Hi Joseph,
Your project and projects like yours were one of the principal
motivations behind the decision to focus on FR. GTA03 as defined
would not have met your needs: no wifi, no GPS. Comments below
inlined address your other concerns
Joseph Reeves wrote:
>> 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.
To be specific he said that Dash took 90% of our resources. That
forms the heart of the argument to characterize it as a distraction..
perhaps the better word would be DIVERSION.
How will "Plan
> B" (which is presumably not a distraction but a means of improving ROI
> for FIC) avoid becoming thought of as Dash2?
Project B is not a dash like diversion of resourse. The prototype
engineering didnt even rise to half the level of a EVT run for a phone.
That's been paid for long ago. Sunk cost. So we have two choices for the
hardware team working on GTA03:
A: let them continue and they run out of resources 1/3 the way through
the project ensuring failure.
B. Keep them relatively intact and have them work to cost down project
B and bring it to market. and then transition to a more well defined
GTA03.
Openmoko is not a part of FIC anymore we spun out in 2008.
Having said that, Project B, like all new category devices is a
calculated risk. In my 11 years at Creative labs I did nothing but bring
new category products to market. It's hard, but it's not impossible.
Finishing GTA03 as it was defined, given our resources, was
mathematically impossible. I dont know anything more distracting that
trying to prove that 2+2=5. So, given the choice between what I know to
be impossible and what I know to possible, I'll pick the possible
everytime. so would you.
>
> 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
