Maybe someone from the Raspberry Pi Foundation can explain this to me: it seems they're going corporate; is there any place left for a Raspberry Pi non-profit?
Seems a bit contradictory with recent events at HQ.
I don't have many details, but Raspberry Pi Trading has always been corporate, it's just owned by charitable foundation. The Foundation will continue to be a non-profit.
O00oh a computer in a keyboard, that's never been done. If they start selling those keyboards, and that type of thing, I'll be shorting for some easy money.
Obviously, this gets handled under UK charity law, not US — but I wonder if this would fly in the US. Charities can own for-profit entities, but pay taxes on the Unrelated Business Income.
But this is closer to a for-profit hospital conversion on steroids, where the driver becomes the profit, not the the charity. There’s a very obvious conflict of interest between the charity, management, and the public investors, which could turn into a carnival for lawyers.
If you are talking about for profit benefit corporations (B-Corps), they can IPO. They are essentially just C-Corps with non-financial tracking metrics written into the bylaws.
User m-watson's comment made me look up if any B Corps have gone public and there certainly are IPOs. [1] Including subsidiaries of majors like Coca Cola. The few I looked up listed on NASDAQ and had overall flat performance. Which I guess is what you would expect?
Disclaimer: I am an investment neophyte, would love to be corrected or expanded upon.
They are selling pieces of a subsidiary, subsidiaries taxed at the entity level (instead of pass through) always block regulatory restrictions of the shareholder. see “blocker corporation” when formed for this specific purpose
It is interesting to think of this under US law since non profits are regulated heavily, but its not really that absurd
The US version would require reducing shareholdings to below 35% or 20% - depending on what kind of foundation/nonprofit it actually was registered as, and what kind of decision making is being done. It wouldn't be unrelated business income tax it would be excess business holdings tax which I think can be way worse of an excise tax, up to 200%
I thought the whole idea was to produce boards, priced near cost, for educational/inspirational purposes? ie to give today's kids the same kind of intro to computers (you have to program it) as kids enjoyed with the home computers of the 80's.
The profit motive inherent to a public company does not seem compatible with that mission.
As an RPi fan and user I agree with the concern, but as a small consolation I'd also point out that the companies making those computers in the 80s were also profit-motivated.
RPi has been structure as a for profit company owned by the charity for a long time. This IPO may result in a huge amount of money for that charity. It also doesn't say how much of a stake their selling. The charity may retain the majority share and so continue to have control along with a vast capital reserve to continue doing what they're doing plus a lot more.
The for-profit company has been raising money from investors in order to finance growth.
I'm sure that an IPO would result in the charity getting cash but the aim does not seem to be that.
Now, the good thing is of course that the accounts of the foundation are public [1].
I am not impressed that only about 10% of their income goes to "charitable activities".
The point being that, approximately, for every £10 that they get through donations or any other source, £9 goes to costs and £1 to actual charitable activities. Personally I would not donate to such a charity.
How does the fact that RPi produces a physical product factor into this? If I contribute money to a charity that distributes that money directly to people in need, then I expect a high portion of that money to go to charity, but I don’t know that that is a fair expectation when most people “donate” to RPi by buying a low margin physical product. It’s not a pure charitable contribution to buy a Pi. But maybe I don’t understand how the costs are broken out between the foundation and RPi Trading.
> for every £10 that they get through donations or any other source, £9 goes to costs
From the accounts I linked they received a bit over £3.5m in donations that year (they're listed in two different places one around £400k the other around £3.1m I don't know why they're accounted differently), spending £7.8m on charitable activities that same year. So in a sense they're managing to double their donations via their profitable trading to generate money for charitable activity spending.
The other 90% gets classed as 'fund-raising', what is actually is is money going into raspberry pi trading. rpi trading made a profit of around £10m which goes back as income into the charity and has mostly been spent on charitable activities.
I'm not an accountant and don't have time to go over the details to check but it appears that the charity gets all sales income. This then goes to the trading arm to pay for its expenses, leaving a profit which goes straight back to the charity. The majority of which is being spent on their charitable activities, which moderate sums presumably being kept back to aid reserve building.
Trading exists to make the charity money, money the charity then spends on its charitable aims.
If the commercial subsidiary is here to make them money then it should appear under "income", not "expenditure", and it probably does just not explicitly in that pie chart (it's probably under 'other' or 'other trading activities').
Expenditure is what the charity spends its money on, that is, costs (offices, personel, fund-raising activities, etc) and charitable activities. Anyone donating to a charity wants as much money as possible going to charitable activities.
We could look at another charity to compare. Off the top of my head, a famous one I know is Crisis (homeless charity) [1]: Record shows 50%+ of income spent on charitable activities, which does make Raspberry Pi Foundation's numbers look quite unimpressive.
The explanation comes from the accounts I linked to which give more details than the pie chart.
> If the trading arm is there to make them money then it should appear under "income", not "expenditure"
It does see page 15 (PDF page 17), the foundation lists an income of £71,436,388 from 'Other trading activities', if you follow the note (3) it clarifies that this is entirely from rpi trading.
A bunch of money then goes on to expenditure to cover the trading arm's costs. Which are indeed substantial as it's an engineering organization with lots of production to pay for along with staff salaries and other R&D costs, these are broken down in note 6, page 28 (PDF page 30).
The profit the trading arm makes then comes back to the foundation which is shown in note 5, page 27 (PDF page 29) as 'other income'
So yes it is a little complex, you've got the flow of revenue coming into the foundation, out to trading then back in again but it doesn't look like there's any untoward going on. Simply the charity is taking the strategy of running a profit making company to fund its charitable activities.
OK, so the accounts of the foundation conflate the foundation and the trading subsidiary. That's complex, indeed.
Considering that the raspberry pi product is developed by the commercial subsidiary and sold commercial this at best muddies the water, and is very misleading.
I'm not sure how it is over in the UK, but here in the US publicly traded companies are expected to always do whatever makes their shareholders money. Investors can even sue companies if they believe the company is acting against their financial interests.
Companies have some leeway in how to interpret this goal, but publicly traded companies will only ever do the "right thing" if it is a net positive (or at least neutral) for their shareholders.
Owners of privately owned companies, on the other hand, can choose to do things they believe are good, even if it will be a net negative after factoring in the potential good PR.
How do we stop this cycle where it's a (well-deserved) reluctant goodbye every time a company we like seeks to go public and IPO? It's like the writing's on the wall and we already know what's going to happen..
We're in a segment of time where companies are so over-valued by VC that when they go public they have no choice but to engage in egregious practices to maintain the stock price. It often alienates the customers/users/supporters that got them there.
Is this the inevitable outcome in all cases or is this a symptom of a flaw in our model?
It's the inevitable outcome of enough cases that we should celebrate those that don't take this route. I'm thinking of orgs like Debian here, but there are many others for whom profit is not a or the sole motivator.
Imo, it's a flaw in our model. If 'fighting them' failed, then, we should join them. Here, that would mean participation in the ipo, in the style of gamestop. Push the p/e ratio to something completely absurd. Maybe it'll fail as a result. (Thus begetting a libre office, response to an open office initiative.)
Hello, I think your account's ability to post and be seen is being interfered with, as all your comments are greyed as soon as you post, and I had to 'vouch' for this post in order to reply, thought you should know, because this was an otherwise insightful comment.
Lol, thank you very much for telling me. I find that I get shadow banned and outright banned on every social media site and forum. I genuinely don't understand why. It's usually for comments such as this one. (Shrug)
While I respect your willingness to think outside of the box, and am thankful for your reply, I am old enough to remember that communism is not something I personally desire.
> The aggregation of power into some kind of central authority system for the good of the people always ends up bad for the people.
You will find that this sentiment is quite popular among communists these days. The idea of achieving a classless, stateless society via the use of a central state is inherently contradictory. (Though that's not to say that the alternatives are necessarily more realistic)
There's nothing totalitarian in communism by definition[1]. Marxism-Leninism and Maoisn certainly are very totalitarian implementations, but there are others.
`Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism. Communists agree on the withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state.`
You cannot have a collectivist regulation of supply and demand without a totalitarian control of the production and distribution of everything. Totalitarianism is integral to the core of communism, it's the hinge point of it's entire function. Dogma which rejects that reality does not change it, and _every_ instance of it in real life backs up this simple reality.
If you ignore the historically loaded proper nouns in that piece, most of the values described are the sort of thing that's typically pretty popular around here. Decentralization, free software, information freedom, etc. It doesn't really have anything to do with the communist parties that come to mind when one hears the word "Communism".
>It's like the writing's on the wall and we already know what's going to happen..
Because it is, and you explained exactly why:
>We're in a segment of time where companies are so over-valued by VC that when they go public they have no choice but to engage in egregious practices to maintain the stock price. It often alienates the customers/users/supporters that got them there.
>> Is this the inevitable outcome in all cases or is this a symptom of a flaw in our model?
The problem seems to be that "investment" these days is all about selling to someone else at a higher price. Stock performance has decoupled from company value but people still try to "meet expectations" anyway.
One driver is low interest rates. Another is the 401k plans in the US where every middle-class employee is systematically pushing money into the market. this provides an ultimate sucker for every VC to sell to since the end-game is to IPO at astronomical valuations.
> The profit motive inherent to a public company does not seem compatible with that mission.
You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period. I am not sure where the vilification of profit comes from (not addressing you in particular but rather the general concept), its just silly.
Companies have layers upon layers of costs in their financial equation. Employees and ongoing operational expenses being the easiest to understand. If you operate without profit, the company dies. The simplest visual for this might be that if no-profit means zero dollars in the bank account at the end of the year. After all, "no profit" or operation "near cost" would result in exactly this kind of a situation. Which would, in turn, kill the enterprise almost instantly.
If you want a company to produce and evolve products (any kind, physical or otherwise), it must be profitable. Without profit there is no innovation or longevity. At best you get a slow painful death.
In addition to this, the pandemic has to have taught everyone the other dimension of the necessity of profit. When things go wrong --for whatever reason, pandemic, economic downturn, market shifts, etc.-- a business must have sufficient financial backing, reserves and strength to navigate the storm and survive. Without this they would have to instantly lay off massive numbers of employees, shut down operations, cancel leases and contracts, etc.
In short, if you (plural, not addressing the poster I am responding to) care a company --whether it is cause driven or just a good product company-- you have to care about them making a profit or watch them evaporate.
Here's a challenge for anyone who does not believe this:
Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list.
Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives.
> Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit.
Most restaurants. Many did, indeed, "instantly lay off massive numbers of employees, shut down operations, cancel leases and contracts, etc." during the pandemic as a result.
Amazon made basically no profit for two decades, as a fairly notable example. Every penny earned got plowed back into the business. Lots of revenue, lots of expenses, no profit. It wasn't until recently they turned the profit spigot on. https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-...
I think you're mixing up profits with revenue. A charity that brings in $1M and spends $1M has no profit, but they can (theoretically) remain a going concern indefinitely at that rate.
Your example is a precise representation of just how little people understand business.
Restaurants: Shitty business. Most are constantly gasping for air. Yet, they do make a profit, which they use to hire people, pay for supplies, rent, etc. and keep the doors open. If they do not make a profit their choices are reduced to two simple paths: Close the doors or go get money (loan or investor). A lot of restaurant operators are up to their necks in loans, second mortgages, etc.
In many ways restaurants are the best example of why good profits are important. Those who do not generate substantial profits are nothing but a brutal slog. Those who do, thrive, grow and expand.
Amazon: C'mon. Please. They plowed PROFITS back into the business. Their annual net revenue was zero or near zero for a long time. It should be way beyond self-evident that you can't grow a business like Amazon without profits. Are you suggesting Amazon grew WITHOUT PROFITS? Seriously?
I have self-funded, founded and run multiple businesses in the last 40 years.
What I post does not come from a 30 second google session. It comes from having had significant skin in the game, succeeding and failing. Most people think they understand business. And most people have never run a non-trivial business. It's like trying to explain what it is like to fly like a bird without being a bird. Most simply can't get it because they have no context whatsoever.
When things go bad and you have to mortgage your home and top-off your credit cards to keep people employed and keep the doors open, you understand things you cannot possibly comprehend any other way. I've been there.
A nonprofit wants to donate $600K to feed children.
It will cost $400K in operating expenses to be able to do this.
They need to generate $1MM in revenue and $400K in profits in order to be able to make use of $600K in support of their cause. Without this "profit" there is no nonprofit and no support for the cause. It is profit.
One way to define profit is something like what you have left after delivering a product. This hypothetical nonprofit takes in $1MM, delivers $600K in product and has $400K in profit that is used for operating expenses and (likely) to put money away for future needs, growth, etc.
Profit is necessary. We might not call it profit when it comes to these types of organizations, yet they cannot exist without this part of the equation. Call it what you want. They have to make more than they spend --a lot more-- or they cease to exist.
Also, in the US nonprofits are not banned from making what one might term conventional profit. They just can't distribute it. This means they can put money away and grow like crazy. Look at the mega-churches in Texas as a perfect example. If that not profit, I don't know what is.
This is something I fundamentally disagree with. In the case of nonprofits, the profitable venture ends-up being positions that are highly paid and have huge benefits. People tend to have this idea of scrappy, idealistic, ramen-eating organizations when it comes to nonprofits. They are some of the richest companies in the land.
"The highest-paid nonprofit leaders — CEOs, Executive Directors, etc. — all earn at least $900k per year, and into the tens of millions for the largest of hospitals and health systems. While the highest-paid nonprofit CEOs are in healthcare and financial services, things get more interesting when we look at normal charities."
It's interesting that Financial institutions and categories such as "Promotion of Business" are listed in their survey. Nobody imagines an entity promoting the use of petroleum as a nonprofit. Most people think of churches and benevolent community organizations ("feed the X") as nonprofits. Nobody thinks hospitals, oil companies, credit unions, insurance, etc.
I call a lot of their overhead "profit" because, in this day and age, It feels obscene that an organization purporting to "help the X" would need to consume 40% of revenues, own/lease lavish buildings, etc. to deploy the capital they receive. How many on HN could setup a system that could administer, say, a hundred million dollars in donation while consuming just, say, 5% of that to run the show? My guess is many.
If you read through the list of nonprofit CEO salaries on that page you should get a good sense of where my perspective come from. This is profit. We call it something else. Fine. To me this is the individuals running the organization extracting profit from an organization under the cloak of a legal classification with a benevolent sounding name. Who doesn't have a soft spot for anyone who operates without making a profit? Right?
Well...let's look at CEO pay:
Christus Health: $13MM with a $5MM base pay
Star One Credit Union: $12MM
NY Presbiterian: $12MM
Banner Health: $11MM
American Petroleum Institute: $11MM
Electric Power Research Institute: $2.5MM
Jazz at Lincoln Center: $2.3MM
-The CEO takes 9% OF REVENUE as compensation!!!!
University of Minnesota Foundation Investment Advisors: $1.5MM
- This represents 36% of revenue!
The point is, these are profitable pursuits. The profit goes to the people who work there, likely mostly to upper management. If they were scrappy idealistic not-for-profit organizations they would not be paying CEO's and the first layer or two under them tens of millions of dollars.
Another way to look at it:
Profit is what you use to run the organization. It's a percentage of revenue available for this purpose. It is important to understand the difference between gross and net profit.
I buy a blender from a wholesaler for $10 and sell it at retail for $20. My gross profit is $10. My net profit takes into account all the other costs, the ones that are required for the organization to exist. If that boils down to $5 per unit, the net profit is $5 per unit or, 25% of gross income.
In the case of an organization classified as a "nonprofit", things are different. They don't generally sell anything (well, hospitals and others do). They get a million dollars gross income from whatever activities. It could be donations. In the case of the company that promotes the use of petroleum, it is likely to be large membership fees paid by oil companies. For hospitals it is whatever they bill for services. Etc. That's their gross income. From that they have fixed costs in the form of buildings, lease...
If you had just Googled for 30 seconds to learn the definitions of literally the most basic business terms when someone told you you were wrong, maybe you wouldn’t have had to mortgage the house.
I truly do not know how to respond to this other than to say that the only kind of person who can make such a mean-spirited comment is one who has never experienced the deep dark hole some entrepreneurs experience when things go the wrong way. Some don't come out of the other side. What happened to me took place during the 2008 economic implosion. To put it in the simplest possible terms: All business came to a grinding halt. The music stopped and there were no chairs.
A friend of mind died in 2009 from the sheer stress this moment in history caused him as his business crumbled. That December I penned an email from the darkest place I have ever been. One that was prompted by a revelation I had that day: I experienced a level of clarity I had never before experienced. In a moment, I understood, in no uncertain terms, why someone would commit suicide, jump off a bridge, walk in front of a train or shoot themselves due to undue business pressure and financial troubles. I emailed a friend to let him know I now understood this. I wasn't quite there, but, for some strange reason, I had to share. He drove to my office and spent the rest of the day with me.
So, yeah, I don't know what to say to someone like you. My less-than-intellectual impulse is to deliver the most vile insult I could. Yet, that would mean descending to a level I am not interested in visiting.
I'll leave you with this: I hope you never get to experience some of what many entrepreneurs have to live through when things take a turn for the worse. If you do, I hope the experience humbles you and you become a nicer person.
> Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives.
This is factually incorrect. Charities (at least in the UK) are legally prohibited from making a profit.
How do they pay for salaries, operating expenses, building rent, vehicle purchases, electricity, marketing, etc?
They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover these expenses. Right?
Well, this is semantics. A conventional business does exactly the same thing. They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover the cost of doing business.
Laws for non-profits generally allow for such things. Which makes sense, because they would not be able to survive without being able to slice off some "profit" to stay alive and grow.
If you've ever seen the massive church campuses in Texas you'd get a sense of the idea that this is, in fact, profit.
The range a typical nonprofit spends on administrative or operating expenses is wide. I would say that 40% isn't rare, with 25% being fairly common. This tracks with the profit margin of small to medium for-profit businesses. In fact, there are millions of for profit businesses that do not enjoy such margins.
The key legal distinction (at least in the US) seems to be that nonprofits cannot exist for the benefit of shareholders (no distributions). Other than that, they can easily spend 40% of what comes in on operations, grow cash in the bank and more.
> How do they pay for salaries, operating expenses, building rent, vehicle purchases, electricity, marketing, etc? They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover these expenses. Right?
Sure. Revenue minus expenses = profit/loss. "Net income", "bottom line", etc.
Make more than you expend, and you've got a profit. Spend more than you make, and you've got a loss. Equalize them, and you've got no profit and no loss.
Businesses can optimize for profit. Charities are allowed to have a profit, but they don't get to distribute it to shareholders like a business can; it stays with the charity. It's legal for a charity to have a rainy day fund and a positive bank balance, but their legal purpose is not to run it up.
Churches in the US get funky at times, and I'm of the opinion that the IRS should be empowered to crack down the abuses of the non-profit status you highlight, but if they're spending their revenue on buildings, staff, etc., they're eating into their profits when they do so.
Absolutely on point. My argument is simply that, as you put it, making more than you spend is a necessary element for any organization to exist and grow. In the case of a conventional business everyone calls this profit. Somehow, magically, in the case of "nonprofits" we don't.
The term "nonprofit" is a misnomer that might be the reason for this distinction, at least in the US. The term implies the idea of zero profit, which could not be farther from the truth.
You are right to highlight churches. I remember the first time I went to Texas on a sales call at one of the mega churches. The only way I can describe it was a campus with several buildings the size of a Home Depot and more. You do not do something like that without profit. People might want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't, because we legally call them "nonprofits". All we are doing is lying to ourselves. They make a ton of money. And we don't tax them.
I am sure there are churches and religious organizations who do a lot of great value for their communities. I also know there are tons who are there for "management" to live the life of the rich and famous. Not to go too far, my wife's mother worked for a church for a while. The head pastor owned several luxury cars, went on amazing trips to expensive resorts all over the world --all paid by the church-- and more. Profit.
Note I am not saying profit is inherently bad. We would not have most of the things we enjoy in modern life without profitable business pursuits. From clothing to medicine and everything in between, without profit, it would not exist. Can it be abused and misused? Of course. That is true for almost anything that is part of the human experience. We abuse food, power, the environment, other people, position, etc. All good things until they are abused, including profit.
Your definition of "profit" doesn't seem to match anyone else's. If an organisation spends what revenue it has on its own operations, that is not profit. You might not agree with the way that money is spent, but that does not change the technical definition of a well-understood and widely agreed accounting term.
Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable?
Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say?
You see, we get lost in this legal "nonprofit" classification and fail to understand that a lot of these organizations exist for the profit (the enrichment) of either the individuals running them, associated commercial enterprises (oil companies) or both. If we refer to them as "X4132 organizations" (made-up name) we would have no emotional attachment or a mental model to go against what they actually do. When people hear "nonprofit" they think something like "feed the X" scrappy entities with idealistic workers and managers all eating ramen noodles to conserve every dime for their worthy cause. That is FAR from reality. Very far.
And that's why I tend to call it "profit". Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, but it is hard to argue that a CEO taking 5%, 10%, 30%, 40% of revenue isn't actually the profit element of the organization. I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. We might classify it some other way, but it isn't charity.
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable?
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say?
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit,
It is the opposite of profit. It is what you structure if you want to reduce your profit so you don't get taxed.
> I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit.
No, it isn't. It might be embezzlement, from the sounds of it.
I get the point that you are trying to make, but doing so by redefining common terms and hoping anyone is going to take it seriously strikes me as remarkably unlikely to succeed. The word you are looking for is not "profit", it is "enrichment", as you say here. They are not the same. Words matter.
> No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. It's like someone who never built a brick wall arguing with a master mason and actually believing they understand the craft because they googled a few things. That's OK, most people are in your shoes. As my wife loves to say "A google search isn't a substitute for my medical degree". The same applies to understanding business. No worries.
I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet.
> Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about.
Incorrect. I understand perfectly what you are talking about. You do not have privileged knowledge. You just aren't saying what you think you are. Your words and your meaning are misaligned, apparently intentionally.
You came into this thread with this:
> You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period.
That was your opening gambit. It was factually incorrect then, it relied on your being able to emotionally manipulate readers into taking a different understanding of "profit" than any of them likely did, and all you've done since is alienate people from your core point by talking nonsense and claiming to be better than them.
Where did you expect this comment to go?
> Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list.
> Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives.
It is literally, trivially, obviously wrong, and you've said nothing prior or since to change that other than try to crowbar in irrelevancies about what you think a specific form of legal entity should be allowed to do.
> I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that.
And yet here we are. You may have a point. I may even agree with it. But the way that you are expressing it does not come across as good-faith in the slightest.
> I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet.
So what? That makes precisely zero difference to the definition of profit. It does not answer the question of whether the Vatican makes any. Is it a grasping, rapacious, self-aggrandising, amoral organisation? You probably have an answer to that. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of profit.
> You don't have to agree with me.
Quite. As someone once said: you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Here's the difference: I am open to thinking and looking outside the box and not be bound by definitions that limit thought.
Yes, of course, the accepted definition of profit does not align with what I have presented. That much is obvious.
And yet, "nonprofits" like the American Petroleum Institute, the National Rifle Association and many others exist precisely for profit in two forms. In some cases it is for the enrichment of those who run the organization. There, I used a different word. Happy? In other scenarios, they exist to generate massive profits --sometimes in the billions of dollars-- for supporters. If I remember correctly, the American Petroleum Institute generates some $250 million dollars a year in revenues. These are not $25 donations from Bernie supporters. These are massive membership fees paid for by the oil companies for which this organization works to generate billions in profits.
Disagree as much as you'd like with my out-of-the norm take on the realities of how nonprofits have devolved. The difference is you are bound by the dictionary definition of a word. I am looking at the realities on the street.
Seriously, it is naïve to actually believe these companies are not for profit. The mechanisms abound. A church purchasing manager gives a lucrative multi-million dollar contract to a contractor in exchange for under the table kickbacks. This crap happens all the time. The Vatican has done this kind of thing in transactions worth tens of millions of dollars while servicing as the financial arm for the buildout of television stations in Africa. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and a single-point dictionary definition of a single word is the extent of what you will look at as evidence to fight the idea that the nonprofit thing is seriously broken. But, hey, you are right, the word is defined precisely as you indicate. Good job.
Some guy gets paid ten million dollars to sign over checks to feed the children and you think that's overhead. I think it is an abuse of the system that, while not currently legally defined as such, should be classified as profit. And taxed accordingly. Better yet, it should be capped and the children should get more money.
Since you seem fond of little intelligent-sounding sayings, here's one that's applicable:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Nonprofits: In practice, they are not. Not all of them.
BTW, I actually help run a small --real-- nonprofit. We setup a legal nonprofit organization to fund a local high school robotics team. We take-in donations and spend the money to pay for anything the kids need (usually tool, parts, etc.). Fully 100% of the money we receive (about $25K per year) is spent on what the kids need. 100%. Not a single penny goes towards anything else (OK, the occasional bank fee is another expense). Every mentor is a volunteer and most of us are actually donors as well. That's a real nonprofit, in the full sense of the word. Because nobody within the organization derives any kind of financial profit from it. There are no conflicts of interest whatsoever, no murky lines. Not sure what "nonprofits" who consume 40% of revenues should be called.
> How do they pay for salaries, operating expenses, building rent, vehicle purchases, electricity, marketing, etc?
> They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover these expenses. Right?
> Well, this is semantics. A conventional business does exactly the same thing. They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover the cost of doing business.
Yes, and in neither the case of the charity nor of the conventional business is that profit. That is operating costs, and gets deducted from revenue before tax is paid on what's left precisely because it is not profit.
RPi has always been a Broadcom alumni pet project with commercial interest. I am not surprised.
As for the same intro to computers as the 1980s, you can give kids a trash PC and monitor running Linux for less than a whole RPi setup these days and that probably has a better e-waste and environmental outcome too. Oh and the HDMI connector won’t suddenly fall off or the SD card go awry.
The mission of the raspberry pi foundation is to leverage the rose tinted glasses of the past to push a marketing ideology that overlaps with the maker ideology. Everyone can build a business from marketing and label it as “for the greater good” with such tags as affordable computing tied to it.
Prior to marketing fronts like this existing, there was already significant interest in parties doing stuff like we did in the 80s. Everyone I knew had a PC with a parallel port with some random junk hanging off it. Some really weird people still had Amigas held together with tape. I was programming PIC microcontrollers off a cranky old Pentium 90 I found in a skip outside work.
This sounds like the same thing Mozilla does. There's a non-profit foundation that owns the commercial subsidiary. Otherwise it's difficult for them to do commercial deals that benefit the foundation (like the one with Google which basically gives them all their income).
That was the original idea. However, as well as producing a board that was great for education and hobbyists, it turned out it was great for a whole range of applications, and the bulk orders started coming in from companies all over the world.
The Foundation is funded on the sales of Raspberry Pi hardware, government contracts and charitable donations. More sales directly benefit the charity. This allows us to:
- Run the world's largest network of coding clubs for children, for free.
- Produce educational resources for schools and clubs all over the world, for free.
- Conduct research into CS pedagogy.
- Provide Pi 400s and monitors to disadvantaged learners in England.
- Support educators all over the world with free physical and digital publications.
I know nothing about an IPO of RPTL, other than what I've read in the media, but I can guarantee you that RPF will continue to be a non-profit charity, and continue with it's mission.
>> I know nothing about an IPO of RPTL, other than what I've read in the media, but I can guarantee you that RPF will continue to be a non-profit charity, and continue with it's mission.
Call me cynical, but you are absolutely clueless. Once shareholders are involved (especially public) the management will be changed. This lovely piece appeared about a week ago here on HN:
The RPi founders will be sacked in favor of profits. All those charitable things done for free will be stopped. The $35 Pi - nobody will mind if we raise that to $50. All sorts of things will change. Maybe not immediately, but they will change. The profit motive goes directly against the notion of a "non-profit" organization. Shareholders want ROI. End of story, end of Pi as we know it.
I know of very few cases in which privatization of something publicly run has benefitted the public.
The argument "oh but the capital will allow all kinds of investments that will decrease the price in the long run" almost never holds up. Maybe it does in RPI's case, their innovation was supply chain based, after all. But my personal expectation, since a for profit company's interest is to extract as much profit add possible, is that RPI boards will move upmarket and become the premium option with an ecosystem advantage. Their position to do this is already quite good, they're basically already there. But the increased prices will also mean that companies operating on lower margins will become stronger - the Pine64s of the world.
That's the "bad case". The "good case" would be that they'll operate with low margins and compensate with scale and keep the educational stuff as marketing expenses. But that's hard to imagine.
I'm somewhat okay with either. Luckily the competition in the segment is healthy nowadays.
> I know of very few cases in which privatization of something publicly run has benefitted the public.
this has never been a "publicly" run company in the way you describe it. It has always been a private limited company.
The issue of concern here is that it is going from a private limited company where the shareholders are mostly to do with the rpi foundation, meaning that there is some chance that all the profit generated goes back to the foundation.
If its a public company, unless there are strict rules, it'll be open to shareholders buying control and changing the purpose of the trading company to something other than a tool to generate income for the foundation.
However thats not a given yet. I really hope that its something that is beneficial to the foundation.
I think we need to understand the ownership structure post IPO to understand what the future may hold.
If 100% of trading is going in the IPO then I think your predictions will be right on the money.
If the foundation retains the majority share and we're seeing 30/40% go to the IPO then it doesn't really matter how much profit the shareholders are demanding, the foundation can just continue to run things as it sees fit. Though the foundation may worry about the stock price tanking of course and still do what the shareholders demand.
> All those charitable things done for free will be stopped.
Are you kidding? They clashes might be free for kids, but they can get charity donations, governmental donations, and it’s essentially a “buy our product” class. It’s great value for minor expense.
Can you go into more detail on how the Foundation and the company are separated?
I see a lot of doubt in this thread, and while some of it seems to come from a confusion of the two entities, the rest seems to acknowledge their separation, but doubt that it will protect the foundation in the long run.
So, what would interest me would be how funding & staffing of the foundation works, if there are arrangements to ensure access to low-price material for the activities you list and such.
Edit: a link to an FAQ or such will do just nicely of course ;)
the article says that the Foundation owns the Company. Wonder how that changes when the company IPOs... maybe the Foundation retains majority ownership?
"The Raspberry Pi Foundation, formed in 2009, is a registered charity with a goal of putting “the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world.” The famous eponymous SBC was designed to be affordable and champion programming in schools, hoping to repeat the home computer boom of the 1980s. Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for the engineering and trading operations of the foundation."
> I see a lot of doubt in this thread, and while some of it seems to come from a confusion of the two entities, the rest seems to acknowledge their separation, but doubt that it will protect the foundation in the long run.
There are two[1] companies registered, the foundation, which is the oldest, and the trading company.
This setup can be used for good or bad. It can be used to for getting subsidies, it can also be used to funnel money from the non-profit to the for-profit, or to put everything which is for-profit on the for-profit, or to market itself non-profit while the main thing is the for-profit. There's examples of each of these, but I don't know whether it would apply here.
Teach the kids Raspberry Pi and then they'll know Raspberry Pi and hopefully push to use it in their jobs 10 years later or whatever. Maybe that's the idea (too)?
As mentioned in the article itself, the RPi Foundation is the charity at the root of the organisation, and RPi Trading is a wholly owned subsidiary of that charity.
I have no links whatsoever to any RPi organisation of any sort, so this is purely guesswork, but I could imagine that operations have grown to the point where they are interfering with (or at least a distraction from) their original educational mission.
Perhaps this move is to offload that distraction and allow them to re-focus on the original idea?
Why must it be assumed that this is a greedy move that works against their mission?
RPi is easily and affordably available everywhere. Even in my country and their models get released here real fast.
I am not sure, I can only hope; but I would really love them to be a Frame.work competitor with their established logistics and reach. Possibly cheaper as well. Maybe not as high end.
Because it might be years before something like Framework reaches places like my country (if they don’t go bust by then)
It would be nice if they where an open source hardware company. They don't publish the full schematics of anything, which makes it impossible to do low level programming of the thing in a reasonable manner.
I'm going to use up the hardware I bought in ignorance, and find better stuff for the future.
A lot of times companies like this need to sign NDAs to get the design documentation for the ICs and SOCs needed to even make the thing. If theybhad an open source SOC and ICs then they could do it....
Yes, it all comes down to Broadcom. Of course, that is a choice as well. They could've chosen a more open SoC, though there aren't many options. Most open hardware projects use the NxP (nee Freescale) i.MX series, which have open datasheets and open (with login) reference manuals.
It makes sense that a bunch of ex-Broadcom engineers looking to make a cheap computer to educate children would use their connections at Broadcom to get an old cheap SoC. The closed schematics and bootloader do not matter to teaching kids scratch and python. I guess it isn't surprising that they haven't changed course since they've been so successful, but it is disappointing.
They are reduced ones showing just the pins of the external connectors. None of the processor interconnects or any of the on-board power management peripherals.
Compare with the BeagleBone Black, which contains the complete design:
> They don't publish the full schematics of anything, which makes it impossible to do low level programming of the thing in a reasonable manner
The schematics aren't so much the issue. It's the lack of documentation for the SoC and other components.
The Raspberry Pi is a great learning platform and I think the Raspberry Pi foundation made the right choice in using the Broadcom parts, even if they are relatively closed. The vast majority of end users aren't using the platform for anything that requires access to the low-level, undocumented parts. Keeping the cost to a minimum was the right choice, IMO.
If someone needed low-level access to the SoC, choosing a Raspberry Pi wouldn't be the right choice anyway, schematics or not.
This includes a lot of relatively basic info - for example, try finding any kind of info on how much current you may pull from the 3.3 V pins. Nada. This is only documented for the CM4 (iirc), but that is a rather different design. And while the CM4 does have a datasheet it's not exactly comprehensive.
> The Raspberry Pi Foundation, formed in 2009, is a registered charity with a goal of putting “the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world.” The famous eponymous SBC was designed to be affordable and champion programming in schools, hoping to repeat the home computer boom of the 1980s. Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for the engineering and trading operations of the foundation.
Why even is there a trading company? Seems random. Why not the Raspberry Pi Coffee Growers Association, or the Raspberry Pi Law Firm?
The Trading part designs and manufactures(or purchases manufacturing capacity) of the boards. You couldn't do all that as part of the charity, especially given they also make products specifically designed for industrial use.
1. the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries:
2. the act of buying, selling, or exchanging stocks, bonds, or currency:
I'm not saying this isn't going to happen, but I would be surprised if it floats.
Given that the trading arm is there entirely to fund the learning bit, I would be surprised that they would float effectively giving away the profit stream needed to run the education part.
RPi accomplished something really cool, probably got a lot of people into electronics hacking and linux that weren’t before (like me).
There are plenty of competitors making higher and lower end alternatives now at varying degrees of open source, in my opinion the mission has been extremely accomplished for years now.
I'm glad that the RPi was successful enough to get an IPO, maybe it'll incentivize other entrepreneurs to start similar projects in the UK while showing investors they can get a decent exit funding projects like educational electronic boards.
I’m deeply confused by this article: Is there a single entity acting as both a producer/seller of computers, and as a not-for-profit? Or are there two distinct entities? (This would be a similar to the Kellogg Trust/Foundation here in then U.S., owner of the cereal company.)
> Raspberry Pi Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales (1129409).
Registered as a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No.06758215.
Registered office: Raspberry Pi Foundation, 37 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1NT.
> For filings related to the Raspberry Pi Foundation North America 501(c)(3) charity, please contact us.
The computer designer/manufacturer/seller:
> Raspberry Pi (Trading) Limited.
Registered as a company No.08207441
Registered office: Maurice Wilkes Building, St. John’s Innovation Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DS.
So the for-profit Raspberry Pi (Trading) may IPO, and I assume that the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a major shareholder, if not the owner of greater than 50% of outstanding shares after an IPO.
I wonder why they want the capital? They are wholly owned by the charity, so it’s not like they are enriching early stakeholders.
I’ll hope it’s so they can drive a more open SoC and peripherals.
I suppose it’s also possible the charity sees “tiny affordable computer” as done, has checked it off their list and plans to use money to purse their goals in other ways.
So what is the distinction between Raspberry Pi Trading and Raspberry Pi Foundation from an organisational/legal perspective?
Is Raspberry Pi Foundation an entity or sub-entity of Raspberry Pi Trading, or just an affiliated organisation where Ebon Upton has roles in both organisations?
The Foundation doesn't have to sell all of it: they can issue publicly tradable shares but only sell some proportion of them. It depends how much money they want to raise.
Trading company is separate from the foundation, purpose is to split the edu org from the industrial org. For those that don't know, raspis are bulk ordered for industrial use and this part intends to escalate that part of the business. RP2040 is an example of spinning off raspi tech for use in other boards.
If you look back, you can see where Upton and friends are good stewards of the raspi foundation (separate).
hn community is so used to companies being two-faced and kicking the ladder out when they "make it", but I don't think this is happening here. Even if it is, its fair to say we've gotten a lot from raspi.
This needs to be seen in the broader context of peak everything and peak Moore's law in particular.
Windows 11 can't run on Skylake from 2016, Windows 7 can't run on Kabylake from 2017.
The model is broken because it is based on eternal growth, the lightbulb needs to break after 1000 hours!
So when the foundation released the 4th version at 2 Gflops/W it was the end of the model. Apples M1 pushes this to 2.5 Gflops/W at 5x the density, it's game over!
Now we need to build open software on this hardware without expecting more performance for free.
This is the end but also only the beginning because now you don't have to chase the ghost of eternal progress, you know the playing field and it is available to almost everyone!
So stop waisting your time on giving it to someone else and build something for eternity?
For me this means going back to basics: HTTP, DNS, SMTP, OpenGL (ES) 3 and sticking with those in the face of "progress"!
134 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 164 ms ] threadVery unsurprising.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28773122
Seems a bit contradictory with recent events at HQ.
But this is closer to a for-profit hospital conversion on steroids, where the driver becomes the profit, not the the charity. There’s a very obvious conflict of interest between the charity, management, and the public investors, which could turn into a carnival for lawyers.
Disclaimer: I am an investment neophyte, would love to be corrected or expanded upon.
[1] https://kb.bimpactassessment.net/en/support/solutions/articl...
It is interesting to think of this under US law since non profits are regulated heavily, but its not really that absurd
The US version would require reducing shareholdings to below 35% or 20% - depending on what kind of foundation/nonprofit it actually was registered as, and what kind of decision making is being done. It wouldn't be unrelated business income tax it would be excess business holdings tax which I think can be way worse of an excise tax, up to 200%
I thought the whole idea was to produce boards, priced near cost, for educational/inspirational purposes? ie to give today's kids the same kind of intro to computers (you have to program it) as kids enjoyed with the home computers of the 80's.
The profit motive inherent to a public company does not seem compatible with that mission.
RPi has been structure as a for profit company owned by the charity for a long time. This IPO may result in a huge amount of money for that charity. It also doesn't say how much of a stake their selling. The charity may retain the majority share and so continue to have control along with a vast capital reserve to continue doing what they're doing plus a lot more.
I'm sure that an IPO would result in the charity getting cash but the aim does not seem to be that.
Now, the good thing is of course that the accounts of the foundation are public [1]. I am not impressed that only about 10% of their income goes to "charitable activities".
[1] https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/chari...
The point being that, approximately, for every £10 that they get through donations or any other source, £9 goes to costs and £1 to actual charitable activities. Personally I would not donate to such a charity.
From the accounts I linked they received a bit over £3.5m in donations that year (they're listed in two different places one around £400k the other around £3.1m I don't know why they're accounted differently), spending £7.8m on charitable activities that same year. So in a sense they're managing to double their donations via their profitable trading to generate money for charitable activity spending.
The other 90% gets classed as 'fund-raising', what is actually is is money going into raspberry pi trading. rpi trading made a profit of around £10m which goes back as income into the charity and has mostly been spent on charitable activities.
I'm not an accountant and don't have time to go over the details to check but it appears that the charity gets all sales income. This then goes to the trading arm to pay for its expenses, leaving a profit which goes straight back to the charity. The majority of which is being spent on their charitable activities, which moderate sums presumably being kept back to aid reserve building.
Trading exists to make the charity money, money the charity then spends on its charitable aims.
If the commercial subsidiary is here to make them money then it should appear under "income", not "expenditure", and it probably does just not explicitly in that pie chart (it's probably under 'other' or 'other trading activities').
Expenditure is what the charity spends its money on, that is, costs (offices, personel, fund-raising activities, etc) and charitable activities. Anyone donating to a charity wants as much money as possible going to charitable activities.
We could look at another charity to compare. Off the top of my head, a famous one I know is Crisis (homeless charity) [1]: Record shows 50%+ of income spent on charitable activities, which does make Raspberry Pi Foundation's numbers look quite unimpressive.
[1] https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/chari...
> If the trading arm is there to make them money then it should appear under "income", not "expenditure"
It does see page 15 (PDF page 17), the foundation lists an income of £71,436,388 from 'Other trading activities', if you follow the note (3) it clarifies that this is entirely from rpi trading.
A bunch of money then goes on to expenditure to cover the trading arm's costs. Which are indeed substantial as it's an engineering organization with lots of production to pay for along with staff salaries and other R&D costs, these are broken down in note 6, page 28 (PDF page 30).
The profit the trading arm makes then comes back to the foundation which is shown in note 5, page 27 (PDF page 29) as 'other income'
So yes it is a little complex, you've got the flow of revenue coming into the foundation, out to trading then back in again but it doesn't look like there's any untoward going on. Simply the charity is taking the strategy of running a profit making company to fund its charitable activities.
Considering that the raspberry pi product is developed by the commercial subsidiary and sold commercial this at best muddies the water, and is very misleading.
Companies have some leeway in how to interpret this goal, but publicly traded companies will only ever do the "right thing" if it is a net positive (or at least neutral) for their shareholders.
Owners of privately owned companies, on the other hand, can choose to do things they believe are good, even if it will be a net negative after factoring in the potential good PR.
We're in a segment of time where companies are so over-valued by VC that when they go public they have no choice but to engage in egregious practices to maintain the stock price. It often alienates the customers/users/supporters that got them there.
Is this the inevitable outcome in all cases or is this a symptom of a flaw in our model?
venture communism instead of venture capitalism?
peer-to-peer communism instead of the client server state?
http://media.telekommunisten.net/manifesto.pdf
The aggregation of power into some kind of central authority system for the good of the people always ends up bad for the people.
You will find that this sentiment is quite popular among communists these days. The idea of achieving a classless, stateless society via the use of a central state is inherently contradictory. (Though that's not to say that the alternatives are necessarily more realistic)
It's just the wannabe communists who are still silly enough to think they'll get it right this time.
I cannot. It seems to be the inevitable end of that form of government.
`Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state. Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism. Communists agree on the withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state.`
Because it is, and you explained exactly why:
>We're in a segment of time where companies are so over-valued by VC that when they go public they have no choice but to engage in egregious practices to maintain the stock price. It often alienates the customers/users/supporters that got them there.
We know it sucks, but gotta get yours while you can right?
The problem seems to be that "investment" these days is all about selling to someone else at a higher price. Stock performance has decoupled from company value but people still try to "meet expectations" anyway.
One driver is low interest rates. Another is the 401k plans in the US where every middle-class employee is systematically pushing money into the market. this provides an ultimate sucker for every VC to sell to since the end-game is to IPO at astronomical valuations.
Tech industry examples:
NISC, makes software for electric and telecom cooperatives (disclosure, I am a new employee here)
Tessitura, makes software for event ticket sales
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
or just buy any amount of stock, and be a normal shareholder - go to the meetings and make your voice heard?
if enough of us even owned the minimum 1 share, the foundation / company would be in a better place
You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period. I am not sure where the vilification of profit comes from (not addressing you in particular but rather the general concept), its just silly.
Companies have layers upon layers of costs in their financial equation. Employees and ongoing operational expenses being the easiest to understand. If you operate without profit, the company dies. The simplest visual for this might be that if no-profit means zero dollars in the bank account at the end of the year. After all, "no profit" or operation "near cost" would result in exactly this kind of a situation. Which would, in turn, kill the enterprise almost instantly.
If you want a company to produce and evolve products (any kind, physical or otherwise), it must be profitable. Without profit there is no innovation or longevity. At best you get a slow painful death.
In addition to this, the pandemic has to have taught everyone the other dimension of the necessity of profit. When things go wrong --for whatever reason, pandemic, economic downturn, market shifts, etc.-- a business must have sufficient financial backing, reserves and strength to navigate the storm and survive. Without this they would have to instantly lay off massive numbers of employees, shut down operations, cancel leases and contracts, etc.
In short, if you (plural, not addressing the poster I am responding to) care a company --whether it is cause driven or just a good product company-- you have to care about them making a profit or watch them evaporate.
Here's a challenge for anyone who does not believe this:
Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list.
Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives.
Most restaurants. Many did, indeed, "instantly lay off massive numbers of employees, shut down operations, cancel leases and contracts, etc." during the pandemic as a result.
Amazon made basically no profit for two decades, as a fairly notable example. Every penny earned got plowed back into the business. Lots of revenue, lots of expenses, no profit. It wasn't until recently they turned the profit spigot on. https://www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-...
Uber didn't make its first profitable quarter for a decade. https://www.reuters.com/technology/uber-posts-first-small-ad...
I think you're mixing up profits with revenue. A charity that brings in $1M and spends $1M has no profit, but they can (theoretically) remain a going concern indefinitely at that rate.
Restaurants: Shitty business. Most are constantly gasping for air. Yet, they do make a profit, which they use to hire people, pay for supplies, rent, etc. and keep the doors open. If they do not make a profit their choices are reduced to two simple paths: Close the doors or go get money (loan or investor). A lot of restaurant operators are up to their necks in loans, second mortgages, etc.
In many ways restaurants are the best example of why good profits are important. Those who do not generate substantial profits are nothing but a brutal slog. Those who do, thrive, grow and expand.
Amazon: C'mon. Please. They plowed PROFITS back into the business. Their annual net revenue was zero or near zero for a long time. It should be way beyond self-evident that you can't grow a business like Amazon without profits. Are you suggesting Amazon grew WITHOUT PROFITS? Seriously?
What I post does not come from a 30 second google session. It comes from having had significant skin in the game, succeeding and failing. Most people think they understand business. And most people have never run a non-trivial business. It's like trying to explain what it is like to fly like a bird without being a bird. Most simply can't get it because they have no context whatsoever.
When things go bad and you have to mortgage your home and top-off your credit cards to keep people employed and keep the doors open, you understand things you cannot possibly comprehend any other way. I've been there.
Be well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=uber+first+profit
https://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+first+profit
make it fairly clear how people use the terms.
A nonprofit wants to donate $600K to feed children.
It will cost $400K in operating expenses to be able to do this.
They need to generate $1MM in revenue and $400K in profits in order to be able to make use of $600K in support of their cause. Without this "profit" there is no nonprofit and no support for the cause. It is profit.
One way to define profit is something like what you have left after delivering a product. This hypothetical nonprofit takes in $1MM, delivers $600K in product and has $400K in profit that is used for operating expenses and (likely) to put money away for future needs, growth, etc.
Profit is necessary. We might not call it profit when it comes to these types of organizations, yet they cannot exist without this part of the equation. Call it what you want. They have to make more than they spend --a lot more-- or they cease to exist.
Also, in the US nonprofits are not banned from making what one might term conventional profit. They just can't distribute it. This means they can put money away and grow like crazy. Look at the mega-churches in Texas as a perfect example. If that not profit, I don't know what is.
Salaries of people doing the work are costs, not profits, and so on.
Here's an interesting article on nonprofit pay:
https://www.causeiq.com/insights/highest-paid-nonprofit-ceos...
From the article:
"The highest-paid nonprofit leaders — CEOs, Executive Directors, etc. — all earn at least $900k per year, and into the tens of millions for the largest of hospitals and health systems. While the highest-paid nonprofit CEOs are in healthcare and financial services, things get more interesting when we look at normal charities."
It's interesting that Financial institutions and categories such as "Promotion of Business" are listed in their survey. Nobody imagines an entity promoting the use of petroleum as a nonprofit. Most people think of churches and benevolent community organizations ("feed the X") as nonprofits. Nobody thinks hospitals, oil companies, credit unions, insurance, etc.
I call a lot of their overhead "profit" because, in this day and age, It feels obscene that an organization purporting to "help the X" would need to consume 40% of revenues, own/lease lavish buildings, etc. to deploy the capital they receive. How many on HN could setup a system that could administer, say, a hundred million dollars in donation while consuming just, say, 5% of that to run the show? My guess is many.
If you read through the list of nonprofit CEO salaries on that page you should get a good sense of where my perspective come from. This is profit. We call it something else. Fine. To me this is the individuals running the organization extracting profit from an organization under the cloak of a legal classification with a benevolent sounding name. Who doesn't have a soft spot for anyone who operates without making a profit? Right?
Well...let's look at CEO pay:
The point is, these are profitable pursuits. The profit goes to the people who work there, likely mostly to upper management. If they were scrappy idealistic not-for-profit organizations they would not be paying CEO's and the first layer or two under them tens of millions of dollars.Another way to look at it:
Profit is what you use to run the organization. It's a percentage of revenue available for this purpose. It is important to understand the difference between gross and net profit.
I buy a blender from a wholesaler for $10 and sell it at retail for $20. My gross profit is $10. My net profit takes into account all the other costs, the ones that are required for the organization to exist. If that boils down to $5 per unit, the net profit is $5 per unit or, 25% of gross income.
In the case of an organization classified as a "nonprofit", things are different. They don't generally sell anything (well, hospitals and others do). They get a million dollars gross income from whatever activities. It could be donations. In the case of the company that promotes the use of petroleum, it is likely to be large membership fees paid by oil companies. For hospitals it is whatever they bill for services. Etc. That's their gross income. From that they have fixed costs in the form of buildings, lease...
A friend of mind died in 2009 from the sheer stress this moment in history caused him as his business crumbled. That December I penned an email from the darkest place I have ever been. One that was prompted by a revelation I had that day: I experienced a level of clarity I had never before experienced. In a moment, I understood, in no uncertain terms, why someone would commit suicide, jump off a bridge, walk in front of a train or shoot themselves due to undue business pressure and financial troubles. I emailed a friend to let him know I now understood this. I wasn't quite there, but, for some strange reason, I had to share. He drove to my office and spent the rest of the day with me.
So, yeah, I don't know what to say to someone like you. My less-than-intellectual impulse is to deliver the most vile insult I could. Yet, that would mean descending to a level I am not interested in visiting.
I'll leave you with this: I hope you never get to experience some of what many entrepreneurs have to live through when things take a turn for the worse. If you do, I hope the experience humbles you and you become a nicer person.
Be well.
There is a difference between making a profit and maximizing profit. A publicly traded company is legally bound to do the latter.
That's a lie.
There is NO such legal requirement at all. None.
Google it.
Here's a starting point:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Are+U.S+companies+legally+ob...
https://apexlg.com/are-the-managers-of-traditional-corporati...
This is factually incorrect. Charities (at least in the UK) are legally prohibited from making a profit.
They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover these expenses. Right?
Well, this is semantics. A conventional business does exactly the same thing. They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover the cost of doing business.
Laws for non-profits generally allow for such things. Which makes sense, because they would not be able to survive without being able to slice off some "profit" to stay alive and grow.
If you've ever seen the massive church campuses in Texas you'd get a sense of the idea that this is, in fact, profit.
The range a typical nonprofit spends on administrative or operating expenses is wide. I would say that 40% isn't rare, with 25% being fairly common. This tracks with the profit margin of small to medium for-profit businesses. In fact, there are millions of for profit businesses that do not enjoy such margins.
The key legal distinction (at least in the US) seems to be that nonprofits cannot exist for the benefit of shareholders (no distributions). Other than that, they can easily spend 40% of what comes in on operations, grow cash in the bank and more.
Sure. Revenue minus expenses = profit/loss. "Net income", "bottom line", etc.
Make more than you expend, and you've got a profit. Spend more than you make, and you've got a loss. Equalize them, and you've got no profit and no loss.
Businesses can optimize for profit. Charities are allowed to have a profit, but they don't get to distribute it to shareholders like a business can; it stays with the charity. It's legal for a charity to have a rainy day fund and a positive bank balance, but their legal purpose is not to run it up.
Churches in the US get funky at times, and I'm of the opinion that the IRS should be empowered to crack down the abuses of the non-profit status you highlight, but if they're spending their revenue on buildings, staff, etc., they're eating into their profits when they do so.
The term "nonprofit" is a misnomer that might be the reason for this distinction, at least in the US. The term implies the idea of zero profit, which could not be farther from the truth.
You are right to highlight churches. I remember the first time I went to Texas on a sales call at one of the mega churches. The only way I can describe it was a campus with several buildings the size of a Home Depot and more. You do not do something like that without profit. People might want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that it isn't, because we legally call them "nonprofits". All we are doing is lying to ourselves. They make a ton of money. And we don't tax them.
I am sure there are churches and religious organizations who do a lot of great value for their communities. I also know there are tons who are there for "management" to live the life of the rich and famous. Not to go too far, my wife's mother worked for a church for a while. The head pastor owned several luxury cars, went on amazing trips to expensive resorts all over the world --all paid by the church-- and more. Profit.
Note I am not saying profit is inherently bad. We would not have most of the things we enjoy in modern life without profitable business pursuits. From clothing to medicine and everything in between, without profit, it would not exist. Can it be abused and misused? Of course. That is true for almost anything that is part of the human experience. We abuse food, power, the environment, other people, position, etc. All good things until they are abused, including profit.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29404841
Do you think the Vatican is profitable?
Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable?
Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say?
You see, we get lost in this legal "nonprofit" classification and fail to understand that a lot of these organizations exist for the profit (the enrichment) of either the individuals running them, associated commercial enterprises (oil companies) or both. If we refer to them as "X4132 organizations" (made-up name) we would have no emotional attachment or a mental model to go against what they actually do. When people hear "nonprofit" they think something like "feed the X" scrappy entities with idealistic workers and managers all eating ramen noodles to conserve every dime for their worthy cause. That is FAR from reality. Very far.
And that's why I tend to call it "profit". Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit, but it is hard to argue that a CEO taking 5%, 10%, 30%, 40% of revenue isn't actually the profit element of the organization. I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit. We might classify it some other way, but it isn't charity.
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Do you think that a nonprofit that pays their CEO 36% --yes THIRTY SIX PERCENT-- of revenue is profitable?
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Do you think that the American Petroleum Institute, which pays their CEO $11MM in salary (4.5% of revenue on $238MM in receipts) exists with a real non-profit objective despite what their balance sheet might say?
No idea. I'd have to take a look at their accounts.
> Yes, sure, this does not fit the technical definition of profit,
It is the opposite of profit. It is what you structure if you want to reduce your profit so you don't get taxed.
> I give the example of the lavish cars and trips for the pastor and management paid for by the church my mother in law used to work for. That's profit.
No, it isn't. It might be embezzlement, from the sounds of it.
I get the point that you are trying to make, but doing so by redefining common terms and hoping anyone is going to take it seriously strikes me as remarkably unlikely to succeed. The word you are looking for is not "profit", it is "enrichment", as you say here. They are not the same. Words matter.
Well, then you lack a sufficient exposure to business that is required to understand what I am talking about. It's like someone who never built a brick wall arguing with a master mason and actually believing they understand the craft because they googled a few things. That's OK, most people are in your shoes. As my wife loves to say "A google search isn't a substitute for my medical degree". The same applies to understanding business. No worries.
I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that. I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet.
Anyhow, here's the good part.
Ready?
You don't have to agree with me.
Done deal.
Have a great day.
Incorrect. I understand perfectly what you are talking about. You do not have privileged knowledge. You just aren't saying what you think you are. Your words and your meaning are misaligned, apparently intentionally.
You came into this thread with this:
> You cannot have any kind of a company without profit. Period.
That was your opening gambit. It was factually incorrect then, it relied on your being able to emotionally manipulate readers into taking a different understanding of "profit" than any of them likely did, and all you've done since is alienate people from your core point by talking nonsense and claiming to be better than them.
Where did you expect this comment to go?
> Provide the names of ten companies of non-trivial scale who have operated with zero or near zero profit for, say, 25 years, without external donations or other financial inputs to make-up for the lack of profit. Just ten companies. If I am wrong, it should not be too hard to present such a list. > Hint: Even charities have to operate at a profit. Without this they would not have people, offices, marketing and the means to perform their stated charitable objectives.
It is literally, trivially, obviously wrong, and you've said nothing prior or since to change that other than try to crowbar in irrelevancies about what you think a specific form of legal entity should be allowed to do.
> I am not in the habit of posting comments about things I don't know anything about. I just don't do that.
And yet here we are. You may have a point. I may even agree with it. But the way that you are expressing it does not come across as good-faith in the slightest.
> I have done business with people with direct experience working with and through the Vatican, either as direct customers or intermediaries. The only thing I'll say is: The Mafia are amateurs compared to some of the shit that organization has in its history. And I am only talking about the financial part of their closet.
So what? That makes precisely zero difference to the definition of profit. It does not answer the question of whether the Vatican makes any. Is it a grasping, rapacious, self-aggrandising, amoral organisation? You probably have an answer to that. It is utterly irrelevant to the question of profit.
> You don't have to agree with me.
Quite. As someone once said: you are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Yes, of course, the accepted definition of profit does not align with what I have presented. That much is obvious.
And yet, "nonprofits" like the American Petroleum Institute, the National Rifle Association and many others exist precisely for profit in two forms. In some cases it is for the enrichment of those who run the organization. There, I used a different word. Happy? In other scenarios, they exist to generate massive profits --sometimes in the billions of dollars-- for supporters. If I remember correctly, the American Petroleum Institute generates some $250 million dollars a year in revenues. These are not $25 donations from Bernie supporters. These are massive membership fees paid for by the oil companies for which this organization works to generate billions in profits.
Disagree as much as you'd like with my out-of-the norm take on the realities of how nonprofits have devolved. The difference is you are bound by the dictionary definition of a word. I am looking at the realities on the street.
Seriously, it is naïve to actually believe these companies are not for profit. The mechanisms abound. A church purchasing manager gives a lucrative multi-million dollar contract to a contractor in exchange for under the table kickbacks. This crap happens all the time. The Vatican has done this kind of thing in transactions worth tens of millions of dollars while servicing as the financial arm for the buildout of television stations in Africa. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and a single-point dictionary definition of a single word is the extent of what you will look at as evidence to fight the idea that the nonprofit thing is seriously broken. But, hey, you are right, the word is defined precisely as you indicate. Good job.
Some guy gets paid ten million dollars to sign over checks to feed the children and you think that's overhead. I think it is an abuse of the system that, while not currently legally defined as such, should be classified as profit. And taxed accordingly. Better yet, it should be capped and the children should get more money.
Since you seem fond of little intelligent-sounding sayings, here's one that's applicable:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
Nonprofits: In practice, they are not. Not all of them.
BTW, I actually help run a small --real-- nonprofit. We setup a legal nonprofit organization to fund a local high school robotics team. We take-in donations and spend the money to pay for anything the kids need (usually tool, parts, etc.). Fully 100% of the money we receive (about $25K per year) is spent on what the kids need. 100%. Not a single penny goes towards anything else (OK, the occasional bank fee is another expense). Every mentor is a volunteer and most of us are actually donors as well. That's a real nonprofit, in the full sense of the word. Because nobody within the organization derives any kind of financial profit from it. There are no conflicts of interest whatsoever, no murky lines. Not sure what "nonprofits" who consume 40% of revenues should be called.
> They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover these expenses. Right?
> Well, this is semantics. A conventional business does exactly the same thing. They take a percentage of their income and use it to cover the cost of doing business.
Yes, and in neither the case of the charity nor of the conventional business is that profit. That is operating costs, and gets deducted from revenue before tax is paid on what's left precisely because it is not profit.
As for the same intro to computers as the 1980s, you can give kids a trash PC and monitor running Linux for less than a whole RPi setup these days and that probably has a better e-waste and environmental outcome too. Oh and the HDMI connector won’t suddenly fall off or the SD card go awry.
The mission of the raspberry pi foundation is to leverage the rose tinted glasses of the past to push a marketing ideology that overlaps with the maker ideology. Everyone can build a business from marketing and label it as “for the greater good” with such tags as affordable computing tied to it.
Prior to marketing fronts like this existing, there was already significant interest in parties doing stuff like we did in the 80s. Everyone I knew had a PC with a parallel port with some random junk hanging off it. Some really weird people still had Amigas held together with tape. I was programming PIC microcontrollers off a cranky old Pentium 90 I found in a skip outside work.
That's BBC Micro: https://microbit.org/
The Foundation is funded on the sales of Raspberry Pi hardware, government contracts and charitable donations. More sales directly benefit the charity. This allows us to:
- Run the world's largest network of coding clubs for children, for free.
- Produce educational resources for schools and clubs all over the world, for free.
- Conduct research into CS pedagogy.
- Provide Pi 400s and monitors to disadvantaged learners in England.
- Support educators all over the world with free physical and digital publications.
I know nothing about an IPO of RPTL, other than what I've read in the media, but I can guarantee you that RPF will continue to be a non-profit charity, and continue with it's mission.
Call me cynical, but you are absolutely clueless. Once shareholders are involved (especially public) the management will be changed. This lovely piece appeared about a week ago here on HN:
https://reactionwheel.net/2021/11/your-boards-of-directors-i...
The RPi founders will be sacked in favor of profits. All those charitable things done for free will be stopped. The $35 Pi - nobody will mind if we raise that to $50. All sorts of things will change. Maybe not immediately, but they will change. The profit motive goes directly against the notion of a "non-profit" organization. Shareholders want ROI. End of story, end of Pi as we know it.
The argument "oh but the capital will allow all kinds of investments that will decrease the price in the long run" almost never holds up. Maybe it does in RPI's case, their innovation was supply chain based, after all. But my personal expectation, since a for profit company's interest is to extract as much profit add possible, is that RPI boards will move upmarket and become the premium option with an ecosystem advantage. Their position to do this is already quite good, they're basically already there. But the increased prices will also mean that companies operating on lower margins will become stronger - the Pine64s of the world.
That's the "bad case". The "good case" would be that they'll operate with low margins and compensate with scale and keep the educational stuff as marketing expenses. But that's hard to imagine.
I'm somewhat okay with either. Luckily the competition in the segment is healthy nowadays.
this has never been a "publicly" run company in the way you describe it. It has always been a private limited company.
The issue of concern here is that it is going from a private limited company where the shareholders are mostly to do with the rpi foundation, meaning that there is some chance that all the profit generated goes back to the foundation.
If its a public company, unless there are strict rules, it'll be open to shareholders buying control and changing the purpose of the trading company to something other than a tool to generate income for the foundation.
However thats not a given yet. I really hope that its something that is beneficial to the foundation.
If 100% of trading is going in the IPO then I think your predictions will be right on the money.
If the foundation retains the majority share and we're seeing 30/40% go to the IPO then it doesn't really matter how much profit the shareholders are demanding, the foundation can just continue to run things as it sees fit. Though the foundation may worry about the stock price tanking of course and still do what the shareholders demand.
Are you kidding? They clashes might be free for kids, but they can get charity donations, governmental donations, and it’s essentially a “buy our product” class. It’s great value for minor expense.
I see a lot of doubt in this thread, and while some of it seems to come from a confusion of the two entities, the rest seems to acknowledge their separation, but doubt that it will protect the foundation in the long run.
So, what would interest me would be how funding & staffing of the foundation works, if there are arrangements to ensure access to low-price material for the activities you list and such.
Edit: a link to an FAQ or such will do just nicely of course ;)
"The Raspberry Pi Foundation, formed in 2009, is a registered charity with a goal of putting “the power of computing and digital making into the hands of people all over the world.” The famous eponymous SBC was designed to be affordable and champion programming in schools, hoping to repeat the home computer boom of the 1980s. Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd is a wholly-owned subsidiary responsible for the engineering and trading operations of the foundation."
There are two[1] companies registered, the foundation, which is the oldest, and the trading company.
From what I can see the foundation appear to get a significant portion of the profits from the trading company: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
so long as that continues, then everything will be fine.
I think it's quite clear this is not the case. They have plenty of clearly business oriented board designs like these:
https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/compute-module-4/?varia...
Teach the kids Raspberry Pi and then they'll know Raspberry Pi and hopefully push to use it in their jobs 10 years later or whatever. Maybe that's the idea (too)?
I have no links whatsoever to any RPi organisation of any sort, so this is purely guesswork, but I could imagine that operations have grown to the point where they are interfering with (or at least a distraction from) their original educational mission.
Perhaps this move is to offload that distraction and allow them to re-focus on the original idea?
Why must it be assumed that this is a greedy move that works against their mission?
I am not sure, I can only hope; but I would really love them to be a Frame.work competitor with their established logistics and reach. Possibly cheaper as well. Maybe not as high end.
Because it might be years before something like Framework reaches places like my country (if they don’t go bust by then)
I'm going to use up the hardware I bought in ignorance, and find better stuff for the future.
https://github.com/raspberrypi/documentation/issues/347
It makes sense that a bunch of ex-Broadcom engineers looking to make a cheap computer to educate children would use their connections at Broadcom to get an old cheap SoC. The closed schematics and bootloader do not matter to teaching kids scratch and python. I guess it isn't surprising that they haven't changed course since they've been so successful, but it is disappointing.
Compare with the BeagleBone Black, which contains the complete design:
https://github.com/beagleboard/beaglebone-black/blob/master/...
The schematics aren't so much the issue. It's the lack of documentation for the SoC and other components.
The Raspberry Pi is a great learning platform and I think the Raspberry Pi foundation made the right choice in using the Broadcom parts, even if they are relatively closed. The vast majority of end users aren't using the platform for anything that requires access to the low-level, undocumented parts. Keeping the cost to a minimum was the right choice, IMO.
If someone needed low-level access to the SoC, choosing a Raspberry Pi wouldn't be the right choice anyway, schematics or not.
Exactly; they're basically reselling discount (or below cost) Broadcom SOCs. I'm pretty sure Broadcom will not continue that arrangement!
Why even is there a trading company? Seems random. Why not the Raspberry Pi Coffee Growers Association, or the Raspberry Pi Law Firm?
1. the act or process of buying, selling, or exchanging commodities, at either wholesale or retail, within a country or between countries: 2. the act of buying, selling, or exchanging stocks, bonds, or currency:
Given that the trading arm is there entirely to fund the learning bit, I would be surprised that they would float effectively giving away the profit stream needed to run the education part.
There are plenty of competitors making higher and lower end alternatives now at varying degrees of open source, in my opinion the mission has been extremely accomplished for years now.
The Foundation:
> Raspberry Pi Foundation is a registered charity in England and Wales (1129409). Registered as a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No.06758215. Registered office: Raspberry Pi Foundation, 37 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 1NT.
> For filings related to the Raspberry Pi Foundation North America 501(c)(3) charity, please contact us.
The computer designer/manufacturer/seller:
> Raspberry Pi (Trading) Limited. Registered as a company No.08207441 Registered office: Maurice Wilkes Building, St. John’s Innovation Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0DS.
So the for-profit Raspberry Pi (Trading) may IPO, and I assume that the Raspberry Pi Foundation is a major shareholder, if not the owner of greater than 50% of outstanding shares after an IPO.
I’ll hope it’s so they can drive a more open SoC and peripherals.
I suppose it’s also possible the charity sees “tiny affordable computer” as done, has checked it off their list and plans to use money to purse their goals in other ways.
Is Raspberry Pi Foundation an entity or sub-entity of Raspberry Pi Trading, or just an affiliated organisation where Ebon Upton has roles in both organisations?
Or would the Foundation then have to divest of its ownership of Raspberry Pi Trading once it is listed?
Mozilla Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation.
The quality of comments in this thread is well below the minimum HN standards.
If you look back, you can see where Upton and friends are good stewards of the raspi foundation (separate).
hn community is so used to companies being two-faced and kicking the ladder out when they "make it", but I don't think this is happening here. Even if it is, its fair to say we've gotten a lot from raspi.
Windows 11 can't run on Skylake from 2016, Windows 7 can't run on Kabylake from 2017.
The model is broken because it is based on eternal growth, the lightbulb needs to break after 1000 hours!
So when the foundation released the 4th version at 2 Gflops/W it was the end of the model. Apples M1 pushes this to 2.5 Gflops/W at 5x the density, it's game over!
Now we need to build open software on this hardware without expecting more performance for free.
This is the end but also only the beginning because now you don't have to chase the ghost of eternal progress, you know the playing field and it is available to almost everyone!
So stop waisting your time on giving it to someone else and build something for eternity?
For me this means going back to basics: HTTP, DNS, SMTP, OpenGL (ES) 3 and sticking with those in the face of "progress"!