Isn't an IPO kinda the opposite of that?
Or is is the fashionable thing these days to claim to be non-profit when you're young and looking for grassroots support, only to transform when there is money to be made?
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a shareholder in Raspberry Pi Ltd, not vice versa. It benefits from the profits generated by the commercial arm.
The commercial arm was established on 10 September 2012 [1].
[1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
I don't see how it is the wrong way around: what you are saying is that they are a for-profit, and depending on how much profit they make with their business, the foundation gets more money to "play with", right?
But it can take a long time to make that scheme work at a level where the foundation can do what it would like to do so this IPO kind of gets a head start on those dividends, by selling some of the stock rather than to make a profit and wait they get some of that cash today, with the downside of being required to live in a glass house from now on and having somewhat reduced future dividends (assuming there are any).
At least that would be my understanding with a non-profit?
Non-profits that sells things like a business aren't allowed.
The charity still exists and still does all the same stuff: https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFounda...
Only once the Sony production line expanded did they get back on top of B2C supplies.
Throughout the shortage their blog regularly made statements like "If you are a B2B customer get in touch, we can still supply you with Pis".
In terms of their organisational structure, the charity does indeed still exist, but as I say it's a pretty small part of their business (and yes the charity exists for business) these days. Anyone active in Pi community circles will know that the consumer and education focus is very much going away, all be it slowly but that will no doubt pick up once they become listed and profits becomes the only focus.
There is still no evidence here... what you say is just that.
I don't know the precise structure, but Wikipedia is 'owned' by the wikimedia foundation.
It could be owned by Disney.
So the question is, who is the better custodian? A not for profit entity or a for profit one?
Raspberry pi is part owned by the raspberry pi foundation. The raspberry pi foundation shouldn't have a profit motive, so in that sense is a better custodian than some for profit 'holding company'.
No you could question, given they were prioritising business customers whether the foundation A) made the right decision or B) whether they have enough away over the company.
To me this all seems reminiscent of free software v open source.
A lot of people expected free(hard)ware, where it's becoming apparent it's more open source.
The problem with non-profits owning profit making businesses is that it makes governance a lot more complex, tends to create conflicts of interest etc.
You may not be satisfied with either of those choices, but that's a separate issue.
A non profit still needs funds. The need for funds is going to create conflicts.
Ultimately it come down to, do you want the millions that raspberry pi is making, going to some venture capitalist. Or do you want it going to some non profit.
If they do decide to milk the cash cow, at least that money is going somewhere hopefully better for society.
What guarantee is there that the newly publicly listed company won't be pressured by stockholders to improve the profit margins by driving up prices and reducing product quality on both the hardware and software fronts.
Isn't that what a public typical company do these days anyway? Or is there a sarcasm tone I am missing somehow?
Shifting to publicly listed means the owners are now the shareholders, it’s rare that public shareholders have zero board of directors representation, which is why I fear this is basically going to kill everything the Raspberry Pi Foundation have worked to build … the only question in my mind is how fast this kills it, I just can’t see how this won’t result in shareholders pressuring the company into compromising in the name of raw profit or whatever else is necessary for them to raise the stock price so the investors can get some profit.
* Couldn't select a current version of the OS to install on a Pi Zero. * Can't install the current version on an SSD that will run on a Pi 4B. An SSD install works. The same install on an SD card does work. * An install that runs on a Pi 5 won't run on a Pi 4B.
I asked about the first on their forum and my post was deleted before anyone could answer. No reason was given and I could find no where to ask.
The post was in no way critical or inflammatory. They just don't want to discuss problems with their stuff. There were a lot of changes in how the imager works and what happens on first boot and I suspect they are still catching up with related bugs.
Regardless, the Raspberry Pi for-profit arm has existed for over a decade now; the only news is that it wants to IPO.
1) the foundation, that does all the outreach, education and magazines
2) The commercial part (the actually makes the pis)
3) R&D
but it might be only two.
Either way I assume only the commercial part will float, leaving the foundation as the majority shareholder. It has the advantage of giving the foundation a couple of hundred million, which should allow it to continue to do great things. (if you think about computer/electronics education, its basically pi and scratch. Arduino has kinda dropped the ball.)
Doesn't that count as marketing?
What you can get under $10 these days is mindblowing and if all Arduino ever did was make their IDE which ties 100's of different boards together under a common development experience then that would be enough for me.
While Arduino is strong in many regards and was a big improvement on the status quo when it came out in ~2005, they weren't very fast to respond to the rise of the esp8266 and super-low-cost boards made in China.
For a long time their cheapest product was the Uno R3 (with a 16 MHz 8-bit ATmega328) for about $25 while you could buy a Wemos D1 mini (with a 160 MHz 32-bit esp8266) for $2 - or an Uno clone on aliexpress for $3.
Arduino have updated their product line since then (the Uno R4 Minima offers a 48MHz 32-bit RA4M1 for $19) and it's understandable they wanted to retain compatibility with their 5v shield ecosystem. But they were definitely slow to respond to a changing market.
I agree. If anything its an understatement. I could, as a normal person outside academia, without a structured learning environment, do microcontrollers, affordably. Not only that, I could make amazing things with it.
sure there was the basic stamp, but that was well, basic.
You answered your question: it was. :-(