Latest update on BFL shipping 21/02/13 More Updates 25Th

[Frizz23]

... People with pre-orders are undoubtedly stakeholders, but they're not necessarily entitled to the same level of detail as investors or board members.  Seriously, if you can't provide enough information publicly to reassure your existing customers, then why on earth should they trust you for another day instead of cancelling their orders right now?  And why should any potential customer take a chance on ordering with you?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1034-february-14th-2012-update-discussion-thread-12.html#post16015

Reassurance needs to be as public as possible right now. 

According to SEC regulations, people with pre-orders are investors, not customers. Hence they should be treated as such (transparency, information, etc).

Remember: BFL customers didn't make a deposit - they paid fully upfront for the development of a (back then) not existing product -> investors.

[1715551424]

1715551424

[1715551424]

1715551424

[1715551424]

1715551424

[1715551424]

1715551424

[Phinnaeus Gage]

... People with pre-orders are undoubtedly stakeholders, but they're not necessarily entitled to the same level of detail as investors or board members.  Seriously, if you can't provide enough information publicly to reassure your existing customers, then why on earth should they trust you for another day instead of cancelling their orders right now?  And why should any potential customer take a chance on ordering with you?

https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1034-february-14th-2012-update-discussion-thread-12.html#post16015

Reassurance needs to be as public as possible right now. 

According to SEC regulations, people with pre-orders are investors, not customers. Hence they should be treated as such (transparency, information, etc).

Remember: BFL customers didn't make a deposit - they paid fully upfront for the development of a (back then) not existing product -> investors.

Then, isn't the onus now on BFL to prove that all the pre-order money is in the bank, thus not under said SEC regulations?

[repentance]

Then, isn't the onus now on BFL to prove that all the pre-order money is in the bank, thus not under said SEC regulations?

They've been asked to provide proof of this in the past and declined.  Any argument that the amount of pre-order funds being held would reveal commercially sensitive information to their competitors is pretty much bullshit at this point as their competitors are already locked in to their own schedules and can't easily scale up production to accommodate any mass cancellation of BFL orders. 

Besides, knowing that they have ordered 75,000 chips already allows their competitors to make assumptions about BFL's projections and what level of order cancellation would start causing them pain.

[yohan]

Then, isn't the onus now on BFL to prove that all the pre-order money is in the bank, thus not under said SEC regulations?

They've been asked to provide proof of this in the past and declined.  Any argument that the amount of pre-order funds being held would reveal commercially sensitive information to their competitors is pretty much bullshit at this point as their competitors are already locked in to their own schedules and can't easily scale up production to accommodate any mass cancellation of BFL orders.  

Besides, knowing that they have ordered 75,000 chips already allows their competitors to make assumptions about BFL's projections and what level of order cancellation would start causing them pain.

If they were as well funded as they say they are then they won't need to be so desperate to hang on to orders which they clearly are to anyone above the age of 5. They could have simply developed the product quitely and without the forum bashing they have had. So in my view you can take the choice of stupid (to pre-announce when unnecessary) or lying (they needed the pre-order money).

[Bitinvestor]

So in my view you can take the choice of stupid (to pre-announce when unnecessary) or lying (they needed the pre-order money).

I'll take choice two.

[crazyearner]

Then, isn't the onus now on BFL to prove that all the pre-order money is in the bank, thus not under said SEC regulations?

They've been asked to provide proof of this in the past and declined.  Any argument that the amount of pre-order funds being held would reveal commercially sensitive information to their competitors is pretty much bullshit at this point as their competitors are already locked in to their own schedules and can't easily scale up production to accommodate any mass cancellation of BFL orders.  

Besides, knowing that they have ordered 75,000 chips already allows their competitors to make assumptions about BFL's projections and what level of order cancellation would start causing them pain.

If they were as well funded as they say they are then they won't need to be so desperate to hang on to orders which they clearly are to anyone above the age of 5. They could have simply developed the product quitely and without the forum bashing they have had. So in my view you can take the choice of stupid (to pre-announce when unnecessary) or lying (they needed the pre-order money).

Well they have around $20+ million on peoples pre order funds and with the market increasing am sure ther at double that or 3 or 4 times that by now.

[RoboCoder]

I thought the SEC only applied to public companies and i don't think BFL is public.

[rocks]

The bumping facility, which we have no direct contact with, did not complete the NRE on the timeline we had spoke to the packaging facility about. As I've written in previous posts, we are dealing with such an accelerated time scale that all of these facilities simply aren't used to dealing with.

Translation, we have no idea how a fab process works. You think BFL has the scale to ask real facilities to implement an "accelerated time scale they are not used to dealing with"?

It is obvious BFL was never going to get an "accelerated time scale" from manufacturing facilities, to expect anything else is crazy.

This is clearly a delay tactic. Either BFL was aware of the real timeline the whole time and lied, or BFL is trying to cover for other mistakes, or BFL is a scam.

[Puppet]

I thought the SEC only applied to public companies and i don't think BFL is public.

Dont know about SEC, but FTC certainly applies:
http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus02-business-guide-mail-and-telephone-order-merchandise-rule

And BFL are in clear violation of it

You must cancel an order and provide a prompt refund when:

    the customer exercises any option to cancel before you ship the merchandise;
    the customer does not respond to your first notice of a definite revised shipment date of 30 days or less and you have not shipped the merchandise or received the customer’s consent to a further delay by the definite revised shipment date;
    the customer does not respond to your notice of a definite revised shipment date of more than 30 days (or your notice that you are unable to provide a definite revised shipment date) and you have not shipped the merchandise within 30 days of the original shipment date;
    the customer consents to a definite delay and you have not shipped or obtained the customer’s consent to any additional delay by the shipment time the customer consented to;

unless everyone has not only received these dalay notifications but also responded to them.

[RHA]

They have taken pre-orders, not orders.

[RoboCoder]

And i am pretty certain they are refunding any who request it.  I suspect by now if someone hasnt requested a refund, they probably don't want their order canceled anyway.  I know i don't.

[firefop]

It's great to say that the bumping facility can't wrap their heads around urgency.

It's also a lie. Every step of the way, every other company they work with is always the one that won't meet promised schedules. Sooner or later Josh looses all credibility. You can't believe anything he says about dates, because he's just making them up as he goes along. 2 days in bumping becomes 2 weeks. Why? Because that 2-day schedule was all in his mind.

It isn't exactly a lie... it's just a refusal to admit that BFL screwed up. They probably had everything in order... except no blank wafer... the bump shop isn't going to stop running their business just because BFL wasn't ready to go. Their primary expense is LABOR. So they'll retool the line, and run other jobs while they wait for BFL to be ready. Then once BFL is ready... they aren't stopping a half finished job to retool again... BFL ends up waiting for the end of that (probably much larger) run before being slotted in again.

[matthewh3]

It's great to say that the bumping facility can't wrap their heads around urgency.

It's also a lie. Every step of the way, every other company they work with is always the one that won't meet promised schedules. Sooner or later Josh looses all credibility. You can't believe anything he says about dates, because he's just making them up as he goes along. 2 days in bumping becomes 2 weeks. Why? Because that 2-day schedule was all in his mind.

It isn't exactly a lie... it's just a refusal to admit that BFL screwed up. They probably had everything in order... except no blank wafer... the bump shop isn't going to stop running their business just because BFL wasn't ready to go. Their primary expense is LABOR. So they'll retool the line, and run other jobs while they wait for BFL to be ready. Then once BFL is ready... they aren't stopping a half finished job to retool again... BFL ends up waiting for the end of that (probably much larger) run before being slotted in again.

So people paid upfront in June 2012 and its (almost) March 2013    Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but its also an important statement about BFL.  Yes they do have the best public available ASIC (when it finally ships) but I can see this fiasco pushing a lot of money into Avalon.  Although BFL wont care with all that pre-order money they made.  I reckon there'll be selling the BFL-SC-Single for $333 sometime in 2014.

[creativex]

So people paid upfront in June 2012 and its (almost) March 2013    Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but its also an important statement about BFL.  Yes they do have the best public available ASIC (when it finally ships) but I can see this fiasco pushing a lot of money into Avalon.  Although BFL wont care with all that pre-order money they made.  I reckon there'll be selling the BFL-SC-Single for $333 sometime in 2014.

Lucky for BFL that Avalon doesn't have an open ended money grabbing pre-order model like they do. I suspect that'd sway many more to cancel and place an order with the competition.

[repentance]

It isn't exactly a lie... it's just a refusal to admit that BFL screwed up. They probably had everything in order... except no blank wafer... the bump shop isn't going to stop running their business just because BFL wasn't ready to go. Their primary expense is LABOR. So they'll retool the line, and run other jobs while they wait for BFL to be ready. Then once BFL is ready... they aren't stopping a half finished job to retool again... BFL ends up waiting for the end of that (probably much larger) run before being slotted in again.

Likewise, neither the packaging facility nor the assembly house are likely to be sitting sound doing nothing waiting for BFL's chips to arrive.

[matthewh3]

So people paid upfront in June 2012 and its (almost) March 2013    Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but its also an important statement about BFL.  Yes they do have the best public available ASIC (when it finally ships) but I can see this fiasco pushing a lot of money into Avalon.  Although BFL wont care with all that pre-order money they made.  I reckon there'll be selling the BFL-SC-Single for $333 sometime in 2014.

Lucky for BFL that Avalon doesn't have an open ended money grabbing pre-order model like they do. I suspect that'd sway many more to cancel and place an order with the competition.

So everyone who pre-ordered BFL has been bummed with an eleven month pre-order (so far) and 'soon' there product will drop in price by 75%.  Although I do reckon they (kinda)-care about there customer base and BFL-ASIC's will hold there resale value more than the Avalon due to to the chip fab size.

[creativex]

So people paid upfront in June 2012 and its (almost) March 2013    Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but its also an important statement about BFL.  Yes they do have the best public available ASIC (when it finally ships) but I can see this fiasco pushing a lot of money into Avalon.  Although BFL wont care with all that pre-order money they made.  I reckon there'll be selling the BFL-SC-Single for $333 sometime in 2014.

Lucky for BFL that Avalon doesn't have an open ended money grabbing pre-order model like they do. I suspect that'd sway many more to cancel and place an order with the competition.

So everyone who pre-ordered BFL has been bummed with an eleven month pre-order (so far) and 'soon' there product will drop in price by 75%.  Although I do reckon they (kinda)-care about there customer base and BFL-ASIC's will hold there resale value more than the Avalon due to to the chip fab size exclusive clock buffer technology.

FTFY

That's what makes their silly vouchers so amusing. A 25%/10% discount for missing their shipping date by 100% and counting is piddly when you consider that they'll have to lower the price on future orders anyway. Genius. This kind of trickery is the only thing BFL does well.

[ralree]

It's great to say that the bumping facility can't wrap their heads around urgency.

It's also a lie. Every step of the way, every other company they work with is always the one that won't meet promised schedules. Sooner or later Josh looses all credibility. You can't believe anything he says about dates, because he's just making them up as he goes along. 2 days in bumping becomes 2 weeks. Why? Because that 2-day schedule was all in his mind.

It isn't exactly a lie... it's just a refusal to admit that BFL screwed up. They probably had everything in order... except no blank wafer... the bump shop isn't going to stop running their business just because BFL wasn't ready to go. Their primary expense is LABOR. So they'll retool the line, and run other jobs while they wait for BFL to be ready. Then once BFL is ready... they aren't stopping a half finished job to retool again... BFL ends up waiting for the end of that (probably much larger) run before being slotted in again.

So people paid upfront in June 2012 and its (almost) March 2013    Yes I know I'm stating the obvious but its also an important statement about BFL.  Yes they do have the best public available ASIC (when it finally ships) but I can see this fiasco pushing a lot of money into Avalon.  Although BFL wont care with all that pre-order money they made.  I reckon there'll be selling the BFL-SC-Single for $333 sometime in 2014.

And once BFL hits, the resale price of Avalon will be in the low hundreds of dollars as well, since the power efficiency is so terrible.  It will be interesting to see how that all plays out...

[creativex]

I don't see 600w for 65Gh/s as terrible at all, it's light years beyond what I'm getting now(which is far better than what I got last year), but hopefully the market can produce an even more efficient mining product.

BFL has done a masterful job of portraying Avalon gear as crap, while producing nothing but hopes and dreams themselves.

[vdragon]

There is a term for this. Vaporware