> Werner and I are discussing various possibilities. I rule nothing out.
Steve, at the OpenExpo Sean refered to the Dash navigator as a "dashtraction" from the serious business of Openmoko. How will "Plan B" (which is presumably not a distraction but a means of improving ROI for FIC) avoid becoming thought of as Dash2? Thanks for your emails on the subject so far, Joseph 2009/4/7 Steve Mosher <[email protected]>: > > > Gerald A wrote: >> Hi all, >> I originally wrote Lothar in private, and asked for his permission to repost >> to the list. There have been a few replies in the meantime, but there were >> some good points here. >> >> Now, I'm not a hardware guy, so take my input with a grain of salt, but I >> have been watching the project for a while, and as a software person I hope >> we can make it work. >> >> Lothar -- new comments are inline. >> >> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Lothar Behrens <[email protected] >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Lothar Behrens < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Ok I cannot buy expensive equipment to test hardware that I may have >>>> developed, but I virtually could >>>> develop hardware. But many developers at one subject could spend money for >>>> a rent to let one of the >>>> team do outstanding tests. >>>> >>>> Isn't it possible to also develop hardware collaboratively? >>> >> >>> I have to say -- at this point, I don't think so. It's not that the concept >>>> is impossible, or as you mention above, that testing can't be done. But >>>> based on what OM and FIC before them have reported, it would be very hard. >>>> >>> Yes, it would be hard, but FIC and OM have made a great job. We have a >>> fully functioning phone, but we couldn't easy create our own prototypes to >>> play with. Good ideas are published as the robotics project. If having a >>> really open schematics and even the board design. one could change the >>> formfactor and add his/her needed stuff to play with. If you have to worry >>> about how to enter a completely new schematics from the PDF, the fence is >>> higher to think about jumping over and just DO it. >> >> >> Steve has commented a bit about this, as far as a packaging and final >> production are concerned. There might be a possibility to build "modular >> kits" so different hardware (and software) combos could be tried out, but >> translating that into a widget that can be sold as a phone is also a >> consideration. We could put together an awesome phone as a kit that is about >> the size of a CD drive, but then find out that some parts we used aren't >> available in quantities or timelines that make sense to produce a phone. The >> concept is awesome, but I'm not sure it can feed into a real product -- but >> it's something to think about. > > Werner and I are discussing various possibilities. I rule nothing out. > >> >> >> >>> Principally, this is due to a moving target. Since everything is obsolete >>>> in a few months, the shelf life of products in the embedded space is very >>>> small. The next big hurdle is in getting specs. OM/FIC were producing >>>> thousands of devices and possibly more, so had better quantities then a >>>> hobby group might muster -- and still had poor access to hardware specs, >>>> when they got them. Now, of course, some of their decisions might have been >>>> practical too (we can get >1000 more closed pieces from company X, while we >>>> can only get ~100 more open pieces from company Y), we don't know. >>>> >>> Yes, the technique is moving forward fast - for the real phone, not for a >>> GSM module for sample :-) >>> >>> Today I have searched for a GSM module and indeed found one with a complete >>> ARM based Linux stack. It would be much too expensive, but when having only >>> the next planned GSM module that will appear in the phone, one could test it >>> on a standard pc. Or even participate in GSM related development only. >> >> >> I love the idea of being able to mock up hardware, as it lets the software >> move forward too. But if our test platform can't be translated into a >> suitable form factor, it might be a waste. > YUP. Just to review the GTA03. At one stage the WIFI and GPS had to be > removed because it didnt fit in the case. If "thin" is in, then using > a module is out, for the most part. How thin is thin? Typical marketing > answer would be "thinner than the iPhone" but obviously some fat phones ship >> >> >>> I had an idea about my car radio. The idea came because I use my Neo to >>> transmit music over bluetooth, then over a FM transmitter to the radio. This >>> is bad quality. >>> There are really much entusiasts building their own carPC in double DIN >>> factor or similar - even small PC barebones. Why not equip it with a GSM >>> module to become a real handsfree carPC + phone. They will benefit from such >>> a module and propably participate in development. > On of our early partners, in fact, was designing such a carPC and > wanted to use FR as a dev platform. Alas they demanded a different > processor ( Intel) so that deal didnt go through. >>> >>> Open the development by also selling parts of a phone for the hobby >>> electronics would increase the audience and the feedback. >>> I don't know how this component has to be deliverded, but I think it must >>> be compilant to some law. >> >> >> The current phone stuff already passes those laws. Would it be possible to >> adapt them, on the electronic side? I have no doubt. Steve or someone on the >> OM side might be able to speak to the regulations issue. > You change the RFs ( antenna/circuits etc) and you have to recert. > I'll have to take a closer look. I know this, I could not sell the > STREAKER ( a freerunner with no case) without a recertification. > Antenna and case are a system. >> >> Now, there are many people who like the idea of an "open source" phone, but >>>> I think that a lot of them assume it will be polished to the level that >>>> modern Linux distros are up to nowadays. And the truth is, the open linux >>>> phone isn't there yet. >>>> >>>> Now, these aren't impossible hurdles to climb, but they aren't going to be >>>> simple either. >>>> >>>> >>>> What I also think about, is why are there only PDF schematics available? >>>> >>>> I think there were other formats too, but that might have only been case >>>> design. My feeling is that OM isn't trying to be closed about hardware -- >>>> but rather make some money selling it and be able to subsidize software >>>> development. >>>> >>> Selling a mobile phone lab with components and the full schematics would >>> propably taken from other companies to participate. They may be able to pay >>> for the kit and inturn >>> help development and give feedback. Think about opencores or the other >>> projects and sites. The open hardware movement is at the way. >>> >>> With such a kit OM could get money, but also feedback - maybe in schematics >>> and board design parts. I am not sure if a board could be divided in >>> subdesigned subboards >>> as schematics could (KICAD). But at least a part could be developed or the >>> design could be overtaken. >>> >>> Small companies could jump onto that train, if such a kit is available. And >>> it eases the jump, if Schematics would be based on open source software like >>> KICAD :-) >>> >>> Dont always think about selling ready usable phones. Think about kits that >>> help driving the idea behind an open phone in general (car PC for sample). >>> The carPC hobby entusiast propably won't buy a not 'ready' phone, but think >>> about adding the hands free phone option in his/her project. This is because >>> he/she is acting in building the carPC. >> >> >> >> If it is possible to delegate hardware development tasks to the >>>> comunity why isn't it done yet? >>>> >>>> I think this is a good idea. Maybe the community could launch a proposal >>>> for what should go into an "GTA0X, X >2". The only problem here is that you >>>> get everyone coming out of the woodwork to add their dream widget to a >>>> phone. And if that got built, we'd need wheels on it to truck it around. :) >>>> What we really need then is a way to get community involvement, but also a >>>> realistic "put your money where your mouth is" way to solicit $$ from >>>> people >>>> who are willing to buy the things. Something like, but stronger then, "if >>>> the phone had features (x, y, z), would you pony up $AAA bucks for it?" >>>> >>> Therefore a site with adding votes would be valuable. This eliminates these >>> ideas only few have and push ideas many have. >>> Then propably membership could be enabled to help in that idea... >> >> >> Votes are nice, but even with voting you'll end up with lots of good ideas >> and perhaps not so many marketable ones. My thought above there was to put >> your money on the table with a "vote". "My company will by 10 GTA0X.Ys if >> they have sexy widget Z in them, for $500 a pop". Now, that quantity is too >> small to mean anything, but if you get 100 people like that, it might be >> more interesting. >> >> >>> Then if there are some results that have a chance to become a real >>>> 'next' phone, a company like openmoko could >>>> think about producing some prototypes. So the company has a reduced cost. >>>> >>>> That's a good question -- what would producing prototypes cost? Maybe >>>> that's the line to take with OM -- we can do the hardware specs, you >>>> produce >>>> a few prototypes to see if they work, and then we go to production? >>>> >>> The strength behind the comunity would propably reducing cost of >>> prototyping. Here is a cost sample: >>> >>> http://www.eurocircuits.com/index.php/PCB-production-service-overview/PCB-proto-the-new-PCB-prototype-service-from-Eurocircuits.html >>> >>> I know of another printed circuit manufacturer my mother was visiting with >>> her friend. I'll ask him about such prototyping issues. Maybe he could offer >>> cheaper. >>> >>> The comunity is big and some came to quite good hardware ideas, so why not >>> push the comunity be selling parts as premanufactured elements and let them >>> have fun. >>> Good ideas could be communicated (by voting), cost could be saved when an >>> idea finds more attract and the chances of usable ideas for the next phone >>> could be taken, because the hardware is open source. >> >> >>> Swapping prototypes in the comunity would also be an option. Not always a >>> new prototype is nessesary. One may build a wirewrap circuit and an engineer >>> could catch up >>> the prototype to work for a first layout that needs some HF knowledge to >>> get properly working. Others that are interested in a first prototype >>> printed circuit could be served by voting to add room for their ideas needed >>> space on the board as breadboard. >>> >>> It's always the comunity that drive good ideas and thus cost is saved. More >>> boards are cheaper :-) >> >> >> Would a prototype with GSM stuff be ok to be shuffled around? Would the >> cost to produce such boards really be in the affordable range? >> >> There is one really good electronics project: The internal debug board. >>>> I'm not sure about that. The debug board(s) are one tact, but there are >>>> lots of different neat knobs in the FR. Early on, someone was using the FR >>>> for a small remote boat. Some of that stuff needs a creative mind, and it >>>> might be external to the FR, but it can show what can be done with it. >>>> >>>> >>> I know about the boat, I have watched his video :-) >>> >>> A hardware project site and using open source software for board design, >>> such as KICAD would help to enlarge the comunity. Not all must be inside a >>> phone, something could >>> be at a Eurocard sized board. Say the remote boat or in general a device >>> that supports remote appliances would find more attraction if it would be >>> 'pluggable' on a stacked board. I am not sure how much electronics the >>> remote boat needs, but at least controlling servos. >>> >>> BTW, I had developed a train station clock driven by a Microchip PIC 16F84, >>> a stepup DC/DC converter and a simple H bridge to drive the 'motor' of the >>> clock. >>> Good ideas must be publisched open sourced (I think about that now :-) >>> >>> The project died, because it stuck at soldered wirewrap level board >>> prototype, it was not communicated, therefore no interest came back thus no >>> printed circuits were developed at a next development step. It would have a >>> chance to grow and improve, when it were open sourced and other hobbyists >>> get knowledge about it - the comunity. >>> >>> The project is more than 10 years ago :-( >>> >>> My current hobby is software development and I follow a movement that other >>> argue to be unusable, or only at university level, (so it will be called >>> 'arsed around'), but I don't agree to them. It's great stuff about code >>> generation, MDA / MDSD and the like. It's a movement to a new methology how >>> to develop software. It's not always understood by a mortal developer. They >>> must see that new methologies work. >>> >>> Even a stupid idea like distributed hardware engineering may be a way to >>> earn money. Services like board layout could be payd for. So it will >>> propably not always >>> at a hobby level. Another area is distributed music making - as reported at >>> one of our local TV broadcaster. Things seem not realizeable but must >>> thought twice. >>> Link: http://www.3sat.de/neues/sendungen/magazin/132217/index.html >>> That isn't really related to this thread, but points out, that things are >>> possible. >>> >>> Developing on a board design could also done that way. We have Skype, could >>> share the project files and even could keep versions of design ideas in the >>> CVS >>> or SVN repository. There is only the question if an open source board >>> design could easily converted in a format that - for sample is required for >>> electromagnetic compatibility >>> tests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_compatibility) >>> >>> Renting equipment or swapping parts would save money, who better could >>> spend in a good layout. Using colaboration like the music sample could also >>> save money. >>> An electromagnetic compatibility specialized firm could inspect a layout, >>> before it will go to a real hardware test. >>> (If the format conversion from open source SW to expensive ECAD SW is >>> possible) >>> >>> Many ideas when sitting at home :-) >>> >> >> I've been to installathons and other software type events, where the idea is >> to fiddle around with stuff. Would it make sense to do something like this >> in the community? A hack-a-moko day, whether it was sponsored by OM or not? >> While it might not lead to a design that translates 100% into something >> mass-produceable, could that inspire something that is, or it it too far >> away? >> >> (I apologize for the quoting -- something seems a bit off there) >> >> Gerald >> > > _______________________________________________ > Openmoko community mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
