The fundamental issue with open source is how you make money. I had a conversation with a friend who is heavily involved in open source, and asked "How do you make a living doing open source development?" His answer was what I expected: you get a job at Google, IBM, or other big outfit that makes extensive use of open source code and pays engineers to hack it for their own benefit.
Most developers I'm aware of contributing to open source projects do so on the side, and develop closed source stuff for money.
It looks strong in software, still there in FPGA implementation but will the company be happy if I clone the board and sell it $10 cheaper.
The Kicksatarter price is a promotional price, but the website seems to indicate standard price is $359. What would it cost you to clone the board, and is there a big enough market for you to sell profitably at $349? They are counting on their price being low enough that it's not worth your while to bother.
The open source nature of the hardware will allow test engineers to collaborate of future interations of the board with expanded capabilities.
This has possibilites well beyond the hobbyist, simply due to form factor. You can carry it around and use it in cases where you don't have a room full of the bigger pro gear available. It may not do everything the big boys do, but what it does may be enough to meet your needs.
I agree that $50,000 is not a lot of money. But on Kickstarter it is very important that you hit your target or you get nothing.
For all we know they may have a few millions from another source and this is a bit of marketing exercise...I should have asked that question in my email correspondence.
More likely they want ot make sure they blow past their Kickstarter target, not for the money, but so they can go to the VCs and say look, we are successful, have customers and traction NOW invest a few million.
This is something Simon Barker touched on in recent articles.
There are many alterations being made in the open source community terms and conditions. First, the community and paid versions will be announced. Second always the required future will be kept open only in the paid versions, Third no one knows how much efforts of community developers will be used in the paid version. Fourth for the developer will ask for the maintenance and this will be covering huge revenue when a open source initiative is well accepts throughout the world. And there are still many things and issues that really come up in mind. Yes I am not pin pointing any initiative and supporting organisations. There are many good really open source initiative and supporting organisations. The points I discusses above are simply general inputs by me it is not at all connected with the article in discussion here.
Will this in the future, be competition to National Instruments?
They are up on the hill with their LabView software and the great array of test and automation equipment which spans from ADC's and acquisistion boards to relays and image recognition systems. Mmm they might be on the right track as... there's a lot to work on. I hope they make a graphical programming language.
It is always strange that T&M does not get a lot of support or recognition in schools and in companies despite testing taking most of chip development costs. Hope we can innovate in that process in the open space.
Hey eewiz, luckily for Agilent it doesn't try and differentiate in the low end of the market where this is targeted. It subs that out to Rigol. This is great for the handy EE who wants to experiment on the side, but for serious test, lets give open source and companie like Redfish some time:)