I have been writing up a review of the Altera Nios II Evaluation Kit, and these videos and responses have made me think quite a bit about what I have written, and the way I have written it. No videos for me I'm afraid (although I have done a few short silent videos of the product itself) but I think some editing is going to happen before i dare show it to the world.
Anyway, I think the cause of all the commotion has been the shock at seeing how a modern piece of HP (Agilent) test equipment looks when compared to the 'old' stuff. I get the impression that all the engineering effort has gone into the fashionable software area and the hardware design has been farmed out somewhere. I don't care where something is made and designed, but the hardware design does look like it was done by inexperienced people who don't especially care about doing things the best way. It smacks of being a marketing-led product, rather like GM and Chrysler were, not engineering-led.
One of my hates is the cheap squishy rubber buttons many manufacturers use. Perfectly acceptable on budget gear (heaven knows I have specced it myself) but not on quality stuff. Change those, do a bit of PCB re-design, put in a decent Li-Po battery that can run it for a working week (hey, if my cheap phone can have a battery like this, I'm sure this meter can) , get rid of the cheesy tunes is plays and put in a good fast continuity tester and they could charge a chunk more cash for it.
How about adding an induction coupled charge/run dock powered by USB? They could run out the logger data that way without any spike problems. They could probably even charge $50 more for that too!
I have been writing up a review of the Altera Nios II Evaluation Kit, and these videos and responses have made me think quite a bit about what I have written, and the way I have written it. No videos for me I'm afraid (although I have done a few short silent videos of the product itself) but I think some editing is going to happen before i dare show it to the world.
Anyway, I think the cause of all the commotion has been the shock at seeing how a modern piece of HP (Agilent) test equipment looks when compared to the 'old' stuff. I get the impression that all the engineering effort has gone into the fashionable software area and the hardware design has been farmed out somewhere. I don't care where something is made and designed, but the hardware design does look like it was done by inexperienced people who don't especially care about doing things the best way. It smacks of being a marketing-led product, rather like GM and Chrysler were, not engineering-led.
One of my hates is the cheap squishy rubber buttons many manufacturers use. Perfectly acceptable on budget gear (heaven knows I have specced it myself) but not on quality stuff. Change those, do a bit of PCB re-design, put in a decent Li-Po battery that can run it for a working week (hey, if my cheap phone can have a battery like this, I'm sure this meter can) , get rid of the cheesy tunes is plays and put in a good fast continuity tester and they could charge a chunk more cash for it.
How about adding an induction coupled charge/run dock powered by USB? They could run out the logger data that way without any spike problems. They could probably even charge $50 more for that too!
I wouldn't be too overawed at Dave's review, I'm sure he'll admit himself it does take practise to get to that type of standard. I'm sure our readers are interested in hearing about the Altera kit, what it does, and of course what it doesn't do than the actual presentation.
We did do a RoadTest of the U1253A DMM in the Tech First Journal originally, and there are two reviews posted here, I'll link them here so people can maybe get another perspective, although I think they also backs Dave's thumbs up conclusion.
Just a small point, but do you think you concentrate too much on the name? I know Agilent are huge, but if the DMM cost the same price and was unbadged would you have come to the same conclusion?
I've been a huge fan of Agilent/HP gear my entire life, so I'd be foolish to admit that the name doesn't add some personal value for me, so the name will always add some (small) weight to any of my conclusions. As would a Fluke or some other name I am familiar with.
And in practice the name does actually have some tangible value too, in regards to actual circuit design performance and confidence, component purchasing quality, testing etc. Would I trust an Agilent meter more than a no-name meter with the same specs, you bet I would, by an order of magnitude!
Do I concentrate too much on the name? well, I don't think so, I'm reviewing an Agilent meter, not just a Brand X meter, so the name has a lot to do with what I expect, how I think, my previous brand experinence etc. So I find it natural to incorporate that feeling into my reviews. And judging by the responses to my reviews on YouTube and my EEVblog foum, that's what the people expect of my reviews.
I can see where you are coming from. It's just my opinion that things do change over time, and the market leaders need to stay at the top of their game to keep and improve their market share and profits. There are a bunch of no name manufacturers that are up and coming and Agilent has to see them as a challenge, because one day they will have a name if they can keep up quality and keep down costs.
Showing my age now, but I remember in the 70s when made in Japan, or made in Hong Kong was another way of saying cheap and shoddy. Now our AV equipment, vehicles, white goods etc etc are almost all manufactured in these areas. When I was looking for a new TV recently I read a lot of magazines on equipment, and the highest rated 32" LCD TV was a Samsung. Who'd have thought 20 - 30 years ago that a Korean manufacturer would be the best quality TV manufacturer in the world, and the old western quality TV makers like Pye and Ferguson are defunct?
