Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
We've rebuilt Android™ to be a primary operating system for your PC, 2-in-1 or PC Tablet. Over 100 new features built-in already.
We started as the first commercial effort to bring Android to the PC. We're still at it, now on GitHub rebuilding - combining the best of the open-source world, with cutting-edge commercial drivers, licensed from Intel. (Console.com.co)
We started as the first commercial effort to bring Android to the PC. We're still at it, now on GitHub rebuilding - combining the best of the open-source world, with cutting-edge commercial drivers, licensed from Intel. (Console.com.co)
5,695 backers pledged $78,497 to help bring this project to life.

Use this space to cheer the creator along, and talk to your fellow backers.

Have a question?

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 24, 2016

      @aias - We have committed to providing a feature roadmap update after we ship Lollipop publicly. We are on track to do that.

      As we have said, our goal is to re-implement all the original feature goals under our new path - one that is now open-source, as a reaction to losing Android-IA for PC hardware as our core platform.

      Please allow us the time to do that. As we have noted we have wrapped work on the kernel for the most part - and are moving on to remaining device trees, and specific features that we can add to Console OS rapidly prior to our first release of Lollipop.

    2. allnitelong on January 24, 2016

      @MMV We understand your problems with your company (did not pledge for), lack of market interests (did not pledge for) and financial problems (you got money from us).

      But please stop posting the same dodging answers.
      We do have the ressources to ask you until we get a concrete answers and this is our right to do so.

      Where is the roadmap for Console OS Pro with 100 already built-in-features?

      How and when will this features be published in your releases?

    3. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 24, 2016

      @aias - We understand and respect your dissent. But please stop posting the same endless complaints. We do not have the resources to repeatedly respond to them.

      We have stated that Console Developer Rewards, which we announced earlier this month, and is launching next month, will support Android-x86 and other projects by directly rewarding indie codes that contribute code - even if they don't send it to Console OS directly.

    4. allnitelong on January 24, 2016

      Console, Inc. advertising:

      COMMUNITY

      Social proof established: army of vocal supporters behind Console OS – successful Kickstarter accomplished.

      Where is this army? Surely not here. Surely not on Twitter and surely not on your forum.

      Want to see real community effort and integration?

      http://www.xda-developers.com/remixandxda/

      They even say if you want to help just donate to Android-x86, because it is the foundation of Remix OS on x86.

      Frankly, this is the way a community should be treated. Instead you, Mr. Price, attack your backers with words like "Trolls", "Jerks", etc., insult other people with false claims with no proof and dodge justified questions.

      Where is the schedule for releasing Console OS Pro with 100 already built-in features?

    5. allnitelong on January 24, 2016

      This comment has been removed by Kickstarter.

    6. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      Your claims are incorrect. We are not going to discuss the matter with you further. We used Console as a mark and/or brand previously - but our filings are accurate.

      See our past responses for more information.

    7. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      EDIT: Incorrect evaluation. The first quote was correct. The most important portion of the state corporate laws is that, "[t]he statement must be filed within 40 days of the commencement of business or before the statement on file expires." You had already began long before then, so you could not legitimately use the fictitious business name as an alias in corporate logos or communications unless you would have filing completed within 40 days.

      The question is, why did you use the Console Inc. name illegally, before the 40-day period of reactivity?

    8. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      EDIT: Incorrect body quote. Here is the same message with the correct one.

      @MMV: Then why did you assume the fictitious business name of Console Inc. more than 40 days before filing?
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mmv/console-os-dual-boot-android-remastered-for-the-pc/posts/1122571
      According to Californian law, you cannot use logos and the like incorporating the new corporation name until 40 days or later prior to the time of filing. In spite of this, you did use the "Console Inc" name in various elements of the company (e.g. site, logo) and, in doing so, you broke corporate law:
      "NOTE: Even though a proposed corporate name has been checked and/or reserved, stationery, signs, corporate seals, etc., should not be ordered until you receive notification of filing from the Secretary of State’s Office, because the corporation is not created or qualified until appropriate documents have been filed with the Secretary of State’s office."
      (See here: http://business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/RegisteringaBusiness/FictitiousBusinessName.aspx )

      This behavior is questionably peculiar. I feel like you are leaving out some vital information from the story (as usual) which explains why it took you so long to file (from March to August) and why you chose to use the "Console Inc." name before the permitted 40-day period of retroactivity.

    9. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: Then why did you assume the fictitious business name of Console Inc. more than 40 days before filing?
      https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mmv/console-os-dual-boot-android-remastered-for-the-pc/posts/1122571

      According to Californian law, you cannot use logos and the like incorporating the new corporation name until 40 days or later prior to the time of filing. In spite of this, you did use the "Console Inc" name in various elements of the company (e.g. site, logo) and, in doing so, you broke corporate law:
      "The statement must be filed within 40 days of the commencement of business or before the statement on file expires. Along with the original, the county may require several copies of the statement for filing. The county clerk will certify and return all copies to the registrant, keeping the original. Within 30 days after filing a fictitious business name statement, the registrant must publish the statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of its principal place of business. The notice must appear once a week for four successive weeks. Within 30 days of the last publishing date, the registrant must file an affidavit of publication with the county clerk’s office."
      (See here: http://business.ca.gov/StartaBusiness/RegisteringaBusiness/FictitiousBusinessName.aspx )

      This behavior is questionably peculiar. I feel like you are leaving out some vital information from the story (as usual) which explains why it took you so long to file (from March to August) and why you chose to use the "Console Inc." name before the permitted 40-day period of retroactivity.

    10. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - D/B/A filings in California are retroactive to 40 days prior to filing, provided prior use can be demonstrated. Deduct 40 days from August 24. We demonstrated prior use and alerted IIX before they began using their Console, Inc. in commerce.

    11. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      As usual, I see a glaring discrepancy in Price's priceless comments on Kickstarter. There, he said:
      "You can search the d/b/a on the county web site. Our original d/b/a was filed properly, amended properly, and is valid 40 days prior to filing... which pre-dates IIX Corp's filing."

      Tell me, how in the world does August 24th (Price's filing date) predate July 30th (their filing date), hmm? Price must take us for fools.

      If we have our way, he is, minimally, not going to be laughing all the way to the bank in another scam against innocent individuals.

    12. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - We have addressed your concerns about our name, we aren't going to repeat the statements. We are legally allowed to use Console, Inc. as our name. See our past replies to you on this subject.

    13. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - We're sorry you feel that way, but we're determined to make Console OS great, and now a successful open source project.

    14. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      From ConsoleOSRipoff.com, see who really filed the "Console Inc." business name for registration first, and the real purpose for doing it in the first place...

      so you can just use anothers name, pay less, and when anyone tries to
      find you, they go in circles....cause they get the real business name....
      kinda shifty don't ya think?????

      Who really filed first, IIX(the Corporation) OR MMV,Inc.(the scammer) see below.........??????????????

      Filed by (IIX)
      Entity Name: CONSOLE INC.
      Entity Number: C3812125
      Date Filed: 07/30/2015
      Status: ACTIVE
      Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
      Entity Address: 3131 JAY STREET SUITE 210
      Entity City, State, Zip: SANTA CLARA CA 95054
      Agent for Service of Process: AL BURGIO
      Agent Address: 3131 JAY STREET SUITE 210
      Agent City, State, Zip: SANTA CLARA CA 95054

      DBA: CONSOLE, INC.
      Certificate Number:
      608369
      Filing Date:
      08/ 24/ 2015
      Filing Type:
      F Fictitious Business Name
      Expiration Date:
      08/ 24/ 2020
      Original FBN#:
      NA
      Abandoned Date:
      NA
      Abandoned FBN #:
      NA
      Proof of Publication on File:
      NO

    15. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: I find your lack of empathy disturbing. Here is some help for your last comment: "Everyone at Console, Inc. is working hard to make Console OS happen [for you, our backers]. We are excited about our future, and on implementing our new path [going] forward [to bring you the features and OS you want as quickly as possible. Thank [you]."

    16. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      Everyone at Console, Inc. is working hard to make Console OS happen. We are excited about our future, and on implementing our new path forward. Thanks.

    17. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @Cykit: I don't blame your initial reaction. I was feeling quite disowned and violated once I put all of the facts together and it all "clicked." Christopher Price will just say you are doing something wrong to him if you call him out for anything he has done wrong. He does not take this project seriously with a grain of human conscience or else he would have expressed empathy in his dialogue long ago.

      At no point did he connect with us, his backers, and try relating such as stating (this is what he could have said): "I am truly sorry this news has come to you backers and it hurts me that Core support was pulled and that I failed to mention this information to you sooner. I am doing my best to rectify this issue by attempting to modify and test drivers in-house while in constant communication with Intel. However, I remain diligent and focused, realizing the great trust you backers have placed in me and my team to deliver a product that truly showcases the capabilities of Android on a X86 computer."

      Whereas, the best response we received from Price of the breaking news about Core support being dropped was initially: "Specifically, the AOSP 5.0 kernel lacks formal support for Intel Core processors, and the UEFI fastboot stack knocks down most of our existing bootloader support. Now that we have all the right tools, we can work on tackling these upstream issues." No sense of guilt and an utter lack of interpersonal skills. Simply stating facts so nonchalantly shows such naivete. You do not delay a product and then "poker face" your backers as if you did them no wrong. This approach is no better than the cold way Microsoft and Apple respond to the users within their "walled gardens," whom Console OS has criticized and aspires to improve upon.

    18. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Cykit - Please stop with the attacks, thanks. Our focus today is on shipping Console OS.

    19. Missing avatar

      Cykit on January 23, 2016

      Wow, you are surely one-of-the-kind con man who never delivers product, but delivers bad attitudes to your backers who paid for your project, 2 years ago. How dare you to say we are insulting you, while you delivered nothing and not even honor your own commitments you promised us when we paid? Shame on you Mr. Price

    20. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - A Tinyurl would not work. You can search the d/b/a on the county web site. Our original d/b/a was filed properly, amended properly, and is valid 40 days prior to filing... which pre-dates IIX Corp's filing.

      We also sent a copy to the Santa Clara city, in a timely manner - though they would not be where to search for it.

      This is probably why IIX has not challenged our use of Console, Inc. as our company name. But we don't want to speak for them on the matter. We aren't going to comment further on it, and will simply point you to our past replies further.

    21. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      Performing a search under "Fictitious Business Names", I was able to find you. This is true.
      http://www.clerkrecordersearch.org/

      However, everything else (no "already built" Console Pro features in existence, no proof of internally written code to be seen, no timely notification to backers that Android-IA/Core on Android had been dropped) I have mentioned thus far does not pass muster.

    22. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: Looking closely at the link you gave me and its the oddly terminating equal sign, it appears that either you did not copy the entire link or the comment section's processing lobbed off part of the link. Could you please provide a TinyURL link to the record?

    23. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - It appears Santa Clara County is not loading due to required cookies.

      In CA, d/b/a filings are on the county web site - not the city. That is why you aren't finding it.

    24. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: The link you provided does not work.

    25. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - Our d/b/a is filed appropriately. http://www.clerkrecordersearch.org/cgi-bin/Fbnindex.html/alldetail…=

      This is an amended filing revising our past filing in August. That filing is valid retroactively 40 days prior - and prior to IIX's filing.

      For the record, IIX has not disputed our use of the Console, Inc. name.

    26. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: I imagine they have an alternate story, which probably goes along the lines of you (Christopher Price) having also assumed their company name after they had, earlier, already secured the rights to their company name.

      According to the city records, what you are doing is illegal. Furthermore, backers have searched other counties in the surrounding and have found no record of your existence. If you can provide a link to the county records, we would believe you. However, since there is no record in any of the online databases (and the local ones, for that matter), you cannot provide such proof.

      Therefore, you are operating in clear defiance of the law outside of the knowledge of your backers.

    27. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      We have been in an ongoing dispute with IIX corp. We began using the Console, Inc. brand prior to their use, and our d/b/a filings are valid prior to theirs with multiple counties in California. We cannot comment further on the dispute. We reserve all rights to exclusively use the Console, Inc. name in California.

    28. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      Summarized: An investigation has already taken place by one of our backers. There is only one Console, Inc. that is on the public records of the city of Santa Clara, CA, and it is not the false one that Christopher Price represents and misrepresents. Scam...

    29. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      Taken from ConsoleOSRipoff.com, revealing that Console Inc., one owning and managing Console OS et al, does not exist...

      So, Console, Inc is what we are looking for... Back to the State of CA 's and Bingo:

      Quote:
      Entity Name: CONSOLE INC.
      Entity Number: C3812125
      Date Filed: 07/30/2015
      Status: ACTIVE
      Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
      Entity Address: 3131 JAY STREET SUITE 210
      Entity City, State, Zip: SANTA CLARA CA 95054
      Agent for Service of Process: AL BURGIO
      Agent Address: 3131 JAY STREET SUITE 210
      Agent City, State, Zip: SANTA CLARA CA 95054

      Sweet! But wait, who is this new player, Al Burgio ( https://www.crunchbase.com/person/al-burgio#/entity )?
      OMG. There's the REAL Console, INC ( http://www.iix.net/news/20150804-iix-revolutionizes-enterprise-direct-connect-launch-console/ ; http://www.console.to/ ) who is a real company, apparently successful. I need to investigate them, as it looks like something I should know about, professionally.

      If you want a laugh, check out the team section at: http://www.console.to/about-console/ . They are proud of their team! Contrast that with the Console.com.co about page. What kind of spammy domain is that, anyways? A .com sub-domain. Keep it Classy!

      And then there is the fake one, which this Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_Inc. ) describes. Gee, I wonder who the author of this wiki is?

    30. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      Taken from ConsoleOSRipoff.com...

      I certainly didn't mean to sound unsympathetic to the people who lost money, of course. I was very, very, close to being one of you. Two things saved me however. 1) This thread on xda-developers from June 2014 during the Kickstarter. Particularly e.mote's posts. He was pretty much spot on as to how this scam would play out (and for which Price whined and did his best to have him banned and the thread locked). 2) The Kickstarter video. Most people with genuine products would spend the time with demos and design plans, not on themselves like Price did.

      Also, as I've posted elsewhere, by this time it was well known that there would be no dual-boot from the big players as both Microsoft and Google were against it. For someone who now claims to be so close to Intel, Price should have known this much before the Kickstarter. Chances are he read the same reports, saw the time was right, and got his money, exploiting what people wanted with no intention of delivering anything, like most con artists. Notice how, at the time, he carefully pretended to be independent and not affiliated with Intel's Android version.

      Going forward: I would suggest that Kickstarter is not your friend. I see posts all the time asking people to report Price to Kickstarter, and this is a mistake because they will not do anything. Their terms are vague and they have no incentive to get involved. Instead contact your State's Attorney General and perhaps the California Attorney General. They are the only ones who've taken action against Kickstarter scammers so far. To be honest, though, even this is a long shot.

      I believe the best we can do, moving forward, is to contact the companies that Price claims he's working with and let them know of his past. Particularly Intel, but also any companies he's conned into providing "rewards" so that other developers can do the work that he's collected money for. It would be nice to make sure that Price is not able to pull a similar scam in the future.

    31. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV. I am not insinuating anything. I am explicitly stating everything. You are shamelessly taking code. Words mean nothing when they come from you. You are not a "good steward." A good steward would not change his story after the fact to people who placed their trust in him.

    32. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: When you, Mr. Price, say "We never said we did not license the Android-IA kernel.", you are referring to nothing I stated in the comment I made, so stop your divert and deny technique. It is old and tiring, and it will only show Kickstarter how much more you are in the wrong. Stop changing the subject by responses to something I and others do not say. It is a classic scamming technique that only will become part and parcel to the cumulative evidence which is presented against you in a court of law.

    33. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - We noted and attributed the portions of the code we backported. We also implemented a modprobe fix specifically for T100TA. Please stop insinuating we are being shameless when we are being good actors in the FOSS community.

    34. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      For anyone curious, Mr. Price's "Marshmallow backporting" is a shameless copy and paste job from Android-x86.

    35. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      We never said we did not license the Android-IA kernel. We did note that Android-IA is not intended for consumer use, as was/is noted on 01.org - it is a development kernel. We turned that into a user distribution.

      At the time Android on Core support was suspended, two things ensured we could continue development. One, PC Tablet support was intact, and we could undertake supporting Core ourselves. Two, Core support was expected to remain in-tree, albeit unsupported. This was true of the 4.4.2-ia2 release, as you can see on 01.org.

      Please stop misrepresenting our work or linking to old/dated posts out of context. We have answered your questions consistently - we just won't re-re-re-re-answer them to you.

    36. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: Yes, please stop misrepresenting your work, Mr. Price.

    37. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      From ConsoleOSRipoff.com...

      Notice how Chih-Wei Huang calls BS on ConsoleOS and, further, how he says that both Microsoft and Google are against dual-boot and that Price will get no further with Intel. This is a thread that Price started and participated in, so any claims of being caught unaware that Intel would not support his efforts until after the Kickstarter ended are flat out lies.

      So Price has gone from:

      1) Claiming ConsoleOS is a competitor to Android-IA to

      2) ConsoleOS is based on Android-IA, but Intel discontinued support days after the Kickstarter ended. Amazon payments and Kickstarter took their cut of the funds immediately so Price couldn't cancel or refund anyone to

      3) When someone points out that he has 60 days to issue full refunds, Price changes the timetable to again the say that he only found out that Intel would discontinue support for Core processors after the 60 day point.

      All of which are, of course, lies

      Here are a couple of links of Price trolling and trying to sabotage Android-x86 with nonsense:
      https://groups.google.com/d/topic/androi...discussion
      and
      https://groups.google.com/d/topic/androi...discussion
      (creating FUD to try and ensure that only ConsoleOS has certain features)

      Price gets banned from the Android-x86 discussion group: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/androi...discussion

      Price tries to get back in (after all, where else is he going to leech code from), with more vaporware and empty promises: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/...EwI0j6Nwqo

    38. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      Please stop misrepresenting our team's work, thanks.

    39. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: First off, they are not entirely the same messages (one has a slight variation at the beginning). In the second place, this is not your (in the singular, Mr. Price, since it is obvious you are a one-man operation) wall. It is the backers' wall--in fact, more so since it is us who paid for it--for communicating with you, Mr. Price. If you thought of backers as people and not walking wallets, you would understand that.

    40. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - Please stop spamming our wall with the same comments endlessly. Our focus is on shipping Console OS, thanks.

    41. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      Taken from ConsoleOSRipoff.com...
      Note: Price has changed (sanitizing?) the little blurb at the top of his project. The previous version said:
      "We've rebuilt Android™ to be a primary operating system for your PC, 2-in-1 or PC Tablet. Over 100 new features built-in already."
      You can verify this using archive.org:
      https://web.archive.org/web/20150317145404/https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mmv/console-os-dual-boot-android-remastered-for-the-pc
      Some comments on the blurb itself:
      Price uses We've. Is he using the royal "we"? Does "we" include Intel? Using standard English, one would assume "we" means you and your team.
      rebuilt. Past tense. Indicating they've accomplished something already.
      And of course the 100 new features built-in already.

    42. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      "@Dave - We're still determined to make that happen, despite pullback from partners. Had Intel called us up during our Kickstarter campaign and said 'hey, heads up, yes we can confirm we're suspending Android development for Core processors' - then we would have posted that.
      We didn't get confirmation of that until three days (72 hours) after our Kickstarter campaign ended... it was a punch in the gut, frankly we're even surprised we got this far in the wake of that."
      Taken from: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mmv/console-os-dual-boot-android-remastered-for-the-pc/posts/1391284/comments
      Note that, according to MMV's/Price's recount, Intel disclosed this information to MMV/Price three (3) days after the Kickstarter ended. However, Price/MMV conveniently did not reveal this information to backers until after the 60-day refund period had expired. Per Kickstarter's terms and conditions, the refund period is the the period of time when cash funds can be refunded without fees applied; also the period of time project creators have to wait before they can claim the Kickstarter money as their own. For more information, read this article: https://www.kickstarter.com/blog/accountability-on-kickstarter
      MMV's/Price's failure to provide full disclosure is evidenced in a full textual search of the term "Core" of the Kickstarter comments section, which occurs 182 times in the comments section here. From the first comment made (performing a search, this result is 182nd in order from newest to oldest as of 1/20/2016 2:19 AM MST) containing this search term during the Kickstarter campaign to before the comment was posted containing this term which is dated February 1st, 2015 (94th search result from newest to oldest), no mention was made here of Core support being pulled from Android. It was only then in Price's/MMV's comment in the Kickstarter comments section dated February 1st, 2015 (94th search result from newest to oldest) where we see the first admission here by MMV/Price of Intel halting Core support for Android.
      This is a clear case of a lack of transparency and a failure to offer full disclosure before, during, and after the project had ended in a reasonable timeframe. No mention in the comments section had been made by MMV/Price of Core support being dropped for Android until the funds had been obtained by Price's/MMV's specified form of payout. Between the time of the end of the Kickstarter campaign and MMV's/Price's February 1st comment, nearly six (6) months had past. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that the project creator MMV/Price knew that he could not deliver fully on the claims made and MMV's/Price's approach to obtain the funds without backers demanding refunds was withholding critical information from them.

    43. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      On a more productive note, we have finished testing yesterday's updates - they are live on GitHub.

      T100TA Wi-Fi on Android is now working better than ever!

      Our remaining focus is on adding features and device trees - we're not planning additional kernel revisions before our next release.

    44. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - We are not going to list past features, roadmap features, or future features under our new path until our next update. We have provided specific examples of how Android-IA for PC impacted and aborted specific features as examples, and what we're doing to reimplement our original vision today.

    45. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: The feelings are mutual, and more so since I am the backer here, not you, who has seen your repeated dishonesty. Now, the "100 new features built-in already" you have would not be all OS dependent so what happened to them, hmm?

      Regardless, you should be able to readily show any number of these features working on an older build of Console OS because you said they were "built already". Otherwise, they never actually existed as you misconstrued them to have and, again, plain and simple, you lied to us backers. Don't make ME rehash how you willfully did not reveal to us that Intel discontinued Android-IA (3 days after the campaign) until almost four months after the campaign ended.

      I will endlessly reply until you admit these points. Stop being mealy mouthed and saying we addressed them, because, no, you did not. You did not address them, you either denied them or lied about them or did not answer the question. They all exist in this comment section and in Archive.org. You cannot hide the facts when they are as plain as day.

    46. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @Hifihedgehog - We have addressed this previously, and it is due to the discontinuation of Android-IA for PC. We are not going to rehash this with you endlessly.

    47. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      This comment has been removed by Kickstarter.

    48. Hifihedgehog (AKA "That Headphones Guy") on January 23, 2016

      @MMV: Stop harassing us with repeated dishonest answers. You know you said Console OS had "over 100 features already built-in." You conveniently changed your Kickstarter description so backers would forget. Sadly, Archive.org hasn't, exposing your deception.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20150317145404/https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mmv/console-os-dual-boot-android-remastered-for-the-pc

      Stop shamelessly lying in front of us. That is harassment when you do it repeatedly and abusively. Else, I will contact Kickstarter via phone and escalate this case to their top management.

    49. Mobile Media Ventures, Inc. Creator on January 23, 2016

      @aias - We have told you several times that we disagree with your opinion, the reasons why, and we have no plans to refund you. Please stop harassing us with your repeated request.

Show older comments