Re: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 In A Intel Card World?

[Parobalth]

On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 12:49:54PM +, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Alexander Ross
>  wrote:
> > How to market eoma68 vs intel card in a positive way?
> >
> > Heres a go, please edit,suggest as you feel. hmm sounds like a wiki page
> > is coming :) :
> >
> > EOMA68:
> > *Grass roots developed - made by someone who cares
> > *Any processor make
> > *Made with free software and its developers in mind. to help advance and
> > fund free software.
> > *Hardware that just works for free software and there for any software
> > *Makes it easier for the creation and maintenance of many, yet to be
> > thought of, new devices.
> > *Higher Spec additional standard EOMA200 in the works after current ones
> > products are in the market.
> 
>  also (thanks to recent discussions) backwards-compatible upgrade
> options to higher power (up to 10W) and higher resolution(s).
> 1920x1080 planned for first revision, other speeds potentially later
> *if* they can be kept within EMI limits.
> 
> l.
> 

Weeks ago I began to wonder what the best way to promote EOMA68-A20
would be once it becomes a reality in spring. I think the crowdsupply
campaign and the promotion video were very well executed.
Are there any plans for another video -- maybe part of a promotion
campaign starting in spring 2017?
To clarify: I am thinking more of a "guerilla", decentral community
driven campaign and not something involving a slick marketing company.
As a consequence of the recent "intel computer-card" news I feel even
more urgency to create some buzz for EOMA68-A20 and I believe that it is
by far the better product compared to the quite vague Intel announcement.
I can write down some of my ideas which currently live relatively
unstructured in my head if it is seen as a good idea by Luke and the
community. On the other hand if there are already plans how to promote
EOMA68 in the next year I can save myself the time and work on other
projects. 

Parobalth

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Why I think the Intel "Compute Card" will ultimately fail, and why it won't hurt this project

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:32 PM, James L  wrote:

> First off, I don't think Intel's product will actually succeed. Why?
> Corporations make money by selling the next product at the end
> of the life of the product. In this case, though, unless Intel is
> getting into the refrigerator business and every other business
> they plan to release every upgradeable product into, every
> company in the deal must be making money by selling the next
> product. Intel won't have a problem with this, as people will
> happily buy the "brains" upgrade, but the partner companies
> will not be able to sell upgrades without making significant
> improvements to their products (other than RAM, processor,
> etc.) which will make the products more expensive or increase
> their life cycle (both things making the partner company
> uncompetitive). So, if any company makes any kind of products,
> it will be a single more expensive one, with poor quality parts so
> that it will fail sooner rather than later.

  if intel opened up the standard, such that the companies could drop
intel at any time and use a lower-cost ARM or MIPS SoC, then the
standard actually has a chance of success.

 if however it's mandatory to have PCIe and USB 3.1 or some extremely
high-end interface, which basically says "intel only guys, sorry" or
if intel says "no.. and if you try we'll stop supplying you with our
processors", then yes you're absolutely right, it's dead.

 i noticed recently that LG just dropped their modular phone concept.
"no buyers".  900,000 supporters of the phonebloks campaign and 350
MILLION people reached world-wide is not enough??  it says there's
something wrong.  oh wait, i know!  LG didn't publish the interfaces
as an open standard

 google? worked with a group of 3rd party companies that took google's
money to create MIPI UniPro chipsets, patented the standard and
implementation(s) locking *anyone* out for the next 20 years... then
acted surprised when dave hakkans absolutely slated them on his
website after they failed to make anything remotely like he'd
envisioned, four years prior.

 ... yeah :)

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Why I think the Intel "Compute Card" will ultimately fail, and why it won't hurt this project

[Hrvoje Lasic]

Hello,

Actually I think it would be good for this project if Intel make some
success. Basically it would prove the concept and since Luke is already in
mature stage of development this project could be early enough on market.
Not to mention that value proposition behind this project is for different
kind of customer and in different price range. In the same time, Intel
success could make this project more attractive for investment because
there will certainly be more companies jump in (like always in life).

So, some competition is not bad at all...

On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 5:32 PM, James L  wrote:

> When I first heard of the Intel Compute Card, I was a little bit
> frustrated at how much media attention they were getting and
> how similar their marketing terms were (more on that later).
> What I realized was that neither of these thing will hurt the
> project in the long run, for a number of reasons.
>
> First off, I don't think Intel's product will actually succeed. Why?
> Corporations make money by selling the next product at the end
> of the life of the product. In this case, though, unless Intel is
> getting into the refrigerator business and every other business
> they plan to release every upgradeable product into, *every*
> company in the deal must be making money by selling the next
> product. Intel won't have a problem with this, as people will
> happily buy the "brains" upgrade, but the partner companies
> will not be able to sell upgrades without making significant
> improvements to their products (other than RAM, processor,
> etc.) which will make the products more expensive or increase
> their life cycle (both things making the partner company
> uncompetitive). So, if any company makes any kind of products,
> it will be a single more expensive one, with poor quality parts so
> that it will fail sooner rather than later.
>
> The similar marketing terms used may hurt this project in the very
> short term, because people who have heard of Intel's (failed)
> product will associate this project's terminology with a failed
> corporation's product. But in the long run, it won't even matter.
>
> Based on that assumption that they fail (or it turns out to be
> vaporware), it will not actually hurt the project's long term success,
> since the goal of this project is to reach mass volume (100 million+
> units). CES does not reach most non-technical people, who are the
> ultimate target audience of this project. Even many technical people
> do not hear about every product that is announced at CES, so the
> project will not suffer from the similar marketing.
>
> These are just my initial thoughts, and I, for one, will not worry too
> much about this product.
>
> tldr; All the companies involved need to sell new products, this
> business model will only work for Intel (not their partners).
> CES does not reach this project's target audience (in mass volume),
> so it failing will not hurt this project's longest term goals.
>
> ___
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
>
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

[Arm-netbook] Why I think the Intel "Compute Card" will ultimately fail, and why it won't hurt this project

[James L]

When I first heard of the Intel Compute Card, I was a little bit
frustrated at how much media attention they were getting and
how similar their marketing terms were (more on that later).
What I realized was that neither of these thing will hurt the
project in the long run, for a number of reasons.

First off, I don't think Intel's product will actually succeed. Why?
Corporations make money by selling the next product at the end
of the life of the product. In this case, though, unless Intel is
getting into the refrigerator business and every other business
they plan to release every upgradeable product into, *every*
company in the deal must be making money by selling the next
product. Intel won't have a problem with this, as people will
happily buy the "brains" upgrade, but the partner companies
will not be able to sell upgrades without making significant
improvements to their products (other than RAM, processor,
etc.) which will make the products more expensive or increase
their life cycle (both things making the partner company
uncompetitive). So, if any company makes any kind of products,
it will be a single more expensive one, with poor quality parts so
that it will fail sooner rather than later.

The similar marketing terms used may hurt this project in the very
short term, because people who have heard of Intel's (failed)
product will associate this project's terminology with a failed
corporation's product. But in the long run, it won't even matter.

Based on that assumption that they fail (or it turns out to be
vaporware), it will not actually hurt the project's long term success,
since the goal of this project is to reach mass volume (100 million+
units). CES does not reach most non-technical people, who are the
ultimate target audience of this project. Even many technical people
do not hear about every product that is announced at CES, so the
project will not suffer from the similar marketing.

These are just my initial thoughts, and I, for one, will not worry too
much about this product.

tldr; All the companies involved need to sell new products, this
business model will only work for Intel (not their partners).
CES does not reach this project's target audience (in mass volume),
so it failing will not hurt this project's longest term goals.
___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] Intel at CES

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
 wrote:

>  i'm not letting you off the hook here after you said that EOMA68's
> interfaces are "crippled", peter.

ok, so can you see what i did, peter?  you laid down a challenge (to
do better)... and after three days, you've not responded.  you
*provisionally* described an alternative standard... but did not
follow through.

 *that's* what makes the difference, here.  it's *not enough* to say
"the standard you came up with is rubbish", you have to *follow
through*, and if you can't follow through then it's you know what
i'm trying to say?

 what you *should* have said, is:

 "i appreciate all the hard work and persistence that you've shown,
luke, and how comprehensively you've worked on designing EOMA68,
making tough decisions and comprehensive evaluations that, each time
you removed an interface you had to throw away thousands of dollars of
money and you also made sure that you kept everybody informed,
solicited people for ideas and reviews of each decision, and i *do*
recall you saying that this is just the first standard in the series
and that you're deliberately creating one which is 'within reach' of a
libre engineer *and* uses SoCs that are actually accessible rather
than being cartelled or require NDAs and much more, BUT"

 ... and *then* went into "i still feel that the EOMA68 interfaces are
crippled", i would have gone, "yeahh, i know... tell you what: i would
really like to design the next standard for a future Card, how about
we start that now?"

... which would have been a _much_ less confrontational way to
introduce the topic you wanted, wouldn't it?

ehn?

*rueful*

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Re: [Arm-netbook] EOMA68 In A Intel Card World?

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

---
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68


On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Alexander Ross
 wrote:
> How to market eoma68 vs intel card in a positive way?
>
> Heres a go, please edit,suggest as you feel. hmm sounds like a wiki page
> is coming :) :
>
> EOMA68:
> *Grass roots developed - made by someone who cares
> *Any processor make
> *Made with free software and its developers in mind. to help advance and
> fund free software.
> *Hardware that just works for free software and there for any software
> *Makes it easier for the creation and maintenance of many, yet to be
> thought of, new devices.
> *Higher Spec additional standard EOMA200 in the works after current ones
> products are in the market.

 also (thanks to recent discussions) backwards-compatible upgrade
options to higher power (up to 10W) and higher resolution(s).
1920x1080 planned for first revision, other speeds potentially later
*if* they can be kept within EMI limits.

l.

___
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk