hellekin wrote: > The SoC model is based > on Freescale I.MX6 processor family.
Freescale's i.MX are nice. Good history of open-friendliness, readable documentation, decent feature set. Not quite bleeding edge, but that's often more of a benefit than a disadvantage. > So you're probably competing at least against the Wandboard[0]. > Anything less than that is likely to cost more to produce and probably > won't attract nor convince anyone but <10K hardware hackers. Naw, different goals. You can get all sorts of boards with such characteristics. What makes the Nanonote unique is that the design is optimized to be nicely portable. > IMO, Ben's successor should be not planned as an encased nano-computer > but as an extensible and hackable platform. You have the design files. One of the hardest design scenarios, putting it all into a small form factor, will already have been solved. So - if you can't just adapt the existing board and are really up to rolling you own - you can comparably easily morph it into something different. One can support a small number of BOM options (e.g., IDBG yes/no, wireless yes/no, fancy extension connector yes/no, etc.), but beyond that you're digging only your own grave if you design in lots of things you won't sell. This is in line with ... > 4. Its production should not depend on a single person / entity that ... just that one shouldn't depend on one entity to cover the world's design needs. - Werner _______________________________________________ Qi Hardware Discussion List Mail to list (members only): [email protected] Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
