"open" Pandora?

[daffy]

I don't mind using closed-source things; I just feel that the name "Open" Pandora is deceptive.

The only things that appear to be "open" here are:
- the firmware; and
- the development process is a bit more public than usual.

But the development process is not significantly "open", or I'd be able to download specs for the case, board, etc.

And I can run open source software on any number of closed designs. Like a ThinkPad.

So how is this thing "Open" Pandora?

 

[emusan]

I'm thinking that all the schematics for the board and case will come out once the pandora ships, though I could be wrong. I would also love to see some of the board specs, though I can wait.

 

[dflemstr]

I'm thinking that all the schematics for the board and case will come out once the pandora ships, though I could be wrong. I would also love to see some of the board specs, though I can wait.

Enough of the schematics will be released to enable you to mod the device, but no more than that. The reason being that OpenPandora Ltd. wants to prevent Chinese companies from copying the device 1:1 most probably.

You have to remember that: the device can't be opened up too much, because this is still a project that must generate some kind of income for OpenPandora Ltd. I don't think that the device "would have happened" if its specs had been open; MWeston would have designed a board and thrown the designs out in the open, the potential OP investors would have seen that and decided that they didn't want to throw their money into the pond just to develop a device that might not generate any returns (since anyone would have taken the designs and produce a similar, cheaper device), and yeah, there would have been a commercial standstill.

It's incredibly difficult to apply open source to business, and I think that OP Ltd. has enough problems as it is.

 

[hobbyman II]

oooh! look! an idiot, can I keep him?, can I? can I?

open does not mean OP give away the design so some Chinese firm can physically copy it for next to nothing with an inferior set of electronics and undermine the project, open means you can code for it with no restrictions, maybe you should learn to read or something.

schematics for the board will never be released, they said as much, as for the case, if you have a Pandora then copying the case is not rocket science, but don`t expect to be told how to pirate the design, people have spent a lot of their own time, money and resources making this thing, there's no rides for freeloaders, do you really think after all this effort they are going to give the design away?, what would stop some big firm making a couple of million of them then selling em at a fraction of the cost just to wipe out OP?, lot`s of big firms don't like open source, they would rather see a device like this crushed.

that's not a paranoid opinion imo, if OP makes its creators a couple of million then that's a couple of million many big companies would like to have for themselves, if only to stop any user base erosion or raised expectations of what they are allowed to do with the devices they purchase, most makers are busy copying Apples lead, wanting to control what's running on your device rather than allowing total control by the user.

 

[Enverex]

I don't mind using closed-source things; I just feel that the name "Open" Pandora is deceptive.

The only things that appear to be "open" here are:
- the firmware; and
- the development process is a bit more public than usual.

But the development process is not significantly "open", or I'd be able to download specs for the case, board, etc.

And I can run open source software on any number of closed designs. Like a ThinkPad.

So how is this thing "Open" Pandora?

It isn't "OpenPandora" it's just "Pandora". Open Pandora is the name of the COMPANY making it.

/Thread.

 

[torpor]

The open part refers to the fact that anyone can write games for it - as opposed to the other closed handheld game consoles.

 

[atomicthumbs]

 

[fretfrenzy182]

Aren't we currently in a delay regarding specifications to the case? How can you expect full disclosure on intimate details if it hasn't even been perfected yet?

 

[Aninhumer]

Aren't we currently in a delay regarding specifications to the case? How can you expect full disclosure on intimate details if it hasn't even been perfected yet?

The design for the case was finished ages ago.
We're currently waiting for the factory to finish adjusting the mould for the case, so that it produces the design exactly.
It's a lot more complicated than an inverse of the design.

All of the hardware design is finished at this point.

 

[darkblu]

i thought the 'open' part in the name came from the clamshell design: you do have to open it to use it.

 

[mali]

i thought the 'open' part in the name came from the clamshell design: you do have to open it to use it.

We have a winner!
Problem solved

 

[craigix]

It is open in several ways, we won't stop you doing whatever you want with the device, in fact we will help you do that.

You are also welcome to make any software you like for the Pandora, again we will help you where we can.

And here we are on the forum being open about the whole process.

What we won't do is release enough information to allow the Pandora to be cloned. That would be silly.

 

[x68000]

Thread went a tad on the crazy side, so I've pruned the hate and obsenity. Craig's response answers the opening posters query.

So.…….….......thread closed!

 

[x68000]

After receiving a request to reopen this thread, the doors are open again as long as things are kept on the friendly side :rolleyes:

Play Nice

 

[daffy]

I wasn't complaining about the business model; just the name. I can do pretty much all the things craigix mentions to, say, a ThinkPad, can't I? So I don't think the project is significantly more open than any other computer.

It would be terrific for the project to at least aspire to its name. Given the difficulty of recouping the development cost, how about releasing the design specs after the first, say, 6000 devices are sold? By then we're probably thinking about Pandora 2 anyway.

Arduino is completely open hardware and is booming. I think that model isn't entirely out of the question.

The community would have some fair amount to gain. And the company might in the long run, also: it would foster development around the device, such as add-on hardware.

 

[gaterooze]

*facepalm*

Try reading. The device is not called "Open Pandora."

 

[second exodous]

I still think it's alright to call the Pandora 'Open' because you have freedom to do what you want with the hardware. Think of a PC, it's 'Open' in the fact that you don't have to put any particular OS on it, you're free to put whatever you want on it. The hardware of the PC itself might not be 'Open' but it allows you freedom to do what you want with it.

It's not open in the sense that you can copy the hardware yourself but very little hardware is. Even 'open' hardware projects pair with proprietary components so hardware wise you can't have a 100% open hardware project unless we accomplish some sort of utopia where money has no value and every advancement of technology is for the betterment of man kind.

EDIT: Saw your last comment on page one so I think to answer your question think of this handheld as an open handheld in the fact that how many are there really? You can't install what you want at the OS level on your iphone, or any phone, not on your PSP or DS. Archos just released code to put Ångström on their older hardware. So, in comparing it to other handhelds it is open.

Also very little could be gained by releasing full cad files after so many are sold because nearly everything if not everything on it is proprietary. Arduino on the other hand uses off the shelf parts that aren't proprietary, I think, don't quote me on that. Anyway, you building one would cost more than it's worth, you can't just go to a good electronic store and pick up the parts and solder them together, you would have to go through a manufactures like the OP team is doing.

 

[kuru]

I wasn't complaining about the business model; just the name. I can do pretty much all the things craigix mentions to, say, a ThinkPad, can't I? So I don't think the project is significantly more open than any other computer.

It would be terrific for the project to at least aspire to its name. Given the difficulty of recouping the development cost, how about releasing the design specs after the first, say, 6000 devices are sold? By then we're probably thinking about Pandora 2 anyway.

Arduino is completely open hardware and is booming. I think that model isn't entirely out of the question.

The community would have some fair amount to gain. And the company might in the long run, also: it would foster development around the device, such as add-on hardware.

Compare it to a console, not a computer, then apply "open".

A pro pos open, who opened this thread again -.-

 

[skovsende]

Arduino is completely open hardware and is booming. I think that model isn't entirely out of the question.

It's not really valid to compare the production of a computer, which the pandora(oops, no open in the name? ) is, with what is basically an atmega dev board. The complexity of the two projects is vastly different.

 

[gruso]

The laptop is a fair analogy. It's a platform that anyone can code for, without the kind of lockdowns & restrictions that most handhelds suffer from.

Regarding the name. The device is simply called Pandora. "OpenPandora" is the name of the company (OpenPandora Ltd), and of course the web address. As I see it there are a few reasons for adding "open" to the company name:

- Pandora continues the bloodline of other "open" handhelds (GP2X etc), so named because they are accessible to anyone who wants to code for them (just like the laptop analogy).

- The mythical reference; opening Pandora's box

- Practical reasons. Pandora is a very commonly used term, with all the obvious company names and web addresses taken. Adding "open" to Pandora provides separation from the radio service, the jewellery and god knows what else that uses the Pandora name.

It's all pretty logical. At no point did they set out to market this like an OpenMoko. Unfortunately people have run with the name OpenPandora for the console. At the end of the day it's a bit of a pebkac issue to be honest.

(I know I'm repeating some other posts here. Oh well.)