What standards can the P2 follow?


USB3.0 for video seems like a bad idea, and very inefficient in terms of processing power needed.

True HDMI would be best - can OP afford $5k per year?
 
thatgui said:
Binky said:
eSATA
Click to expand...
Don't see the need on user side that justifies the additonal expenses (money, power, pcb space, case volume), besides that I doubt the P2 could make full use of the bandwidth that eSATA offers.
Gotwake said:
>HDMI requires a licence 


I'm thinking mini-displayport or micro-displayport since they do sound/video and easily convert to hdmi
Click to expand...
Altough Displayport would be really cool, I doubt it will be possible. In the end it will come down to what the SoC offers which will be HDMI. So including DP would need an additional controller => see eSATA. IIRC Ed already wrote somewhere that they would be willing to pay the fees for HDMI.
Click to expand...
Does it need an additional controller? 

Also sound output is a must for whatever connector we decide on. Plugging in two cables would be a pain. 
 
Binky said:
USB3.0 for video seems like a bad idea, and very inefficient in terms of processing power needed.

True HDMI would be best - can OP afford $5k per year?
Click to expand...
You'd also need a relatively expensive box to convert USB3 video to something like HDMI that can go into a TV. The cheapest I could find are about $60.

$5k/year + $1 per unit is peanuts compared to the amounts of money that will be needed to get to mass production. This would amortize to a cost of $6/unit if 1000 are sold per year (in reality they'd probably sell a lot more). So what you want to do is look at unit_cost / external_cost and you get about 0.1. If the portion of people who want the feature is greater than this then it's a bad value proposition (also the extra inconvenience of having to buy and use the adapter should be considered). I'd expect more than 10% of people will want to use TV out.

Personally I'd still prefer to go with DisplayPort if it doesn't add any additional engineering challenges or costs. You can get adapter cables for under $7, and if you consider that you'd need to buy an HDMI cable otherwise it's kind of a wash.
 
Exophase said:
So what you want to do is look at unit_cost / external_cost and you get about 0.1. If the portion of people who want the feature is greater than this then it's a bad value proposition (also the extra inconvenience of having to buy and use the adapter should be considered). I'd expect more than 10% of people will want to use TV out.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.  Any chance you could expand on that?

- Neelix
 
Neelix said:
I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean.  Any chance you could expand on that?

- Neelix
Click to expand...
You're looking at integrating some feature. It increases the production cost of every Pandora by X. The alternative would be for users to buy an external adapter that gives the same functionality, this costs Y. What I'm doing is comparing the extra cost of Y vs X with the portion of people who want the feature to begin with, since for those people the cost X would be wasted. If more Pandora users want the feature than the extra cost of not including it then IMO it's better to have the feature. So I'm looking at X / Y and seeing how that compares with what I think the demand for the feature will be.

Look at it this way.. say TV out costs $6 per unit or requires a $60 external adapter. Now let's say one in two people will want to use it. If you don't include TV-out then the half of Pandora users who wanted it have to pay $54 more than they would have. If you do include TV out then the half of Pandora users who didn't want it have to pay $6 more than they would have. It's easy to see which solution gives the most benefit. The break even point is at 6 / 60 (0.1). If only 10% of Pandora users pay that $54 vs 90% (9 times as many) paying an extra $6 they didn't want then the total amount of extra money spent is the same.
 
Its also important to consider the ease of using an external adaptor.

There are fewer problems using an external device for TV-out (where you already have a bulky external display) than with some other things;

Getting an external keypad backlighing unit would be very inconvenient
 
I'd prefer to pay extra for an HDMI enabled Pandora 2.  It's the standard now for (tv) displays.  I'd rather not fumble around with more complicated options and I'm actually happy to hear that ED (or Craig) said that they'd be willing to pay for the licensing fee ($5k a year?).  Factor it all into the costs and I'll pay it as a consumer.  The OP Team still has a niche in the market place - they can make money with the next product if they don't undercut themselves like last time.  Factor all of the costs into things, throw in a fudge factor or something, and jack it up a bit more and ensure that the OP Team turns a profit.  Heck, this incredible device (which hopefully will spawn more), is not for everybody.  You're not going to compete directly with the low-cost android devices and such, and we shouldn't try.  There are enough people out there that are willing to pay for a quality, cutting-edge product that is unique in the marketplace...  HDMI-out for me.
 
 
Terms

Annual Fee
HDMI Adopters pay an annual fee of ten thousand dollars (US$10,000). The annual fee is due upon the execution of the Adopter Agreement, and must be paid on the anniversary of this date each year thereafter. Note that HDMI does provide an alternative annual fee payment for small-volume manufacturers (10,000 units or less). Please see Attachment B of the Adopter Agreement for details.

Royalty
HDMI royalty rates are as follows:

  • For each end-user Licensed Product, fifteen cents (US$0.15) per unit sold.
  • If the Adopter reasonably uses the HDMI logo on the product and promotional materials, then the rate drops to five cents (US$0.05) per unit sold.
  • If the Adopter implements HDCP content protection as set forth in the HDMI Specification, then the royalty rate is further reduced by one cent (US$0.01) per unit sold, for a lowest rate of four cents (US$0.04) per unit. Adopters must license HDCP separately from Digital Content Protection, LLC, an Intel subsidiary. Please see www.digital-cp.com for details.
Click to expand...
per unit fee is neglible but $10k per year? hopefully a P2 would sell over the 10,000 unit minimum. how many Pandoras are sold ? the P2 would surely sell more especially if the dramas with the Pandora can be avoided.

also for how long is this anual fee payable? if production stops after 2 years then does the annual fee stop? or is it based on the lifetime of the product?
 
spud42 said:
per unit fee is neglible but $10k per year? hopefully a P2 would sell over the 10,000 unit minimum. how many Pandoras are sold ? the P2 would surely sell more especially if the dramas with the Pandora can be avoided.

also for how long is this anual fee payable? if production stops after 2 years then does the annual fee stop? or is it based on the lifetime of the product?
Click to expand...
There's an alternative license for low-volume devices that's $5k/year and $1/unit. Expecting Pandora 2 to sell over 10k/year seems kind of naive, but if it's going well they can switch licenses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think it would sustain 10k per year - Its possible for the first year if the specs and marketing are spot-on, but after that... - nope.
 
Okay, I'll bite...why pale green?

Edit 1:  Must be an "audio" color-coded standard maybe?  I really hadn't noticed...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the P2 keeps its excellent DAC+amp, huge storage space and extensive codec support, it should attract audiophiles

Stereo mic in might be worth the extra board space
 
I know that I only speak for myself and maybe that retarded boy down the block, but I could definitely live without any SD card slots and usb ports if it means that we can get a cool green and a pink audio jack on the same pcb....

Edited one letter (spelling correction)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Binky said:
If the P2 keeps its excellent DAC+amp, huge storage space and extensive codec support, it should attract audiophiles

Stereo mic in might be worth the extra board space
Click to expand...
I think even among audiophiles there's not necessarily a strong correlation between wanting high fidelity playback and high fidelity recording - the latter is just not that useful for most people. Not really worth providing an extra port for IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Binky
What connectors would you like on the P2?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
FaeMinx
FaeMinx
tony.pigram
USB WiFi RT5370 driver help
Replies
18
Views
9K
Grench
Grench
Back
Top