I just noticed the production update chart says it was updated september 1.. and geek out v2 is supposed to finish shipping in week 2 of september.. so I guess I should wait another week before thinking about opening any kind of ticket. really wish my gov2 was here since I gifted my go450 to a canadian friend this week
http://lhlabs.com/downloads/updates/dianas_production_progress_chart.pdf
i've ben tracking their production schedules for a few months, and it's clear they aren't production schedules in the normal meaning of the words: they are deceptive marketing schedules. They deliver about ONE-SIXTH of their stated monthly product volume (in percentages), across all products, and that's not counting the latest, newest, items (beyond v2).
If any organisation delivered, consistently, just one-sixth of their stated percentage volumes, they'd normally be bankrupt. Most of us put up with this because we value the quality of the sound the company produces, at their price point, and are prepared to wait (I was going to say "willing" to wait, but I don't think that is true). In their defence, I'd say that I've never seen a "production schedule" from any other company, so in a sense, they are shooting themselves in the foot: however, no other company I know has HAD to show a production schedule to keep their customers from demanding their money back.
It's very clear that the company has marvellous technical skills and a good sense of purpose. But their management decision-making and production skills are poor, almost amateurish.
They have a "what if" culture, that works wonders in development, but mustn't be translated into production. The wrong people are making the decisions. The result is a huge loss in customer goodwill which will sink the company, as it's reputation spreads.
I'll cite 2 examples: the withdrawal of the prepay commitment for v2, and the 3D printing process. Anyone who can use a spreadsheet will know that commitments of real money are needed to support initial production of v2. Money in v. money out. From DAY ONE, it is obvious that a prepay amount of $1-2 does not show commitment to the final volumes, so unless one's prepared to gamble with one's own money, or has fabulous lines of credit, it will be necessary to determine the REAL initial production commitment, prior to production, AND obtain advance money. This is known at DAY ONE. So they MOST LIKELY knew they had to withdraw from the low prepay offer, BEFORE they offered it. This is essentially deceptive. It's not a case of the benefits of hindsight, unless someone suddenly turned off their lines of credit (and that would be even more a cause for concern). The 3D printing saga: they needed a production facility which produced a reliable, working and aesthetic chassis, before production started on v2. Their pre-production sampling of their units appeared to be part of their production schedule! Their pre-production feedback and rework has been inside their post-production schedule! As if you can treat a chassis like a firmware update! Mind-boggling. Certainly a 3D printing facility gives them the ability to make changes relatively easily without hitting a supply/vendor lead time, but you have to be pretty clear that the facility will deliver the right aesthetics before you even start. That appears not to be the case, and v2 customers can, with some justification, conclude that they were the pre-production test for v2+.
It reminds me of my (short) programming days: writing software essentially through trial-and-error. But it's not a professional method, and I never called myself a professional programmer.
Nor did it last long.
