Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 51Cards 4266 days ago
From the kick-starter page:

Our first prototypes were pretty clunky, and cost between $200-$400 just for the parts, but they worked well and proved the concept. We knew that the device had to be small enough to easily conceal, built with quality components, and rock solid. But we also wanted to make it inexpensive. We wanted to make it available to as many people as possible.

By our fourth round of prototypes we had created a model with 64mb memory and a 580mhz CPU. This not only runs the software well, it flies!

At last happy with the board, we designed a simple, minimalist case in plain white to house it. The end result is our current model. We decided to name it the anonabox.

1 comments

And? "We designed a case". "We bought lots of other prototype equipment to make this thing before we put together the final version".

I see nothing here indicating claims that the electronics are designed and/or built by them. It looks like they are very inexperienced at this and it took them a long time to find the parts necessary to build what they wanted. Again, it may be a crappy, unoriginal product. But I just don't see anything to be outraged about.

They didn't design the case either. The product comes complete, in the same case, from a Chinese manufacturer. Zero assembly required... same RAM and CPU specs... 5 different models to choose from... $20. Claiming they did ANY hardware design, assembly, etc. is the fraudulent part.

http://www.atupapa.com/17043400030en.html

Meh. They may well have played with their own designs and then found this. Either way anyone saying this is fraudulent is being pedantic. They created a product that does what it says. End of story.
They put the open hardware logo beside a commercially purchased product they claimed "we designed" at least part of. Lastly the bottom of their page is clearly worded in reference to manufacturing... with "backup suppliers for parts". I just can't make the same leap in acceptance that it was a wording error.