Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Is Now Open (sourced) For Business
ptorrone writes "CNBC has an interesting article about the growing trend of hardware companies going open-source. 'The open-source hardware movement is migrating from the garage to the marketplace. Companies that follow an open-source philosophy make their physical designs and software code available to the public. By doing so, these companies engage a wave of makers, hobbyists and designers who don't just want to buy products, but have a hand in developing them.'"
Seriously though, Commodore, (Apple?), and lots of others used to provide complete wiring schematics either with their hardware, or as a seperately available book up to what, the mid to late 80s?
If the PC and related technology hadn't taken off, would anybody even be talking about 'open hardware' nowadays, or would that just have continued to be the assumed norm?
Just some food for thought.
Nothing really new here, other than re-labeling a decades old practice as open source. Schematics and source coming with a computer or board is nothing new. Sometimes these were finished products where it was left to 3rd parties to do additional hardware and software. Sometimes these were reference designs that were created with the intention of being a foundation for further development by 3rd parties.
Such things are good, but lets not pretend this is something new.
If these companies are trying to occupy the same marketplace as the Arduino, i think it's too late. Otherwise it's definitely a good move.
In any case IMO what really allowed the Arduino to take off was not much the fact that it was open source, but rather the fact that it had readable documentation, which anyone could actually follow and make things work.
I am still amazed at the extent to which, to this day, the documentation for many Arduino-wannabe boards (e.g TI MSP 430, Chipkit 32, and others) really sucks.
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
Back then computers were just for us geeks.So of course they'd include schematics.
Today, computing is an appliance (thanks St. Jobs!) and a prestige/luxury item.
Ardino and Rasberry fill thos eniches now.
It's a natural step, but probably more so a financial step. If a company can take an open piece of hardware and use it to save money, win, win.
What's new here is the trend. Companies saw the RepRap project spawn a bunch of companies with a lot of compatibility from the start. Non-RepRap companies are seeing this as a threat to the investment they made using traditional methods (closed design, proprietary supplies and software).
Business people understand the IBM PC clone model. You had a market leader that everyone copied. The old-school thinking was they failed to protect their intellectual property, and lost market share to competitors who copied their design. In other words, they believe IBM could have kept nearly all the marked had they done a better job of keeping it closed, and bought Microsoft while they could.
RepRap and projects like it have upended that thinking. Arduino is seen as a component, not a product, by these people. But 3D printing is getting a lot of press, and business people are starting to take notice. When you create a 10 year plan, and can achieve a huge reduction in R&D spending, along with a reduction of risk, they take notice.
One of the concerns is the believe the a mature market only has room for two main competitors. That means you have a lot of losers. An open source machine makes it much more likely that your company will end up as one of the two majors, and that is a huge reduction of risk. This is becoming a hot topic among many executives. Many are somewhat scared and unsure what to do - if anything.
Place nail here >+
It's a common stereotype that the problem with business people is that all they care about is money.
If only that was the case.
The reality is we all tend to have some model of how things should be paid for and what makes our company different from another.
But, we always need to step back and look at it objectively.
Open Source is not some enemy of revenue on its own.
The old telecom companies (Bells, ATTs...) used to have all kinds of open source products. They knew their revenue was from having a monopoly position over communication.
This is very similar to Google today. They saw that they could be very friendly to open source as their revenue model was service/ad based. I'm sure there are bean counters at Google, but they're not simplistic bean counters who simply say people are using X amount of Google service, so they need to pay Y dollars.
I don't quite know the model for hardware companies. But perhaps just name recognition is enough. Sure with open hardware, anyone could make a copy, but most people, me included, would still pay for the name, to ensure it is done 'right'. I know I could buy a $20 router, but I end up with the Cisco/LinkSys/DLink...
Perhaps enough of a market develops that large companies start paying to support projects while reaping the manufacturing benefits.
Open Source Company/Business:
- Get others to do your work for you, claim glory.
- Promote the product for free, by getting others to do it for you.
- Create a license that controls the sale of all products that use the original source.
- No responsibility or legal worries for the company, blame the other guy.
All i see is the company benefiting, mostly?
I'am all for open source. But when a business comes into it, is it "really" open source?
Have gnu, will travel.