Raspberry Pi Picks Banks for IPO, Choosing London over New York(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Raspberry Pi Picks Banks for IPO, Choosing London over New York
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-29/raspberry-pi-picks-banks-for-ipo-choosing-london-over-new-york
110 comments
The non-profit arm is a tiny insignificant part of their business now. They stopped being education and charity focused during covid and are only really interested in their B2B customers these days.
You've got it the wrong way around.
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...
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...
> You've got it the wrong way around.
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?
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?
The commercial entity, just like every other commercial company that has stock has stockholders. That happens to be - in part - the foundation. If there are profits then the stockholders, including the foundation, get a pro-rata payout named a dividend.
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).
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).
Lotta words for "yes"
Which "they" are you talking about? There are the foundation and the company. The foundation partly owns the company and makes money from company. They are going to make more money from the IPO. The important question is how much does the foundation own and does it control the company.
Non-profits that sells things like a business aren't allowed.
Non-profits that sells things like a business aren't allowed.
Well, where else is the foundation supposed to get the money from?
They could sell raspberry pi single board computers.
Being a non-profit does not mean that you cannot sell stuff. I think it just means that you cannot make profit for it. So there is no incentive for stakeholders to make you grow infinitely, because they don't get money from that.
At least that would be my understanding with a non-profit?
At least that would be my understanding with a non-profit?
The similarities here with Mozilla are interesting.
A tiny insignificant part which owns the commerical part.
Not sure what your point is there. Owning the commercial arm is pretty irrelevent. Most businesses are owned by a holding company that does nothing more than file a return once a year.
So?
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.
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.
Given your Wikipedia example I think my answer would be "neither" :)
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.
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.
Is neither an option. A thing has to be owned by some entity. That entity has a choice of being profit making or not.
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.
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.
Do you have any evidence of a focus change during covid? Other than the obvious temporary changes all education outlets made during the pandemic?
The charity still exists and still does all the same stuff: https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFounda...
The charity still exists and still does all the same stuff: https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFounda...
They shifted focus to B2B, with all inventory over the pandemic going to those customers. Despite the chip shortage ending a long time ago they continued to push the line that they were still suffering from it. Later they confirmed in a few interviews that they were doing 100k units a month to thier B2B customers (the reason cited was due to B2B customers livelihoods relying on it which is fair enough). There was a discussion it it at the time here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33864152
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.
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.
They had a stock shortage and they made a temporary decision you didn't like. We get that.
There is still no evidence here... what you say is just that.
There is still no evidence here... what you say is just that.
Yeah... I have major concerns about how significantly this would impact their ostensible goals.
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.
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.
> 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?
Isn't that what a public typical company do these days anyway? Or is there a sarcasm tone I am missing somehow?
That’s my point. They are ostensibly setup to primarily be a charity even if there’s a commercial organisation buried in the business structure (like Mozilla and a few other corps) … while the charity is in control the mission is simple, the charity is the owner and the owners of a company make the decisions.
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.
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.
It depends a lot on how they do it. How large a shareholding the non-profit retains, whether it retains controls by other means such as a golden share etc.
Don't worry about prices going up and reducing quality, that have been happening since RPi 4
I've been having issues with their S/W for a while now.
* 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.
* 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.
That could end up not too bad actually - the for-profit company becomes hugely profitable, the foundation uses the dividends to further their goals of affordable computer education etc. etc.
After Raspberry Pi, OpenAI and Processing Foundation I'll never trust a "non-profit" again
What happened to the Processing Foundation?
"non-profit" is a tax status, that's all
Right, I wish people would remember that. Sure, non-profit is usually a good tax status for charities and other public-benefit type organizations. But that doesn't mean all non-profits are charities.
Regardless, the Raspberry Pi for-profit arm has existed for over a decade now; the only news is that it wants to IPO.
Regardless, the Raspberry Pi for-profit arm has existed for over a decade now; the only news is that it wants to IPO.
The RPi foundation is a charity.
from memory there are three parts of what we think as Pi
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.)
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.)
Don't forget the Micro:bit and I'm not convinced "Arduino has kinda dropped the ball", they are doing just fine in the marketplace and the gear has come down in price to where $4 gets you a working microcontroller (and $5 for the Raspi 2040 pico).
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.
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.
> I'm not convinced "Arduino has kinda dropped the ball"
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.
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.
Sure, they're not perfect. But they're still in business and their volume is as large as it ever was. The parts stores where I go have whole walls dedicated to Arduino and clones, Raspberry Pi's maybe and other stuff not at all.
It's wild to me that they still offer the Mega 2560 Rev3 for nearly $50 with a USB-B port.
The fact that they do is what makes them a safe bet to use. Better expensive and available than unavailable. One the most annoying features of hardware work is that whatever you base your product on tends to disappear in smoke just when you hit production.
> big improvement on the status quo when it came out in ~2005,
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.
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.
> 1) the foundation, that does all the outreach, education and magazines
Doesn't that count as marketing?
Doesn't that count as marketing?
Depends on the structure - Public OpCo controlled by non-profit worked out well for Novo Nordisk. Get the resources needed from the public markets, but still maintain the mission-driven control and focus on diabetes.
As if Saxenda/Victoza or Ozempic didn't cost nearly one minimum wage per month. At least they're focusing on diabetes I guess.
[deleted]
They have already taken outside investments in previous rounds. This is the Raspberry Pi Ltd (formerly Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd). The Raspberry Pi Foundation is still a charity.
> Wasn't it supposed to be a charity/non profit foundation?
You answered your question: it was. :-(
You answered your question: it was. :-(
And now the company will serve the interest of the shareholders above all else. The number gotta go up each quarter.
Ah, this may explain their abandonment of the 'hacker' community and weird hostility towards them over the last few years.
They've gone from a fun project and education focused company who was mostly operating under their non-profit arm to better education, to a B2B enterprise supplier with a heavy handed and sometimes outright hatred to their original user base.
For a proof of concept, pop onto their forums, create an account and make a post asking how to do something fairly basic, see how quickly you get yelled at and banned for life.
They've gone from a fun project and education focused company who was mostly operating under their non-profit arm to better education, to a B2B enterprise supplier with a heavy handed and sometimes outright hatred to their original user base.
For a proof of concept, pop onto their forums, create an account and make a post asking how to do something fairly basic, see how quickly you get yelled at and banned for life.
That is the story of just about every technology.... or even community
Sad but it remains true, Thing is created > Small but devoted group discovers and popularized thing > Thing raises to mass popularity > The masses what to change the thing to be what they think it "should be" diverging from what the small but devoted group desired or signed on for > Thing becomes unrecognizable to the original group > New thing is created > Small but devoted group.... and the cycle continues
So the question is what will replace the Pi for the hacker community, I personally stopped buying Pi's for my personal projects a long time ago, rPI3 was the last one for me. Soo many other manufactures of SBC's out there making better, cheaper boards.
Sad but it remains true, Thing is created > Small but devoted group discovers and popularized thing > Thing raises to mass popularity > The masses what to change the thing to be what they think it "should be" diverging from what the small but devoted group desired or signed on for > Thing becomes unrecognizable to the original group > New thing is created > Small but devoted group.... and the cycle continues
So the question is what will replace the Pi for the hacker community, I personally stopped buying Pi's for my personal projects a long time ago, rPI3 was the last one for me. Soo many other manufactures of SBC's out there making better, cheaper boards.
If the Pi gets replaced, Chinese trash that is abandoned in a half-working state after zero updates will replace the Pi.* Or thin clients. Dark days ahead.
*like, just random example, the Radxa Rock 3 https://youtu.be/KghZIgkKZcs
*like, just random example, the Radxa Rock 3 https://youtu.be/KghZIgkKZcs
in this context what makes a difference if it is a Chinese companies abandoning the product vs a British company.
Is china the only nations making "trash"....
Further your video shows off several replacements with 1 having some kind of incompatibility with some carrier boards... Personally I have never been a fan of the Compute Module form factor anyway.. I prefer the full SBC boards. I think the Compute Module form factor lends itself to more complexity and issues.
The SBC Market is huge now, and sure you can point to market failures, companies that dont survive, products that get abandoned every market will have those, and I see that as a GOOD THING. not a bad thing.
That is capitalism, which I love, at work.
Is china the only nations making "trash"....
Further your video shows off several replacements with 1 having some kind of incompatibility with some carrier boards... Personally I have never been a fan of the Compute Module form factor anyway.. I prefer the full SBC boards. I think the Compute Module form factor lends itself to more complexity and issues.
The SBC Market is huge now, and sure you can point to market failures, companies that dont survive, products that get abandoned every market will have those, and I see that as a GOOD THING. not a bad thing.
That is capitalism, which I love, at work.
The British company hasn't abandoned anything. The Raspberry Pi 1 still has full, modern, feature-parity support in Raspberry Pi OS, eleven years after launch.
But fine-- in my trash bin you'll find a Cubietruck, an Asus Tinkerboard, a MangoPi MQ-Pro, and several other Chinese SoC compute sticks. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 5 times, shame on me. All were basically given up on by the original manufacturer, and some had some degree of support through Armbian (albeit with numerous features lost due to being walled off behind some inscrutable binary blob).
The current alternative darling of the SBC enthusiast world, the Rockchip RK3588[S], does not have mainline kernel support and depends on a faux-5.x-series frankenkernel provided by Rockchip. Mainline support has been coming Real Soon Now for at least a year, and is in theory making progress, but I can't spend promises at the supermarket.
If capitalism works by selling people a piece of shit that barely does what it's supposed to do at launch, doesn't have mainline support, and is consigned to the dustbin after a single dev cycle or two because the manufacturer has moved on to the next piece of shit they will sell to the next mark and then abandon shortly thereafter, then I guess I'm anti-capitalism now. They tell me it used to be about making money by selling a decent product, rather than selling obsolescence-at-launch, thereby scamming people by design. I don't need that kind of capitalism, but there's a lot of it coming out of China these days.
But fine-- in my trash bin you'll find a Cubietruck, an Asus Tinkerboard, a MangoPi MQ-Pro, and several other Chinese SoC compute sticks. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 5 times, shame on me. All were basically given up on by the original manufacturer, and some had some degree of support through Armbian (albeit with numerous features lost due to being walled off behind some inscrutable binary blob).
The current alternative darling of the SBC enthusiast world, the Rockchip RK3588[S], does not have mainline kernel support and depends on a faux-5.x-series frankenkernel provided by Rockchip. Mainline support has been coming Real Soon Now for at least a year, and is in theory making progress, but I can't spend promises at the supermarket.
If capitalism works by selling people a piece of shit that barely does what it's supposed to do at launch, doesn't have mainline support, and is consigned to the dustbin after a single dev cycle or two because the manufacturer has moved on to the next piece of shit they will sell to the next mark and then abandon shortly thereafter, then I guess I'm anti-capitalism now. They tell me it used to be about making money by selling a decent product, rather than selling obsolescence-at-launch, thereby scamming people by design. I don't need that kind of capitalism, but there's a lot of it coming out of China these days.
Same. I didn't go quite down the rabbit hole you did, but I have a Cubieboard and reSpeaker that both ended up in the trash. Software on both were garbage, and the reSpeaker also had unstable hardware.
Meanwhile the only problem I ever had with Raspberry Pi boards was a camera socket that eventually went bad on one RPi3... and this is across probably 12-15 boards. The software support has always been there, and the hardware itself has always been pretty solid. And this is despite the fact that they use a weird closed Broadcom chipset with a weird architecture and weird bootup sequence.
Meanwhile the only problem I ever had with Raspberry Pi boards was a camera socket that eventually went bad on one RPi3... and this is across probably 12-15 boards. The software support has always been there, and the hardware itself has always been pretty solid. And this is despite the fact that they use a weird closed Broadcom chipset with a weird architecture and weird bootup sequence.
> For a proof of concept, pop onto their forums, create an account and make a post asking how to do something fairly basic, see how quickly you get yelled at and banned for life.
This doesn't need the moderators to be secretly part of some plan to make money.
I stopped posting questions on physics stack exchange years ago because what I was curious about vastly exceeded my ability to phrase those questions in a way that didn't sound like a crank, let alone be coherent, precise, and meaningful within the language of physics. Basically, I was writing like ChatGPT years before it existed.
In one case, I even managed to get a "no", "yes" (in a comment) and "closed: duplicate" all on the same question.
(IIRC, this particular comment was subsequently re-opened because one of the stack exchange moderators is also a HN commenter and noticed last time I said this; I don't blame the moderators for me being an enthusiastic fool).
This doesn't need the moderators to be secretly part of some plan to make money.
I stopped posting questions on physics stack exchange years ago because what I was curious about vastly exceeded my ability to phrase those questions in a way that didn't sound like a crank, let alone be coherent, precise, and meaningful within the language of physics. Basically, I was writing like ChatGPT years before it existed.
In one case, I even managed to get a "no", "yes" (in a comment) and "closed: duplicate" all on the same question.
(IIRC, this particular comment was subsequently re-opened because one of the stack exchange moderators is also a HN commenter and noticed last time I said this; I don't blame the moderators for me being an enthusiastic fool).
Why don't you just add some links rather than suggesting people spam a user forum
I'm not really suggesting people do that, just pointing out what happens. It's slightly difficult to post links to threads that they delete...
I for one and willing to live with the egg on my face if you actually prove this. I am extremely, extremely skeptical that you are truthfully and wholly representing whatever situation you are referring to.
As I say, its fairly hard to demonstrate 'live' as they delete the posts, but if it helps here's a few reports of it, and related activities:
- https://community.element14.com/products/raspberry-pi/f/foru... (lots of similar reports of weird bans)
- https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/raspberry-pi-forums-banne... (a few people reporting similar cases / reasons for being banned here)
- https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=38424 (mod even confirms questioning mods will get you banned)
- https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=78285
And somewhat unrelated to the forum, there's this https://eiara.nz/posts/2022/Dec/09/a-case-study-on-raspberry... which highlights the issues with the main person who's caused their forums and community to have such a hostile attitude towards its users. The followup interview will let you draw your own conclusions about the head of their social team... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisstokelwalker/raspb...
- https://community.element14.com/products/raspberry-pi/f/foru... (lots of similar reports of weird bans)
- https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/raspberry-pi-forums-banne... (a few people reporting similar cases / reasons for being banned here)
- https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=38424 (mod even confirms questioning mods will get you banned)
- https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=78285
And somewhat unrelated to the forum, there's this https://eiara.nz/posts/2022/Dec/09/a-case-study-on-raspberry... which highlights the issues with the main person who's caused their forums and community to have such a hostile attitude towards its users. The followup interview will let you draw your own conclusions about the head of their social team... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisstokelwalker/raspb...
> And somewhat unrelated to the forum, there's this ... which highlights the issues with the main person who's caused their forums and community to have such a hostile attitude towards its users. The followup interview will let you draw your own conclusions about the head of their social team...
What a ride. The entire story is nuts, from the start (of hiring an ex-cop and have him brag about covert devices, against a user base of traditionally cop-critical nerds) over the completely messed up response to critics over the conspiracy theory spreading and the "being ex cop is like being a Chinese woman" statement in the end.
What a ride. The entire story is nuts, from the start (of hiring an ex-cop and have him brag about covert devices, against a user base of traditionally cop-critical nerds) over the completely messed up response to critics over the conspiracy theory spreading and the "being ex cop is like being a Chinese woman" statement in the end.
You can find complaints like that for any forum that's been around for a while. You should see what some people are saying about HN for example.
I've banned people a as moderator, and some of them have gone on to spread complete falsehoods about this. While I'm not saying there is not a problem or that all accounts are incorrect, I find it very hard to trust these accounts from random anonymous internet people. Especially not the type of person who goes off on rants that RaspberryPi is all a scam from Broadcom (or ... something) because that seems exactly the sort of person that should be banned.
Hell, one of those links was just a new user mistakenly banned because they looked like a spambot, which was resolved quickly. That sort of thing that happens all the time. Did you even read your own links?
I've banned people a as moderator, and some of them have gone on to spread complete falsehoods about this. While I'm not saying there is not a problem or that all accounts are incorrect, I find it very hard to trust these accounts from random anonymous internet people. Especially not the type of person who goes off on rants that RaspberryPi is all a scam from Broadcom (or ... something) because that seems exactly the sort of person that should be banned.
Hell, one of those links was just a new user mistakenly banned because they looked like a spambot, which was resolved quickly. That sort of thing that happens all the time. Did you even read your own links?
I don't disagree that there are going to be a loud minority who genuinely did deserve a ban, and I did read the links, as I mentioned before though the links were only provided as a 'this is all I can provide short of you trying it yourself' as they tend to delete posts from new users who've been banned for asking a legitimate question. I was in a bit of a lose lose situation by posting.
To me it feels like the Raspberry Pi Foundation hasn't met its objective of making computers accessible and affordable to everyone (especially children in disadvantaged areas). Each iteration is so expensive and previous iterations don't lose value or are made cheaper. It's more prudent to spend a bit more for a mini-pc. In South Africa, the average child from a disadvantaged background has no chance of buying a Pi.
Arduino on the other hand, open sources the hardware, meaning very cheap but less powerful SBCs from companies in China (and elsewhere).
They should be doing the same as they have the ecosystem and resources to mass produce very cheap boards, but the Pi is prohibitively expensive, and it looks like they cater to companies first and prioritise making a profit.
Arduino on the other hand, open sources the hardware, meaning very cheap but less powerful SBCs from companies in China (and elsewhere).
They should be doing the same as they have the ecosystem and resources to mass produce very cheap boards, but the Pi is prohibitively expensive, and it looks like they cater to companies first and prioritise making a profit.
The true cost of a Pi these days can end up being more than a low-end mini pc once you add in all the extras you need to make it work. Power supply, sd card, etc. For education you'll need to throw in keyboard, mouse, speakers, possibly a microphone, monitor, cables, etc.
You can easly get to $150 without a monitor when going with a pi vs a lower cost second hand mini pc which is more powerful and upgradable, and can run linux or windows. They've priced themselves out of the education market.
You can easly get to $150 without a monitor when going with a pi vs a lower cost second hand mini pc which is more powerful and upgradable, and can run linux or windows. They've priced themselves out of the education market.
The true price of what? The latest Raspberry Pi 5 with 8gb RAM?
What about a Raspberry Pi 1b, a W2 or a Pico? These are all devices that are great for learning computing. Kids can learn on a cheap £20 kit plugged into a TV.
So what if it's used? So what if it's a few years old? The drive, the purpose of these educational projects is to get kids onto them. Doesn't have to be the latest, by any means.
What about a Raspberry Pi 1b, a W2 or a Pico? These are all devices that are great for learning computing. Kids can learn on a cheap £20 kit plugged into a TV.
So what if it's used? So what if it's a few years old? The drive, the purpose of these educational projects is to get kids onto them. Doesn't have to be the latest, by any means.
Right, which is were I suspect margins are highest and the area they will need to be successful in to keep shareholders happy each quarter.
Huge fan but I just hope this tech IPO that the LSE has been looking for doesn't turn out to be a total dud.
Guess there will be some AI angle in the investor road shows!
Huge fan but I just hope this tech IPO that the LSE has been looking for doesn't turn out to be a total dud.
Guess there will be some AI angle in the investor road shows!
A rpi was never "useful enough" to really be a replacement for desktop computers, and it was never "cheap enough" for purely a teaching tool. Cheap second-hand laptops were always a better option IMO.
Arduino makes completely different types of computers.
Arduino makes completely different types of computers.
On the one hand I'm happy they're doing well. On the other I'm very much worried that floating the stock will make it plaything of people who couldn't care less about what the Raspberry Pi and the people behind it stand for, they're just going to use the stock to make money, or, alternatively, to make trouble.
Being a listed company is a source of all kinds of distractions.
Being a listed company is a source of all kinds of distractions.
What, you aren't looking forward to your Raspberry Pi Cloud Pro Offering subscription? How else are you going to manage your Pis, Jacques?
The people behind it evidently “stand for” making the company public, so…
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm merely wondering whether or not they realize the long term consequences of this move.
Well they say it will "2x" the non-profit side...not sure the time-scale on
that...
""" it will let Raspberry Pi's not-for-profit side expand by "at least a factor of 2X." """
Plus, full: """
The business arm of Raspberry Pi is preparing to make an initial public offering (IPO) in London. CEO Eben Upton tells Ars that should the IPO happen, it will let Raspberry Pi's not-for-profit side expand by "at least a factor of 2X." And while it's "an understandable thing" that Raspberry Pi enthusiasts could be concerned, "while I'm involved in running the thing, I don't expect people to see any change in how we do things." """
Yeah, sure, running a public company requires no changes to how things are done ... /s
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/raspberry-pi-is-prep...
""" it will let Raspberry Pi's not-for-profit side expand by "at least a factor of 2X." """
Plus, full: """
The business arm of Raspberry Pi is preparing to make an initial public offering (IPO) in London. CEO Eben Upton tells Ars that should the IPO happen, it will let Raspberry Pi's not-for-profit side expand by "at least a factor of 2X." And while it's "an understandable thing" that Raspberry Pi enthusiasts could be concerned, "while I'm involved in running the thing, I don't expect people to see any change in how we do things." """
Yeah, sure, running a public company requires no changes to how things are done ... /s
- https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/raspberry-pi-is-prep...
Time will tell. The naivety in that quote is impressive.
There is no question a public stock becomes a plaything for sophisticated gamblers.
It sure does, but also provides the company with exponentially more room for growth. As it stands they still make fast, tiny, low power computers with a large amount of community and enterprise support. They still make an in-demand product, and aren't finding difficulty in selling them. Investing in IPO's is a real gambler and suckers game to me, but in the long term this could accelerate the growth of the company greatly. Whether that leads to exciting and innovative new products from them is completely in their hands.
The CEO stated an expectation of `<= 2x` growth for the non-profit. The entity has been around for more than a decade, and they need to IPO to 2x...?
To clarify, this is Raspberry Pi Ltd (formerly Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd), a subsidiary of the Raspberry Pi Foundation (the charity).
I'm curious how this will affect the foundation's mission, but I guess they are already affected by the outside investments from previous fundraising rounds.
I'm curious how this will affect the foundation's mission, but I guess they are already affected by the outside investments from previous fundraising rounds.
For an example of the long-term effects on mission, you can study Kellogg’s (the cereal company) which has been a for-profit public company (Kellogg Company), with a trust as the majority shareholder (W.K Kellogg Foundation Trust), and sending profits to to a non-profit charitable organization (W.K. Kellogg Foundation) since 1934.
Why not look at OpenAI? A non profit owning a for profit thing which is also in bed with Microsoft and the waters are basically very dirty...
IKEA is a rather famous "non profit". Patagonia recently became another "non profit" for tax and inheritance purposes.
And for the results of this, I didn't even realize Kellogg's had a charitable arm until now.
A few (many?) breakfast cereals were started by religious charities in America. Quaker being most obvious via the name. Kellogg's origin was seventh day Adventist I think.
I think there was a religious component to health foods at the time. But not sure why. One popular and possibly inaccurate reason was that bland vegetarian foods decreased the bodys animal nature.
I think there was a religious component to health foods at the time. But not sure why. One popular and possibly inaccurate reason was that bland vegetarian foods decreased the bodys animal nature.
There's never been a direct link between Quakers and the Quaker Oats people, for whatever it's worth - it's always just been a brand. The reason is reputedly that Quakers had a reputation for honesty in business, but I don't know if that's historically accurate.
That makes sense, but, as far as I know, the charity arm might as well be nonexistent compared to the arm that aims to get kids addicted to sugar.
Wow , exciting!
I must admit , I worry going public might actually be a bad thing for the Pi org. Exposure to the winds of quarterly earnings reports and hardware timelines can often conflict...
I have no real evidence to support that feeling, but I have it just the same.
Excited to see where this leads!
I must admit , I worry going public might actually be a bad thing for the Pi org. Exposure to the winds of quarterly earnings reports and hardware timelines can often conflict...
I have no real evidence to support that feeling, but I have it just the same.
Excited to see where this leads!
So who gets the $500m or so they're suggesting the IP will raise? Is that going to be injected into the foundation in which case they could do a lot with it (presumably with some guardrails to prevent them clashing with the PLC)
That depends on the kind of float, you can float in three different ways: emit new stock, sell existing stock, a combination of those two. Any new stock emitted will have the bulk of the funds (minus fees and all that) deposited in the company, selling existing stock will have the bulk of the funds deposited with the existing share holders.
It isn't rare for there to be a lock-up period before existing stock holders are able to sell their shares on the market to avoid people dumping stock they know is worth less than the float price. This is because there is a fair chance that those closely involved with the company have a better long term view on what the company will do than the market so it takes a while to get any post float surprises to be priced in. That's one reason why IPOs tend to be tricky to price: overprice and the stock will drop after the float and those that bought the IPO will feel burned, underprice and you're leaving money on the table.
It isn't rare for there to be a lock-up period before existing stock holders are able to sell their shares on the market to avoid people dumping stock they know is worth less than the float price. This is because there is a fair chance that those closely involved with the company have a better long term view on what the company will do than the market so it takes a while to get any post float surprises to be priced in. That's one reason why IPOs tend to be tricky to price: overprice and the stock will drop after the float and those that bought the IPO will feel burned, underprice and you're leaving money on the table.
Good point that it's unlikely to be as simple as a $500m return but regardless of the amounts or structure of IPO my question was more around who are the existing share holders of the commercial company? Is it the foundation or someone/something else? Is this float to get cash or financial stability for the foundation or a cashout by other parties?
At the end of the day I'm not going to be too critical in any case as I've contributed nothing beyond buying a few boards and making a few posts in support!
At the end of the day I'm not going to be too critical in any case as I've contributed nothing beyond buying a few boards and making a few posts in support!
They have a decent brand name and mindshare but I don’t think the hardware is compelling enough.
Loads of copy cats and the 5 generation feels like it’s at the edge of what the market can bear pricing wise.
Idk I just don’t see the IPO rationale
Loads of copy cats and the 5 generation feels like it’s at the edge of what the market can bear pricing wise.
Idk I just don’t see the IPO rationale
I've only tried one or two copycats, but found them to be kinda crappy. And I see a lot of other reports of others' experiences that seem to back that up.
Not saying they're all universally garbage, but you get what you pay for: the RPi folks manage cost very carefully, whereas most of the copycats are just trying to undercut on price, and will never follow through with the kind of software support the RPi folks continue to provide after over a decade. Consider that the original Raspberry Pi 1 model -- released 12 years ago -- is still fully supported by Raspberry Pi OS. I'd be surprised if most of the copycats support their boards for more than a few years at most.
RPi's for-profit arm mostly deals with B2B sales, and courts the kinds of customers that require long-term support as table stakes. I don't think most of them would touch the copycats with a 10-foot pole.
Not saying they're all universally garbage, but you get what you pay for: the RPi folks manage cost very carefully, whereas most of the copycats are just trying to undercut on price, and will never follow through with the kind of software support the RPi folks continue to provide after over a decade. Consider that the original Raspberry Pi 1 model -- released 12 years ago -- is still fully supported by Raspberry Pi OS. I'd be surprised if most of the copycats support their boards for more than a few years at most.
RPi's for-profit arm mostly deals with B2B sales, and courts the kinds of customers that require long-term support as table stakes. I don't think most of them would touch the copycats with a 10-foot pole.
I guess it comes down to what you value. Their software ecosystem is certainly the best, but hardware side they're now decidedly behind.
>whereas most of the copycats are just trying to undercut on price
Some of them, at the premium end its the other way round. Copy cats are fielding much better hardware...at a price premium. e.g. pi5 vs orange pi 5+
8gb max vs 32gb max
1gbe vs 2.5gbe
sd card vs native nvme
BCM2712 vs RK3588
pcie gen 2 vs pcie gen 3
16nm lith vs 8nm
That's not to hate on the rasp...but they're just not in as strong a position anymore as they were in early pi3/4 days where they were the only game in town and competitively priced to boot.
>whereas most of the copycats are just trying to undercut on price
Some of them, at the premium end its the other way round. Copy cats are fielding much better hardware...at a price premium. e.g. pi5 vs orange pi 5+
8gb max vs 32gb max
1gbe vs 2.5gbe
sd card vs native nvme
BCM2712 vs RK3588
pcie gen 2 vs pcie gen 3
16nm lith vs 8nm
That's not to hate on the rasp...but they're just not in as strong a position anymore as they were in early pi3/4 days where they were the only game in town and competitively priced to boot.
If hardware specs are the things you care about, Raspberry Pi has never been the best there. That hasn't stopped them becoming the most successful SBCs by far.
There's no such thing as a RPi copycat, unless having "Pi" in the name or just being a small board that runs Linux counts as such. In the latter case, the FoxBoard LX432 (1) predates the first Raspberry Pi by six years.
1- https://www.acmesystems.it/FOXLX
> And I see a lot of other reports of others' experiences that seem to back that up.
There's a lot of misinformation about other hardware, especially on some forums, and I'd be extremely suspicious about the authenticity of some comments.
1- https://www.acmesystems.it/FOXLX
> And I see a lot of other reports of others' experiences that seem to back that up.
There's a lot of misinformation about other hardware, especially on some forums, and I'd be extremely suspicious about the authenticity of some comments.
I had no idea this was even on the cards. Do they really need to IPO? Why do they need to chance infinite stock market growth?
It's a way for them to get a lump sum in cash in the coffers of the foundation, but there are some obvious drawbacks to this.
Warning though - finding the IPO shares/stock to buy will be nearly impossible.
How could this go wrong ?
Unsurprisingly predicted 2 years ago: [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28773122
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28773122
Good call!
Uh oh. Need to study the alternatives more closely.
Well that’s very unfortunate.
I'm surprised Hock Tan hasn't sued Eben Upton for ip infringement
Can you elaborate on this? What IP (presumably of Broadcom's) is Upton infringing upon?
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?