Emergency crowdfunding [not relevant]

Maybe the recent lack of information was related to this impending financial crisis.

@Andy Branson: probably. But unless they would risk partner deals by outing information I see no reason to withhold the info. I bet that if they were more transparent the community would have much more understanding. And what's the issue with a start-up having financial issues, really? That shouldn't hold back investors as long as you are aware of the situation and have a plan for handling it.

Communities such as this can be very knee-jerk. I really don't think that the community on the whole would have been very understanding if Jolla had announced in September that they may not have enough money to produce the tablets. I think the quiet majority would have understood, especially those who get that kickstarters are not shops, but the vocal minority would have made a huge amount of noise and made the last couple of months much worse, jeopardizing the funding round further. They did the right thing keeping it quiet as long as they could.

@Mohjive The impression that I'm having with all this is that they precisely can't disclose some specific information. Most companies and investors hide the details about their operations in order not to give strategical information to their competitors, and when two companies collaborate, non-disclosure agreements are usually signed. I'd say there's a good chance that Jolla has signed something like that as a condition from the manufacturing company/ies to get a deal. And I wouldn't discard that the investors themselves have put some restrictions on what they can tell, too

Hey- I got me a spare battery for 214,-- EUR (199,-- EUR plus 15,-- EUR delivery).
O.K., it's a full set including a spare-display, a spare-mainboard and spare-whateverisneeded.
But a spare battery available for less than 40,-- EUR would be fine.

Ordered the compatible battery at Accu-land in germany. Took its time to get it, but it works just perfect.

As far as I know (I'm not an expert on corporate finance, but am currently employed in a company which IPO took place in the beginning of 2015), IPO also requires substantial amounts of money and a work of experts on that area (meaning hired consultants), and the transparency also comes with a substantial amount of increased reporting, and restrictions on communication with e.g. the community about future plans.

On the other hand, I wouldn't give money to a company unless I also gained some slice of ownership with the money (since companies are good at using all the money that comes in, but it might not be spent in the way I appreciate my money to be spent), and I think any reasonable person would think this way unless they don't care about their money at all. In that sense public listing would be great way to allow the community to support Jolla also financially.

That is why Invesdor would be a good option here since you don't just give them money, you buy shares.

@Toxip looking at it briefly, Invesdor does seem like a more lightweight option to an IPO, yes. They also seem to have an option for offering bonds, which would also avoid diluting the current shares.

That's what I meant with first things first, there's a bit of homework still ahead. Offering corporate bonds is also an option, and in a way that's what Jolla is already doing now to stay liquid. But contrary to offering new shares, a bond is always a liability in the journals, whereas new shares can be considered fresh money. You won't get much out of an IPO at the moment, though, and of course, being a public limited fills you up with lots of new obligations (regulations, transparency, compliance, etc), which is why most companies try to avoid this step as long as possible.

Didn't Jolla got the money to ship the tablets already?

in a sense yes but if there is no more cash and some suppliers ask for money. Do you think they are going to send the tablets? let's wait for some info from Jolla about this...

That won't help, there would need to be orders for tens of thousands of phones - continuously. Can you afford that, or can you market the already outdated phone to people? Jolla needs new devices, so the sooner the Intex phone hits the market, the better - and also outside India. And as Saarnio said, they need more big partners, as big or bigger as Intex, or they will sink eventually. This is the sad story, but also true - they need to start making profit from the OS licensing.

Why would buying a phone be better than funding/donating at this point? Buying a phone would require Jolla to pay a lot of expenses to the factory, shipping and handling etc. So if you pay 200 euros for a phone, Jolla ends up with maybe 10-20 euro (my guess). But if you fund/donate 200 euros, Jolla will get the majority of this money, so for the emergency phase, this would be a much better "money-maker". But neither buying more phones nor funding/donations will make it in the long run, as Jolla themselves must create new reliable revenue streams, one is paid app support, other would be getting big hardware partners, just like @raketti states.

@raketti: I fully agree!

The sooner SFOS runs on a up-to-date hardware, the better.

@nick75: if Jolla can show sales they more easily find investors. And I believe that investors could do much better than community crowdfundig. Otherwise, you are right, off corse, they probably earn hardly any money with hw sales. That is why I suggest to focus on Sailfish as product on its own.

@AkiBerlin , yes of course investors are much better than community crowfunding, But this thread is about the emergency funding that is urgently needed, until the right (big) investor has signed the deal and transferred the funds, or whatever the aim of the funding would be

** sorry I posted a response and thought better of it. System wouldn't let me delete.