Why didn't they didn't just include a female usb port?
Edit: I'm skeptical about their motive. It seems they are using this as a press event to announce their KickStarter competitor ChristieStreet.
Edit: I'm skeptical about their motive. It seems they are using this as a press event to announce their KickStarter competitor ChristieStreet.
Their refunding the money.
Having a plain USB port or two would be handy anyways as there are still plenty of proprietary USB cables in the wild (GPSes, oddball electronics, older electronics, iPod shuffles).
Not sure if they're also supporting the extended dock connector functionality, and hence had to keep the 30pin connector.. but I agree that it seems like a press grab..
> In fact, even combining Apple’s new Lighting connector with the old 30-pin connector in a charging device was verboten
Emphasis my own. That doesn't read like combining Lighting with the 30-pin was the only issue, but rather the particularly egregious seeming issue. I'm reading that as Apple would not allow Lighting and USB either.
But then an all USB solution (bundled with Lightning cables) could have been an option too..
Announce the new campaign in the same email that was announcing the refund; if people were still interested they could fund the new campaign.
Maybe they do plan on re-launching eventually, or maybe they just don't think there is demand for the compromised product. Or maybe they ran into other issues and are using this as a graceful out. Who knows.
Or am I missing something?
But I guess their mistake is pitching this as an iDevice charger from the start (see their video; very heavy focus on iDevices). And when they couldn't include a lightning connector, it became a deal breaker.
There are a lot of devices out there that aren't Lightning and would benefit from a system like this, so 4 regular USB ports is a lot more useful than specialized connectors.
The wall charger and Macs include a non-standard trick (a resistor on the data pins in the wall charger, probably some active negotiation on Macs) to output up to two full amps.
Higher charge rates are part of the USB3 spec, but this would require both devices to implement it, and I don't know if it's even a mandatory part of the spec.
So, plug your iPad on a PC and it will charge, just slower, and only when sleeping.
Your PC likely isn't delivering enough current via USB to charge an iPad. (I think it needs a 1A supply and the USB spec only requires 500mA or something like that).
It's just plain unwise to make business promises to deliver interoperability with proprietary interfaces without having your agreements in place first.
As a side note, I'm quite disappointed that we as a technological society can no longer implement basic means of supplying low-voltage DC power for a users' own devices.
We should be admiring them for taking risks like these. If it worked, it would have been quite awesome. And now that it's failed, everyone received their money back, so no harm was done whatsoever.
Yes, it was their choice to return the money rather than pivot the project, but that's irrelevant -- the fact is that they returned all the money to the backers and chose to absorb the $11k loss themselves. This is behavior we should be encouraging, rather than trying to discourage people from daring to dream and to take harmless risks.
But just I hate to see anyone having to eat credit card fees on $139,170 for something that was preventable.
Power connectors have historically been low-risk parts so it's an understandable mistake. But sourcing and costing all the needed custom parts should have been one of the first steps in the hardware design process.
It was their risk to take! Why do you care?
Power connectors have historically been low-risk parts so it's an understandable mistake. But sourcing and costing all the needed custom parts should have been one of the first steps in the hardware design process.
So what if they didn't? It's their decision.
I'm struggling to understand what your point is. "Here's why [I think] they failed." Well, yes, in hindsight, mistakes are obvious. But in the moment, things aren't so clear-cut.
I care. My reasons are my own.
> So what if they didn't?
Then the credit card companies and Kickstarter gain $11000, the entrepreneur loses $11000, and we all have a friendly discussion on HN.
> It's their decision.
Yes, absolutely.
> I'm struggling to understand what your point is.
I have two points. I'll repeat them, they're pretty simple:
1. Don't make business promises to deliver interoperability with proprietary interfaces without having your agreements in place first.
2. Sourcing and costing all the needed custom parts should be done early in the hardware design process.
> in hindsight, mistakes are obvious. But in the moment, things aren't so clear-cut.
Words to live by.
That's not true. Apple saying "no" when there is no money on the table and no popular interest means nothing.
Apple saying "no" when you have customers beating down your door and $130k to divide between licensing and manufacturing is a different matter. Apple chose to pass up this money. There was no way to foresee this until the choice was on the table.
A rule book is not immutable.
But one ought to weigh in advance whether or not 1000 customers and funds on the order of $130k is likely to provide enough leverage to bend the rules of a company with, literally, the most money in the whole world and a famously proprietary attitude.
http://venturebeat.com/2012/12/21/apple-statement-on-cancell...