You "have a dim recollection of the [H] article about the Phantom, and recall skimming over it at some point" and then you write a 20 paragraph treatise on why its all wrong?

Kyle wasn't just bitching about vaporware, he was bitching about a company that is run by a scam artist and is defrauding investors.

Point taken...:) I've really got to start cutting back on the coffee. It's just that decaf just tastes bad, I think, or maybe that's just me...Yes, I originally had one or two thoughts in mind here, and wound up thinking of two additional points every time I made one--and the coffee pot was full and my cup was running over--and when that happens sometimes 20 paragraphs seem like two. Heh--my poor fingers...

Anyway, this issue was never a hot button for me, either because of the Phantom (consoles aren't of much interest to me generally), or because of the personality involved, of whom I know absolutely nothing.

But I did recall reading the article, and when I said I felt sorry for the target of the attack at the end, that was genuinely all I remembered about it.

The thing about about fraud is that it's not merely a civil offense the perpetrator can be sued over, it's very much a criminal offense which can land the perpetrator in jail. So one of the basic things I'd expect to see in a case of investor fraud is lawsuits and indictments against the person accused of the fraud, instigated by the defrauded investors. (Kind of like how ex-Enron officers are being tried and are going to jail these days.) Has the head of the Phantom console company been indicted, and is he being sued by his former investors? That's exactly what I'd expect to see in a case of investor fraud.

As to the issue not being about vaporware, it's difficult to follow that thought as if the Phantom had become solid at some point and shipped, there would be no basis on which to speculate that his investors were defrauded, right? It seems to me the whole story is very much about vaporware in that respect.

Overall, though, there are some missing pieces to the whole story. It always sounded somewhat skewed to me from the beginning. First of all, I cannot imagine a VC company anywhere on earth foolish enough to think that a mere $25M (assuming of course that there is any validity or relevance to this number) would be enough for any company anywhere to launch a console challenge from scratch to the likes of Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo, because that would be exactly the competition such an endeavor would face. I would imagine such an enterprise would be impossible commercially even if a company started with $250M, or ten times the reported amount. So even the $25M alleged investment in this case, for the purported purpose of manufacturing the Phantom, is suspect on that basis alone, as far as I am concerned.

To me, even the name "Phantom" for a console seems an odd choice, as it seems to be an affectation which is quite deliberate on the part of the people who coined it, and quite specific in its symbology. The Phantom may indeed from the beginning never have been planned as anything more than a literal phantom, never destined to materialize.

But why? Since all of this is idle speculation, a possibility that occurs to me is that the Phantom company was working directly with a group of people calling themselves "venture capitalists" for the sole purpose of laundering some money, and the dummy company was set up quite deliberately for that purpose, with the full knowledge of everyone concerned, including the so-called investors. That strikes me as just as plausible as conceiving of a group of genuine venture capitalists so brain dead as to hand someone a $25M cashier's check with the expectation they'd see a new gaming console enter the market long-dominated by Sony, M$, and Nintendo.

In my own limited experience with some vc firms in the past, I've noted that they tend to oversee the expenditure of the funds they invest closely, and that they tend to dole it out over time in installments, and that continued investments depend on milestones being reached on schedule. As such, it's difficult to see how someone might grab $3M from a vc firm to build a house, or anything like that, unless that was A-OK with the investing firm. The speculation here as it applies to investor fraud seems to be that the so-called investors simply handed the Phantom company $25M in cash with no legal contracts in force between the parties as to how the money could be spent, and no disbursement mechanisms in place to protect the interests of the investors. It seems unlikely to me.

Oh, here I am rambling on yet !...;) OK, suffice to say I think there is a lot more here than immediately meets the eye, and that I think this is the danger of looking at the relationships between investors and firms and making assumptions about those relationships based on speculation, instead from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Basically, I think the interaction between private companies and private investment firms is, well, a private matter, and it is up to any of the parties directly involved in those matters to decide whether or not they've been defrauded by the others and to decide upon the appropriate course of action in response. As it is, the only public involvement I have seen here is that of a vaporware product announcement by a specific company, the officers of which are known. It strikes me that a public vaporware product announcement is probably not the best route for a career con artist to take, since it is likely to seriously undercut his future efforts towards investor bilking...;)

I'm a survivor of Silicon Valley. I've seen things like this before (RealPC, anyone?). I know that VCs are smarter than that nowadays, especially after dot.Bomb. There is no possible way Infinium could have $25 mil with credentials like that. Personally, I believe Mr. Roberts to be a complete fraud, luring unsuspecting venture capitalists with tales of El Dorado, squandering their money on himself ("$3 million dollar house"), and hiding behind bankruptcy when the kitchen gets too hot (past business record). People like this actually flourished.
3 and a half years ago.
Not today.

That was the most unbiased news article I've come across in any form of media in 20 years. All research was listed and quoted. There wasn't even an attempt at spin, and even the last part was presented as opinion (certainly a valid opinion considering the findings). What I got from the article were documented, published facts and a vague feeling of disappointment from the author. Not much else.

If HardOC reported normal, everyday news like that, they'd utterly destroy CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNBC, MSNBC, CIAtv, and all the other alphabet networks. Nobody needs, or wants, drama in their news.

HardOCP has more than enough legal right behind them to protect their source(s)' confidentiality.

Sources?? Whats all this argument over sources about? They list all the sources in the article. Their sources are just other articles, web-pages, or from direct interviews. The rest of the articles sources is HardOCP's opinion that the company is a risky investment thrown in with pictures of vaporous offices.

and then you write a 20 paragraph treatise on why its all wrong?

lol

------
Leading the "Support our Arrow keys" movement!

You "have a dim recollection of the [H] article about the Phantom, and recall skimming over it at some point" and then you write a 20 paragraph treatise on why its all wrong?

Kyle wasn't just bitching about vaporware, he was bitching about a company that is run by a scam artist and is defrauding investors.

I have a dim recollection of the [H] article about the Phantom, and recall skimming over it at some point--maybe out of boredom. I can't recall much about it, except for wondering at the end as to the point of the whole thing.

Kyle's posturing about the Phantom console (aptly named, it seems) seemed very strange because, essentially, Kyle was ranting and raving, frothing at the mouth (figuratively, of course), in his typical, righteously indignant, Internet-trademark persona, over *vaporware.*

The thing about vaporware (defined for those unfamiliar with term as "hardware which has been announced, but not shipped")is that nobody who is a potential consumer of the product ever gets hurt financially from vaporware because they've never spent any money on it....;) The only conceivable "damage" to consumers from vaporware is dashed expectations and disappointment, but it's certainly not as if consumers are in any danger of being ripped off by products they can't buy in the first place. So, obviously, it wasn't the general public Kyle was trying to protect with the article, since it isn't necessary to protect consumers from products they are unable to buy.

So, I really couldn't say what Kyle's motivation was in relation to this article, but I can say that it wasn't done to protect the consumer's interests, since vaporware is no threat because there is nothing for the consumer to consume, and hence no possibility exists for financial damage.

Kyle's pattern over the years is basically that if a company "pisses him off" about something, they are likely to wind up the target of one of Kyle's diatribes on the [H] front page. I've never known with Kyle, though, whether he's actually pissed off in these cases, or whether he just looks for pretexts calculated to provide him with a justification for sermonizing and lecturing on topics which do not directly concern the interests of [H]or its readership. Only Kyle knows the answer here, of course...;)

At any rate, I actually felt some sympathy for the person Kyle attacked in his Phantom article--that's actually the main thing I recall from reading it at the time. The companies that announce products and are then unable to ever ship them are the people actually damaged by their vaporware.

Nobody has to worry about protecting venture capitalists from making bad investments, either...;) Heh..;) They are big boys with big money to throw around into various technology seeds here and there, always hoping that one of those seeds will sprout and flower into something very profitable for them, as the one project that succeeds will pay for the ten projects into which they invest that fail. It's all a numbers game with the VC's. (Talk about high-profile investment in vaporware technology, I can't think of a better example than the BitBoys and "Glaze3d," or whatever their particular vapoware was called. I never heard so much as a plaintive peep out the invisible investors behind the BitBoys, though, when the project finally gave up the ghost. Indeed, I'd have been surprised if I had, since such investors know the odds and risks going in. It's a routine part of their business model.)

Clearly, then, Kyle's "expose'" of the Phantom console served neither the buying public (who can't buy a Phantom even if they'd like) nor any alleged investors who may have put money behind it (as such people know the risks well before they invest.) So what *was* the purpose?

This leads me in this case to one of my pet peeves concerning the quality of Internet technology journalism in general: the authors of technology articles often make far too many assumptions without knowing, or caring, if those assumptions are correct and valid. In this case, it should be SOP for Kyle, or anyone else contemplating a similar kind of article, to contact the parties he's writing about prior to publication and ask them any questions he might have about murky or gray or vague areas relating to either the company or its products that are the subject of the upcoming article.

For instance, if Kyle had emailed or phoned the Phantom people and simply asked them the following, much light could have been shed on the subject:

"I'm concerned to see at this point in time that your publicized Phantom console is still not shipping. Could you explain the delay for the purposes of my article by providing me with an attributable quote? Or, if for some reason you have had to cancel production of the Phantom, I'd like to know that and will use any attributable quotes you'd care to give me on the subject. The same goes for any new, positive information you might have on the Phantom that you'd care to divulge, of course. Your contribution to my upcoming article on the Phantom is needed and relevant, so please, if at all possible, don't put me in the position of having to write in the article that I asked but you didn't answer...:) I plan to publish one week from today. Thanks much for your help."

Of course, if the subject of such a request declines to answer, then you can explain that in your article, which might underscore any conclusions you reach in the article. And if he answers with quotes he allows you to use in the article, then you have some real meat for the article, and you can take it from there. This kind of thing should be SOP for all Internet technology sites similar to [H].

I just can't see any point whatever to writing an "expose'" kind of article which depends entirely on infomation obtained from sources other than the company which is the focus of the article. It's fine to use 3rd-party commentary to give the story depth and to flesh it out, but only if it surrounds commentary that comes directly from the company in question, and which deals specifically with the core issues raised in the article.

I think it's pretty bad to speculate about and criticize a company for its vaporware, as the fact that their product has turned into vapoware is embarrassing enough, and of course is an obvious indication of some difficulty for the company in executing its announced plans. I think it's much like kicking someone when he's down. I mean, it's almost as if Kyle has never heard of vaporware before and finds the concept morally repugnant. It's a fairly common event among technology companies, though, and it's never prosecuted because the people who sell vaporware hurt only themselves in the process.





This comment was edited on Feb 20, 11:16.

Proof that the truth hurts I'd say...



------
Leading the "Support our Arrow keys" movement!

<Sniper eats his gold star>

BUUUURP!

<nin slaps gold star on right nipple, prepares to pull a Janet>

Hold onto your lunches, boys! It's time for Wardrobe Malfunction A-Go-Go...:D




http://www.depechemode.com/
This comment was edited on Feb 20, 09:06.

Handing out 'lil gold star stickers to everybody

I'll put mine on my forehead.

Thanks!



-TPFKAS2S
http://www.braglio.com

...I do have to say that it certainly seems that the point of [H]ardOCP was to try the embarass Roberts.

Whether or not this is hard to do is neither here nor there.

On the other hand, the track record of the CEO is a valid thing to look at when you examine a company. If their facts are correct, the only basis for his embarassment is over the truth, which isn't really a valid basis to sue over. Additionally, the claims that weren't established directly by the writer appear to have been properly explained as merely reported sources. I have a funny feeling that Infinum would actually have to prove that there wasn't someone at that building who told HardOCP that the offices were a "ghost town".

I think Infinum should set up a postbox in the UK and try and get Lord Hutton as a judge.


This comment was edited on Feb 20, 07:56.

...I do have to say that it certainly seems that the point of [H]ardOCP was to try the embarass Roberts.

Whether or not this is hard to do is neither here nor there.

If you read through the article the only point Infinium could cry foul on is Roberts affiliation with Intira whose problems occured after he sold it off. The rest is culled from publicly available info and their own research which they don't put much spin on at all, they let the facts speak for them selves.

The artcile ends with what I think is a quite fair opinion for the piece

Personally, we think this is a prime case of “Buyer Beware”. We also encourage people to do their own homework and investigations on companies that step into the public spotlight looking for investors

Its evident that Roberts isn't a scam artist and the article doesn't paint him as such but it does call into question his competence. With millions of dollars in venture capital being risked on this enterprise from investors I think the taking Roberts to task for his past business dealings and current objectives is more than fair.



----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Perhaps the answer to the perennial problem of delinquent teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue the creators of Tetris."- Unknown Author

...I do have to say that it certainly seems that the point of [H]ardOCP was to try the embarass Roberts.

Whether or not this is hard to do is neither here nor there.

Everybody, please play nice.

Handing out 'lil gold star stickers to everybody :),
Ray

Edit: "Hading" + "n" = "Handing"
-------------------------------------------------------
Time does not heal, but it does numb.
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
http://www.guzzlefish.com/collection.php?username=ray_marden
I love you, mom.
This comment was edited on Feb 20, 06:03.

You know, I bet there were a thousand articles about how the X-Box was a "glorified PC" and other such things, and Microsoft didn't sue anyone for it... and you all know how sue-happy Microsoft is.

Ahhh.....but Microsoft actually "HAD" a piece of hardware to show.

snafu

Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one and they usually stink
(all except mine of course)

Someone really needs to perform a formal investigation of Infinium Labs. Weren't they supposed to show off a ton of new things at the CES in Vegas last year?

if thats the criteria to bring a formal investigation then the entire industry needs to be subpoenaed


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Perhaps the answer to the perennial problem of delinquent teenagers dropping bricks from motorway and railway bridges is to sue the creators of Tetris."- Unknown Author

This comment was edited on Feb 20, 04:44.

Um, in the letter it implies that their justification for this legal action is that Kyle failed to show up at a planned meeting at CES (and is therefore evil, etc etc.) Why is this not addressed at all on the HardOCP home page or this thread?

Didn't anyone else notice that?

Edit: Ok, so Game Daily says he didn't show up because he feared for his safety... wtf ?!?!


This comment was edited on Feb 20, 02:43.

These guys are so damn hypocritical! Lucas should sue Robert's WanForce for using Star Wars related imagery and wording! http://216.239.41.104/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wanforce.com%2Fhome.asp

Alex
-----------
Spatial Fear
Director/Creative Designer
http://www.planetunreal.com/le/sf/

Infinium Labs may want to sue Blue for calling them Phantom Menace (http://www.bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.pl?action=viewthread&threadid=42822). They should also sue Gamasutra for posting news about HradOCP's article! (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=2057)

This is so absurd it's not even funny. Someone really needs to perform a formal investigation of Infinium Labs. Weren't they supposed to show off a ton of new things at the CES in Vegas last year?

Alex
-----------
Spatial Fear
Director/Creative Designer
http://www.planetunreal.com/le/sf/

Guess the venture capital's running thin. Nothing like a good lawsuit to attract attention and money.

They googled pretty much all of the information they received for that article that they wrote six months ago. No need to keep there sources private for this story.