So we're back where we started. We might as well use Paypal again???
It is funny that you would use PayPal in your argument. PayPal doesn't allow their payment network to be used to collect payment for pre-sales.
So unless BFL is ready to ship, anyone that pays with PayPal could file a dispute and PayPal would investigate. They'ld likely freeze all funds in BFL's PayPal account, and clawback funds from BFL's bank to cover any outstanding disputes if there weren't sufficient funds recovered in the PayPal account. The customers who filed a dispute might likely see a return of the funds, eventually.
BFL does offer delivery estimates on the order form (e.g., for the BFL single - "Delivery: Units are shipped within four to six weeks from the date of purchase.", and for the Jalapeno, "October") so if they fail to deliver as per the terms then they should allow the customer the ability to obtain a refund. But that is between the customer and BFL, not the intermediary.
Because of this, BFL can know that funds received will not be charged back and thus can commit the resources to producing product for each order sold. They can offload the risk of future events to the customer. What if it was some new upstart that started offering an ASIC product line, and lots of customers wanted to cancel their orders for BFL singles, for instance?
Bitcoin is simply another option available to cash-based businesses. In many instances, Bitcoin ends up being the best option.
I thought the idea of Bitcoin was to cut-out the middleman and have direct payment transfers between sender and receiver.
Bitcoin's raison d'etre is to have the freedom to carry on your business in the manner you wish to do so.
Offloading the payment process to a third party allows BFL to concentrate on designing and building BFL's product line.
Also, the reason most of those $250K worth of payments were likely converted to USDs was because the Bitcoin economy is still nowhere near self sustainable yet. BFL pays its component suppliers using USDs. It likely pays staff using fiat (though a bonus in bitcoin might be one heck of an incentive to help get a target met.)
Bit-Pay allows partial conversion and will convert to other currencies. So even with a conversion to fiat necearry, BitPay helps to cut out a step. Instead of BFL's current flow of funds (using hypothetical numbers):
BTC -> (70%) USD [for salaries, overhead and profit]
-> (30%) USD [bank wire] -> [recipient's currency]
the new flow instead is
BTC -> (35%) BTC [for profit, kept in BTC.]
-> (35%) USD [for salaries and overhead]
-> (30%) CNY [for payment directly to supplier]
And since the conversion to fiat is more expensive than if bitcoins were used by both sides, there will be a constant push towards avoiding the conversion, as long as those BTCs have purchasing power.
We're getting there.
The reason the mining operators were able to pay in bitcoins was specifically because they kept some of their mining proceeds, knowing that their coins would have value in the future. By doing so, they were able to cut out two conversions to or from fiat (once -- to fiat, when they received their mining proceeds and a second time -- back from fiat into bitcoins to be able to be among the first in line for the new BFL product line.)