They haven't been able to keep up with global demand for what, half a decade now? That's a problem that you can easily throw money at and make it go away. This gap in supply and demand has led to many clones gaining popularity too, and while that's good for the end user because more choice, it's bad for their business.

Supply hasn't really been an issue since the Pi5 launched, PiLocator shows that nearly every official vendor has both variants in stock right now.

The Pi Hut even ran 10% off deals a few weeks back, it's not something you do when demand is higher than supply. I think they seriously overestimated the amount of Pi 5s that would be sold.

They don't have to agree that it's their job to change the fundamental mission of the business into one of being accountable to shareholders.

They can, of course, but it's by no means a forced choice.

Sure they have, the pandemic was a huge, but temporary, issue.

Something more capital wouldn't necessarily have helped with either.

They can't keep up with demand so that's one problem that could be solved with money.

Man, I can't wait for there to be 7 variants of RPi 6 all with some nondescript name and none of which actually offer exactly what I need, because they had to flood and segment the market.

They should stay private and build on the quality brand they have rather than trying to grow because reasons.

> I can't wait for there to be 7 variants of RPi 6 all with some nondescript name and none of which actually offer exactly what I need

So you think with fewer variants, one of those few is more likely to meet your needs? Doesn't having more variants make it more likely that one will suit you, or at least get closer?

This is the paradox of choice. If there is 1 option, a person gets it and it's not perfect, but it's fine. They know what they're getting and make it work. If there are a bunch of variants there is a greater expectation that one of them will perfectly fit the need, and they are always left wondering if a different one would have been better, and are thus left feeling unsatisfied.

Some choice is good. Too much choice is problematic.

This TED talk probably explains it better. https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choi...

For me it always lead to confusion, indecision and not buying anything when there’s too many choices

> So you think with fewer variants, one of those few is more likely to meet your needs?

Yes, because being over-specced doesn't matter if it's cheap enough.

If they can't keep up with demand people will go elsewhere. Focusing on brand and perception instead of fulfilling demand is not a fundamentally good strategy.

This is what market theory says, but there are a lot of competing products at attractive price points and it hasn’t happened yet. The lack of community, software, and examples makes the competitors less attractive. The same thing happened with Arduino. There were a lot of competitors that offered more capable silicon, but the community and software libraries were the real appeal.

It is happening. It started years ago.

In 3D printing in (say) 2019, for instance: It was ridiculously common to use a Raspberry Pi with a printer -- for all kinds of reasons. They were cheap (enough), and they worked well (enough), and they were available (enough).

Few, if any, questioned whether the Raspberry Pi was the right thing to use, for it was ubiquitous and well-understood.

But when Pis became more expensive and/or less available in 2021 or so, people didn't just stop doing stuff with their printers.

They instead found alternative platforms to do things with: They bought used corpo mini-PCs, repurposed cheap-shit Android TV boxes, used old Android phones, and (of course) trudged through the weeds getting things working various other SBCs.

Not just market theory, but practice and common sense. People buy what there is. Companies can ride some brand recognition for a bit (I personally waited for them to get new components available) but it won't last, and any customers new to the idea won't wait. They'll pick of the available options.

I genuinely don't understand what this has to do with what I said. I understand this decision upsets you for some reason, but it has nothing to do with the discussion.

The point is just because there is demand doesn’t mean it needs to be met at the cost of the product or brand itself.

Literally throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Okay, but how do you know it'll be like that? The demand is for the product they are currently selling, not the options you made up.

Because this is always what happens when there are investors involved. They want to maximize the return of their investment over the short to midterm with a complete disregard for the long term brand damage.

Have their production issues been a function of money? I assumed it was components (pandemic related) and maybe manufacturing capacity (because they manufacture locally instead of China, for instance)

If it's a problem to be solved with money, it's likely they could do so with higher prices or loans. Even if they raise money through stock, it will end up with higher prices to make returns for investors. Public companies have higher regulatory overhead and will be at the will of the investors to make more money.

That's what debt is for.

Another way to keep up with demand is to jack up prices until the demand meets the supply. That's what I fear. They have the brandname recognition to pull it off.

And their RP2040 was a huge success so they may want to go more into producing their own chips.

Now we just need a 5V version of it while everyone continues to produce parts that don't work with 3V signals nor level shifters. Looking at you WS2812 and analog sensors.

I doubt this will ever happen they may do 5v tolerant inputs but outputs? Highly unlikely. Already the RP2040 uses its own regulator to make 1.1V for itself. The smaller the process and higher the frequency the lower the voltage. So the future is clearly not moving toward 5v.