The promises that shipments will resume contradict what we've learned about DMM's state of affairs.
None of DMM's pages have referenced each other, and the lineups clearly tread on each other's toes.
You could call DMM the Janus of tablet builders, as it presents different faces to different audiences.
It's shortly after this that we learned Google had banned DMM from taking orders through its Google Wallet account.
To start, there have been irregularities in DMM's practices, some of which wouldn't have been apparent without a deliberate background check.
Google hasn't yet responded to questions about what happened, although DMM now says the ban was due to complaints about unfulfilled orders.
We tried getting in touch with Klayman to set the record straight, but this just underscored what looks to be his (and DMM's) rapid retreat from public scrutiny.
Customer phone calls (including those from readers) were either ignored or met with responses that DMM was closed, just a few days after orders were supposed to have shipped.
With Klayman and DMM so far unable or unwilling to participate, it's difficult to piece together the complete story behind the Matrix One, even after all of our discoveries.
While most of us have been focused on the Matrix One, DMM was, for a time, running another brand, Pacatek, which was also supposed to be making low-end Android tablets.
That's no mean feat when DMM looks to have been founded in 2012 and filed for the Matrix One trademark on June 8th, two weeks before we saw the device ourselves.
On December 5th, Direct Merchandise Marketing (DMM) released a long-awaited statement that was supposed to explain just what had gone wrong in shipping its Matrix One tablet, a device we thought we might never see.
Supposedly, DMM wants to take advantage of "existing manufacturer relationships" in China to offer tablets through the Buyers Club of another company, Direct Media Marketing -- which doesn't appear to exist on the internet, at least as it's described.
应用推荐