Actions
Engagement
  • Author Author: Jeff
  • Date Created: Date Created
  • Last Updated Last Updated:
  • Views 993 views
  • Likes 2 likes
  • Comments 5 comments
Related
Recommended

Open Source Hardware Success Factors

Which of the following factors are most critical to expanding the open source hardware movement? (log on to cast your vote!)

Parents

  • @Jeff:

    You are right. This is exactly the point how big Open Source Software projects get their funding. I am working in the Java Enterprise Environment. Their you have the need for a rock solid web server. But it does not make sens that everybody develops it's own. Therefore Tomcat was created. Big companies pay contributors to adapt it to their needs and give it back to the 'community'. On the on hand they feed their competitors, since they can use their contributions and intelectual properties. But on the other hand their development costs for infrastructure (i.e. your development platforms) are way smaller. They simply could not afford to develop their own infrastructure.

    The good marketing effects are a bonus too. Since having a 'committer' (a person who is allowed to write in the public repository) in an open source project is a good way to prove that you are an open company (and is an excellent way to influence the project).

     

    @Zad:

    I think it is the other way around (a bit image ). Yes it is normal to 'copy' solutions. But Open Source Hardware brings in a new aspects: Sharing your results. If you find a slight improvement to the data sheet solution you can share it with others and get it back. Doing it 'oficially' Open Source gives other users the confidence to just use it without getting sued.

    I think you are completely right. The real value is the packaged solution of a circuit, a PCB and software. I do not think that sharing this is the first steps for industries to go.

    But sharing building blocks, patterns and simple solutions enable every participant to build bigger solutions. That is the reason why (in theory) scientific results are freely availlable.

    E.g in the micro controller market there is a trend to use Eclipse, GCC and some plugins to build a microcontroller IDE. Developing this all by your own is very cost intensive. But if you just have to change a bit in gcc and provide a plugin for eclipse and package everything in a nice download bundle the costs are just a fraction. And if there are some bits that are incompatible for those stupid Mac OS X guys (I am one myself) then some guy with too muh time at hand investigates and fixes it. If he is able to send you the patch and you can incorporate it in your product you get Mac OS X (or Linux or whatever) support for free.

    I think it is all very different in Open Source Hardware than in Open Source Software. But there is no reason that both cannot learn from each other.

Comment

  • @Jeff:

    You are right. This is exactly the point how big Open Source Software projects get their funding. I am working in the Java Enterprise Environment. Their you have the need for a rock solid web server. But it does not make sens that everybody develops it's own. Therefore Tomcat was created. Big companies pay contributors to adapt it to their needs and give it back to the 'community'. On the on hand they feed their competitors, since they can use their contributions and intelectual properties. But on the other hand their development costs for infrastructure (i.e. your development platforms) are way smaller. They simply could not afford to develop their own infrastructure.

    The good marketing effects are a bonus too. Since having a 'committer' (a person who is allowed to write in the public repository) in an open source project is a good way to prove that you are an open company (and is an excellent way to influence the project).

     

    @Zad:

    I think it is the other way around (a bit image ). Yes it is normal to 'copy' solutions. But Open Source Hardware brings in a new aspects: Sharing your results. If you find a slight improvement to the data sheet solution you can share it with others and get it back. Doing it 'oficially' Open Source gives other users the confidence to just use it without getting sued.

    I think you are completely right. The real value is the packaged solution of a circuit, a PCB and software. I do not think that sharing this is the first steps for industries to go.

    But sharing building blocks, patterns and simple solutions enable every participant to build bigger solutions. That is the reason why (in theory) scientific results are freely availlable.

    E.g in the micro controller market there is a trend to use Eclipse, GCC and some plugins to build a microcontroller IDE. Developing this all by your own is very cost intensive. But if you just have to change a bit in gcc and provide a plugin for eclipse and package everything in a nice download bundle the costs are just a fraction. And if there are some bits that are incompatible for those stupid Mac OS X guys (I am one myself) then some guy with too muh time at hand investigates and fixes it. If he is able to send you the patch and you can incorporate it in your product you get Mac OS X (or Linux or whatever) support for free.

    I think it is all very different in Open Source Hardware than in Open Source Software. But there is no reason that both cannot learn from each other.

Children
No Data