Slashdot Mirror
Measuring the Value of Open Hardware Designs
An anonymous reader writes: Industry knows open source software has an immense value, but how valuable is an open hardware design? To answer that question, Dr. Joshua Pearce, an associate professor at Michigan Tech University, analyzed three methods to quantify the value of open hardware design in the latest issue of the journal Modern Economy. The methods are summarized in an article at opensource.com.
Then know that chances are high that it will fail.
He listed three, but missed the obvious one.
His 3:
1. downloaded substitution valuation
2. avoided reproduction valuation
3. market savings valuation
While 2 & 3 could include this, his paper didn't claim they did. It's the primary value which I've seen applied to selection of Open Source Software valuation in many of the companies where I've worked:
4. time to market reduction
Even if you are leveraging a single part, the time savings vastly outweigh in many cases the R&D cost savings. Admittedly, this is only applicable to markets where there is a benefit to "first mover advantage" (typical software/internet startup problem), but it seems to apply equally well to hardware, if the open hardware in question is being utilized as a component of a larger system.
...open hardware could prevent us from paying exorbiant prices for decent performance and allow us to get the full value out of the hardware we invest in. I had to allow scripts from "academia-assests.com" to view the text of the first link if anyone else runs into the same blank page I did when I clicked on it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Votes on how long it will be until we see this:
A washing machine or other appliance that comes with USB stick with design files for replacement parts?
"The first method is the easiest. Making 3D printed products costs less than purchasing them, so the value of a design is the savings users generate by substituting open hardware scaled by the number of downloads. Many free design repositories (e.g. Youmagine and Thingiverse) track the number of downloads," says Pearce."
that's actually bollocks. injection molded pieces can be sold at lower price than 3d printing them at home.
I have a 3d printer, too.
the real value is in that I can buy the controller board for my 3d printer from multiple manufacturers for cheap, they have cheap prices BECAUSE IT'S OPEN SOURCE so there's a bunch of clone manufacturers.
so first you would need to define the "who" the value is for anyways..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
NEXT QUESTION!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
1) Does it do anything useful
2) Is it cheap
3) Can I make money off it
4) Is it free
5) can I use it to pick up chicks
Seems like the benefit is the same as opensource: you don't have to rely on a third party. If you (and your community) become dependent on it, you can maintain and adapt it as you see fit if forced to by bad management of the product. Its not something you normally have to do, but its important to have it as an option, or you become really vulnerable via vendor lock issues.
Lets say some vendor (Oracle perhaps) decides to wreck some project. Be it hardware or software, a large enough community can function (via fork) only it its truly open: otherwise there are nasty issues. I simply see "open source" meaning if the source of something goes away or becomes evil or whatever, the users aren't guaranteed to be screwed (so the profits for trying to screw them should be low and discourage said screwing hopefully).
Why on earth would anyone want open hardware, when they can get the latest Intel chips offer vPro and ATM (Active Management Technology) which provides government mandated (via NSL) hardware backdoors? It is a lot harder to hide wireless spying in open hardware, which makes it useless to me.
I personally prefer these new Intel chips, because I like knowing that big brother has full remote access to my computers, independent of OS and disk encryption, in case I do anything in the future which upsets them.
Now excuse me, while I surrender to the authorities for thought crimes in my sleep, which someone told me that I might have.
He listed three, but missed the obvious one.
His 3:
1. downloaded substitution valuation
2. avoided reproduction valuation
3. market savings valuation
...
4. time to market reduction
......
I didn't follow any of the links, but thanks to your post I didn't have to.
Time to consumption reduced, value demonstrated.
Next 5 years - maybe sooner for the brands with CEOs under 30
I am less optimistic.
Unless the parts are all things that have to be sintered by a repair shop, most of the value in being an appliance dealer is in the repair business for intentional wear parts. It's what you get in exchange for selling the appliances in the first place. It's no mistake that the repair truck "happens" to have the part you need on the truck.
I suspect that it's going to take as long as it takes to get a portable system truck-mounted in something a small as a panel-van.
The major benefit to the OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) is an end run around the parts stocking requirement for 10 years, which is a legal hurdle to the introduction of any new product, including cars, in the U.S. today. But the dealers are still going to have to get their cut, or there will be no reasonable sales channel, since there's still a desire to see and touch in person the thing before you buy it, especially for major purchases, but even for relatively minor ones you will have to live with for a long time.
As an example: bathroom fixtures are relatively cheap and easy to replace, compared to a dishwasher, but you don't see that happen a lot. So there are still places where you can go to see what a given fixture looks like installed, and touch it, and play with all the levers and knobs, and decide if it's for you or not. I don't think that's going away soon for high inertia items, regardless of cost. Seeing is often not enough.