$1000 Bounty For Podcasting on the Neuros

PDA_Monkey writes "Neuros Audio, makers of the Neuros Digital Audio Computer and the Neuros MPEG-4 Recorder, have announced on their open development blog that they will pay $1,000 USD to the first developer to enable sending and receiving podcasts from/to the Neuros."

Comments

contract work

[Greventls]

So what they are basically doing is offering $1000 to a contract worker to develope their project, but making it out as a competition and the pay is a prize. Genius.

Re:contract work

[AndroidCat]

And the developers will have to buy Neuros up-front even before winning, if at all.

Re:contract work

[DrSkwid]

Looks better on the CV than "I enjoy posting to Slashdot"

Re:contract work

[LWATCDR]

Since it looks to me as if the offer the SDK free I do not see the complaint. The podcast software for the Ipod was done for free. They are offering a grand for someone to do an open source program for their product. Seems like a nice bit of cash and fame for somebody.

Re:contract work

[droleary]

Since it looks to me as if the offer the SDK free I do not see the complaint. The podcast software for the Ipod was done for free.

But as the most popular player, people had an iPod already for "podcasting" to be created in the first place. Who has, or even lusts after, a Neuros? It appears to be an also-ran that is going to join all the other also-rans that Apple is laughing at. It's going to take a lot more than a free SDK to interest people.

They are offering a grand for someone to do an open source program for their product. Seems like a nice bit of cash and fame for somebody.

Fame? It'll be, at best, a footnote effort on their web site. How could they possibly put a good spin on it? "Yeah, you know that 'podcasting' thing that was named after the iPod because they started it years ago; well now you can do that with our player, too, because someone outside the company had more time than sense!" As I said, $1000 as "a nice bit of cash" is a drop in the bucket compared to what effort it almost certainly will take, because otherwise, Neuros would have just done it themselves.

Now what you could try to argue is that it's a publicity stunt to get the Neuros name out there. Really, though, what are they publicizing except features their player lacks? And if nobody cares enough to do the job for them, what does that say about their player. There are so many wrong turns this could have that anyone with half a brain is staying far, far away.

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

I'm not sure what point the parent is trying to make. Yes; a company is paying a developer to create software. What is wrong with that (especially when the software is free as in freedom)?

Surely the fact that the prize is open to all makes it much fairer (in copmarison to a contract) as any hacker who has the time to do this can claim the prize. The idea of bounties or prizes for producing code is quite an old one in the FLOSS community.

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the fact that they are using a very efficient and open method to recruit developers for features to add to their free software means they must be desperate and thereby stupid. Surely, it just means that they are intelligent enough to have chosen a system which will get them the best results.

This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

One would assume they would already have one or buy it because they wanted one anyway, not just to win a prize. I'm sure the sort of people who would be interested already have one as AFAICC it is the most hi-tec, best quality music player on the market (though a bit pricey for my needs as I'm not really a music person).

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

Have you actually compared the spec of a neuros with an iPod? They are not even comparable as they occupy totally different niches. The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.

Re:contract work

[droleary]

The iPod is a very basic MP3 player--I have a tiny Creative player for about £50 that does more--which is mainly an accesory to iTunes--its USP is its integration with Apple's software. The Neuros is a proffesional player/recorder/encoder/decoder/FM transmitter/receiver/&c which supports loads of encodings, &c and is basically a free-software-based portable computer.

You support my point. All the also-rans are trying to pretend they're superior because they have feature X or price Y. Like them, you neglect to notice that most people aren't interested in those features! They're interested in what the iPod offers, including the sheer simplicity. People also want things like podcasting, and here Neuros is practically screaming they can't provide what people want! It's all rather funny.

Re:contract work

[droleary]

So, as I understand it, you are suggesting that the fact that they are using a very efficient and open method to recruit developers for features to add to their free software means they must be desperate and thereby stupid.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is utter nonsense. The same clearly invalid argument could be used against software or computers (or science, technology or any attempt by humanity to do anything) in general: because one uses computers, science, &c as a tool to get things done quickly and efficiently, one must not be able to do things without using them, therefore one is stupid.

Yeah, pretty much. I think you're really reaching with the analogies, though. Try to stay on topic and address the actual actions of Neuros. I'm not exactly sure what they're trying to be, but it is not "efficient", "open", "intelligent", or "the best". If they were any of those, they would already have a product people want more than an iPod instead of desperately holding a contest to find an external talent pool to do their jobs for them.

But, getting back to your analogy for a second: just because you use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient. An idiot with a new tool is still an idiot, and Neuros trying to compete with the iPod like this (even reduced to calling it podcasting themselves!) is an idiot move. If it looks like genius to you, well, intelligence is a relative thing . . .

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

To misquote your other post, "You[r parent post] support[s] my point. All the also-rans are trying to pretend they [use a] superior [development model]. [But] most people aren't interested [because their models don't actually produce stable] features [and software].

just because you use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient.

Correct, but if you look at my grandparent post, I was saying "just because you don't use technology it doesn't make you smarter, quicker, or more efficient.".

Re:contract work

[sepluv]

You support my point

Therefore you support my point. QED.

See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.

here Neuros is practically screaming they can't provide what people want

This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.

Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).

Re:contract work

[droleary]

Therefore you support my point. QED.

Erm, no. You really need to take (or re-take) a logic course. That your information doesn't support your conclusion in no way means the conclusion it does support is identical. I assure you, we have far from identical opinions.

See my grandparent: "they occupy totally different niches". the iPod is not designed for people who care to much about technology, features or music quality.

Yes, yes; so you say. All I see, though, is an attempt here that reflects precisely the opposite. Why are they trying to go after the features that an iPod boasts if they're not trying to compete in the same markets? If you are right, then it just points to even worse mismanagement in the product marketing and development departments. Forgive me for not giving my money to a company with such a device, or not spending my time adding features to it for the mere chance at a few bucks.

This is were I have a problem with your argument. Yes, maybe Neuros and other `also-rans' as you call them should have offered this feature earlier. But you seem to be moaning that they are now trying to include the feature or "screaming they can't provide what people want" as you call it.

And the problem is . . . ? As the saying goes: too little, too late. Stop copying! Certainly don't form a contest around something you lack that is named after the market leader! If you were serious about the "niche" point, then there are all manner of things they could introduce that their target market wants that isn't done by other players. This contest, though, is just too much of a desperate $1000 "me too" to reasonably stomach.

Interestingly I know an iPod owner who told me he wished he bought a Neuros or another brand I can't remember the name of, because they have the features he really needed (as opposed to the features of the iPod which many consider fads--podcasting probably comes under that for a lot of people).

I'm not sure what your point is. You friend is an ignorant consumer? Nobody in their right mind sees an iPod as a do-it-all device. If he needed recording, or whatever else the iPod isn't doing, he should definitely have bought something else. But, and the market demonstrates this, just because something records sound doesn't make it a particularly good music library player. Same goes for FM, OGG, and any number of other features that manufacturers bullet trying do seem "better" when the buyers mostly sift through it and decide it is simply "different", and unless "different" means "a whole lot better" it means "worse".

Re:Podcasts?

[kalidasa]

A pod cast combines RSS, blogging, and mp3/aac: basically, an RSS feed reader picks up the URI for the mp3 file, downloads it automatically, then hands it off automatically to the music synching program which itself automatically synchs it to the player. The point is that once you subscribe to a podcast, it magically appears on your player the next time you synch the player after a new edition. The reason folks call it a "podcast" rather than just an "mp3cast" is because it is very easy for software on the client computer to stick something into iTunes for synchronization. So that's basically what Neuros wants: a program that will automatically download and synch mp3 files on a schedule.

Re:Podcasts?

[woah]

A "podcast" is just a radio program run off onto MP3 (or whatever) and then downloadable.

It's not actually downloadable, as such. Podcasts are supposed to be fed into iPod (or the like) automatically. I presume, you have to hook it up to your PC first.

You can think of Podcasting as digital radio, that allows you to play the broadcasts over and over again, (kinda like tivo, only for audio).

Re:Podcasts?

[AndroidCat]

Maybe if they could allow linkbacks to add commentary to the original? Sort of like MST3K for podcasting...

Surprise!

[Jahf]

People are complaining about this off the bat.

1) Yeah, you have to own a Neuros first to even develop this.

2) Yeah, you could look at this like Neuros is changing contract pay to a prize.

But ...

A) No one said you personally must participate -and- the neuros community has alot of developers. This was targetted as a bonus for existing Neuros owners who develop, not to try and snooker a bunch of non-Neuros-owning people. Face it, it got put on /. "Developers", so it gets about 1% the traffic of a normal post, its not exactly a marketing coup.

B) Which is better ... a developer doing this on their own (which likely would have happened eventually assuming Neuros users care about podcasting) for nothing or have the company say "hey, while you're doing all this free stuff, try this and if it works we'll pay ya for it"?

NOTE: Yes, I own a Neuros (had 2 until one was stolen) and yes I know the owners of Digital Innovations which created the Neuros and when I had the time I was even helping them start to open source parts of the Neuros. However, I don't use my Neuros right now (when the other got stolen they got my upgraded drive and both sync cables and ... well .. I'm procastinating because I'm still pissed). I have never worked for DI nor have I developed anything for it (I'm thinking of getting back into it, but my SqueezeBox is also a tempting hack target). Point is ... I know the product and the company. Those who don't shouldn't make comments about things they don't know about.

Re:Surprise!

[AndroidCat]

I wasn't complaining. If I owned a Neuros, I'd be hard at work. :)

Re:Surprise!

[maxbang]

Kudos to you for helping them with the open source stuff. I didn't know that when I purchased mine in '03 (had it been released back in 11/03?). I took a gander at their code for NSM and the firmware and tinkered here and there, but nothing big. I think it's fucking awesome that they released the source. It would be fun to do this now, but I sold my rig to a co-worker and got an iPod just last month. Yeah, I sold out, blah blah, but I couldn't deal with walking to work everyday with that brick in my pocket anymore. However, in the car it was perfect. It was my little droid co-pilot. Now, if I could only hack it to playback holograms of princesses in distress...

Re:We should care Because ... ?

[JoeBorn]

Well, this really is something of an experiment. We'll see how it goes. We're certainly not averse to paying contractors or developing stuff in house, but we figured we'd throw this out there and see what happens. This way we don't have to choose a developer based on a resume and anyone can take a shot at it.

Honestly, it might wind up a horrible failure, and we'll learn something from that too.

What works and doesn't work in encouraging open source development is a tricky issue and honestly the best way to figure it out is through experimentation and trying a lot of different things.

Re:Podcasts?

[timothy]

I have the same basic question (Say, do any of these not suck?!), but I've found a few of interest to me by sampling from the many programs listed at ipodder.org.

The vast majority, as you have found ... follow Sturgeon's Law. However, if you don't run into any you like of the home-grown, awkward-talkin' variety, there are a lot of radio shows that are using the same system, which turns your portable player (with some large limitations, don't get me wrong) into a pretty flexible delayed-access radio :)

Now, since you can only get *new* shows while you're tethered, it lacks some of the portability / immediacy of actual broadcasts; them's the breaks.

timothy

Re:We should care Because ... ?

[femto]

Personally I'm pleased to see these sorts of experiments, and look forward to future refinements of your experiment.

As decribed in your blog post, the bounty seems to encourage a single hacker to work at producing a solution. This has the potential for pitting hackers against each other and potentially putting sharing of information at risk. (eg. a team collaborating and developing in the open has their their work submitted at the last minute by a third party.) By encouraging solitary work you appear to be discouraging free software's main competitive advantage: collaboration.

Wouldn't it be better to figure out a way to encourage a team of hackers to collaborate, in an open forum, to come up with a solution?

One method might be to remove personal gain from the equation, by offering a sizeable donation to a suitable free sofware project as a 'reward'.

I'm sure others can come up with much better suggestions.

In a related vein, are you going to attempt to quantify any substantial contribution made by a prexisting third party project?

You just don't get it.

[LWATCDR]

By your argument then Linux and Open Office are a total waste as well.
The whole idea behind open source is to add features to your hardware. Frankly if I had a Neuro I would be interested in trying to win it. Podcasting is not all that hard. You can find RSS libs for most languages. This would make a great project for some high school or college kid. This is not supposed to be a job after all it is a prize. What I do not get is the venom and negative attitude. Are you Steve Jobs? I mean I have used a friends iPod and it is okay but I do not find it the end all and be all.

Re:You just don't get it.

[droleary]

By your argument then Linux and Open Office are a total waste as well.

Yeah, pretty much. More importantly, though, neither of those are trying to bait a non-community with cash prizes. Both of those projects are expanded because someone either wants an improvement, or pays for an improvement. Can you name any successful open source effort that dangles a carrot of possible cash in front of it?

The whole idea behind open source is to add features to your hardware. Frankly if I had a Neuro I would be interested in trying to win it.

You support my point. Instead of doing it because you want the feature, you'd be doing it because you want the money. That is totally out of character for the "whole idea behind open source", and additionally misses the mark for the origin of podcasting in the first place. The move by Neuros is a form of astroturfing; there is no real community interest, but Neuros is trying to sell this lottery ticket as an incentive for somebody, anybody to care about their stuff.

Podcasting is not all that hard.

That's what I'd be inclined to believe, too, but here we have Neuros broadcasting that they can't do it, and that it's worth at least a grand to them if someone else could get it done. It's becoming tiresome to have to constantly point out the inconsistency you yourself are mindful enough to mention.

This would make a great project for some high school or college kid.

No, it wouldn't. Most kids are already in the high percentage of iPod users, so they already have podcasting. If they just want the money, there are easier ways to make a grand. Drugs and prostitution come to mind, both of which can be done while listening to music!

What I do not get is the venom and negative attitude. Are you Steve Jobs?

Nope. The reason you don't get the negativity is that you're mired in thinking that this has anything to do with the iPod. Hell, my own iPod (1st Gen with the physical wheel) broke years ago when I tried to use it too much as a HD and it overheated. I haven't bothered to replace it, although I'd probably drop $100 on a shuffle (which would be less likely to overheat) if I saw one in stock anywhere. No, the negativity has to do with the bad business plan that involves baiting developers with prizes instead of actually having a product that encourages community development all on its own. That the iPod is kicking everyone's ass at that is merely incidental to that market. My opinion would be the same for any product in any market that takes the same approach.

Re:We should care Because ... ?

[JoeBorn]

Well, I think one ideal situation is that we help sponsor the establishment of a non-profit (that is not controlled or run in any way by us) and then we can make donations back to that, and they can disperse equipment and even compensation from there. Like anything, that organization will need a strong leader, and ideally should be someone independent from us. Nothing runs itself and leadership by comittee is no less a disaster in open source than anywhere else.

Regarding quantification of substantial contributions, yes we're certainly going to do that, and actually we need to be more aggressive in and systematic in doing that. Right now, we vaguely pay attention to who's contributing and make sure we give them free stuff if it comes up, but to your point, Its not very systematic and frankly, I'm sure we're missing some dedicated folks that haven't raised the issue.