quentron.com

[profitis]

eish..if only he had one rough prototype..one prototype,,even a shitty one..companies wouldve thrown cash at him

[sarkeizen]

eish..if only he had one rough prototype..one prototype,,even a shitty one..companies wouldve thrown cash at him

He sure claims to have one, or several or something...I've said it before if Philip is being honest, he's one of the worst managers I've ever seen.

As for his current business idea can't say it's the worst business idea in the world but it's:

1) Deceptive - so what's the breakdown here? $1 of every $2 is paid to the artist? That's who exactly right now?  Phillip? If there are other people who actually live in the third world it would be nice if they had some pictures and a bio because right now it's not clear WHO is actually getting my money.

2) Deceptive - As a responsible person I'd like to know that the other dollar (if that is indeed the breakdown) is going to fund crackpot science.  That fact is conspicuously absent from his current site.  In fact there appears to be no mention at all of someone PROFITING off the charity of others.

3) Catastrophically overestimates the market for caricatures - Remember when caricaturists would sit in tourist areas and sell their wares?  Were any of them two-month millionaires? Remember this money is needed for Philip's firm date of starting R&D in September.   Not to mention that in the 70's I remember the price being  more than $2.

Come to think of it wouldn't it be awesome if Philip put a counter on his site showing the number sold.  Then we could chart his progress to Batch C.  Wouldn't that be phenomenal?  "1000 years until Batch C".  We could then quantify "soon".   Scientists should be notified.

Anyway I'd encourage all the believers here BruceTPU, lumen, that mouthy kid who doesn't know computer science who's nick I'm too lazy to look up,  mrsean2k....to pony up their $2 and post Philip's deformation of their natural good looks here.

[MileHigh]

It's the old cliche about reality being stranger than fiction.  The numbers just don't add up any way you look at it.   So you need a perfect Super Bowl add that would cost a lot of money and it would have to really hit, or you need a viral video and what are the chances of that?

Then, if by some fantabulous stroke of luck you get the buzz you are looking for, then you need a small army of people to qualify the army of willing caricature artists.  And for sure there is not an army of caricature artists in Africa.

So Phil may have set up his financial transaction system and all that jazz, but it's only the tip of the iceberg.  Reality is stranger than fiction sometimes.  I was just reading about pets.com the other day!

Pets.com was a short-lived online business that sold pet accessories and supplies direct to consumers over the World Wide Web. It launched in August 1998 and went from an IPO on a major stock exchange (the Nasdaq) to liquidation in 268 days.

They only blew 300 million!

[Regster]

He sure claims to have one, or several or something...I've said it before if Philip is being honest, he's one of the worst managers I've ever seen.

As for his current business idea can't say it's the worst business idea in the world but it's:

1) Deceptive - so what's the breakdown here? $1 of every $2 is paid to the artist? That's who exactly right now?  Phillip? If there are other people who actually live in the third world it would be nice if they had some pictures and a bio because right now it's not clear WHO is actually getting my money.

It's not clear WHO is getting the money when I buy something from Amazon either.

2) Deceptive - As a responsible person I'd like to know that the other dollar (if that is indeed the breakdown) is going to fund crackpot science.  That fact is conspicuously absent from his current site.  In fact there appears to be no mention at all of someone PROFITING off the charity of others.

Maybe some Amazon employees are involved in Scientology, African charities, yachting, muffin baking or something.  They should make that clear on their website.

3) Catastrophically overestimates the market for caricatures - Remember when caricaturists would sit in tourist areas and sell their wares?  Were any of them two-month millionaires? Remember this money is needed for Philip's firm date of starting R&D in September.   Not to mention that in the 70's I remember the price being  more than $2.

You're catatonic neuron lets you down again.  Cumulatively one dollar from those artists going to one source would have amounted to a large chunk.  Nobody but you is saying that one artist can draw a million pictures in a couple of months.  Not that this is required in any case because the target will be for the total estimated R&D budget, which will not be required on day 1.

Come to think of it wouldn't it be awesome if Philip put a counter on his site showing the number sold.  Then we could chart his progress to Batch C.  Wouldn't that be phenomenal?  "1000 years until Batch C".  We could then quantify "soon".   Scientists should be notified.

Anyway I'd encourage all the believers here BruceTPU, lumen, that mouthy kid who doesn't know computer science who's nick I'm too lazy to look up,  mrsean2k....to pony up their $2 and post Philip's deformation of their natural good looks here.

I love it when happy sea lions insult me.  Have another fish.  Ow ow!  Such an easy life.

[sarkeizen]

It's not clear WHO is getting the money when I buy something from Amazon either.

It's all about what the product is advertised as.  If Amazon made a point of telling you that all of it's books were hand packed by sentient ants.   Then that is part of what you are paying for.  Budink is advertised, among other things as a means of employing an artist in a poorer country.   Hence it is deceptive if the money doesn't go to precisely that.  The T&C's for Budink take no measures and provide no requirement of this.  Hence it is deceptive.

It's also standard practice (and depending on where you live required) for NGO's to publish how much money is actually getting to the poor people.   The breakdown is only mentioned in the artist T&C's.  Furthermore while it's reasonable to expect that Médecins Sans Frontières uses some money for infrastructure and similarly it's reasonable to assume Budink has some infrastructure costs e.g. webhosting.   It's deceptive that the real purpose of Budink is to fund Philip's crazy.

Philip tries to disclaim that this is not a charity however disclaimer may not be sufficient.  He has stated himself that this is a humanitarian effort.

Nobody but you is saying that one artist can draw a million pictures in a couple of months.

Yawn.  Please read my post before replying.  Nowhere do I state that a single artist is required.  Here's hoping that your next statement contains more sense and less nonsense.

Not that this is required in any case because the target will be for the total estimated R&D budget, which will not be required on day 1

This is closer to sense (saying "any case" is stupid because there are plenty of cases in nano-fabrication prototyping were you would need a significant portion of that $1M up-front).  However it's just a smaller version of the same argument.  I doubt Philip is going to make $6000 by September.

I love it when happy sea lions insult me. 

If you mean the comment about CS.  It's actually more of a fact.  You were wrong, you tried to cover it up.  Just the way it is.

So when do I get to see your Budink?  I'm sure you can scrape up the $2.