The non-profit arm is a tiny insignificant part of their business now. They stopped being education and charity focused during covid and are only really interested in their B2B customers these days.
The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a shareholder in Raspberry Pi Ltd, not vice versa. It benefits from the profits generated by the commercial arm.
The commercial arm was established on 10 September 2012 [1].
[1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...
I don't see how it is the wrong way around: what you are saying is that they are a for-profit, and depending on how much profit they make with their business, the foundation gets more money to "play with", right?
But it can take a long time to make that scheme work at a level where the foundation can do what it would like to do so this IPO kind of gets a head start on those dividends, by selling some of the stock rather than to make a profit and wait they get some of that cash today, with the downside of being required to live in a glass house from now on and having somewhat reduced future dividends (assuming there are any).
Non-profits that sells things like a business aren't allowed.
At least that would be my understanding with a non-profit?
I don't know the precise structure, but Wikipedia is 'owned' by the wikimedia foundation.
It could be owned by Disney.
So the question is, who is the better custodian? A not for profit entity or a for profit one?
Raspberry pi is part owned by the raspberry pi foundation. The raspberry pi foundation shouldn't have a profit motive, so in that sense is a better custodian than some for profit 'holding company'.
No you could question, given they were prioritising business customers whether the foundation A) made the right decision or B) whether they have enough away over the company.
To me this all seems reminiscent of free software v open source.
A lot of people expected free(hard)ware, where it's becoming apparent it's more open source.
The problem with non-profits owning profit making businesses is that it makes governance a lot more complex, tends to create conflicts of interest etc.
You may not be satisfied with either of those choices, but that's a separate issue.
A non profit still needs funds. The need for funds is going to create conflicts.
Ultimately it come down to, do you want the millions that raspberry pi is making, going to some venture capitalist. Or do you want it going to some non profit.
If they do decide to milk the cash cow, at least that money is going somewhere hopefully better for society.
The charity still exists and still does all the same stuff: https://static.raspberrypi.org/files/about/RaspberryPiFounda...
Only once the Sony production line expanded did they get back on top of B2C supplies.
Throughout the shortage their blog regularly made statements like "If you are a B2B customer get in touch, we can still supply you with Pis".
In terms of their organisational structure, the charity does indeed still exist, but as I say it's a pretty small part of their business (and yes the charity exists for business) these days. Anyone active in Pi community circles will know that the consumer and education focus is very much going away, all be it slowly but that will no doubt pick up once they become listed and profits becomes the only focus.
There is still no evidence here... what you say is just that.