2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: Isolate all PNG loading in a separate source/header. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/e6be835
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: Minor cleanups in SFontPlus and ASFont. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/c54dec9
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: Introduced enums for text alignment in the ASFont class. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/a35a7e2
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: moved SFontPlus code into ASFont source files. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/ec5d426
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: simplified object initialization and cleanup. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/492a36b
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: removed precalculation of half heights. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/e4b7113
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: have a single routine for computing text width that also handles newlines. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/ff546cd
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: cleanups in text write methods. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/1bc5539
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: merged SFontPlus class into ASFont class. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/b4f3cde
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: removed duplication of horizontal alignment code. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/bff04d2
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: Merge branch 'master' of projects.qi-hardware.com:gmenu2x http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/8592038
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: Fixed debug print. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/db5ebff
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: only convert font surface if it is not already in a 32bpp format. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/41e6e46
2011-05-12 00:15 <qi-bot> [commit] Maarten ter Huurne: ASFont: access font pixels efficiently. http://qi-hw.com/p/gmenu2x/a382a42
2011-05-12 00:40 <rjeffries> wpwrak for FUTURE consderaton over the air updates. see this note from a commercial ZiBee outfit
2011-05-12 00:40 <rjeffries> http://www.libelium.com/over_the_air_programming_OTA_802.15.4_ZigBee
2011-05-12 00:40 <rjeffries> s/ZiBee/ZigBee
2011-05-12 00:55 <wpwrak> rjeffries: sure, you can always add OTA. just kinda inconvenient in our case :)
2011-05-12 01:09 <wpwrak> rjeffries: ... considering that the device plugs into USB for power already, etc. also, for OTA, you would then have to address authentication.
2011-05-12 01:44 <kristianpaul> hmm, dfu i dint knew that existed :_)
2011-05-12 01:51 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: yet another thingie inherited from openmoko. there, it was quite an interesting experience ... combined with the effort of turning u-boot into the multi-tasking operating system it always secretly wished to be ;)
2011-05-12 01:51 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: but dfu per is is nice. you just have to do it without u-boot :)
2011-05-12 01:53 <kristianpaul> nice
2011-05-12 01:54 <kristianpaul> btw any show up from tuxbrain about the SMT?
2011-05-12 01:57 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: thundering silence so far
2011-05-12 01:58 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: i kinda wonder how this will proceed. maybe he'll pop up one day, with 100+ atben and atusb fresh from SMT, wondering if they work
2011-05-12 01:59 <wpwrak> we can make bets on the probability of that outcome :)
2011-05-12 02:00 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: what do you think ? diligent smt fab, but first time customer, new process, new board. board quite simple. what are the chances of an open loop production not ending in disaster ?
2011-05-12 02:05 <wolfspraul> open loop production
2011-05-12 02:05 <wolfspraul> :-)
2011-05-12 02:06 <kristianpaul> i understood he will send a few boards first to SMT..
2011-05-12 02:07 <wolfspraul> I don't know more than anybody else. My guess is Tuxbrain will continue, steady, but it's not very fast.
2011-05-12 02:07 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: you mean like 100 ? or a lot less than 100 ?
2011-05-12 02:08 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: naw, my question is how you guess is the probability of getting something that works if you aren't at the fab to check at least the first pieces that come off the line
2011-05-12 02:08 <kristianpaul> what was amount of boards for initial production?
2011-05-12 02:09 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: so far, it sounds as if he's all set to smt, yet he has no testing process. not has he exercised one.
2011-05-12 02:09 <kristianpaul> ah yes
2011-05-12 02:09 <kristianpaul> i hope not 100 wpwrak ..
2011-05-12 02:10 <kristianpaul> but for SMT that seems to be a minimun quantity i guess
2011-05-12 02:10 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: well, his plan it to make ~100 units. then see how things go. that's alright
2011-05-12 02:10 <kristianpaul> yeah i hope..
2011-05-12 02:11 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: he has about 500 PCBs. so he can make more boards if there's demand. so far, so good.
2011-05-12 02:11 <wolfspraul> the probability for that to come out as a working product is low, I'd say
2011-05-12 02:11 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: the problem is that it would already be quite bad if those first ~100 board would all fail to work
2011-05-12 02:11 <wolfspraul> that's the difficulty in hardware (manufacturing), you may even call it 'unfair', that a 1 penny mistake somewhere can render several thousand USD production results worthless
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> and those losses _may_ be irrecoverable
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> very annoying
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> that's the #1 difference to software
2011-05-12 02:12 <kristianpaul> wpwrak: indeed
2011-05-12 02:12 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: in openmoko, we did it like this: when there was an smt run planned, a few hw and sw people went there. the fab ran one panel through the line, then waited.
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> in software if you get something wrong, worst case your computer crashes, you restart
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> in hardware you lost some irrecoverable cash -> bad
2011-05-12 02:12 <wolfspraul> and there is no mercy, the mistake may be tiny, yet the losses big
2011-05-12 02:12 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: the openmoko team tried to bring up the board. if it didn't work, they analyzed it for what would be the problem
2011-05-12 02:13 <wolfspraul> having said all that, ok the board is simple, but Tuxbrain is inexperienced - the smt people will have to guess a lot
2011-05-12 02:13 <wolfspraul> bottom line: high probability of failure
2011-05-12 02:13 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: if it did work, they would green light the rest of the productio run
2011-05-12 02:14 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: about my estimate too :-(
2011-05-12 02:14 <wolfspraul> the nasty thing is that the problem always hits you from an unexpected angle
2011-05-12 02:14 <kristianpaul> :-/
2011-05-12 02:14 <wolfspraul> murphy's law I guess
2011-05-12 02:15 <wpwrak> kristianpaul: i don't remember those teams ever coming back complaining there had been nothing for them to do ... (of course, gta01/02/03 were more complex than atben/atusb, but still ...)
2011-05-12 02:15 <wolfspraul> it's amazing how many thousand (indeed) little things can go wrong
2011-05-12 02:15 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: yeah. the only protection is testing.
2011-05-12 02:15 <wolfspraul> so yes, Tuxbrain needs to learn how to flash & test the boards, he needs to be at the line on production day, he needs to be suspicious and on high coffeine level, and press the _STOP_ button at any time he smells anything fishy.
2011-05-12 02:16 <wolfspraul> better press is one time too often than one time too few
2011-05-12 02:16 <wpwrak> right now, there are a few holes in the testing process i've set up, but i have the main ingredients
2011-05-12 02:16 <wpwrak> exactly
2011-05-12 02:17 <wpwrak> ironically, the smt fab is something like half an hour from his headquarters, so it's not really a big deal for him to be there
2011-05-12 02:17 <kristianpaul> good :-)
2011-05-12 02:18 <wolfspraul> in the m1 rc2 run, we had one such scary moment
2011-05-12 02:18 <wolfspraul> first board came off the line, Adam started testing
2011-05-12 02:18 <wolfspraul> something was strange, problem with the video-in crystal
2011-05-12 02:18 <wolfspraul> now... he he. stress level increases :-)
2011-05-12 02:18 <wpwrak> hates crystals
2011-05-12 02:18 <wolfspraul> gotta make a very quick decision: tell the guys to stop the line or not :-)
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> production manager stays in the door and looks and you and awaits your call
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> great!
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> shit decision!
2011-05-12 02:19 <kristianpaul> first board came and SMT stoped until adam finished testing or was all in parallel?
2011-05-12 02:19 <wpwrak> it's the first board. of course they can hold it for a bit ...
2011-05-12 02:19 <kristianpaul> ah ok
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> pick & place is hammering away, argh...
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> "Adam, can you test a bit faster?"
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> "should we stop?"
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> :-)
2011-05-12 02:19 <wpwrak> the solder paste can be out in the open for 0.5-1 hour without problems ...
2011-05-12 02:19 <wolfspraul> it became too scary so we pushed the red button at some point, for about 45 minutes
2011-05-12 02:20 <wolfspraul> that means everybody on the line will be standing still doing nothing
2011-05-12 02:20 <wpwrak> good :)
2011-05-12 02:20 <wolfspraul> also not great, because they cannot switch (too many of your parts and settings everywhere)
2011-05-12 02:20 <wpwrak> they probably spent two hours setting up the line. so what :)
2011-05-12 02:20 <wolfspraul> after 45 minutes, it turned out it was a local problem with that crystal, and we let the run resume
2011-05-12 02:21 <wpwrak> .tw, right ?
2011-05-12 02:21 <wolfspraul> yes
2011-05-12 02:21 <wpwrak> good. they're not rock bottom, gotta be hyper efficient or else
2011-05-12 02:21 <wolfspraul> oh it's all fine and professional. but someone has to make decisions.
2011-05-12 02:21 <wpwrak> i expect spain to be even more relaxed in that regard
2011-05-12 02:22 <wolfspraul> and if those decisions are wrong, a small mistake can cause a large financial damage.
2011-05-12 02:22 <wolfspraul> that's manufacturing...
2011-05-12 02:22 <wpwrak> indeed
2011-05-12 02:22 <wolfspraul> because once the stuff is assembled/made, it may (may) be impossible economically to fix it
2011-05-12 02:22 <wolfspraul> so it's cheaper to throw away and do another run
2011-05-12 02:22 <wpwrak> e.g., a BGA turned some 90 degrees :)
2011-05-12 02:22 <kristianpaul>  no no :-|
2011-05-12 02:23 <wpwrak> well, already a QFN would be more than sufficient ;-)
2011-05-12 02:23 <wolfspraul> kristianpaul: what you don't like that idea?
2011-05-12 02:23 <wolfspraul> man you should hang out on production lines more. it's fun!
2011-05-12 02:23 <wolfspraul> pretty close to chaos management...
2011-05-12 02:23 <kristianpaul> it seems :-)
2011-05-12 02:23 <wpwrak> atudb has two of them. 1/16 chance to get both right on the first try ;-)
2011-05-12 02:23 <kristianpaul> wolfspraul: not that i dont liked it, but bit scaring indeed
2011-05-12 02:24 <wolfspraul> oh, everything will happen to you there
2011-05-12 02:24 <kristianpaul> hmm i remenber the the batery explode for sie run2?..
2011-05-12 02:25 <wolfspraul> the unfortunate thing for a software guy like me, maybe the depressing part also, is that there is little to learn from some of those mistakes
2011-05-12 02:25 <wolfspraul> it's not like we are building a perfect production machine, and one day it will be bug free
2011-05-12 02:25 <wolfspraul> it will never
2011-05-12 02:25 <wolfspraul> it's just a never-ending chaos management exercise
2011-05-12 02:25 <wolfspraul> maybe that's why the Chinese are so unbeatably good at it (including the ones in Taiwan of course)
2011-05-12 02:26 <kristianpaul> hmm, manually mounting..
2011-05-12 02:26 <wpwrak> i guess you just have to design your process such that it can accommodate this kind of problems
2011-05-12 02:26 <kristianpaul> thats something to watch out
2011-05-12 02:27 <wpwrak> just like working with unreliable people. you try to gauge them and increase your safety margin. if they do what's expected of them, great. if they don't, you already have a plan B.
2011-05-12 02:27 <wpwrak> just good old risk management :)
2011-05-12 02:28 <wpwrak> the nice thing about automated processes is that once you get them to work, they tend to continue working
2011-05-12 02:29 <wpwrak> you still have to check from time to time if something drifted out of the safe range,
2011-05-12 02:29 <wpwrak> or if someone slipped you a bad batch of components, but in general, it quality is predictable
2011-05-12 02:30 <wpwrak> with a manual process, you depend entirely on people catching errors. so if they've been out all night the day before, yield plummets. and so on.
2011-05-12 02:32 <wolfspraul> kristianpaul: keep in mind that we are discussing technical correctness now. but manufacturing is about economics mostly. every thing you manufacture only has a certain (small) value X, and the next one may pose new challenges, because it's all physical goods and physical processes.
2011-05-12 02:32 <wolfspraul> those physical processes only become repeatable/predictable to a certain degree
2011-05-12 02:32 <wolfspraul> so that combined with the very small amount of money you can make for each one is hard
2011-05-12 02:32 <wpwrak> funny. hackaday overtook slashdot today. well, the day is still young :)
2011-05-12 02:33 <wpwrak> (the UTC day, to be precise)
2011-05-12 02:33 <wolfspraul> I think you are continuously balancing technical correctness (perfection of technical process), and cost on the other side.
2011-05-12 02:34 <wolfspraul> it is really just amazing/unbelievable that you can make a whole smartphone for 30 USD
2011-05-12 02:34 <wolfspraul> hundreds of companies collaborate on that
2011-05-12 02:34 <wpwrak> indeed. electronics are almost scare in that regard :)
2011-05-12 02:34 <wpwrak> s/scare/scary/
2011-05-12 02:35 <wolfspraul> so far we (copyleft hw) haven't found a way to successfully hook ourselves into this power yet, with our beloved free software :-)
2011-05-12 02:35 <wolfspraul> but we'll get there...
2011-05-12 02:36 <wpwrak> what we need is volume ... once you have that, everything gets easier
2011-05-12 02:37 <kristianpaul> smartphones are getting volume this days :-)
2011-05-12 02:37 <wpwrak> and everyone is at each other's throat ;-) naw, don't do smartphones, don't to tablets. waste of time.
2011-05-12 02:37 <kristianpaul> \. thinking? ;-)
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> I fully agree on tablets, phones - right now.
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> btw.. about volume. I think volume is the mythical man month of hardware.
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> volume = investment
2011-05-12 02:38 <kristianpaul> good point
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> looking at volume is too superficial
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> of course higher volume is 'nice'
2011-05-12 02:38 <wolfspraul> but where does it come from?
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> high volume = large order
2011-05-12 02:39 <wpwrak> of course :)
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> someone has to put in a firm large order, with large down-payment
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> and when can you do that?
2011-05-12 02:39 <wpwrak> order or upfront investment
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> when you have a strong forecast
2011-05-12 02:39 <kristianpaul> at first place i see volume as demand, but indeed you can create demand with good investement
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> it's the same
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> order = investment (binds capital)
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> wait wait
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> the volume is the consequence
2011-05-12 02:39 <wpwrak> if you get the kind of order that binds capital
2011-05-12 02:39 <wolfspraul> it's not the first thing
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> the first thing is potential market - how many of this thing can you sell?
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> if the market is 100 pieces, investing for a 'volume' production of 1 million is very stupid
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> nothing has _infinite_ market size
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> so who determines that number?
2011-05-12 02:40 <wpwrak> there are two types: order to build and order to ship. if you tell them there's a 2 month wait, they'll run
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> the market size = order = volume number
2011-05-12 02:40 <wolfspraul> think about it
2011-05-12 02:41 <wolfspraul> we assume every product can essentially have an infinite market, but of course that's wrong
2011-05-12 02:41 <wolfspraul> so every product has a theoretical maximum
2011-05-12 02:41 <wolfspraul> limited by all sorts of things, of course also strength of brand, strength of distributors/channel, and so on
2011-05-12 02:41 <wpwrak> market size is difficult on the lower end. if your target market is tens of millions, you can be off by quite a bit and it's still tens of millions.
2011-05-12 02:41 <wolfspraul> now, once you determined that number, you invest against this number
2011-05-12 02:41 <wolfspraul> in anticipation that you can perfectly execute according to your market and demand forecast
2011-05-12 02:42 <wpwrak> in our case, it can be 100, 1k or 10k. and it's more or less random.
2011-05-12 02:42 <wolfspraul> my point is: talk of volume clouds your vision
2011-05-12 02:42 <wolfspraul> volume is a consequence
2011-05-12 02:42 <wolfspraul> higher volume means higher investment
2011-05-12 02:42 <wolfspraul> the higher investment needs to be recouped, so you have to sell that higher volume too
2011-05-12 02:42 <wolfspraul> otherwise you will loose even more money with 'higher volume'
2011-05-12 02:43 <wolfspraul> this is assuming that we are not talking about technical difficulties that mandate higher volume
2011-05-12 02:43 <wpwrak> the problem is that price expectations are usually based on high-volume products
2011-05-12 02:43 <wolfspraul> I'm not talking about that.
2011-05-12 02:43 <wolfspraul> wait
2011-05-12 02:43 <wolfspraul> someone is making a large investment
2011-05-12 02:43 <wpwrak> so if you make a USD 5000 iPhone killer, who will think it's a bargain ?
2011-05-12 02:43 <wolfspraul> because he is sure that he can sell a large number of this product
2011-05-12 02:44 <wolfspraul> correct. if your target market is 'iphone', then you can do all the numbers with a forecast of 10 million in the first year.
2011-05-12 02:44 <wolfspraul> but then you also need a product that can actually sell to some customer who chooses your product over the iphone he would otherwise buy.
2011-05-12 02:44 <wolfspraul> and you need a big bad strategy for that, including strong brand, strong network pull, strong software, strong app market, strong lots of things.
2011-05-12 02:45 <wpwrak> there's also contamination around the edges. e.g., would you buy a USD 100 wpan card, knowing that you can get some generic USB wlan for maybe USD 10-20 ?
2011-05-12 02:45 <wolfspraul> I tried to make a point about volume.
2011-05-12 02:45 <wolfspraul> it is not true "high volume = low unit price"
2011-05-12 02:45 <wolfspraul> that's a very selective view
2011-05-12 02:45 <wpwrak> the price is not only determined by your product. it's the market value of "comparable" products
2011-05-12 02:45 <wolfspraul> high volume requires large investment
2011-05-12 02:46 <wolfspraul> the large investment indeed drives the unit price down
2011-05-12 02:46 <wolfspraul> but...
2011-05-12 02:46 <wolfspraul> you made a large investment which you have to recoup
2011-05-12 02:46 <wolfspraul> understand the problem?
2011-05-12 02:46 <kristianpaul> i think so
2011-05-12 02:46 <wolfspraul> so if you end up selling only 1% of what you thought you could sell, your "high volume = low unit price" will have very very badly failed ;-)
2011-05-12 02:46 <wpwrak> if the products your is being compared with are high volume, you'll have an extremely hard time establishing an honest by high price
2011-05-12 02:46 <kristianpaul> is not about volume :-)
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> and in hardware it's super bad to have a lot of stock that doesn't sell sitting around, because your competitors constantly make better and better hardware
2011-05-12 02:47 <wpwrak> wolfspraul: yes, but that's the investor's point of view. are your customers investors ?
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> so high volume may also increase the unit price
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> unless your sales force is very strong, and the whole forecast and machine actually works
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> my customers will not benefit very long from a bankrupt company
2011-05-12 02:47 <wpwrak> ;-)
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> high volume = large investment
2011-05-12 02:47 <wpwrak> correct
2011-05-12 02:47 <wolfspraul> the idea "high volume = low unit price" is flawed
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> too superficial
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> then it's much more important to have a realistic forecast first
2011-05-12 02:48 <wpwrak> no, it's not. high volume allows you to buy cheaply
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> yes but you have to pay = financing
2011-05-12 02:48 <wpwrak> the question is if you can sell your high volume
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> yes
2011-05-12 02:48 <wpwrak> if you can't, you're screwed, i agree
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> yes
2011-05-12 02:48 <kristianpaul> large investment = big bad strategy ?
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> then the high volume = low unit price idea will have badly backfired
2011-05-12 02:48 <wolfspraul> no no
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> forecast needs to be correct
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> not too high, not too low
2011-05-12 02:49 <kristianpaul> :-/
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> the volume and unit prices are just consequences of that then
2011-05-12 02:49 <wpwrak> but if you volume is low and your per unit price is high, you people may not understand that
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> one example from Apple
2011-05-12 02:49 <wpwrak> s/you people/people/
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> so they put Samsung chips into their first-gen iphones
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> supposedly paid about 20 USD / chip to Samsung
2011-05-12 02:49 <wolfspraul> ok?
2011-05-12 02:50 <wolfspraul> then they made a decision to do that part themselves
2011-05-12 02:50 <wolfspraul> they bought patsemi for 200 million USD
2011-05-12 02:50 <wolfspraul> and a lot of other investments for several years
2011-05-12 02:50 <wolfspraul> the total estimate I read what Apple spent before they were able to sell their first A4-based product was 1 billion USD!
2011-05-12 02:50 <wolfspraul> now... compare that to the 20 USD they could also have paid to Samsung
2011-05-12 02:51 <wolfspraul> that means they had a forecast that said "we will sell 50 million or more units of this"!
2011-05-12 02:51 <wolfspraul> 50 million!
2011-05-12 02:51 <wolfspraul> and they made that decision back in 2008 or so. if you can zoom your mind back to 2008, you realize what an extraordinary entrepreneurial risk it is to make an investment decision based on a forecast of 50 million units before it pays off!
2011-05-12 02:52 <wolfspraul> so yes, superficially high volume = low unit cost. but practically going there means a large up-front investment, which needs to be recouped.
2011-05-12 02:53 <wolfspraul> if Apple would have sold only 5 million of those phones, each of their home-made cpus would have cost them 200 USD :-)
2011-05-12 02:53 <wolfspraul> wpwrak: of course if your unit price is high you may not sell. that's why there is such strong consolidation around a few product categories.
2011-05-12 02:54 <wpwrak> yup
2011-05-12 02:54 <wolfspraul> your customer will not care why your unit price is high or low
2011-05-12 02:54 <wolfspraul> so if it is high (if you are serving a niche market), your product better have some very unique features that will not let your customer take a more standard category product and tweak that instead.
2011-05-12 02:55 <wpwrak> your price is basically bracketed between the production cost, which is driven by volume, and what the competition costs, which is - at least in part - driven by their volume
2011-05-12 02:55 <wolfspraul> production cost is driven by investment
2011-05-12 02:55 <wolfspraul> volume is a consequence of that
2011-05-12 02:55 <wolfspraul> once Apple decided to make the A4, they knew they were on a path that would cost them 1 billion USD
2011-05-12 02:55 <wpwrak> that's why i keep on asking about progress with bringing investors aboard ;-)
2011-05-12 02:55 <wolfspraul> they accepted that that could mean that the CPU in each iphone costs apple 200 USD
2011-05-12 02:56 <wolfspraul> if the iphone would not sell well
2011-05-12 02:56 <wpwrak> investment = liberty to think bigger
2011-05-12 02:57 <wpwrak> (unique features) yes, the more competition you can eliminate, the better. of course, you must pay attention that you're not painting yourself into a corner.
2011-05-12 02:59 <kristianpaul> 1 billion to be recouped.. that will take a while i think
2011-05-12 03:01 <wolfspraul> my point was that apple knowingly accepted the risk that their CPU price would go from 20 USD / piece to 200 USD / piece, if the iphone with that chip would 'only' have sold 5 million units.
2011-05-12 03:01 <kristianpaul> yup
2011-05-12 03:01 <wolfspraul> at 50 million (!) they would be down to the same price they could have paid Samsung
2011-05-12 03:01 <wolfspraul> and at 100 million or so the "high volume = low price" thing would have actually worked well in this case
2011-05-12 03:02 <wpwrak> i think our problem at the moment is not so much a lack of market but an immature market. e.g., ben sells badly because it sells to a market that would either expect much more powerful products or at least more frequent updates. i'm sceptical about mm1, too. i like the technology, but i don't know if it can sell. maybe it'll need an mm2 or maybe an mm3 before it becomes a hit.
2011-05-12 03:02 <wolfspraul> sure it's risky. we need to market them well.
2011-05-12 03:03 <wolfspraul> and ideally find a stronger marketing partner, which I will try much harder once I have more m1 at hand, and more complete (with accessories and box and stuff).
2011-05-12 03:04 <wpwrak> i think there's a lot of stuff with a good long-term prognosis but a poor short-term prognosis. the "grow by selling" approach doesn't really work there.
2011-05-12 03:11 <wpwrak> in my opinion, nanonote needs a financing horizon of about one year. the project is already about half a year in debt, so it's just about half an extra year. i'd consider milkymist even more long-term. i think the product focus is good, but nothing should depend on its commercial success (in the short term)
2011-05-12 03:16 <wpwrak> anyway, time for a bit of a nap :)
2011-05-12 03:17 <phr> are there a good quantity of nanonote available?  i thought maybe you are about to run out of them  b/c of slashdot or something
2011-05-12 03:21 <wolfspraul> phr: no way. if I run out of them I make more :-)
2011-05-12 06:13 <zhicheng> xiangfu: Hi~
2011-05-12 06:14 <zhicheng> xiangfu: Sorry for yesterday, my network is not very stable.
2011-05-12 06:16 <xiangfu> zhicheng: hi
2011-05-12 12:10 <dvdk> hi
2011-05-12 12:11 <dvdk> any qiots attending LinuxTAG? Going to be at linuxtag tomorrow (friday)
2011-05-12 12:20 <wolfspraul> qiots is good
2011-05-12 12:20 <wolfspraul> how is linuxtag nowadays? last time I must have been there like 10 years ago, in Karlsruhe I think
2011-05-12 12:21 <LunohoD> it's a pity that linuxtag was moved to berlin
2011-05-12 12:33 <dvdk> linuxtag is very small
2011-05-12 12:33 <dvdk> but some interesting talks maybe
2011-05-12 12:34 <dvdk> sometimes one stumbles into OSS projects one didn't notice before. 
2011-05-12 12:34 <dvdk> that's how i got involved with the nanonote
2011-05-12 12:35 <kyak> dvdk: heard about it on some conference?
2011-05-12 12:35 <dvdk> this is the list of projects represented this year
2011-05-12 12:35 <dvdk> http://www.linuxtag.org/2011/de/aussteller/aussteller-partner.html
2011-05-12 12:35 <dvdk> kyak: hackable-devices had a booth last linuxtag, showing nanonotes around and selling them for illegally cheap price
2011-05-12 12:36 <dvdk> so i bought the "pig in a poke"
2011-05-12 12:36 <kyak> 98 USD? :)
2011-05-12 12:36 <dvdk> kyak: 80 EUR
2011-05-12 12:36 <kyak> 80 EUR is 113.36 USD, but still ok :)
2011-05-12 12:36 <dvdk> kyak: yeah, but where is the 19% VAT in that ? :)
2011-05-12 12:37 <kyak> yep, and shipment, too
2011-05-12 12:37 <dvdk> and the nns they had there only booted to console, not much fucntionality
2011-05-12 12:37 <dvdk> but at 80 eur, that didnt matter
2011-05-12 12:43 <wpwrak> (quiots) don quiote ;-)
2011-05-12 13:49 <rozzin> wpwrak: `Tilting at windmills since 2009'?
2011-05-12 13:57 <wpwrak> ;-))
2011-05-12 15:03 <kristianpaul> btw any update related with debian on the nanonote?
2011-05-12 15:03 <kristianpaul> is it posible to run X or xfdev...?
2011-05-12 17:37 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: init/main.c: try to run OpenWRT's /etc/preinit (HACK) http://qi-hw.com/p/qi-kernel/4988bf2
2011-05-12 17:37 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: IEEE 802.15.4: make debugging messages configurable http://qi-hw.com/p/qi-kernel/9f9b8e6
2011-05-12 17:37 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: install/ben-wpan-config-2.6.38: disable noisy debugging and enable TUN http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/707af5f
2011-05-12 18:22 <lunavorax_mini> Ok, for now, btrfs sucks
2011-05-12 18:22 <lunavorax_mini> I'm going to give it a try again when it really will be *stable*
2011-05-12 18:24 <wpwrak> ... centuries pass ...
2011-05-12 18:28 <lunavorax_mini> Haha
2011-05-12 18:35 <kristianpaul> arhg, thist 9base code is lucent.. not gpl compatible !!
2011-05-12 18:37 <kristianpaul> anyway..
2011-05-12 20:04 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: tools/dirtpan/: rewritten for simultaneous reception and transmission http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/7e2c576
2011-05-12 20:07 <qi-bot> [commit] Werner Almesberger: install/: added build and usage instructions for dirtpan http://qi-hw.com/p/ben-wpan/601d1bf
2011-05-12 20:44 <qi-bot> [commit] David Kühling: emacs: make programming language comments colored by default http://qi-hw.com/p/openwrt-packages/773dfe1
2011-05-12 21:32 <wpwrak> rejon: how's LGM so far ? did you give people a look at the MM1 ?
2011-05-12 21:34 <rejon> not yet
2011-05-12 21:34 <wpwrak> s/give people/let people have/  # horrible language skills ...
2011-05-12 21:34 <rejon> i just finished up announcing all our other stuff
2011-05-12 21:34 <rejon> now i completely focus
2011-05-12 21:34 <rejon> on mm1
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> end of day 3
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> tomorrow is all about mm1
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> i've been carrying my freedom box around
2011-05-12 21:35 <wpwrak> heh. last day :)
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> with it inside
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> its ok
2011-05-12 21:35 <rejon> i'm juggling lots here
2011-05-12 21:36 <wpwrak> how many people are there ?
2011-05-12 21:37 <kristianpaul> rejon, you need an assistant :-)
2011-05-12 21:38 <wpwrak> minions ! :)
2011-05-12 21:39 <kristianpaul> ;)
2011-05-12 21:44 <rejon> yes, i need your support
2011-05-12 21:44 <rejon> i need help
2011-05-12 21:47 <wpwrak> what do you need from us ?
2011-05-12 22:45 <rozzin> Hm. I just noticed that the default iocharset on my Ben is iso8859-1. :\
2011-05-12 23:01 <rozzin> Debian has set CONFIG_FAT_DEFAULT_IOCHARSET="utf8" for a while, now (hence all of my filenames are in UTF-8);
2011-05-12 23:01 <rozzin> do other distributions leave it as iso8859-1?