Thoughts on wireless hardware

[thatgui]

It's poor argument BECAUSE it can be used against the cell module. They are excellent arguments against an FM receiver, but what makes them excellent arguments against an FM receiver makes them even better against the 3G (I'm just going to forgo the xG from here on, 2G is not enough for streaming, got to be at least 3G) module, and a lot of other features that are already being included. Whether you used the word "can" or "could" or whatever is irrelevant, the arguments you made to demonstrate that an FM receiver is a bad idea work even better against a modem.

Arrgg, if I still had hair, I would pull it out now. Sure the arguments against a radio module work against a xG module, but that is of no interest here (which is the at least second time I say this) because there was no reason to weigh them against each other.

There were no other factors. You said FM was bad because it added cost, size, complexity, and would be underutilized. That's it. You didn't mention anything about any other factors, that was the extent of why you said the radio receiver was bad. Those exact same arguments apply stronger to 3G: it adds more cost, adds more size, much more complexity, and can potentially be even more underutilized.

Well I mentioned that including xG could leed to certain benefits (more uses cases, greater appeal to potential buyers), but in another context. But I did not put much thought into it as I have no interest into weighing one against the other

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for it to imply that. All I'm saying, all I have been saying (all I will say again and again) is that you gave reasons that a radio module should not be included, and that those exact reasons apply to a modem: if you are against an FM receiver because it adds cost, space, complexity, and will only be used by a minority then you should be against a 3G modem for those exact same reasons. If you are genuinely anti-radio and pro-modem and you want to see it included then you must have arguments why it is better than a radio receiver, yes? Arguments that don't involve size, cost, complexity, and user adoption. Give those arguments!

I never, never intended to and (think that I) never proposed to substitute radio with xG. All I (at least intended) to say was "hey don't be said, if xG gets included, you can at least stream". And thats the main point: I simply did not say "hey you troglodytes, who needs radio if xG has already covered that".

That's fine, we can discuss it when the feature is proposed. Trying to figure out all the things someone might propose in the future is a exercise in futility and rejecting features for the sole reason of preventing feature creep is still arbitrary. How can you decide what features are genuinely useful and which aren't if you flat out reject a feature without discussion?

 

I don't want to repel requests for features at all, I want to discuss them. If someone proposes a feature and neither I nor anyone else can find a reason to argue against it then it should absolutely be included. Literally, what you are saying is that some future feature has been suggested and no one can find even a single reason not to add it. If there are absolutely no reasons not to add it then where is the problem with adding it? If you do have a problem with adding it, even one tiny little doubt, then that's an argument against it so we have a discussion and grounds to reject the feature. Ultimately it doesn't matter, we're just discussing features for the fun of it and ED is the one making the final decisions, regardless of whether we as a forum decide a feature is useful or not. Eventually there'll come a point where ED says "the prototype is done, no more features can be added" (in truth, ED will probably stop considering features long before then but there's absolutely no harm in people discussing them here) then you can go ahead and reject all the features you want without discussion because by then it is too late. Until then, where's the harm in discussing features that people would like to see?

There is no harm in discussing features that appeal to a minorty, but there is also no harm in stating in such a discussion that I disagree with the inclusion of it.But the situation you are describing is not one that will come up in real live, as there is no objective, exact evaluation on what should be included or not. You always will have people strongly defending their point. And (in at least my experience) will always lead to the most childish argument that is (and probably ever will be) at some point: "He got it, why do I not get it?". What to do then ? If their arguments are equal (simplfied: its cheap and does not add much complexity), you will have to accept it. And this process will probably go on and on.

That were I'm getting at, its not about refusing any discussion about it. Why should I ? There are many (or at least some) examples in the history of this forum, where rather small ideas turned out to be benefical of some sort to the community.

That's because I'm not pro-radio. I'm not anti-radio either, all I've done is laid out the facts on the various radio modules. I'm not even pro or anti-3G, I've also just laid out the facts on the various modules.

I'm anti-bad-argument. Everything I've said to you has been for the purpose of demonstrating that if you are anti-radio for the reasons you gave then you should also be anti-3G module for the exact same reasons, and that if you want to prevent feature creep then the best way is through discussion and not arbitrarily rejecting ideas that you think are "features for features sake" without evidence.

I misinterpreted that, quickly searching up specs for electronic parts, and stating facts can indeed be motivated just by a general interest (hope this comes out right, no sarcasm ment here).

Yes you did. From page 4

both functionalities can be "compensated" with a xG modem

You made arguments against a radio receiver and then said that if a 3G module were included it could be used for those same features. I have been saying this entire time that if you are against a radio receiver for the reasons you gave then you should be even more against the 3G module because the reasons are even stronger for it. You shouldn't have been discussing about how a modem could compensate unless you have other arguments that make a modem strictly better than a radio receiver, and if you do I want to hear them because from my standpoint, everything I know about both, depending on what your concerns are, neither is necessarily better than the other.

All I have been saying the entire time is, that I never argued pro an xG module. And again, wouldn't I weaken my own argumentation if I'm presenting other alternatives right in the next sentence? 

To everyone who has been poking holes in my argument about the average costs of radio listening:

I  agree that its a weak argument. I came up with it when someone was suggesting that streaming over 3G was a viable alternative, to illustrate the huge savings to be made for radio listeners by having a real radio module.

Its also rather convoluted, with hypothetical costs and values everywhere.

I never suggested that anyone would have to pay an extra $100. The 10% of users would listen to radio if they could figure is about as about as meaningful  as the statistics in a politician's speech.

Please stop disagreeing with something that hardly made sense in context, let alone out of it!

I guess no one really thought that adding a radio module would raise the price that much - that is why is was asking for a estimation.But while I don't want to argue in favour of including a xG module (have to be carefull here :^) ), it could be an alternative for people that have a less expensive dataplan.

 

[WizardStan]

there is also no harm in stating in such a discussion that I disagree with the inclusion of it.

If there's an ongoing technical discussion and you introduce an opinion with no technical merits then you have only added noise to the discussion. That is harm. You are free to have opinions, you are free to state opinions, but every opinion is based on something and if you want people to listen to your opinion, especially when in the midst of talking about technical details regardless of opinions, then you need to back up your opinion with evidence.

I never, never intended to and (think that I) never proposed to substitute radio with xG

All I have been saying the entire time is, that I never argued pro an xG module

You said, I quote again

both functionalities can be "compensated" with a xG modem

Whether you meant that to imply that you wanted a modem or not is irrelevant, but it is most definitely saying that the modem is strictly superior to a radio, suggesting that anyone who wants a radio can simply "compensate" for the lack of radio by using a theoretical 3G modem. This is wrong, they serve different purposes and have different pros and cons. You flat out dismissed the radio for fear of feature creep and ignored the use cases where a 3G modem absolutely would not work where a radio tuner would.

And (in at least my experience) will always lead to the most childish argument that is (and probably ever will be) at some point: "He got it, why do I not get it?". What to do then ?

People that try to make that argument in a technical forum do not get their way. ED is ultimately in charge, I have faith that he's not going to be swayed by "but I really really really want it and if you don't give it to me I'll hold my breath until you do". I'm very sure that he will pick features based on well reasoned arguments with facts and evidence to back them up; childish requests will be ignored.

If their arguments are equal (simplfied: its cheap and does not add much complexity), you will have to accept it. And this process will probably go on and on.

Absolutely, if the arguments are exactly equal it seems pretty unfair that one should be included and the other not. But while "cheap" and "does not add much complexity" are subjective, they can be converted into objective terms: exactly how cheap? $3 per chip? $10? How complex? Just two traces? Five? Three but two of them go one way and one goes another? If they are exactly identical then I would have a hard time arguing for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other, and if that ever happens I will concede full defeat to you in everything, but from where I stand I can't see that happening. Even if it does, by some miracle, two features serving completely different purposes having the exact same cost and complexity footprint with the same estimated user adoption, with one being successfully included and then several weeks later someone coming along and asking for the second citing the first as reason, it is still possible to simply say "that was two weeks ago, things have changed and where there was space to include your module before now there is not".If these two theoretical features are proposed at the exact same time and there is room for both of them then we get into a difficult spot of fairness: include both or neither. Either that or find some small way in which they are different, something that would give one a strict advantage over the other. That would be an amazing argument and I really wish it would happen, but I'm 100% confident that it will never reach that point.

That were I'm getting at, its not about refusing any discussion about it. Why should I ?

That's a good question. I don't know why you should, or would, but that's what you've done. You said, quite pointedly, that you didn't personally see the need for a radio, and then went on to briefly tout the merits of a modem for streaming. Over course of meta discussion we learned that you didn't want to include a radio receiver because you felt that a line had to be drawn somewhere, that we couldn't just include every feature that came along, and you arbitrarily dropped radio on the outside of that line, calling it "featuritis" which is entirely your opinion. You've been fighting the discussion this whole time because it is your opinion that a radio is obviously a generally useless device. It isn't obvious, there are people that genuinely want a radio, they have their reasons and price justifications, so if you want others to appreciate your opinion you need to justify it.

Sure the arguments against a radio module work against a xG module, but that is of no interest here (which is the at least second time I say this) because there was no reason to weigh them against each other.

There is one very good reason to weigh them against each other: you said that a 3G modem could "compensate" for lack of radio. In that statement you made a comparison between the two, forever linking them. You are anti-radio but you aren't anti-modem even though the reasons you are anti-radio apply stronger to the modem. Your only reasoning for not being anti-modem anymore is because ED made a statement that it could be possible: everything else still applies. We need to weigh them against each other because YOU made a statement that brought them together. You made the first comparison, before that they were two distinct things that were being discussed separately. You suggested the modem could be used instead of a radio and now you're the one who needs to justify that comparison. so tell me, why are you anti-radio because it adds cost, space, complexity, with low user adoption but not against a 3G modem which will have higher cost, take up more space, require more complex interface, and have a higher curve of user adoption? Does EvilDragon making an offhand statement that he'd like to consider it completely balance out all the other drawbacks?Unless you'd like to withdraw your previous statement entirely, we pretend you never suggested that streaming radio over the cell network could be a suitable replacement for a radio, it was just a stray comment that doesn't mean anything and you don't want to have said it anymore?

 

[thatgui]

Bling, Bling round ? Fight!

If there's an ongoing technical discussion and you introduce an opinion with no technical merits then you have only added noise to the discussion. That is harm. You are free to have opinions, you are free to state opinions, but every opinion is based on something and if you want people to listen to your opinion, especially when in the midst of talking about technical details regardless of opinions, then you need to back up your opinion with evidence.

So what your saying is: If I stumble upon a thread that has the rather general topic "thoughts on wireless hardware" I'm only allowed to express my thoughts regarding that topic if other members aren't engaged in a technical duscussion about a specfic part of that topic ?What technical merits are you talking about, and since when is evidence any decisive factor in this particular case ?

I brought up a few reasons why I think it should not be included, and as no one really questioned them I saw no reason to back that up with anything.

Whether you meant that to imply that you wanted a modem or not is irrelevant, but it is most definitely saying that the modem is strictly superior to a radio, suggesting that anyone who wants a radio can simply "compensate" for the lack of radio by using a theoretical 3G modem. This is wrong, they serve different purposes and have different pros and cons.

No, I did not say that - you may interpret that as you like, but that is not what I said. Thats why I used the word "compensate" and not "subsitute" you can compensate something without making the thing you compensate with automatically superiour.

You flat out dismissed the radio for fear of feature creep and ignored the use cases where a 3G modem absolutely would not work where a radio tuner would.

No I did not, I gave other reasons, "feature creep" was only part of that. In my next post, answering binky, I did not even mention the xG module again, but instead offered an USB dongle. And this is the third time I'm asking this: If I'm really that motivated to let it look like an xG module is the module to solve all other feature request. Why on this green earth should I even consider bringing in alternatives ?

People that try to make that argument in a technical forum do not get their way. ED is ultimately in charge, I have faith that he's not going to be swayed by "but I really really really want it and if you don't give it to me I'll hold my breath until you do". I'm very sure that he will pick features based on well reasoned arguments with facts and evidence to back them up; childish requests will be ignored.

Did you not mention in your last post that "we're just discussing features for the fun of it and ED is the one making the final decisions". Keeping that context in mind, why should I fear such a scenario ?

Absolutely, if the arguments are exactly equal it seems pretty unfair that one should be included and the other not. But while "cheap" and "does not add much complexity" are subjective, they can be converted into objective terms: exactly how cheap? $3 per chip? $10? How complex? Just two traces? Five? Three but two of them go one way and one goes another? If they are exactly identical then I would have a hard time arguing for the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other, and if that ever happens I will concede full defeat to you in everything, but from where I stand I can't see that happening.

But thats completly academic. As I said, its about emotional reactions, and I doubt someone is really careing much wether his features costs 1$ more or a trace 2cm longer is needed. And we are talking about a device that will certainly cost more than 350$. Aren't such low differences in added costs are likely to be "swept away" (especially in a heated debate)?

That's a good question. I don't know why you should, or would, but that's what you've done. You said, quite pointedly, that you didn't personally see the need for a radio, and then went on to briefly tout the merits of a modem for streaming. Over course of meta discussion we learned that you didn't want to include a radio receiver because you felt that a line had to be drawn somewhere, that we couldn't just include every feature that came along, and you arbitrarily dropped radio on the outside of that line, calling it "featuritis" which is entirely your opinion. You've been fighting the discussion this whole time because it is your opinion that a radio is obviously a generally useless device. It isn't obvious, there are people that genuinely want a radio, they have their reasons and price justifications, so if you want others to appreciate your opinion you need to justify it.

Are we reading the same thread ? There was no meta discussion necessary at all I stated that right in my first post "Bottom line: don't pack in too many features => keep it simple"And I'm "fighting" the entire time because you think that I proposed including a xG module and I'm a "Mister know-it-all". Don't think so ? Take a look at the last posts and tell me how many arguments were really about including a radio module or not, and how many were only there to make clear that I never intended (and I still do not see very I did) to say what you assume I have said.

There is one very good reason to weigh them against each other: you said that a 3G modem could "compensate" for lack of radio. In that statement you made a comparison between the two, forever linking them. You are anti-radio but you aren't anti-modem even though the reasons you are anti-radio apply stronger to the modem. Your only reasoning for not being anti-modem anymore is because ED made a statement that it could be possible: everything else still applies.

And thats the decisive factor. As you already said "ED is ultimately in charge .... I'm very sure that he will pick features based on well reasoned arguments" - that is what I think too. And thats the only reason I brought up a xG modem, closely followed by another alternative.

 

[WizardStan]

So what your saying is: If I stumble upon a thread that has the rather general topic "thoughts on wireless hardware" I'm only allowed to express my thoughts regarding that topic if other members aren't engaged in a technical duscussion about a specfic part of that topic ?

That does appear to be what I'm saying, but I didn't mean it like that. I apologize. What I meant was that if you're going to give an opinion on why one thing should or should not be included be prepared to back up that opinion. If your reasons for rejecting or accepting one feature apply equally (or more strongly) to a feature you have done the opposite of be prepared to justify why and give reasons why one should be rejected while the other accepted, or vice versa. It is a discussion, if you want your opinion to influence people you need to explain it, and saying "I believe it is useful/useless" and leaving it at that is not going to garner any support to your side.

I stated that right in my first post "Bottom line: don't pack in too many features => keep it simple"

Yes, and you arbitrarily put radio on the side of "too many features" but not the 3G modem. Why?

Did you not mention in your last post that "we're just discussing features for the fun of it and ED is the one making the final decisions". Keeping that context in mind, why should I fear such a scenario ?

I don't know why you would or should fear such a scenario, but that is what you said, what I quoted, and what I was responding to, this hypothetical situation where someone proposes a feature and then whines about it not being included.

And I'm "fighting" the entire time because you think that I proposed including a xG module and I'm a "Mister know-it-all".

I'm not trying to say that you think it should be included, I have been saying that you aren't rejecting it. You rejected a radio, calling it an ultimately useless feature, because it adds cost, size, complexity, and would have a low customer adoption, but you don't reject the 3G modem despite the fact that it adds significantly more cost, size, complexity, and has a steeper entry curve to customer adoption.

No I did not, I gave other reasons, "feature creep" was only part of that. In my next post, answering binky, I did not even mention the xG module again, but instead offered an USB dongle. And this is the third time I'm asking this: If I'm really that motivated to let it look like an xG module is the module to solve all other feature request. Why on this green earth should I even consider bringing in alternatives ?

Because as I have said time and time and time again, I am not trying to say that you said you are pro-modem, I am saying that you are not anti-modem despite the fact that the reasons you gave for being anti-radio apply even stronger to the 3G modem: you have a conflict of opinions and I want to understand why. You are not anti-USB stick, but that doesn't add any cost, space, or complexity to the design, so there's no conflict there, I have no problems with those alternative suggestions at the moment.

No, I did not say that - you may interpret that as you like, but that is not what I said. Thats why I used the word "compensate" and not "subsitute" you can compensate something without making the thing you compensate with automatically superiour.

I've quoted you several times. That is what you said. The words you used, when put together in the order that you did, have a specific meaning. If X can compensate for lack of Y then that means that X must be at least as good as Y at doing what Y is supposed to do. If a modem were already a guaranteed thing then the compensation would come at no additional cost, and your statement would be correct: it is not automatically strictly superior. But it isn't already included, it was still being discussed. You are anti-radio but you aren't anti-modem, which suggests in your mind, despite the arguments against the radio applying even stronger to the modem, you believe the modem to be superior to the radio. Why?

Take a look at the last posts and tell me how many arguments were really about including a radio module or not, and how many were only there to make clear that I never intended (and I still do not see very I did) to say what you assume I have said.

None. Absolutely none. I don't care whether you want to include a 3G modem or just don't care, the important point is that you aren't against it. The fact is that you gave reasons to be anti-radio but you are not applying those same reasons to be anti-modem. Regardless of whether you want a modem or are just ambivalent to it, you ARE strictly against including a radio. You called it "featuritis" but the reasons you gave for calling it that apply even stronger to the 3G modem. I ask again and again and again: why is it your opinion that a radio, with its added cost, size, complexity, and low user adoption, is something to be rejected without discussion, but a 3G modem, with significantly more cost, size, complexity, and steeper entry curve is worth discussing?

 

[moxie]

With all respect, me dearies, may I suggest that this is going nowhere productive? I propose this:

"Ok, we somehow messed up communication here. Let's move to strike the whole thing from the protocol, rethink what the actual important points were, and restart by restating them in a clearer fashion."

I mean, if you want to continue this thing then by all means do, but it is turning into a "you said that I said that you said that, but I didn't say that you said that I'd said that, that is not that what I said, I say!"

 

[thatgui]

As Moxie already said this is going nowhere. So, as I have done this several times already, I answer the same things again, but will stop after that, as I am clearly not able to deliver my point to you:

Yes, and you arbitrarily put radio on the side of "too many features" but not the 3G modem. Why?

No, as I already said before, I did put the xG modem on the same side, but ED moved that arbitrary line so that the xG modem is an option.

None. Absolutely none. I don't care whether you want to include a 3G modem or just don't care, the important point is that you aren't against it. The fact is that you gave reasons to be anti-radio but you are not applying those same reasons to be anti-modem. Regardless of whether you want a modem or are just ambivalent to it, you ARE strictly against including a radio. You called it "featuritis" but the reasons you gave for calling it that apply even stronger to the 3G modem. I ask again and again and again: why is it your opinion that a radio, with its added cost, size, complexity, and low user adoption, is something to be rejected without discussion, but a 3G modem, with significantly more cost, size, complexity, and steeper entry curve is worth discussing?

This was also already said several times. I know that they apply for both options, but that is a totally different discussion and has nothing to do with the basic problem we are discussing, as Ed clearly changed the parameters on whats feasible to include or not.

 

[Binky]

I thought this was a discussion of the practical and technical merits of various possibilities.

Using "ED said so" as a conclusive argument implies that everything is set in stone.

It isn't

The technical issues related to installing radio or xG hardware in the Pyra are completely unaffected.

If <foobar> piece of hardware is available in small volumes, is easy to fit in and has overwhelming community support, I dare say ED will try to include it

 

[thatgui]

I thought this was a discussion of the practical and technical merits of various possibilities.

Using "ED said so" as a conclusive argument implies that everything is set in stone.

It isn't

Argghh, do I have to do this again ? I only offered the xG module as an alternative to compensate in terms of functionality. I considered it as an option as ED mentioned his change in opinion about that.

If <foobar> piece of hardware is available in small volumes, is easy to fit in and has overwhelming community support, I dare say ED will try to include it

Never opposed to that

 

[WizardStan]

So your argument this entire time actually has been "because ED was interested"? I thought I was just grasping at straws trying to understand you, because that feels like a terrible argument. It's purely subjective in this case though, so if you want to use it then I've got nothing I can logically say against it.

I mean, EvilDragon is only human and therefore subject to mistakes, but faith is a shifting line and you just trust his raw judgement more than I do. I'll just go back to providing as much information as I can find.

 

[comradekingu]

The old trend going is for things like audio players, gps devices and cameras to also be phones. At the very least wifi enabled. Its usually always phones, because radio communication seems to dictate what kind of device it is.

And right now everyone seems to need a phone, so that is the device and everything you can cram into it is good, whereas everything else is an extra device.

Im thinking getting into the GSM business is unfeasible and already tacled by the neo900.

3G radio is the option, and it would make it more capable and it also commands a higher price.

I think the argument can be made that for the heaviest of geeks at this point that means you don't have to carry a cellphone.

A cellphone nowadays is a media internet device more-so than than something used to call with.

Much like TV is now something you enjoy via the internets i think communication will more-so not require its own network in the future as everything seems to trend towards internet use.

Maybe a 3g pyra only means there is no additional need for anything beyond a dumbphone, but those have 3g tethering nowadays.

Personally i would rather put the extra monies in the pyra im bying anyway and then not update my smartphone.  I suppose that is catering to the already convinced, but still.

Wireless tethering uses a lot of battery, and phones usually have less of that. Cable tethered communication requires a cable and is not really as handheld a use as one would like.

In any event i will get by.

 

[Binky]

I only offered the xG module as an alternative to compensate in terms of functionality.

...and a few pages back I did some basic arithmetic to show that xG is not, in any way, a viable alternative to a radio (FM/DAB/HD/AM/etc) receiver.

The cost of listening to streamed radio regularly (say for an hour every working day) over xG is in the order of $1000 per year.

 

[comradekingu]

(from another thread)

Wait, we can't do eMMC+uSD?

The OMAP5 has 4 SD/SDIO/MMC ports. We want to use one for eMMC, two for the standard SD slots and one for SDIO for the WiFi. So there is nothing left over. Connecting WiFi over USB is a potential option - but there are no easily available BT/WiFi combo chips with USB for the WiFi side. They almost always use SDIO. So by solving one end we have just moved the problem to the other Believe me, designing a device like the Pyra is a quite complex puzzle... And it is impossible to make everyone happy, especially if we also take dimensions, battery life and price into account.

Nevertheless it is really interesting to learn about new options. And we may be lucky to find a better global optimum.

Apart from the TI WLxx hardware that has the TI proprietary license on the firmware part, these have foss drivers and do the same thing, all similarly

SDIO:

Broadcom BCM4334

www.st.com/web/en/catalog/sense_power/FM1968/CL1976/SC1930 

http://lwn.net/Articles/531066/

http://www.marvell.com/wireless/avastar/88W8897/  www.marvell.com/wireless/avastar/88W8797/

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/tree/drivers/net/wireless/mwifiex/README

Sources for info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wireless_drivers  http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Drivers

https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Broadcom

Edit:

USB

http://www.ccandc.com.tw/products_2.php?prod=129

http://marc.info/?l=linux-wireless&m=136483360212000

https://github.com/lwfinger/rtl8723au  https://github.com/lwfinger/rtl8723au_bt

http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/commit/?id=e05f16ef68c3eee91dd97c8149b91dc4dc302e77

Looks like the same metal used in http://www.sparklan.com/product.php?func=view&prod_id=216

 

[levi]

Binky's post for reference.

Data over mobile-phone networks costs around 5p (=0.05GBP) per MB


Streaming BBC radio using their radioplayer page on 'high' settings uses around 20KB/s (which is comparable to BBC DAB broadcasts)


If one were to listen to half an hour of radio per day for a year streamed over a mobile phone network, it would cost around £650 ($1000) by my calculations.


[snip]

I should say that the data on data cost was a few years old. It could be down to half that for all I know. My point still stands.

FWIW, on my operator's prices, for tablet use (which is a little more expensive that phone use, but permits tethering, which I assume we'll need for Pyra), each megabyte costs a penny on the smallest monthly bundle, which is a little less than a quarter of your estimate.

However, your point still stands in that at 20KBps, that's 72 megabytes an hour, and at an hour a day over a 30 day month, that's 2.1GB. That puts you in range of my operator's largest bundle, costing you around 15 GBP a month (at < .5pence/MB), but significantly, leaves you less than 900MB of data for general purpose use which is a little tight.

 

[comradekingu]

I think the marvell one did fm radio, but had proprietary firmware. But really, plug in a fm or dab radio chip if you use it that much, its bound to be cheaper.

 

[klapse]

It would be pretty awesome if the Pyra could record FM radio, as there are the occasional broadcasts with amazing music that you want to keep.

 

[Binky]

If we had a fm radio module, why wouldn't we be able to capture the data streamed from it?

 

[Natsu]

If the pyra act as a full phone and have Snapdragon/Allwinner then I'll be set with a phone for 5-6 years until the

next one comes.

 

[ZetaNeta]

1. Obviously, the mobile connection.

2. Most phones use headphones for FM. I use FM quite often... when i get something what got it. (My 4 gig module music collection drives me crazy day and night i listen to it again)

3. I don't watch TV for a "looooong time", and turned my HDTV into a computer screen. So i cant choose about DVB.
From another side, "i may start" if its gonna be included. Very cool if the expendable antenna could be used for other comm (Mobile/Wi-Fi)
(With DAB, it maybe even more fun)

4. AFAIK the modules used for IrDA are almost always incapable of being used as a remote. And who needs a remote anyway, those days? And who still needs IrDA?
But a receiver... its a totally new world here. I am voting to put in a receiver.

5. GPS is a good thing to have, but for a portable console, it makes more sense to use a Bluetoothed GPS tracker instead. GPS provides no only navigation, but a "everywhere" NTP server! Also, i am sure GPS/GLONASS should be used. It doesnt really differ in the price, and gives alot of nice advantages.

slaeshjag said something about NFC... Unless its "very very" cheap, i disagree. Its a waste of space, energy and money, with 0 practical use but some nerdy fun.

As Binky said, a external Wi-Fi (And i guess not only Wi-Fi) antenna socket is a easily implementable and quite nice to have. I can imagine some users dont like FM/Wi-Fi/DVB go on the headphones. (Please, don't reinvent it, use RP-SMA plug)

From personal ideas, we can make some parts of the case metal, and pass the function of antenna to them. I am not against a fully metal top panel as long as i can get receive Swiss Wi-Fi here in France. (jk of course, but i would still agree for a metal top panel)

Someone said something about a microphone, which "just should" be included. Or a jack to put it in at least, then its not so important (not headset, but a separate jack for mic)
Someone also mentioned Wi-Fi tether which probably should be available on the final console.
 

All of those are kinda cool to have. This way I can throw away most of my stuffs and have an all in one system. (not the x-bone)

However, Pandora has no competitor, it has no points to make (besides remaining awesome), even if P2's just an average cortex a9 unit, most of us are still willing to pay 600 bucks for it.
Adding these without raising the pricetag even more will only reduce ED's profit margin and his overall income. (remember he's quite a bit of debt to pay back) Unless we can get these functionalities cheap, there's not much point in doing these. We may make the best thing ever, but the purpose is defeated if ED went bankrupt for it.

As a specific tea drinking failure scandal monkey has proven, giving people something is better than nothing. I would rather have an improved pandora every few years than have nothing at all. That being said, ED can always add these in futher down the line to an enhanced version. (Dragonbox Pyra 2ghz edition with 3g, FM radio, gps, and VR output support. )

I am personally buying it as a "throw away all the stuff" system, more than of a console.

Pandora has no competitor, but i dont really wish to abuse it. Finally, you dont sound like a customer, a person who dont like this kind of monopoly.
 

I usually agree with you, Brinky. But not on this topic, because you have not consider the effect of raising the pyra's price tag by $100 on most people.
Sure, one can keep the Pyra for years and years unlike most smartphones, but it is still a negative because most people would rather have a quick discount than a prolonged benefit which is only a promise. It's also true that most of us would buy the pyra regardless if it can emulate the gamecube, or what not. Having all those things is not a total deal maker for most people, but making it $100 more expensive is likely to be a deal breaker. (have a look at the xbone)

Of cause, in reality, it would not be costing that much. I would be totally fine paying 10 or 20 bucks extra for FM radio. Even though, if I have to choose, I would say spend that extra money on prettier case and better buttons.

"Someone who still uses his overclocked pentiums for everything is in the topic" :rolleyes: