advertisement


MDAC First Listen (part 00111011)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Timcat said:
So, what do we do? In my experience in similar situations, a solicitor's letter giving a period of time, say 3 months, within which to deliver the promised products or face potential legal action, has been the next step.
Click to expand...

With great respect, trying to legally force a solution in a relatively brief period of time has a high probability of resulting in a sub-standard outcome for everyone. It is abundantly clear that piling more pressure on John than already exists (and he puts on himself) is likely to be counter-productive.

FWIW, I believe it would be helpful if John:

a) published the specifications/features that he intends for each product and, following a suitable period of consultation with us, his customers, freezes each one (subject to test results/technical constraints). Any proposed subsequent changes should be agreed - or not - by a majority of customers for that model.

b) agrees a product build order, then works to fulfill it to the agreed specifications.

c) submits a short weekly update of progress, to customers only (perhaps via Tony's suggestion of a closed forum)

All the above are intended to help John to deliver the best possible outcome, which is what we all signed up for.
 
Discovery said:
(perhaps via Tony's suggestion of a closed forum)
Click to expand...

Just for clarity all I am doing, and I am much of the way through curating it now, is collating a lot of information into one easily digestible form onto what will be a public thread. It will be visible to everyone and will comprise of an opening post from myself, three lengthy posts detailing the three main projects with direct links to John’s words regarding product specifications, time-frames etc. None of this will be me paraphrasing, every word will be quoted from John with a link. Next will be the posts copied from this thread detailing what various members have invested. From that point it just will be a public discussion between the stakeholders and John Westlake.

All I am bringing is a spotlight. I will keep the thread tightly moderated to project investors, John, and pfm moderators. I have no interest in anyone else’s opinion, but I need to do the right thing by investors and help clear up what I now view as an ongoing blight on my website. This was never anything at all to do with me, I feel way, way out of my depth, but I am left to deal with it as best I can, and to my mind an absolutely honest and open spotlight is the best way to do that.

PS Please keep the investment posts coming, I am copying them all into the new thread.
 
adding this just for the record and to insure I am included in an investors only thread, I payed a total of £600 for FDAC development + L3 ADC MM/MC option, plus £50 on detox.

I don't think attempting to apply massive amounts of pressure on John is going to work out well for anyone but I definitely share others frustration, just think we have to wait it out now.
 
Tony L said:
To my mind I am not applying ‘pressure’, merely attempting to establish the truth behind something that has apparently been occurring here for many, many years. As publisher/host I feel it is only right I attempt to do that.
Click to expand...

Tony, for clarity, I wasn't thinking of you when I made my comments above and, the way I read it, I don't think slacktavist was, either. Keep going.
 
Great job, Tony! I don't blame you in the least for this. I just hope that John has financial resources left to fulfil his obligations.
 
Timcat said:
I have contributed £400 for an MDAC2/FDAC/Whatever it's called this week DAC, and £50 for a Detox. Total £450. My earliest contribution was in April 2014.

Compared to some, my contribution has been quite limited and I am quite shocked by the sums JW has received from some individuals, whilst delivering nothing but, so far, empty promises over a period of over 5 years, or is it closer to 6.

So, what do we do? In my experience in similar situations, a solicitor's letter giving a period of time, say 3 months, within which to deliver the promised products or face potential legal action, has been the next step. However, with so many individuals involved, organising this would be time consuming.
Click to expand...

Firstly, who’s going to pay the solicitors costs? For a solicitor to write such a letter they’d need to do a lot of work to understand any legal basis for such a letter. It would not be a trivial amount.

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, is there actually any legal basis for such action? There’s no obvious contract here and it has nearly all the attributes of a crowd-funded project despite not being explicitly described as such.

Whilst I completely understand some members here wishing to seek retribution I don’t believe any formal legal action would succeed. Unfortunately I think we have to accept that we took a chance on this and may or may not ultimately receive a product. Personally I very much believe it’s the former and any attempts to start a ‘class action’ are utterly pointless as they’d only serve to alienate JW further and would have virtually no chance of a positive outcome.

I cannot support the concept of legal action and am resigned to waiting to see what the final outcome is.
 
Discovery said:
With great respect, trying to legally force a solution in a relatively brief period of time has a high probability of resulting in a sub-standard outcome for everyone. It is abundantly clear that piling more pressure on John than already exists (and he puts on himself) is likely to be counter-productive.

FWIW, I believe it would be helpful if John:

a) published the specifications/features that he intends for each product and, following a suitable period of consultation with us, his customers, freezes each one (subject to test results/technical constraints). Any proposed subsequent changes should be agreed - or not - by a majority of customers for that model.

b) agrees a product build order, then works to fulfill it to the agreed specifications.

c) submits a short weekly update of progress, to customers only (perhaps via Tony's suggestion of a closed forum)

All the above are intended to help John to deliver the best possible outcome, which is what we all signed up for.
Click to expand...

I think that your proposed sequence of actions would be reasonable. However, JW has given many timelines and promised delivery dates over the years and he has failed to comply with any of them. These are the objective facts.

I don't think, therefore, that, having agreed to a sequence of the type you propose, there is any real prospect of him sticking to it without the threat of some sanction kicking in if he should fail to do so.

In circumstances such as these, in my experience, the real possibility of legal action is often required before a non-performing party actually begins to meet his or her obligations.
 
paulski said:
Firstly, who’s going to pay the solicitors costs? For a solicitor to write such a letter they’d need to do a lot of work to understand any legal basis for such a letter. It would not be a trivial amount.

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, is there actually any legal basis for such action? There’s no obvious contract here and it has nearly all the attributes of a crowd-funded project despite not being explicitly described as such.

Whilst I completely understand some members here wishing to seek retribution I don’t believe any formal legal action would succeed. Unfortunately I think we have to accept that we took a chance on this and may or may not ultimately receive a product. Personally I very much believe it’s the former and any attempts to start a ‘class action’ are utterly pointless as they’d only serve to alienate JW further and would have virtually no chance of a positive outcome.

I cannot support the concept of legal action and am resigned to waiting to see what the final outcome is.
Click to expand...

For me personally, the amount I have put up isn't worth the expense. But other have paid far more and, together, I suspect they have enough at stake to justify an initial fee.

A public forum is not an appropriate place for debating potential legal strategies that some may wish to contemplate. However, I would just say that the purpose behind most legal threats is to put pressure on a non-performing party to perform, not retribution.
 
I have paid £550 for FDAC L3 (including full width chassis, ADC, FPGA, optional CD slot loader, etc.) and Detox development. I will wait to see the final outcome.
 
Checking on my payments I have made a mistake, I have paid £550, not £450.

6/9/13 - £100 MDAC2 1st Payment
12/12/13 - £100 MDAC2 2nd payment
9/6/14 - £100 MDAC2 3rd payment
6/3/15 - £100 MDAC2 4th payment
30/9/15 - £50 Detox payment
21/1/16 - £100 FDAC L3 payment
 
I’ve paid £600 in total. If I recall correctly, £50 was for Detox development, the rest for FDAC/MDAC2. First payment was 9th September 2013 and final one 14th January 2016.
 
I joined on 26.6.14 with £300 payment for combined instalments 1,2 & 3

24.3.15 – £100 - Instalment 4 for L2 Fusion (terms being used at the time)

13.5.17 – £185 voluntary contribution to help fund Streamer PCB

Total £585
 
I've made the following payments

19/5/14 MDAC 2 1st and 2nd Installment £200
10/6/14 MDAC2 3rd Installment £100
9/4/15 MDAC2 4th Installment £100
7 9/15 Detox Dev Installment £50
14/1/16 FDAC L3 ADC Dev Installment £100
13/5/17 MDAC2 Streamer Board £185

That's a Grand Total of £735

I'm still have hope that I might receive an MDAC2 DAC/streamer upgrade board sometime next year while I still have a few years left to enjoy it

eddie
 
mattgbell said:
@Tony L
many thanks for your clear and robust interventions.
I'm in for a mere (!) £200, as I'm a Toy/Fusion owner (like @rtrt above).
Of course, John does have a record of all the development payments made to him. Presumably, based on these records, he could tell us what the overall total of development payments is that he's received from PFM members.
Click to expand...

Correction (apologies, @Tony L )
1 x £200 (MDAC2)
1 x £50 (Detox)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top