GaizkaBasterretxea
First, I want to say thank you for organising the Community Edition project, it’s been a genuinely inspiring opportunity for creative exploration, and I appreciate the platform Nothing has given to its community.
That said, I feel it’s important to voice what is already a concern about fairness and rule adherence, specifically regarding the hardware design category.
In the lead-up to submission, Derren clearly stated that “The rear glass cannot be changed” and that it would “remain just a clear piece of glass.” These instructions were also backed by the official template and widely interpreted by the community as a hard restriction, one that many if not the majority respected while developing our concepts. This ruling became a firm restriction during my creative process at least.
However, the selected hardware design appears to visibly modify the rear glass, both in color and effect, introducing elements that clearly change its visual nature, violating this stated constraint.
This naturally raises questions:
Were these rules amended or relaxed at any point? - If so why weren’t they disclosed? And If not, why was a submission that seemingly breaks a key rule selected as the winner?
What criteria were ultimately used to evaluate hardware designs?
I ask this not to diminish the creativity of the winning designer but in the spirit of fairness, transparency, and respect for all participants who followed the brief to the letter, I believe this deserves addressing.
I’d like to state that - despite my involvement and participation in the contest, my concern is raised out of moral obligation to my peers. I had extensively searched through countless submissions and seen pieces that both adhered to rules and stunned me in design.
Thanks again for facilitating such a unique competition. I hope this helps all of my fellow peers, in the spirit of fair and transparent competition.
