Just came across this Pixhawk clone, so thought I would share.
http://witespyquad.gostorego.com/flight-controllers/rtfhawk-2-4.html
Ready to Fly Quads is a reputable distributor, and I have made a few purchases from them already. They already have a clone of the APM2.x, that has been somewhat successful. Will this new clone be just as good. for under $100USD, might be work a try.
Comments
That was never my goal. I have a career already. Actually someone from 3DR did ask if I wanted to work as a hardware engineer, but I prefer doing my own thing for fun. Personal preference.
You are using such absolute terms with no basis. For sure, paying more developers to work on things will make them go faster. You can buy DJI is entirely closed and has lots of features.
To imply open source can only ever afford to pay people by using DRM is to naively ignore the success of all the well known FOSS projects.
I think the mistake here is focusing on the hardware and not the software. At this point, the hardware is all comparable and the cat is out of the bag there. There will always be hardware and it will just get cheaper and better. Heck, the PX4 was developed open source by ETH regardless of 3DR. As I said above, I remember hanging out on IRC while people working on the early prototypes running on OP.
The real value of any of these platforms is in their software and open source principles still apply there. If a company uses that software as the core of their business strategy they better have thought about how to walk that line to be profitable, such as red hat. Provide top notch technical support or the most compatible things. Develop add ons that aren't tied to the GPL, etc. If that business strategy involves trying to DRM that software - to lock it to certain hardware I would not want to be invested in it because someone didn't think it through.
As you guys pointed out, developing novel hardware that is more desirable and can be licensed -NC or even entirely closed is a much more viable strategy.
Anyway I'm not remotely suggesting what you guys should do. The project leadership has the right to do whatever they want, within the constraints of the licenses. But the broad generalizations that open hardware can't work is just wrong and ignoring all the counterexamples. What it doesn't let people do is sit on their laurels and reap in money through rent seeking behavior instead of innovation. This is an excellent book on the topic http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm and consistent with his principles is available as a pdf.
This is not true at all. Just look at all the clones of Mikado's Vbar flybarless controller. That is and always was a completely closed source, copyrighted, possibly patented system. There are a number of clones of it on the market, using a bootleg version of Mikado's software that is being hosted on sketchy file sharing sites. I actually got one as a surprised free gift from Hobby King. They cloned it and called it the FUBAR. I guess they got in legal trouble, and have stopped sales, the product page is gone, but they're giving away the inventory for free when you buy a helicopter. But there is zero documentation or support, or even software. You just kinda ask around on RCG, and somebody shoots you a website in a PM for a sketchy file download website with 100 "download" links, 99 of which contain viruses. So a shell game. But even though HK stopped, there are at least two other companies still selling clones, called K-bar or something.
That's the situation in the real world.
And some cloners have and do still put 3DR's brand on their hardware.
This really is it in a nutshell. Hopey-Changey truly open sources project can only work if they are just a hobby for people. But if they are just a hobby, they can only go so far (in performance, features, etc.). To go really far, like Ardupilot is, then people have to be working on it full time, both hardware and software. Those people need to eat. So somehow the project needs to make money.
It's just that simple.
Ardupilot is about to start pushing some features out which surpass anything even the closed-source commercial and even military systems are offering. At a price that is affordable to most people as a hobby. That's INCREDIBLE. And it didn't happen while everybody working on the project was doing it as a hobby.
If you don't want clones then patent the hardware and software, cloners do not put 3DR on your boards if they didn't make it...simple...done.
I make Sparky under a CC-BY-SA license and that same guy above who makes cc3d also makes them on eBay. I consider that Sparky "works" in the sense that people get them, like them, and I covered my costs.
Quantec designed Quanton itself and released the designs under CC-BY-SA and people seems to like that.
Gumstix just released the AeroDrone board which is closed but they have already submitted patches back to ardupilot.
3DR leveraged an open source hardware design to avoid a lot of R&D costs, but the implicit cost of that is ceeding control of the hardware design.
All of these strategies work. Some of them are open. To pretend otherwise is to just deny reality.
OP is hardly a FOSS success story either since they went to closed hardware, which is a viable business move but not consistent open source move. Even then the end result was a drying up of development as people didn't want to work to line someone's pocket.
Monroe - I'm nor sure why you act like open source hardware doesn't work. Arduino being the perfect example where clones and genuines end up growing a community - even if the designer could have made more money on hardware if they could somehow reverse that. Remember, the openness ends up stimulating a lot of talented people to develop code, even if on miscellaneous hardware. The drying up at OP is a beautiful warning of what happens when you switch too closed.
Also, remember 3DR also profited massively by not having to fund much of the hardware development. I remember Mike hanging out in our channel doing the software development using our codebase 2 years before this was running on ardupilot.
To have an -NC license 3DR would need to develop hardware designs they control, which I'm sure they are considering.
Monroe, if you can figure out what the drawbacks to NC are, let me know. I haven't really looked into it myself, but from what little I know it makes sense. What am I missing?
@Adrian: That statement is just like saying. Don't make Open Source Software as people are just going to copy it and put it in closed source software. Open Source Software is covered in the case of APM GPLv3. The Open Source Hardware is Creative Commons Share-Alike License. (These are valid legal licenses) The whole line of thought is not to shut down clones, but to create an ecosystem that can support multiple suppliers. If you only have one company doing the R&D of the hardware, and others taking the profit away, how can the eco system survive as-is. How is new innovation funded?
If the business model does not work for OSHW for customer-end products*, indeed I have no doubt a more closed system will arise :(
*I say customer-end products, as I think OSHW as part of makers, hackers, electronics prototyping is part of a supply chain, so it's much easier to live with multiple non-contributing suppliers.
This whole line of thought is stupid.
If you want to control clones don't make the hardware open source. If you make the hardware design open source then there is no such thing as a clone...just alternative suppliers.
If you are going to run a business in a market place that involves open source hardware and software you better be well versed in all the risks.
I think that's a good point, KipK. For sure, things like locked down software are starting on a slippery slope that, at best, is inconsistent with free (as in the ideals that Stallman would espouse - see Freedom 0) software, and at worst can become poisonous to the community.
That was unfortunately what happened at OP because of the weird middle ground between running a company (which they kept calling non-profit despite that being false) and not acknowledging producing a large quantities of board requires running a company. You end up having to attack everyone doing anything cool that might undermine the profit motive and end up using the word "open" in the name ironically when the hardware goes closed.
Interestingly enough, there was a discussion at OP when I was there where Dave suggested something similar. A locked down bootloader that would only run firmware on certified boards. Luckily (in my opinion) the devs pushed back very strongly on this and it never took off.
There is a distinction between the for-profit company trying to self boards and the open source community they are dependent on for development. Trying to pretend there isn't is silly.
Instead of fighting clones, we decided to embrace openness. Since what TL makes is the software, we encourage people to port it to new hardware (and if that hardware is open it can be merged into next). If the hardware designers want to restrict the design they can. For example Quantec designed and makes Quanton, which is CC-BY-SA-NC. The DiscoveryF3 board from ST is always available but only has schematic published. Others like Sparky are totally CC-BY-SA. We try and keep the project (i.e. code development) aspects cheap so there is no need to make money.
This system has worked well for us. It allows us to no longer worry about hardware and squabbling and focus on the code (and take a lot more positive outlook on life with those stressors removed). A number of other board makers have recently mentioned porting TL to their things. Ultimately the more people that get use out of the code, the better. There will always be someone around making hardware that we can use (the AeroCore looks exciting).
I'm just pointing out another sustainable alternative and not saying anything normative. The leadership of any project has a right to do what they want. And the nice thing about FOSS is if enough people want to do something else, they can (we are an example of that).
-
14
-
15
-
16
-
17
-
18
of 29 Next