Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd. finally announced

New tidbits released!

$4M in RPi royalties on 1.6M quantity of sales ($2.5 each).

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f50d8e18-29c0-11e3-9bc6-00144feab7de.html 

Article's author appears to be confused about RPF vs RPi Trading.

Ms. Coutu is mentioned as "sitting on the Raspberry Pi board", seemingly unaware

that there are two Raspberry Pi boards.

Rpi Trading is mentioned only in passing, as having forgone revenue from cases.

The article refers to "his investors", and then names Ms. Coutu, but that seems odd,

since the Trading company has been said to be wholy owned by the Foundation.

The article says that the initial manufacturing funds had to be raised from the trustees

because of the not-for-profit status of the parent foundation.  But there wasn't a "parent"

until Sept 10, 2012, well after initial manufacturing funds were raised a year earlier.

Good find re. the FT article, coder27. I agree about the seeming confusion, but I can't help but think that's because of the RPi twins' ongoing culture of opacity. It does also seem that the only attribute required of a journalist these days is the ability to repeat vebatim whatever it is that they are told, without question.

Can only find references to Ms. Coutu as a non-exec director of RPi Trading, rather than as an "investor" (although she is clearly a typical inhabitant of the Dragon's Den). Interesting interview with her at:

http://jessicafurseth.com/2013/04/22/sherry-coutu/

Company Director for hire! The "Founders for Schools" project she's involved in suggests that she has useful contacts within the education sector...

Interesting interview.

She says she wondered why they wanted her on the RPi board.  It's a good question.  

She is only one of several high-powered entrepreneur/venture capitalists on the Trading

company board, besides Lance Howarth and Dr. David Cleevely.  Dr. Hermann Hauser is

also reportedly an RPF board observer: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/hermann-hauser

So one wonders what these VCs are planning.  It's hard to believe these visionaries

would be planning not much beyond some software updates for the next 2-3 years,

as jamesh quotes Eben as saying:

http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=56598

You would think that investors like this might be looking for an investment angle.

Splitting off the Trading company might have been a good first step toward such a goal,

but if it's wholly owned by RPF, that would be somewhat limiting.   There was a

large US defense contractor, Hughes Aircraft, that was wholly owned by the

non-profit Howard Hughes Medical Institute, but it was eventually liberated and

purchased by Raytheon.  So it can be done.

Or maybe they are looking at profiting from accessories.  The FT article pointed out

that companies making RPi cases are doing quite well, and that RPF seems to be

strangely foregoing that revenue.

Indeed - why would high profile venture capitalists be so interested in a charity's trading arm? Such a concern would typically sell "merchandise" and other nick-nacks to generate operating capital and to help raise it's profile. Hardly the new Walmart then - and  professional entrepreneurs aren't typically given to acts of pure altruism / philanthropy. They're not usually in it for the long haul either, so I'll guess we'll know before my grandchildren colonise Mars.

I suppose that RPi Trading is actually a wholly owned part of the Foundation and so is bound by the same rule about guarantors not being able to extract profits...

I suppose that RPi Trading is actually a wholly owned part of the Foundation and so is bound by the same rule about guarantors not being able to extract profits...

I don't know what the exact rules are, but my guess is that the Trading company,

as a distinct legal entity, and with it's distinct governing board, is subject to rules

that apply to for-profit companies, not the rules for charities.  You see for example

the Trading company not providing any financial results, as is required for the charity. 

So my guess is that the Trading company can pay salaries and other benefits to its

trustees that the charity legally can't.   Profits per se, from the Trading company are

intended to go to the charity (with gift aid!), but in small businesses, salaries and bonuses

can often eat up most of the profits.

Note that the RPF listed its "Related Party Transactions", last page of:

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends09/0001129409_AC_20121231_E_C.pdf

showing purchases from Broadcom.  But these purchases don't appear to include purchases

made by the RPF's manufacturing partners, since the manufacturing partners are considered

to be legally distinct entities.

I think Liz summarized the situation very carefully when she wrote:

But the trustees will never be able to make any profit from the Raspberry Pi Foundation while it’s constituted like it is, and we set it up like that very deliberately. We’re trying to make a difference, not our fortunes!

(emphasis added)

http://www.element14.com/community/message/90049

btw, we obviously don't know anything about the details of the financial arrangement

between the twins regarding which twin owns the IP, and on what basis it may be

licensed to the other twin.  The RPF decided not to publish the design files as open source,

so the Trading company would presumably need some kind of license from RPF in order

to manufacture and sell the product.

so I'll guess we'll know before my grandchildren colonise Mars

I think we'll know a lot before this Christmas.

Sony said the next gen Pi was coming in 2013.

Premier Farnell's CEO recently said it was looking like an RPi Christmas.

BBC says they can make up to 12K/day, compared to the 3K/day the FT reports currently.

Sagar makes it sound like they will fix the FCC issue. 

jamesh says not to expect anything new.

In the FT article photo

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/f50d8e18-29c0-11e3-9bc6-00144feab7de.html

Eben isn't wearing his Broadcom badge.

I think that may be the first time I've seen an interview photo without it. 

compare: http://tuxradar.com/content/%EF%BB%BFinterview-eben-upton

Maybe significant, maybe not, but it took him about 9 months to say he'd resigned

from RPF, so if he were to resign from Broadcom we might not hear about it for a long time.