Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd. finally announced

Reasonably balanced piece from Rory Cellan-Jones at the BBC on the Pi and the lack of traction in the educational market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24435809

"But there isn't an awful lot of evidence that a computer designed for children is in the hands of many at the moment. Upton admits that this is a concern"

It's a bit puzzling that there have been no journalists that I have seen who have mentioned the new RPF CEO,

including this latest BBC article. Eben's announcement at RPI.org didn't give any specifics, such as when 

Mr. Howarth left ARM, or when he joined RPF.  Nor have I seen any announcements  from ARM about the

loss of an Executive Marketing VP. 

I've seen some public announcements of Mr. Howarth's ARM stock sales,

Feb 12, 2011:  75,816 shares sold

Feb 14, 2012:  122,651 shares sold at 570 pence each, leaving 85,000 shares

Mar 13, 2012: 1,663 shares sold at a price of 575 pence per share

Mar 14, 2012: 48,337 shares sold at a price of 573.88 pence per share, leaving 35,000 shares. 

On June 12, 2012 he is listed as an ARM PDMR (Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibilities),

but on October 31, 2012, he is not on that list.   So it appears that he may have left ARM sometime

between June and October of 2012.

Edited to add: ARM's current Chief Marketing Officer, Ian Drew, was appointed to that position

in July, 2012, which would be consistent with Mr. Howarth perhaps leaving the EVP Marketing

position at around that time.

Useful reporting :-) it got smaller, but then bigger :-)

Of course, that is an astute observation, since normally prototypes don't alternate

getting smaller and bigger.  And in fact, it's a big clue that this might not actually be

the progression of RPF's prototypes.  But Eben doesn't want to try to explain, and

Rory just lets the observation hang in the air rather than pushing for an explanation.

It's possible that journalists were waiting to see what sort of reception or reaction  comes from

the RPi.org members.   The story was posted on the RPi.org front page on Sept 25,  and as of

today there are 40 comments, none since October 1, plus one reply from Lance. 

Of those 40 comments, 8 by my count expressed welcome/congratulations   (Michael Horne,

Matt Hawkins, Alex Eames, Davespice, Dutch_Master, tkraspi, kneekoo, The_Raspberry_Pi_Guy). 

The others asked for an update about the artist-in-residence, commented about new RPF swag

(ties, cufflinks, and lapel badges), or asked about Qt support.  Nobody seemed the least bit

interested in asking anything about Lance, not his background, plans, or anything at all,

nor asking anything about Eben's plans  for the Trading subsidiary.  They were much more

inquisitive about the RPF artist and Qt support. 

There's got to be a story in there somewhere.

I think you're right, perhaps they wanted more input but since it wasn't forthcoming, they ran with it anyway for now, or are waiting to see if it does (hopefully) encourage some educational drive now that it is announced that RPIF and RPIT are the two halves of the separation.

There was a similar muted reaction when the new trustee, Louis Glass, was

announced on June 21, 2013.  http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/4236

There were 22 comments, of which one, solar3000 expressed welcome,

and even that one made fun of his glasses.

I suspect what is happening is that the mods/insiders, who typically take the lead

in commenting on things, are keeping quiet, and others who might otherwise

chime in to agree with a mod/insider, don't know what to make of a terse

announcement with very limited mod/insider comments.

There's probably a good reason why the mods/insiders are keeping quiet with these

announcements.  Louis Glass was taking Eben's place on the RPF board,

but nobody wanted to talk about why the board seat was empty.  Lance Howarth

actually came on board as a Trading company trustee back in January, so it wouldn't

make much sense for insiders to be welcoming him onboard at this late date.

There are other Trading company trustees (Dr. David Cleevely & Ms. Sherry Coutu)

that haven't been welcomed at all yet, as far as I know.

For an organisation that's supposedly all about promoting something (in this case, education) they don't do a lot of public outreach - in fact there's very little "this is who we are and what we do" type of stuff at all. They just_sell_stuff - or rather, they let other people make and sell stuff in return for a royalty. So what will the trading arm be selling? More than pin badges I'll warrant. Will it be just consumer whatnot, or will it eventually be the provider of big buck "educational solutions" (having had their startup funded by charity)?

All questions and no answers - as usual!

BTW, here's a link to Eben Upton's startups.co.uk page:

http://www.startups.co.uk/raspberry-pi-foundation-eben-upton.html

This comment stood out:

"I’ve always run start-ups, since I was 20. In fact, Broadcom is my first “proper” job"

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.

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.