embedded devices and open source

[Jeffry Smith]

On 2/23/07, Ben Scott <dragonhawk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/23/07, Python <python at venix.com> wrote:
> > Is the manufacturer's perspective really that grim when trying to
> > support an open source device?
>
>  As usual, "it depends".
>
>  A common concern is support -- support that the manufactuer gives to
> people who buy their stuff.  If you can take it apart and modify it,
> you can also screw it up.  There's a significant support cost
> associated with that.  And saying "Only stock firmware is supported"
> doesn't help as much as you'd think.  People with unsupported
> configurations still call for support, and then get all pissed off at
> you when you can't help, and then try to return the product, write bad
> reviews on Amazon, tell all their friends you killed their pets, etc.
> If they lock the cover shut, they bypass all this.  So it's often not
> worth the trouble.
>
>  There are legal liability concerns that follow on the same paths.

Of course, another concern is THEIR support.  Remember most embedded
folks don't write their own OS.  However, from what I understand from
embedded folks I've talked to, Wind River & others don't give such
great support.  Normally they end up writing their own patches to get
it to work & fix the problems.  If they're doing that, why pay for the
priviledge?  And with Open Source, you can tap into the community.

>
>  There are a lot of people who want to keep everything they do locked
> up tight.  Sometimes it's general paranoia.  Sometimes it's the
> specific fear that someone, somewhere, might be getting something more
> than they paid for.  While I would see that as a Good Thing, others
> see it as a Bad Thing.  Henry Ford observed that some people try to
> give all they can for a dollar; others try to give as little as they
> can for a dollar.  The latter may do well in the short term, but
> rarely in the long term.  Unfortunately, most people think in the
> short term first (or only).
>
>  Then there's trade secrets and patents and such that can prevent
> companies from following the FOSS route.  Some businesses create their
> own "intellectual property" and want to sell it to others.  Others
> want (or need) to license the "intellectual property" of others to do
> what they need.

And some don't understand what their product is.  Example:  hardware
devices in computers.  Companies talk about their valuable "IP" (a
misnomer) in their drivers and that they have to keep them closed.  Or
that no one could understand them and help out.  Ask the company how
many drivers they sell.  No hardware, just the drivers.  I'll lay you
odds it's zero.  The profit is in the hardware, not the drivers.  The
drivers are cost.  Reducing cost (like by getting help from the
community - even better if they write it) is good.  Copyrights,
patents - they still exist whether it's Open Source or proprietary.

>
>  It's a complex world.
>

Yep.

jeff