Wonder what the Notion Ink investor is thinking

I can speculate, can't I?

Think about it: Someone, somewhere, decided to put a bunch of money into this company. I cannot fault them for that of course - because when they did, it was still a start-up in a true sense. Rohan Shravan & Co.  were trying something bold, and it looked like a winnable concept.

Unless the investor is someone with a big wallet and little brain, they would by now realize that this is a dream gone sour, unless they know some magical success philosophy that I do not know about, one that says "do a disastrous release, alienate everyone,  mislead when you can, and ... next version is success!!"

In the first phase of funding, one would imagine that the investor may not be able to pull back due to commitment. But now someone needs to pour more money if NI wants to release Adam 2. And whatever that Genesis and content project that Rohan Shravan keeps alluding to. And the "research" that his team is doing. And oh, Adam 3 too. And fonts too, whatever.

Whoever is continuing to invest in Notion Ink is either very stupid or very clever and sees something we don't. I certainly don't anyway - because doing so would require me to accept the following:

1. I will invest in a market that is incredibly competitive and has been dangerous even to big players (remember HP anyone? Or the problem Playbook is facing?) and my only USP - the PQi screen (not 2 USB PORTS OMG!!!) - will soon not mean much once Amazon figures a way out.

2. I will invest in a market that is expensive to operate in - after all, a good tablet experience means investment in hardware, supply chain, software, and the market is a fast moving, fast changing environment that requires continuous investment and mandatory growth to keep costs in control. In this market, if the company must make money to its investors - it must grow, grow profitably, attain some scale for cost reduction. I'm not saying that the first version should have been profitable, but it should have set foundation for a much larger v2 release that should be profitable.

3. I will invest in a company that has failed in its first revision - with bad software, uneven hardware quality, dependence on hobbyists to keep it alive, horrible customer support and somehow imagine that their next version will be magically successful.

4. I will invest in a company whose marketing strategy in the last 2 years is aimed at a completely wrong customer segment ("ultra geeks") vs. where it has to operate to sustain ("mass market") in the long term. Nothing wrong with patient geeks who will spend time to make it work, just that there aren't enough of them to build a tablet company and make money to its investors.

5. I will put my faith in a founder who talks but does not deliver, misleads his audience, has no focus of any kind, and has lead his company to a very poor experience so far, even after 2 years and 3 rounds of releases

6. I will put my faith in co-founders who are essentially talent-less or spineless (take your choice) and stayed silent as the founder ran amok

7. I somehow believe that with almost no following and no new customer/ follower additions to my brand and name, the next release will be a blockbuster.

A pretty popular saying is that you invest in the team, not necessarily the idea. Ideas come and go, and often morph. But a great team will execute & deliver. This, so far, is an incompetent CEO and a weak team, so what am I investing in? How am I so confident that Adam 2 will somehow be great quality supported by great service?

Or am I wise that I will no longer invest...?