Update — 26 October 2026: Following publication, Omi processed a full refund of my AUD $91.19 express shipping charge and agreed to dispatch the available hardware separately from the missing cable. Read my follow-up article for the latest developments.

On 31 August 2026, I placed Order #22045 with Omi, the open-source AI wearable technology company operated by Based Hardware.

I wasn't buying a novelty gadget. As an engineer and software-platform founder, I was interested in evaluating Omi's technology for integration with independent native iOS and Android applications.

The order was straightforward:

Yes, the shipping cost more than the product.

I knowingly paid that premium because I expected expedited delivery, approximately five days.

What followed was nearly eight weeks of waiting, changing explanations and no shipment.

On 7 September, I contacted Omi because my order had not arrived.

The following day, their representative informed me that the kit had not been dispatched and that the expected dispatch time was four to five weeks.

Four to five weeks?

I had paid $91.19 for express shipping, yet the product apparently wasn't ready to leave their premises.

I asked a simple question:

Where, before I paid, had Omi disclosed this four-to-five-week dispatch delay?

On 9 September, their representative acknowledged:

He also acknowledged that the product page had not informed me of this delay before ordering.

This was the most important admission in the entire correspondence.

The issue wasn't merely a delayed shipment. It was the absence of material information when I made my purchasing decision.

I asked whether the kit was actually in stock or still being manufactured.

On 9 September, Omi responded that the kit itself was in stock, but a custom cable connecting the Omi device to the Firmware Developer Kit was missing.

According to Omi, shipping the kit without that cable would make it unusable.

As an electrical engineer, I found this explanation worth examining.

Omi's own public product description identifies a SEGGER J-Link debugger, a J-Link USB cable, two-pin jumper wires and a custom Flash PCB.

These are recognisable components of a hardware-debugging arrangement. A custom breakout board may be necessary to interface with a particular device, but that does not automatically establish the need for an unavailable proprietary cable.

I am not claiming the cable does not exist.

I am asking Omi to identify the exact missing component, its technical specifications, and why it could not be supplied when the rest of the kit was supposedly in stock.

Was it a custom-manufactured cable assembly? A connector? A PCB-to-device interconnect? Or a standard cable with a particular termination?

Without that information, customers cannot independently assess the explanation.

The sequence matters.

The original five-day expectation became four to five weeks. The explanation became a missing cable. The projected shipment eventually moved into November.

And throughout this period, Omi retained my payment.

Omi explained that the express shipping charge applies only after the parcel is handed to the courier.

That distinction is understandable in principle. Express transportation cannot make an unavailable product appear in a warehouse.

But it also raises the obvious question:

Why offer a costly express shipping option without prominently informing customers that the product cannot be dispatched for several weeks?

The customer is paying at checkout, not after the merchant decides the product is ready.

In my case, the express shipping charge was approximately 107% of the product price.

I would have made a different purchasing decision had the actual dispatch position been disclosed.

For fairness, Omi did not deny the delay.

Its representative apologised, acknowledged that the dispatch lead time had not been disclosed, and offered to cancel the order and refund the entire AUD $176.19.

I chose to keep the order active because I genuinely wanted to evaluate the hardware.

That does not mean I accepted the original lack of disclosure or considered the subsequent delays satisfactory.

Omi's willingness to offer a refund is relevant. So is its continuing inability to provide a confirmed shipment date.

Both facts deserve to be reported.

Open-source hardware companies depend heavily on the confidence of developers.

Developers invest time in studying documentation, building integrations, writing firmware and designing applications around supported devices.

They need reliable information about availability and fulfilment.

If a product is awaiting a component, say so.

If it is a preorder, identify it as such.

If dispatch will take several weeks, disclose that before payment.

And if a specialised cable is preventing fulfilment, identify the component clearly enough that technically competent customers can understand the problem.

Transparency should be a basic requirement, not something customers must extract through repeated correspondence.

I still support open-source hardware.

I still believe independent developers should be able to integrate third-party devices into their own software platforms without unnecessary vendor lock-in.

But openness in source code must be accompanied by openness in commercial dealings.

I am not alleging that Omi committed criminal fraud. I am documenting a transaction that raises serious questions about pre-purchase disclosure, order fulfilment and customer communication.

As of 25 October 2026, my order remains undelivered.

I have requested management accountability and a substantive explanation.

A missing cable may explain a production delay. It does not, by itself, explain why the delay was undisclosed when the customer paid.

That is the lesson from this experience.

Editor's note: This article is based on the author's order confirmation and email correspondence with Omi between 31 August and 25 October 2026, together with Omi's publicly available product documentation. The company is welcome to provide a factual response or technical clarification, which will be considered for inclusion in an update.

Evidence and references