This is my point the risk is there and the customer took it small, big w/e the customer floated the risk thats all i am saying at this point. There isnt a guarentee of refunds hence why i belive it should have been called an investment and not a pre-order.
We seem to be on the same page here.
I disagree about the gaming analogy, you are buying a game for entertainment (more like buying movie passes or concert tickets) and there is virtually no chance of "making an ROI". Games are designed and sold as entertainment ASIC hardware is not sold for entertainment.
I'm not sure you understand what a return on investment is..but you can make one on anything, it just doesn't have to be positive
And ASICs can be quite entertaining when put in front of the right audience
What all the vendors have done is ask for an investement/ interest free loan from the community but called it pre-orders..
By the way why didnt they go to a bank or an investement firm for R&D costs? I am guessing an interest free loan from the community was much easier to get and much more economically appealing...
By the way why didnt they go to a bank or an investement firm for R&D costs? I am guessing an interest free loan from the community was much easier to get and much more economically appealing...
You might want to go back and check your facts on that one. Avalon, BFL, and bASIC all had income from their FPGA sales, which primarily fueled their ASIC development. Butterfly Labs also has outside funding besides their previous sales. Whether or not each company used preorder funds to help in the development process is up for debate, but my hunch is that most companies took the more ethical route.
And for all we know, others could have gotten external funding as well. It's not like they're publicly traded companies with the requirement to disclose such information.