LeafLabs Garden » Topic: Professional Serie

LeafLabs Garden » Topic: Professional Serie http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660 A place to share, learn, and grow... en-US Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:25:03 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://forums.leaflabs.com/search.php gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660&page=2#post-3843 Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:52:26 +0000 gbulmer 3843@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Math - Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from. I agree <blockquote>... a few experienced engineers could reverse engineer the Maple in a very short time ... </blockquote> but I don't think many of those folks will be interested in the technical design of something like Maple. IMHO the combination of Open Source Hardware and Software is useful for everyone who'd like to understand how to make something like Maple. The combination is especially useful to anyone who would have trouble with the time and effort to make the first working prototype. A concrete example like Maple is very much more helpful than MCU Manufacturers' designs, which get bloated with extras to show how great their chip is. Anyway, your proposition is their may be a market for a 'professional' series of Maple-like boards, differentiated from Maple by: 1. more robust I/O protection, specifically against both ESD and overvoltage 2. more robust and sophisticated daugtherboard/shield connectors, e.g using PCI sockets 3. microATX footprint, and able to fit into microATX case/chassis 4. more robust power supply 5. either Ethernet on board, or supported on a daughterboard Unlike existing industrial control boards, it would not have: A. Manufacturers warranty, it would be "as-is", and "unsuitable" B. UL or FCC certification, and would avoid investment in testing for those certificates C. A significant sales force or marketing budget Is that fair? Maybe you could create a wiki page? Math on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660&page=2#post-3833 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:29:27 +0000 Math 3833@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ I totally agree with everything you just said above. First of all, the ''open source'' factor in hardware is not the same as in software. There is a massive paradigm shift when making money in FOSS software vs proprietary. In hardware, your business model will be similar to any other existing hardware business around. If you allow me, lets split the ''product'' into 2 ''open'' components... Open Hardware: The fact that the hardware is open is mostly meaningless. Without, any instruction, I bet a few experienced engineers could reverse engineer the Maple in a very short time. What you gain is transparency, the ability by outsiders to inspect and submit bug reports and improvements and possibility by potential costumer to really know the product they what to buy. Open Software: Open software is totally different from a blob and closed solutions. All the usual advantage of open source vs proprietary solutions. FOSS is simply a superior development model for software since production cost is 0$. An actual real world example of that would be the classic blue Linksys WRT54GL. Go back a few years and most consumers routers where total piece of junk. I never opened a consumer router but I'm really to bet that most of them are almost the same on the hardware side. So take those piece of junk WRT54G routers, slap DD-WRT on it and you get a bulletproof router comparable to an enterprise class of router worth quite a few Franklin*. Now, most routers are compatible with DD-WRT, since it rocks, and its free. Personally, I don't care that I don't have ''open hardware'' on my router. Still, if I was a three letters agency, I may like the fact that I can verify that my hardware isn't doing some extra funny stuff without me knowing. Since, that we must all know that ''open source'' (software side at least on the short term, and yes, Microsoft is chapter 11 in not too far away...), you have the opyion of being a pioneer and surfing the wave or waiting for someone else to do it. This, in my mind is the first and most important point: Do you believe it? If you do, you continue reading. If not, there is no point if still being here... Next step is: Exactly how the hell I'm I suppose to do it? Well, thats the 100$ questions. If people are open to the discussion, I'm all up for some major brainstorming... *Disclaimer: I'm a Cisco shareholder gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660&page=2#post-3822 Fri, 04 Mar 2011 17:10:48 +0000 gbulmer 3822@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Math - my points are simple. Summary: you have not identified a viable path to an Open Hardware market, or that one exists for the product you describe (beyond your own needs). You have not identified a company which has built an Open Hardware business while surviving within a commercial environment. The only company you have identified as successful, in a market related to the one you propose, is traditional and proprietary and not Open Source. <blockquote>-I don't see that either Arduino or Redhat are examples of the approach you advocate: They are not </blockquote> So why even mention them? You seemed to say that Redhat or Arduino looked impossible but succeeded, and if I have understood, that they prove that it can be done. I think an evolutionary/Darwinian mind-set helps. It is inevitable that we talk about the entities that succeed, because they are the ones we know. We shouldn't point to the survivors, and say "look they succeeded so that proves this other thing can succeed". That is a bit like saying "look at that fish, it neither drowns nor dissolves in the sea (both impressive feats), so this dog can do the same". We should never uncritically identify survivors as if they are evidence, while ignoring the legacy of all of the precursors. (Though this is how business "guru's" work, it isn't scientific) From where I sat, it looked inevitable that someone would eventually figure out how to make money out of Linux. Some of the software was good (the best?) for some commercially valuable niches, and Linux provided low start up costs. I thought it might be IBM, or one of the hardware companies (HP, DEC, Dell, Compaq) because it would have synergy with their basis of profitable businesses. I couldn't pick the winner, but the outcome of profit from Linux seemed very likely. I was not looking at low-end microcontroller hardware when Arduino started. I would have expected one of the chip makers to make an Open Hardware design, so it could be inherently profitable. Further, just because Arduino have succeeded, I don't assume a "version 2" will be the right way to emulate or surpass its success. I can't think of many "version 2's" that are as succesful as the breakthrough orginal. It does not amaze me that these sort of things succeed. IMHO that is the power of the 'Darwinism of market forces' in action. (We do need to recognise we may only become aware of a market after a winner emerges.) It sometimes amazes me that people think "Open Source" is a magic incantation that allows something to be created apparently for nothing. The 'Darwinian eco-system' of Open Source is different from traditional proprietary business, but their are still constraints and evolutionary pressure. I think LeafLabs are doing a very good job of operating under commercial pressures (i.e. outside of academia or a sheltering corporation) in Open Hardware, where some of the traditional Open Source assumptions break down. I feel it is extremely useful to have debate about what commercial Open Hardware businesses might look like. But I think it is helpful to base it on carefully chosen, relevant evidence, unflinchingly identify the risks and limited success, and use real examples to inform the debate. Math on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3815 Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:31:20 +0000 Math 3815@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ ---poslathian--- -support: Sure, we have a huge community and a free forum :). Need design help? our engineers can help develop your application for a small fee:D -testing: open source style testing... -certification: Only required for highly regulated industries (nuke, aero, etc), dont aim for those markets at first. -FCC and UL certs, ovens for performance/temperature curves, vibration testing, certified connectors, etc: That was my 5000$ investment for testing benches... can't you find that sort of stuff at the MIT? Must be a nice EE/ME grad project... -industrial-corporate sales team and support staff: Start with free marketing, aka peer to peer -I'd like to hear what you consider to be sufficient polish to breaking into your market: I spent a lot of time (read $$$) last year working for a crown corporation (country known for its maple syrup) in the nuclear market. I swear to God, those guys were stuck programming their controllers in DOS because of software lock in. That's how bad it is. Over looked into home automation? Major mess. I could go on and on... Just make in open source, reliable, professional friendly (nice connectors, easy to use software) and it will sell. ---gbulmer--- -In fact, I would suggest that Redhat did exactly take Open Source products developed by others, and make money out of them. I am not saying that is bad, just the basis of much of their product is other peoples (freely published) work. That's called innovation. Innovation is the technological leapfrogging of existing technologies. What is the Maple if not an Arduino ripoff? In the FOSS world, you cannot called an invention ripoff, simply innovation. What I'm proposing is no technological marvel invention, simply innovation on a business level. Leaving the low level pure hobbyist market and working on bigger and better. By itself, the Maple was easy to develop: take the Arduino concept, software, reputation, market but port it to a 32bit microcontroller. But it stopped there since that was the easy path for engineers. No need for sale, marketing, market development, etc. Since the Maple is technically Arduino V2, its build on all its past innovations (''It's development costs were subsidised by a PCB manufacturer, who is a friend of Massimo'', etc etc). The Maple R5 is now working prototype board. In my mind, that's a halfway done project. And that was the easy part. -I don't see that either Arduino or Redhat are examples of the approach you advocate: They are not. But they are examples of projects that first looked impossible but succeed. -and AFAIK Geckodrive has no Open Source products: I know, that why they will never achieve world domination. On they other hand, do you really need an open source drivers? But, they managed to created products based on customer inputs, flawless reputation, low cost high quality products, etc. poslathian on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3814 Thu, 03 Mar 2011 22:01:31 +0000 poslathian 3814@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ a little piece of history about the risk of the original arduino project - and im not knocking, this was great serendipity - Arduino took advantage of an Italian law where they could operate with net-90 payment to their local fab company. This means that they could build large volumes of arduino on 90 day credit. This is a pretty huge advantage then say - having to find $10k up front for the first fab run. Furthermore, with this scheme, you could continually grow the volume of each run without having finished selling the first run! Without this, it takes a fairly long time in order to build up the cash to do runs of 1000 or even 4000 pcs (4000 is where the prices really start coming down because you can often buy direct from the manufacturer of the components rather than a distributor), even if your demand could sustain those high volumes. No point here - just interesting.... gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3809 Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:49:10 +0000 gbulmer 3809@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Math <blockquote> <blockquote>If it were Open Source, it might provide a basis for someone else to bring something to production: </blockquote> Well, nobody has managed to kill Arduino or RedHat even if it is opensource. </blockquote> Redhat invested in quality control, packaging and support for an existing body of software. IMHO their real creation was marketing their quality control and support. Redhat does do some software development and testing, but the core of the product, Linux, and the applications like Apache web server, GNU GCC, PostgreSQL, etc. were not developed by Redhat. They wrap quality control and support around Open Source, which is itself not Open Source. In fact, I would suggest that Redhat did exactly take Open Source products developed by others, and make money out of them. I am not saying that is bad, just the basis of much of their product is other peoples (freely published) work. <blockquote>... and become the defacto brand name (like arduino for hobbyists). </blockquote> Just to ensure people understand the genesis of Arduino. The Arduino started in University, and, AFAIK, initial development was funded by the university. It's development costs were subsidised by a PCB manufacturer, who is a friend of Massimo. It is a beautiful piece of design, cleverly aimed at a niche, but was funded at low risk. So, I don't see that either Arduino or Redhat are examples of the approach you advocate. I had a quick look, and AFAIK Geckodrive has no Open Source products. crenn on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3808 Thu, 03 Mar 2011 08:12:34 +0000 crenn 3808@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ thebestcasescenario.com :P That's pretty much it! But the Leaflabs Maple name has been going around my uni because of my project! Hopefully soon it will be the Maple Mini! poslathian on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3805 Wed, 02 Mar 2011 16:52:29 +0000 poslathian 3805@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ <blockquote>Sure I know. If, I was actually planning on doing it myself, I would not be posting here. At least, not witouth a well defined business plan. My goal was simply to start a discussion to get people thinking. </blockquote> It is a very interesting suggestion, and you definitely succeeded in that goal! My intuition was always that to achieve any level of success on the industrial side would require a runaway amount of support/testing/certification - starting with FCC and UL certs and ending with electronics ovens for performance/temperature curves, vibration testing, certified connectors, etc. Add in industrial-corporate sales team and support staff, and 2k$ for an "industrial arduino." I'd like to hear what you consider to be sufficient polish to breaking into your market. <blockquote> Find a niche market. Since I'm the kind of retard that design CNC machines as an hobby I can give the the gecko drive exemple. These guys pretty much managed to get themself a pretty stellar reputation by hanging off the cnczone.com forum, answering questions and taking advices from customers. My idea would be to spot a few serious hobbyist meetings, forums and the like and become the defacto brand name (like arduino for hobbyists). When you manage to acheive and acceptable level of sales and quality, you move to universities, research labs, hospitals, etc. By that point, the whole software stack must be great enough to simply trash trough the industrial business. </blockquote> This is good thinking! So what other forums does everyone else hang out at? ;) Math on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3792 Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:28:47 +0000 Math 3792@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ gbulmer: 1. Yes, I could do that business plan too: Huge financial risk is if you pay people to do it. IF you have the skill to develop a working prototype yourself, its only a matter of time = money. One way to get free labor, is to get undergrad students to work on it. So much ressources is wasted at technical universities redoing the same exercises while this energy could be used working on opensource projects. 2. LeafLabs have already made a significant investment in Maple: Perfect, just keep the same ARM 32 architecture. And knowledge gained... 3. If it were Open Source, it might provide a basis for someone else to bring something to production: Well, nobody has managed to kill Arduino or RedHat even if it is opensource. The trick is to go low margin high volume. By going high volume, you reduce a lot your production cost thus sheilding you from simple copies. Also, do not underestimate the value of a brand. If you offer high quality, good service and low cost, there is no reason for a customer to look for an alternative. 4. What is the thing that converts this from an idea into a viable product? Find a niche market. Since I'm the kind of retard that design CNC machines as an hobby I can give the the gecko drive exemple. These guys pretty much managed to get themself a pretty stellar reputation by hanging off the cnczone.com forum, answering questions and taking advices from customers. My idea would be to spot a few serious hobbyist meetings, forums and the like and become the defacto brand name (like arduino for hobbyists). When you manage to acheive and acceptable level of sales and quality, you move to universities, research labs, hospitals, etc. By that point, the whole software stack must be great enough to simply trash trough the industrial business. 5. So where does the money come from to fund the "huge finantial risk"? You keep the cost down by working by yourself at first. 5000$ should be enough to cover prototype boards, test equipment, etc. mbolivar: Sure I know. If, I was actually planning on doing it myself, I would not be posting here. At least, not witouth a well defined business plan. My goal was simply to start a discussion to get people thinking. mbolivar on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3772 Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:32:21 +0000 mbolivar 3772@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Math, Speaking as a LeafLabs employee, I will say that it's currently not a priority for us to develop hardened versions of our products. As it's been said, our designs are open; you are free to pursue this goal yourself, but it's not on our horizon. gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3765 Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:20:57 +0000 gbulmer 3765@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I am not a LeafLabs employee. <blockquote>What I could do is design a business plan and hire people to develop the product. Trouble is that would be a huge finantial risk. </blockquote> Yes, I could do that business plan too. Yes it is a large financial risk. What is your risk mitigation? LeafLabs have already made a significant investment in Maple. I think the board you seem to ask for is several times more complex, i.e. several times more investment. <blockquote>A more logical step would be having at least a somewhat working prototype. </blockquote> A somewhat working prototype won't earn any income to offset the risk. If it were Open Source, it might provide a basis for someone else to bring something to production, but that just worsened the odds for the "huge finantial risk". I worked at a large Cambridge MA based software company, and our CTO estimated it cost 10x to convert a working prototype into a viable product. I'm an optimist, and would hope for a factor of only PI. <blockquote>The next genius step would be finding a way to wedge the product into the market. </blockquote> Agreed. What is the thing that converts this from an idea into a viable product? <blockquote>I assume the standard open market pull could do wonders.</blockquote> So where does the money come from to fund the "huge finantial risk"? Once it is Open Sourced, the margin can't be too big, or the design will end up in a Chinese factory, undercutting the original. Math on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3764 Sun, 27 Feb 2011 15:45:37 +0000 Math 3764@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Well, thats an easy one to answer. I am not a wizard about hardware design. I simply assumed that a team that managed to develop a product such as the Maple had the knowledge to design a real product. What I could do is design a business plan and hire people to develop the product. Trouble is that would be a huge finantial risk. A more logical step would be having at least a somewhat working prototype. The next genius step would be finding a way to wedge the product into the market. I assume the standard open market pull could do wonders. gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3726 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 14:29:20 +0000 gbulmer 3726@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Math - if you think there is a need, why not do it? How much effort do you think it'll take? Math on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3719 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:12:24 +0000 Math 3719@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Open source design, open source software. If it fails based on bad design then I'm the sucker. Liability is based on the concept of black boxes. Plus, if your boards suffer from poor reliability, people will know from mouth to mouth. Plus, all the ''tricks'' for power protection are well known, so its not like asking to develop some new bleeding edge concept. What is needed is to figure out exactly what would be the most universal concept. I could easily see a general purpose board, with ATI crossfire type of connector for expansion cards. Or even some kind of casing with already pre made connectors so that you only slide in new cards. 16+bit ADC/DAC card, network card, motor drive control. You could even connect a few gecko drives to the board to a powerfull ARM board, load EMC2, create a web interface and run a kickass CNC controller. If Red Hat managed to get a billion $ a year in sales, imagine what could be done with open hardware... people free Labview, ABB, Siemens, Fanuc... For disclaimer, I should add that I'm a ME, so yes I do lack on the EE geek speak. gbulmer on "Professional Serie" http://forums.leaflabs.com/topic.php?id=660#post-3714 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:53:16 +0000 gbulmer 3714@http://forums.leaflabs.com/ Interesting. I should add, I am not a LeafLabs employee. I haven't worked in the nuclear industry, but a friend/colleague did, and some of the software I've worked on runs in manufacturing plants in production systems. I did a board which had some input protection for a University, using a similar technique to the Gator+, but it cost quite a lot to test, and it did reduce the performance of the inputs and outputs. It was only designed to be 'safe' upto 18 volts on the basis that the board was powered by a 9V supply, so it only had be protected from accidents with that magnitude of voltage. Is that sort of level sufficient or are you asking for something more? IMHO, liability and testing is a big part of the cost. I worked with Ed Yourdon in the early 00's, and he said several software product companies spent more on lawyers to handle product liability than software development. He wasn't talking about nuclear industry, or even manufacturing, he was talking about normal software applications. Gator has no liability cover, it has the normal 90 day warranty - it should switch on. <a href="http://ruggedcircuits.com/html/policies.html" rel="nofollow">http://ruggedcircuits.com/html/policies.html</a> <blockquote>Rugged Circuits LLC makes no other warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including any warranty of merchantability, fitness of our products for any particular purpose, even if that purpose is known to Rugged Circuits LLC, or any warranty relating to intellectual property. Rugged Circuits LLC shall not be liable for any injury, loss, damage, or loss of profits resulting from the handling or use of our products.</blockquote> So, would that level of liability (i.e. standard 90 day) be okay?