, but it's a lot more complex than the questions being asked and covered here.
I'd rather acknowledge that more than our general curiosities that center around our disappointment for not receiving our tablets we paid for via IGG. I totally get that. But your line of questioning doesn't really address that. In fact, there's answers for your questions.
But will that be enough? Will those answers to your questions be enough to stop this circular pattern you've found yourself in or will there be yet another added wrinkle and/or line of questioning.
The costs have been broken down - Jolla was already in a hole and needed funding. The IGG funding was lesser than the third round of funding by an order of magnitude. It was delayed, the money that was shifted over to continued development hadn't arrived yet and thus they "gambled" - something a lot of startups do unfortunately. And that gamble came up short for our tablets.
The OS has gone from 1.1.x to 2.0.1.x in that same time. It's scaled not only up for a different screen resolution, but also to a different ISA as well too. And did so in the last year with their prior set of workers/engineers/staff. Some of that staff didn't even get paid once Jolla gambled in the way that they did - investing the IGG money forward and covering what was to be incoming.
