The fundamental driver is that makers and engineers do not want to
re-invent the wheel and are often happy to share designs, design tips,
shortcuts in online forums so that those that follow them can make more
complex things more easily, he said.
The drinks-dispensing robot
company Party Robotics is based on the use of Arduino and then Raspberry
Pi boards. The company has been funded by the founders and Kickstarter
and has an open-source ethos. Panelist and co-founder of Party Robotics,
said: "Not having to create hardware was a huge benefit. That is why we
fold our designs back [in the open-source community] to allow even
Michael also made the point that he switched EDA
tools for design lay-out from Altium to Eagle. "You should use
open-source tools to make open-source products," Michael said. However,
he was immediately challenged by Kridner who pointed out that Eagle PCB
is not open-source but is an EDA program that happens to be available in
a free version.
But when asked if Party Robotics could go to
market with a totally open-source hardware philosophy Michael conceded:
"Now we are being told you got to lock down your IP if you are going to
Wolfe drew comparisons with the open-source software
domain where many companies do successfully ply their trade based on
support for open-source and freely available Linux distributions.
Loo made the point that in the case of open source software a lot of
engineers are motivated to contribute their efforts in return for credit
in a GPL listing. Unfortunately there is no such equivalent in hardware
and engineers sometimes have to be satisfied with knowing they designed
something and accept that it will be picked up and reused by others.
Nonetheless he said that hardware engineers are still prepared to put
their design work in the open-source domain because "engineering is one
the best-paid creative jobs out there."
What Van Loo did not
address explicitly is that engineering is usually done under
contractural terms where the employee surrenders copyright and
intellectual property rights to an employer who then holds those rights
closely. In the case of Raspberry Pi there is an educational remit and
in other cases open-source boards are enabled by chip vendors who want
to encourage developments around their hardware. In the case of the
beagleboard it is produced by Texas Instruments.
lot of public good will comes from using open-source hardware said
Pierre Michael. And the creation of add-on boards to Raspberry Pi and
Arduino, in turn, helps sell more Raspberry Pi and Ardiuno boards, he
said. "The online forum is part of the ecosystem and helps interesting
things get made."
Arduino and Raspberry Pi are neat little boards which are fine for hobby projects and the one-off test fixture or whatever.
However, they're nothing more special than an MCU or FPGA vendor's eval board or starter kit. Their main attraction is that there's a whole lot of firmware modules and plug-ins available for them.
But as for "What is less clear is whether such movements will scale into the commercial world," the answer is pretty obvious: they won't. If you have to add on other hardware, or you want to use reasonable enclosures, or any of the hundred other things that go into a product design, you won't use a Raspberry Pi as part of your product. You'll spin a PCB that fits into your enclosure and uses a proper power supply and rolls up all of that extra hardware.
So, no, "open source hardware" in that sense doesn't scale. Maybe you'll take the same processor as the Raspberry Pi and integrated it into your design, but you'll do that to take advantage of the various firmware models others have written. But when you do that, you'll look at whether the processor is optimal for the design. Is it too big and you can get away with a smaller (fewer pins, less memory) device that's also cheaper? Are you pushing the limits of the micro and want to use something bigger to allow for future expansion?
I think the real power of the open source boards is the ability for hobbyists and professionals alike to quickly prototype a design using readily available modules. The switch may come when the OS Hardware model is better understood, but in the meantime could there be an agreement between the creators of the OS hardware and a potential commercial producer? Just wondering if it is possible to pay a small fee (either per board or a larger one time) to use it in production.
Back in the late 1970's and 1980's, the barriers to entry for new hardware companies were pretty low. Schematic capture could be done with paper and pencil. Layout was generally black tape on clear plastic. Parts were big and easy to and solder.
That helped spur an unprecedented flood of innovation and start-up companies. Open source software helped do the same with the Internet and open source hardware, as well as inexpensive or free development tools, is now doing the same again with the hardware world.
Certainly a great number of those start-ups are destined to fail, but the strong ones will drive our economy as did Apple, Microsoft, Dell, Google and others. Open source has brought the barriers to entry back down and opened up possibility to uncountable numbers of people that otherwise would be stuck toiling away in a cube for someone else.
It really doesn't matter if open source, specifically, has a business model in it. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The greatest value with it comes from greatly increasing the opportunity for people to get into the business of designing, building and manufacturing.
Bob Baddeley gave a great talk yesterday at Design West called "An Engineer's Guide to Braving the Hardware Startup World". The real problems and what soaks up your time and seed money are things like FCC/UL approvals, fixed costs like molds for injection molding, setting up manufacturing, making sure manufacturing is actually doing its job, and patent exposure. I'm personally amazed that Bob was able to stick with it and learn everything he had to learn to do this. He says that half his income now comes from sharing this largely non-technical knowledge as a consultant :-)
The difference between a great idea and a great business is huge. From my perspective, that's a large part of the Internet bubble/crash in 2000 and 2001. Whether it's hardware or software, an idea isn't always enough and that fact that one or a few of something can be easily made doesn't indicate that the thing can be mass produced.
Regardless, our economy depends on a lot of people being willing to try to start businesses. I can see open source allowing more people to try with a bit less upfront investment.
Duane, I agree there is a significant difference between a good idea and a great business. In many ways the corrallary holds true as well, there is a significant difference between a hobby design and a production worthly design. I am not sure about the internet bubble / crash being a bad business; I thought it was good business but bad (overly optimistic - carried away) valuation of the companies. Prices soaring without any one THINKing about the value add and the business model. A lesson for all of us to keep in mind. It is all too easy for us to think our hobby product (hand crafted, tuned, babied, etc.) is production worthy without a lot more work both on the product itself and the support, documentation, warraenty etc..
I don't know why Arduino and Raspi are unique “open source hardware” projects. Since decades MCU or FPGA evaluation board provider offer the free schematic and layout by default, not really calling it open source.
The Arduino IDE is open source software, but I haven't seen many projects “really” modifying this IDE to add new functionality (not only adapting it for their processor).
The unique point is, that these tools are very cheap and very easy to use, that's it.
There is a nice multicore Arduino project coming up: http://www.cloudx.cc/projects.html .
The business model for Open source hardware is subtle.
With Open source hardware you give away the schematics and source code so that people can buy the main board from you and then tinker with add-ons and the software. This is a good marketing ploy as it increases sales of the actual hardware. Also, because the main board uses SMD components and FCC/UL approvals etc. are so onerous, there is little to no chance that any domestic customer will actually start producing variants of your main board in any competitive quantity.
This is the business model that has enabled the Raspberry-Pi to sell in the millions and make pots of money.
Overall it is win-win. It helps educate the public and encourages engineering innovation by consumers, whilst still allowing the company to make sizeable profits.
(NB: This business model breaks down if you try to sell open source hardware to big corporations who have the resources to copy your design and then manufacture it themselves in quantity)
Open source hardware is also a nice antidote to the modern trend of super-closed systems like modern laptops which make it very difficult (or sometimes actually impossible) for an end-user to change the operating system from windows to Linux.
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.