...and as I keep posting but few people care, their intention was to ship the new device in march but that was before their Dator Hall intention. All you have to go on are the voiced intentions of the company. Stop making excuses for their failures as they are quite capable of that without your assistance. They will continue to screw would-be miners while you quibble about the use of the English language.
I remember them saying something effectively: "we sure would love to ship this as soon as Q1, but it could be up to the end of Q2", and within a few days of the orderbooks opening it was very clear that Q2 would be the likely shipdate. Anyone with capability to do basic math would've known Q1 wasn't even a realistic possibility. Their voiced intention, as I just quoted, is not the same as the official company progress/newsletter. It might be seen as semantics to some, but there's a difference between "what we would like to do" and "this is the official word of KNC".
Yeah, people are upset. I've got no skin in the game, I'm not defending them, I'm just examining the facts. Fact is, they said they'd love to be super early, but provided official declaration that it could be as late as the end of Q2.
I told everyone to expect to see late June, possibly July for shipping, based on what I knew of the internal process and their capability. I was off by weeks at most, which isn't bad.
1. They stated in its product description that batch 1 would begin shipping around one month after customer only batch.
2. They stated in its product description that batch 2 would begin shipping around one month after batch 1.
3. They stated in its product description that batch 2 would begin shipping in Q2.
Combine these three statements and you get them saying that the customer only batch would begin shipping two months before the end of Q2, and batch 1 one month before the end of Q2. This obviously didn't happen. The customer only batch began shipping just before Q3, nearly two months late.
2. They stated in its product description that batch 2 would begin shipping around one month after batch 1.
3. They stated in its product description that batch 2 would begin shipping in Q2.
Combine these three statements and you get them saying that the customer only batch would begin shipping two months before the end of Q2, and batch 1 one month before the end of Q2. This obviously didn't happen. The customer only batch began shipping just before Q3, nearly two months late.
From memory, batch 0 (customer appreciation BS batch) was to ship by end of Q2, followed 1 month later by batch 1. This then got shifted, causing a shitstorm, so that batch 1 would be shipped about a week after batch 0. Batch 2 is as you describe.
It provides a cascade of lateness, there's no doubt about that. But you guys are forgetting that Neptunes for batch 0 began shipping in early June. Back in the 178x page range, people were having Neptunes hit their doors. So batch 0 shipped on time. Reports of users from batch 1 receiving shipping info on/before 6/30 started coming in as well, which fits in with their less-than-a-month difference in those 2 batches. I suppose it could be argued on a technicality whether they began shipping then or not, but as far as I would call it, 0 and 1 shipped "by end of Q2".
I wouldn't argue batch 2 shipping late, I was simply saying, not by months.
Again this all seems to be semantics. Some folks are pointing at Q1 or early Q2, but the reality is end of Q2 was the official window. Even then the fine print says "we could still be late".
This is why I tell people to just buy bitcoin.
who knows.