Cloverleaf Campaign is Live

But I don’t know if Kickstarter even permits that.

It doesn’t – you have to be producing a “thing”. That’s why all the indistinct offers which can’t possibly be funded from €6k don’t make any sense on that platform. It should be “if we reach our target, everyone who has requested a specific reward will get it”. So you put in maybe two or three things that you’re definitely going to be able to produce if you hit your target, you hit the target and you produce them. It’s not meant to be “chuck some money in the pot and we’ll do something with it”.

But I don’t know if Kickstarter even permits that.

I’m afraid Dave, it doesn’t unfortunately.

BUT (and I am not trying to divert the discussion here), GitHub has recently enabled the Sponsorship button. That is exactly what you are talking about.

Basically you create a software project on a repository and enable it to be sponsored. People can then give you money to support that specific project.

So maybe we’d want to have a look at GitHub?

But again, I think the RISC OS port to the RK3399 is a perfect fit for the Kickstarter if they do not want to release the sources. While if they would like to release the sources (as they seems to have implied, but again I don’t think that port is being made by Cloverleaf themselves and so that “Open Source” claim should be taken with a pinch of salt right now) then a GitHub project with sponsorship would be perfect.

Regardless of the specifics, I think Cloverleaf should definitely rethink their Kickstarter strategy, that’s for sure. While we all should chill a bit as you said, because in the heat of the emotions people did have added non-sense stuff like the comparison with the old situation between ROL/Castle and then the bundles etc. just to push extra unnecessary hate on Cloverleaf.

I think that people who want to get on the “front line” to support RISC OS should think carefully, because as Druck pointed the OS and this community do not need any more damaging activities (sorry Druck had to slightly change the term you used lol).

Doing things in a superficial way, sending messages like “just trust me” is not going to help RISC OS situation. RISC OS needs improvements and such improvements have to be coordinated and not randomised just because.

RISC OS also needs to find a market where it can be applied with the smallest amount of work. Every single Open Source OS has a market that fuel the main development: FreeBSD has the Networking market (Cisco and Juniper use/used it as the core for their Network Devices OS), Linux has the Servers/Cloud market (which fuel the whole Linux Foundation). IMHO RISC OS should engage the IoT market, obviously some people have different opinions (and I totally respect that), but unfortunately they haven’t yet proposed a valid alternative that can be achieved quickly.

One of the argument against the IoT idea seems to be fear in regards of the Desktop experience (IoT doesn’t need the desktop), if that’s really so then why FreeBSD and Linux have much more evolved desktops than RISC OS? The answer is simple, because the networking market, the server market and the IoT market do NOT prevent the Desktop improvements, actually quite the opposite. If you need to develop your solution for Linux, BSD or RISC OS sooner or later it will become easier to use such OS as main OS as well (this is not always so, but in many many cases it is). Why is that so? again simple: gaining familiarity, but to overcome the initial impact one needs to have a motivation strong enough.

Again just my 0.5c

So maybe we’d want to have a look at GitHub?

Or maybe avoid the confusion of having three places which claim to be collecting money for implementing WiFi, and just use the Bounty system that we already have? If it has issues that could be improved, perhaps — gasp — look at fixing them instead of re-inventing the wheel?

Or maybe avoid the confusion of having three places which claim to be collecting money for implementing WiFi, and just use the Bounty system that we already have?

Steve sure, I am with you, but are we absolutely sure that the bounty system is what the majority of the community really wants? What about making a poll and see how many are satisfied with the current bounty scheme and how many are not?

If it has issues that could be improved, perhaps — gasp — look at fixing them instead of re-inventing the wheel?

Agreed on not re-inventing the wheel, but again I keep hearing more and more people unhappy with the bounty scheme, also why the bounties seems not to follow the wish list requests? I have a suspect that the wish list (given that is simply a forum macro topic) leaves too much space to the “conversation” type and that makes it hard to track down what people would like to request.

And finally, just a thought, the bounty scheme is something that seems more relative to an accustomed user-base of RISC OS, so what do you practically propose to engage new users?

so what do you practically propose to engage new users? bq.

It’s safe to assume that the new users ROOL would benefit most from are those interested in today’s technologies. Though I am not a proponent of IoT, it is currently one of the world’s largest hobbies. The backbone of IoT is developing gadgets using microcontrollers. Some work has been done here but, the toolchain is too inadequate to compete thus far. Python reigns supreme in rapid development circles with C and its derivatives being the choice for production, however, RiscOS currently doesn’t offer a great coding evironment for any language, including its own BBC basic. Without coding tools, developers will look elsewhere.
My point is that ROOL seems to expect new developers to jump into an antiquated OS where too few users agree on a path of progress. The world has shifted from overly complex systems to the simple point and click builds.

I’ve read many posts here that have good ideas. One of the best is: Re-Write in C++. There are plenty of SWIs to create an impressive library of functions, some that are unique. I’ll bet the farm that there are more WILLING C++ programmers than ‘90s Basic’ enthusiasts looking for a way to scratch their itch to code for a purpose.

Find an application for RiscOS. Another all purpose desktop is a hard sell at any price and, IMHO, the best ones are FREE. Standout in some technology field, support current interest somewhere. Beginner system? Developers system? Granny system? Find the target, aim, fire at will!

I’ve been pushing the IoT development and the beginner system aspects as a way to use RiscOS “as is”. It would be great to see SMP, WiFi, USB3 if the intent is for RiscOS to use it for something special. Some of my most enjoyable programming experience came from a little known “Linden Scripting Language”, a Java C based language with thousands of functions to facilitate rapid development with immediate gratification. The toy industry is worth Billions!

I wish I had the answer!

@Steve Pampling
Thanks for grammar and formulation corrections and I have taken them over.

@Rick Murray
Iris is already inofficially released in the !PlingStore for 49 UKP

And this is an intelligence test:
Does anyone know why the second Kickstarter has the goal of 6000 Euro?

And this is an intelligence test:

So we’re just going with insulting everyone in the forum thread now? Oh dear…

Does anyone know why the second Kickstarter has the goal of 6000 Euro?

Er, it’s your job to tell us that. You’re the one asking for the money so it’s on you to explain how the financials are going to work in your project. Your project page should have full details on exactly how you plan to use the money you get to fulfil all your rewards, yet there’s absolutely nothing in there about it.

You mentioned a few posts ago in this thread that you’re over 50,000 Euro into the project so far, but none of that is disclosed on your Kickstarter pages. As Peter pointed out, you mentioned last time that you’d need over 100,000 to complete the project, but that’s not disclosed on your Kickstarter pages either. Why not? It’s vital information for anyone considering investing in your project.

Honestly, your project’s currently about as transparent as a brick wall when it comes to your plans for the money you’re asking people to give you (or your plans in general on how you’re going to complete the project, for that matter). So please, do give us a hint as to why it’s set at 6000 – I think you’ll find that’s the original question I asked you when you started shouting and blocking me on Twitter…

Does anyone know why the second Kickstarter has the goal of 6000 Euro?

You didn’t push ‘0’ enough times?

You didn’t push ‘0’ enough times?

This made me laugh more than it should have. :)

Does anyone know why the second Kickstarter has the goal of 6000 Euro?

So you can boast in 37 days time you’ve a successfully funded Kickstarter project to your name, albeit with a realistically minuscule amount of funding to complete all the rewards that are offered, and then still just delay having to answer (or ignore!) the inevitable questions from backers many months later when the rewards have not materialized within the time frames stipulated on the project page?

While I can’t answer why the Kickstarter goal is set at €6000 ¹, please note that for each pledge target, there’s a price tag, giving the estimated total cost for a given task.

It also says at the project page:

We also don‘t expect to receive a full funding for the packages we offer. So the plan is to finance the missing funding with the sales of software, hardware and the Cloverleaf RISC OS distribution. The packages that get the most funding will be taken care of the first. If a third party (organisation or individual) solves one of the tasks we will forward the funds to them.

My understanding of this is that even if the amount of funds received for a given pledge/task is below the estimated completion price, it may still be chosen for development.

I’ve pledged more than the asking price for GPU support, as I’m especially interested in computer graphics and animation, and there are no other bounty schemes for this that I’m aware of, by ROOL or anyone.

Thus, if my pledge, and hopefully that of others, may inspire and partially fund development like this, and then I think it’s well worth it.

¹ My guess is just to make it a more reachable target, and from then on, what has been received as individual pledges determines what will be done.

My guess is just to make it a more reachable target, and from then on, what has been received as individual pledges determines what will be done.

My understanding of this is that even if the amount of funds received for a given pledge/task is below the estimated completion price, it may still be chosen for development.

That’s not how Kickstarter works. The main goal is supposed to be the amount required to produce all of the rewards people have pledged money towards. Not some of them – all of them. Hiding vastly higher goals for each reward in the text is massively misleading and against Kickstarter’s rules.

Basically, by Kickstarter’s rules, if the project hits 6000 Euro, the project will have to deliver every reward people have backed regardless of the meaningless “price tags” in the text. That’s simply not possible to do at 6000 Euro by Stefan’s own admission. It’s not only misleading, it’s deliberately misleading and the fact that Cloverleaf seem entirely unable or unwilling to provide any detail on how they’re going to spend the money only serves to make things look worse.

@ Stefan

And this is an intelligence test:

Man can you please stop this? I understand you’re feeling attacked, but quite a few of the observations here are legit, so can you please avoid any more “provocation”? Can we just keep this a conversation? Do you understand that selling things is not a simple thing?

Does anyone know why the second Kickstarter has the goal of 6000 Euro?

I am starting to have an idea at this point. Sorry for the sarcasm, but instead of saying these things, can you just please explain to the community why?

@Steve Pampling
Thanks for grammar and formulation corrections and I have taken them over.

Unfortunately Stefan I think you missed my point – those were just a couple of examples taken from the very start of the page.

If I (or any other native English speaker) was tasked with editing and correcting the text it would be rather different.
There are many more spelling and phraseology errors.

That’s on top of the sheer volume of text, most of which either shouldn’t be there because it is irrelevant to the “sales pitch” or simply irrelevant to this specific fundraising attempt.

“Retro-gaming” for example, that exists already, with much of it covered by Jon Abbotts sterling efforts with ADFFS

By all means have a page that says what RO already does, but don’t clutter the Kickstarter main page with any of that.
The order of the listed “Rewards” fails to emphasise the software development items for two reasons:

1. They are listed in an order that effectively hides them.
2. There are too many.

A sales pitch should be short and deliver the “hook” early. This is not like fly-fishing where the main aim is to entertain the fisherman.

Do you understand that selling things is not a simple thing?

It’s easy for some. Like speaking to a lecture theatre full of people, or a conference hall full. If you can do it, you can do it. You can be taught, but the “naturals” always do better.
For those of a less gifted nature, learning what not to do is a good first step.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but instead of saying these things, can you just please explain to the community why?

The logical conclusion for a low and east to reach target is what the “business balls” guys refer to as gathering the low-hanging fruit or an easy win or a quick win.

Sadly, quick wins are easily converted into an effective loss if you obscure the message with redundant verbiage. (Says he after pulling a fancy word or two)

@Andrew

That’s not how Kickstarter works. The main goal is supposed to be the amount required to produce all of the rewards people have pledged money towards. Not some of them – all of them.

I understand. Thanks for pointing that out.

I agree with a lot of the comments above about the volume of text but like everyone else I want to see RISC OS continue to grow. I am looking for a RISC OS distro for my PineBook Pro and so I have backed that reward. The magic target has been achieved and it now becomes a case of watch this space during the rest of the year and beyond.

I want to see RISC OS continue to grow. I am looking for a RISC OS distro for my PineBook Pro and so I have backed that reward.

Same here Norman, so +1 and luckily there will be enough people to push the Rock Chip port till completion :)

@Steve Pampling
My Kickstarter has zero to do with Retro-gaming other than to inform new RISC OS user that they can do retro-gaming on RISC OS on different emulators for Acorn Micro, SInclair ZX Spectrum, Acorn Archimedes, Commodore C64 etc. That has nothing to do what Jon Abbotts with ADFFS is doing.

My Kickstarter has zero to do with Retro-gaming other then to inform new RISC OS user that they can do retro-gaming on RISC OS

In that case it is totally redundant words in the text of the kickstarter.

I did say there was too much verbiage if you recall. I also said that a sales pitch should be short, and the hook delivered early.

So, now you slim the thinking down to:

1. RK3399 – make it work
2. if it doesn’t work goto 1
3. deliver to customers
4. end

@Steve Pampling
You still don’t understand that the Cloverleaf Kickstarter main goal was to attract new users for RISC OS.
And therefore these people need first to understand what RISC OS is and what you can do with it.
And therefore (2) the feature of retro-gaming might be an interesting information.

To make a Kickstarter to address current RISC OS users is total nonsense as then I can simply post something in ROOL forum, Iconbar, RISCOSitory, Archive magazine, GAG News, Twitter and Acorn enthusiasts Facebook group. And save 15.000 Euro to 20.000 Euro.

And the answer to the question why the financial goal is 6000 Euro is to ensure that this time we reach the goal and get the money and can start working.
Without reaching that the work of 2 years would have been for nothing.
Well I guess some of the people here would have wished for that…

@Steve Pampling
You still don’t understand that the Cloverleaf Kickstarter main goal was to attract new users for RISC OS.

From the comments I’ve seen on these forums I rather suspect that the funding came from existing enthusiasts and your Kickstarter had minimal effect on potential new users.

I would love to be wrong. I’d love to see a list of 200 new users, or even 20., but I don’t believe I will.

Well I guess some of the people here would have wished for that…

Do you know how many people here that I think fall into that classification?

Zero.

Why do you think so many of the people here were so critical of the over-ambitious first Kickstarter?
Because failure establishes a bad reputation.

Advertising a need for a small, but realistic amount and delivering on all the listed items is good.
In that element you should note that everyone here was convinced it was an easy money target, but the long list of deliverables is beyond the funding capability.

Advertising less and funding it all is better.
Other listed items, beyond the initial funding, can be mentioned in vague terms as ideas for the future that build on the initial items.

August/September should be interesting. I look forward to hearing good reviews of the RK3399 machines in use.

A short phrase for you to consider, and particularly how the phrase applies to what people have said here and elsewhere.

“People should welcome constructive criticism, it moves further toward perfection”