Re: rPI Goes Public

On 15/06/2024 10:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me> writes:

On 14/06/2024 09:44, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

Personally I think the people behind the Pi deserve to get rich,
they’ve made a product that’s both practically and socially useful.

>
Yes, someone has done a good job, I'm not sure who that is
exactly. However, I don't think charities are appropriate vehicles for
self enrichment. If that was their goal, they should  have formed a
normal company.

 I didn’t say that was their goal, I said that they deserved reward.

OK, if it wasn't their goal, they have no reason to expect it. Incentivisation doesn't apply. Lots of people deserve reward.

The
only person who seems to think this is some kind of mugging is you.
 

I very much doubt I'm the only person. A quick search reveals other people making exactly the same “don't be evil” comparison.
I didn't say it was a mugging. I merely made a snide remark, suggesting they were not being transparent about motivations. I do presume that what they are doing is legal.
Possibly a history of working in finance gives me a different perspective, a cynical perspective. However, a finance background doesn't mean I understand what went on in the IPO, because there are a number of aspects of it that do confuse me. e.g. why the Employee Trust share holding went from 14% to 5% just before the IPO. But it is boring to work these things out, so I won't try.

Nevertheless: They _have_ formed a company, namely Raspberry Pi Holdings
plc. The people losing out, in the hypothetical where someone uses that
company to enrich themselves beyond fair reward for the RPi achievement,
would be the shareholders (presently including me, on a small scale).
 

They have formed lots of companies. I'm not going to check again to see which role each one plays, even if there was enough public information to know.
No, the loss is from the beneficial treatment they received  when they presented themselves as a charity. Presented themselves as building a product altruistically, for the public good. The losers are the people who helped them, and the people who would have expected to benefit from the charitable work, who will get less than they otherwise would have. Computer Nerd Kev touches on some of this.
You are not a victim, you knew you were buying shares in a commercial organization.
There are a lot of good reasons to support and protect not for profit organizations delivering free/cheap technology. I would have thought I would have been preaching to the converted in a Linux group.