2Nd Batch Upgrades?

[droneb]

^ +1

 

[WizardStan]

I'm a 1st batcher and I wouldn't care if they updated the hardware afterwards (2nd batch) as long as it doesn't break compatibility.

The update the original poster proposed would definitely break compatibility, at least forward compatibility.

 

[Creature XL]

Actually I have more patience because I'm waiting much longer for the second batch. Do I deserve a reward as well?

It was already answered, however, you seem not too bright. Therefore, i will write it again in the hope you understand it after a 2nd read:

WE have paid for the Panda1. that is, our money is gone since oct. last year. You are just sitting there and your money is still in your pocket.
So, yeah f*ck your waiting time


OTOH paying for teh 1st batch was a bit of a betting-game. If it all would have been gone well, we sould have had the only device with an OMAP3 maybe 6month before teh rest of the world had one. Well, we lost
i would be upset if there would be a Panda with OMAP4 or what ever soon. Especially the newer SGX chipwould have been awesome.
Its the decision of the OP team not ours.

 

[openthebox]

Actually I have more patience because I'm waiting much longer for the second batch. Do I deserve a reward as well?

No you don't. You sound like the kid who waits for everyone to jump into the water to make sure the water is not too cold.

But hey, f*ck progress - there are principles to adhere to! If you got a slow CPU, no one else is entitled to a faster one!

I'm a 1st Batcher. I would be upset if they made drastic hardware upgrades for 2nd batches.
I have no problem with them upgrading a hardware because it was flawed for 2nd batch, just not a drastic upgrade such as a processor.

As for Pandora 2. I don't want to see it before 1.5 years after the 1st batch has shipped.
Why the half year? Because they should be concentrating on giving us stable OS/Drivers/Core Apps before working on a 2nd gen.

I think the OP team will do the right thing, so I'm not worried. B)

 

[wermy]

Personally, I'd like to see them keep the exact same specs until Pandora 2 comes about. That way, a year from now, surely they will be making money on pandoras they produce and sell (and let's face it, they deserve to make some money off this thing). That's been how other console companies have done it -- start with a loss on every console, and eventually become profitable as costs come down and demand goes up.

p.s. 100th post!

 

[juniorm33]

I'm a 1st batcher and I wouldn't care if they updated the hardware afterwards (2nd batch) as long as it doesn't break compatibility.

The update the original poster proposed would definitely break compatibility, at least forward compatibility.

Yep, sorry should've made it more clear. As long as forward and backward compatibility is maintained. Otherwise I don't care if later batches can clock higher, or longer battery life, etc. Anything else should be left for pand 2, and not worried about for a while yet. Still a long way to go once we have our pand's in our hands, that's just the start of the ride!

PS Oh and a change in the processor generation isn't just a faster processor, it's a fundamental change. If it was A8 but rated at 700, but defaulted to 600, well I've not got a problem with that, if it means it's cheaper to produces for them.

 

[Phawx]

You do realize that OP wants to make *some* money for all of their work. If they were to upgrade the components, the Pandora would have to be priced much higher. If you only feel comfortable paying $330 for it, then OMAP3530 will have to do for you.

 

[chole]

At the current point in development, everybody who has preordered has essentially funded nearly the entirety of the R&D for the project. The developers are probably a little in the red, having put some of their own money into it in addition and a lot of their time, effectively being unpaid.

I don't think that it would be wise from a business perspective to start spending money on further development before the break-even point has been reached with the current product. This isn't like, say, Microsoft, who could afford to put out a new gaming console even though they were four billion dollars in the red on their current console. The devs here need to be given some sort of retroactive incentive on their work (ie, profit) before they can branch off. Otherwise they'd have to get a second mortgage on their living spaces to give you a slightly faster device.

And, yeah, it would require a lot of work. To up the cpu and memory would probably require quite a bit of board redesign, testing, prototyping, possibly case changes depending on the board, probably another round of certification, etc. These steps took a year or more for the first Pandora, and there's no money left to do it all over again.

 

[el_pocko]

I'm a 1st Batcher. I would be upset if they made drastic hardware upgrades for 2nd batches.

I would be upset if they're going to build it with less power and/or for more money, if the only reason is a bunch of early adopters who are opposed to reasonable upgrades because they're jealous.

Maybe the current processor is no longer available once the second batch is manufactured. Or it may still be available, but at a higher price because it may have been replaced by a cheaper successor, compatible with the old one but with better specs. That's not unusual.
Another example is RAM. The price of RAM is ever declining and it might be hard to get the same chips at a reasonable price in a year or two. They might just be better off then if they take larger chips. Or cheaper, better LCD panels, etc.

They will probably make decisions based on commercial considerations, not what you or I think about it.

It was already answered, however, you seem not too bright. Therefore, i will write it again in the hope you understand it after a 2nd read:

WE have paid for the Panda1. that is, our money is gone since oct. last year. You are just sitting there and your money is still in your pocket.

Buddy, you paid money for a pig in a poke and got nothing in return for a whole year, and more months to come. I did not pay anything upfront and will get a mature device that you have beta tested for me - if it's ever completed, that is. Still, you call me stupid. Sweet irony

 

[WizardStan]

Buddy, you paid money for a pig in a poke and got nothing in return for a whole year, and more months to come. I did not pay anything upfront and will get a mature device that you have beta tested for me - if it's ever completed, that is. Still, you call me stupid. Sweet irony

It was that you think you, by taking zero risk, seem to think you are being patient and somehow deserving of a reward of some kind that he was insulting. Your insult does nothing to counter the claim. First batchers are taking the risk that you are not. It's a general rule that risk yields rewards.
If you sit on the side lines until the last 2 seconds of the game, you can't really take a lot of credit for the win, now can you?

 

[CCmachined]

OTOH paying for teh 1st batch was a bit of a betting-game. If it all would have been gone well, we sould have had the only device with an OMAP3 maybe 6month before teh rest of the world had one. Well, we lost

There was not a chance of the Pandora shipping before June-ish 09. Craig said himself that if they "rushed to production in July". And there would've been many minor problems.

Secondly, the banks' delay(s) were not the fault of OpenPandora. They exceeded the 1-2 month order to shipping rule on most credit cards, which is there for a very good reason. Unfortunate, but the business model we have today is to either 1) Take a loan to fund initial production, hence encouraging a team to start profiting ASAP, or 2) take peoples' money and keep them waiting for a while. They chose the latter. Not that I mind that much, this option minimises the chances of going bankrupt by a lot.

Also, if they were anywhere near to production in October/November '08 we wouldnt still be waiting in October/November '09. It's just plainly illogical.

We'll have the awesome device soon so all will be good . Sorry for going a lil offtopic.

 

[el_pocko]

First batchers are taking the risk that you are not. It's a general rule that risk yields rewards.
If you sit on the side lines until the last 2 seconds of the game, you can't really take a lot of credit for the win, now can you?

Yep, you're right. I obviously failed in my attempt to sarcastically point out that "patience" is a dumb argument.

I for one do not expect anything that's better than what you guys have paid for upfront. Still, evolutionary hardware changes may become necessary and it doesn't matter if that upsets you.

 

[WizardStan]

Yep, you're right. I obviously failed in my attempt to sarcastically point out that "patience" is a dumb argument.

Yes, you did, because your sarcasm was against intelligence, not patience.

 

[j6cubic]

This isn't like, say, Microsoft, who could afford to put out a new gaming console even though they were four billion dollars in the red on their current console.

I think that the OP team can be compared to Nintendo: Nintendo always made sure to make the most money off the console and not the games (unlike Microsoft and Sony who treat the console as a loss leader). The Nintendo 64 was a flop – for the gamers. For Nintendo it was profitable.

Likewise, the OP team won't see much money come from licensing deals – most likely nothing, as the console is supposed to be open. Thus, they absolutely have to make money on the hardware, which precludes any non-neccessary upgrades before the last unit has turned enough of a profit.

Of course there's also another reason why they won't upgrade: It would piss off the first-batchers who form an important part of the community. For a community-centric project like OP that would most likely not end with a net gain.

Plus, a significant change in hardware might mean new certification etc.

Buddy, you paid money for a pig in a poke and got nothing in return for a whole year, and more months to come. I did not pay anything upfront and will get a mature device that you have beta tested for me - if it's ever completed, that is. Still, you call me stupid. Sweet irony

Well, without enough first-batchers the Pandora would never have reached production. We do feel somewhat important because we're essentially the project's investors. Like all investors we expect a decent ROI and that means a system that's not immediately going to be obsolete.

Also note that the people working on emulators, games etc. are likely to be first-batchers. If there is a change in hardware that breaks compatibility this might lead to emulators that run poorly on first- or second-batch Pandoras, fail to run at all on some devices or are simply abandoned. It's hard enough to write an emulator for one host, much less two.


I don't really oppose upgrades but they shouldn't introduce compatibility issues. The PSP Go shows how well the press received a new version of a product that randomly breaks compatibility with earlier versions of itself. Virtually every review stated how they disliked that you have to rebuy all PSP games you own. Compatibility issues should always be zero within the same generation unless you have a REALLY good reason to introduce them.

 

[Enverex]

Although that begs the question, if Nintendo uses the consoles and not licensing to make money, why are the games so expensive? It's one of the main reasons I've stuck to PC gaming.

 

[el_pocko]

Yep, you're right. I obviously failed in my attempt to sarcastically point out that "patience" is a dumb argument.

Yes, you did, because your sarcasm was against intelligence, not patience.

Not that it matters much - but no, I didn't. Please read the thread again.

Creature XL called me not too bright for ridiculing the obviously flawed "patience" argument.
I actually consider it a more intelligent move to not invest in such a risky endeavor, but instead wait longer until the product is finished and debugged before I buy.

I chose to not take the risk and wait a while longer for my device. Which not only makes me smarter, but more patient as well.

 

[fiori_musicali]

The Nintendo 64 was a flop – for the gamers. For Nintendo it was profitable.

Did you own one? I see this claim repeated a lot, and I disagree. Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Goldeneye 007, Perfect Dark, 1080 Snowboarding, Banjo-Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, Donkey Kong 64, Mario Kart 64? Then there were Conker's Bad Fur Day and Banjo-Tooie which unfortunately were never released outside US, if I understand right. These I personally consider classics, and there were many other more mediocre ones, that relatively speaking could still compete against the boring, unstimulating masses of bulky, generic, forgettable titles that are over-produced for the newest console generations.

 

[iprice]

Conker's Bad Fur Day and Banjo-Tooie which unfortunately were never released outside US, if I understand right

Wrong. I own both of those games as official PAL releases. They may not have been released in significant numbers though.

 

[j6cubic]

Although that begs the question, if Nintendo uses the consoles and not licensing to make money, why are the games so expensive? It's one of the main reasons I've stuck to PC gaming.

Oh, they also make money from game licensing – actually, "making the most money off the console" probably only applies if the games don't sell well. The point is that Nintendo tries to be able to break even with consoles alone.


As for the N64 being under-appreciated: I agree that the N64 had some cool games... but it also had a lot of junk releases like Superman. (Well, it had a lot of junk releases. Superman was its own category of bad.)

 

[(naw)mcx]

If the 2nd batch is faster, I'll fucking lose it with this malarkey.

Same with the 3rd or 4th, or whatever.

I've had my money in since day 2, or so. I helped make this happen. It would not be fair to give the newcomers more power, more RAM, that's how I see it.