Aside from hardware there are the more fuzzy areas in the embedded/hardware world where Open Source can make a lot of inroads - anything from Firmware through to VHDL/Verilog designs for FPGAs.
The later is useful because it's more accessible in a way - you have a standard Altera or whatever board, and simply upload your design to exercise it. You can also simulate, debug, etc. This puts it on the software end of the spectrum, but ongoing wins here will eventually broaden.
I have been very tempted to buy one of these..If you're interested in the Arduino project, you have to check out
http://www.freeduino.org/ .Contains a host of info on the Arduino board.
> Isn't that what reprap is supposed to evolve into?
Yup... but I don't know if reprap will be able to provide electronic parts on par with current ones in the next 5 years. An open-design factory (that takes up a building) is feasible right now, however.
I heard a recent podcast in which the inventor of reprap was interviewed http://www.thefutureandyou.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=3812.... In the interview he said that in a new version, to be released next year, it will be possible to lay down strips of a conductor within plastic materials to make circuit boards.
Yup, even better, they've been trying to print motors (with magnetic components). But I still think we're ~5 years away from printing a consumer electronics device. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
i have been wanting to see an opensource media player that can compete with the zune and or ipod. using android would be a good OS for it and make apps portable so the largest difference would be if the mobile phone was installed or turned on. my hunch is that an openhardware product that had the following might work REALLY well.
-small form factor ~ 3.5"x2"x .25"
-flash based storage ( internal flash and maybe external port )
-bright LCD display with 320x200 display
-wifi
-supports OpenGL ES (nvidia tegra would be great)
-battery
-gps
-bluetooth
-wii based accelerometers.
nokia has a set of products that are a good start, but i think we could do better.
Now that I've read the entire article, I think the author makes the same mistakes that the Chinese ripoffs do. He's talking about the guys selling the $400 museum monitor going out of business because they're so expensive. But price is only a small part of the solution. I'm willing to bet that the mfr knows his market, understands their needs much better than the cheap newcomers, has a better distribution network and reputation in the field. It's really hard to compete solely on price unless you're selling cheap consumer commodity goods which this is anything but.
OK, but how many small companies will fight for 15 years to get a piece of what is really not a very large market (museums)?
The point is that price is probably not enough of a competitive advantage to topple the market leader. Given enough time anything can happen, but you have to be reasonable about what's likely.
I agree that price is not enough but I do think price/performance is. I believe this is why the consumer Linux desktop has not been as successful as enterprise Linux.
It may take 15 years for the idea of open source hardware to be accepted. Once people are comfortable that lower price does not imply lower quality I doubt that it will be a hard sell. I agree that now that may not be the case for the museum environmental sensor market but until someone try's it will not be known.
Open source software achieves its cost savings by eliminating or greatly reducing many levels of organization and overhead that exist in proprietary software vendors (i.e. sales, marketing, human resources, project management,..) not by reducing quality. Larry Augustine has a good article describing this http://www.sandhill.com/opinion/editorial.php?id=54. It is reasonable to think that the same thing could happen with hardware.
Open source software is appealing because it's free. There is a very low amount of commitment when you download the source for open-source software. You can sort of poke around and come back to it as you please.
Open-source hardware requires you to commit money (would have mattered more to me when I was a student), and a little more time to really get anything useful out of it. And when all is said and done, it is considerably more difficult to distribute your creation.
You just managed to prove that you have no understanding of what Open Source is actually about.
The entire purpose of open source if you go back to the origin is about the Freedom to build upon, produce, and learn from other's software. Stallman was frustrated with the printer at the lab because he couldn't fix a flaw that he had previously fixed on a earlier printer.
With hardware if their is a flaw or it just doesn't quite meet the need you have then you can take the design and fix the flaw, or build upon the base to get what you need. That is the purpose of Free, Open Source Software and Hardware.
Open source has little to nothing to do with being free that has been a side effect of giving the source away, why charge for a product if anyone can build it themselves?
Is anyone else concerned that if all of the easy money in high tech is undercut then there won't be any more profits to fund continuing innovation? As neat as something like Arduino may be, it's not exactly cutting edge technology.
It doesn't have to be cutting edge. I do some hardware/embedded SW moonlighting. Since a lot of the smaller projects seemed to have a common platform, I made a run of PC boards so I didn't have to reinvent the wheel with every new project. If I had known about the Arduino at the time I wouldn't have bothered: I'd just have used their design with my firmware and saved a bunch of time.
The point of this is to build on someone else's work. Just like I can use Apache without having to build my own webserver, I can use the Arduino design and add my customizations to it.
Or the barrier to entry for usefull ideas will be lowered.
There isn't money in making PIC demo boards - but there is lots of profitable innovation in things you could do with a PIC if a cheap demo board was available.
The later is useful because it's more accessible in a way - you have a standard Altera or whatever board, and simply upload your design to exercise it. You can also simulate, debug, etc. This puts it on the software end of the spectrum, but ongoing wins here will eventually broaden.
http://www.opencores.org/ is already doing some good work on this.