Is the salt in the wound perhaps the use of “A6” nomenclature?…
Regardless of going with Manker (which was the correct decision based on requirements) and unfortunate break-down of communication between BangGood and EE, maybe continuing to call it an ‘A6’ was perceived by EE as rubbing it in.
If a Budget Mobile Forum created a group-buy for a new device and called it the “BMF iPhone”, I’m sure that just because it wasn’t claiming to be Apple, wouldn’t make using the ’iPhone’ model name acceptable, especially on an aesthetically similar/identical device.
Of course, patents and copyrights need to be considered and if they don’t exist (as seems to be the case with ‘A6’) then it is indeed all moot. But principles still exist that could cause upset with a respected firm like EE. After all, Convoy didn’t call their S2+ the X2, despite the identical host.
I guess if agreements exist between two companies to share production of models, then this could be agreeable; such as Dipper BD02/3/4 and the same Convoy BD02/3/4 (I assume this was a mutual agreement or Simon shares production facilities with Dipper.)
None of this really explains the continued use of the “C8” model description to describe a generic host shape across so many different manufacturers. Perhaps sometimes the model name is just okay to re-use and sometimes not.
I would have been just as happy for the GB to have been called the B6 - either in honour of the forum, or Bugsy who organised the GB.
On the same note, perhaps the new X6 V2 GB should be differentiated from the regular X6 which is also EE’s? This Krono version could be K6 for the 18650 (instead of the smaller version), and K5 for the 14500 (using the same naming convention by cell-size as ToyKeeper noted).
Thoughts?…