3 ms·

> the claim of a 52-week lead time is wrong It simply hasn't been updated and at this point likely won't be until it shows "in stock" instead.

• gjsman-1000 3y ago
  They say in their blog post: > I’m starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel, but hitting shipping parity will depend on the E5 production run going according to plan, and our not hitting any more supply chain snags along the way. Because of this uncertainty, I have not yet updated our 52-week lead time on new Librem 5 orders, and will likely not update it until the E5 production run is complete and waiting for its turn to ship to customers. [...] So, they are keeping the 52-week out of "uncertainty". Which is fine, by all means. However, they are quoting 8 weeks to investors without mentioning the uncertainty. Which is legally worse? Misleading customers, or misleading investors, if that uncertainty materializes? Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification?
  • seba_dos1 3y ago
    The post you're quoting has been written two months ago, and uncertainty tends to get reduced with time. > Especially on a sale that does not appear to meet other legal checkboxes like investor status verification? According to you.
    • gjsman-1000 3y ago
      > According to you. According to an actual private equity manager in this very thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35898246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35898246