TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

When open becomes opaque: The changing face of open-source hardware companies

464 点作者 Santosh83将近 2 年前

24 条评论

reaperman将近 2 年前
This is a very well-written article by someone who is intimately knowledgeable of the history of the field. The interview with Josef Průša is particularly illuminating.<p>It&#x27;s a very, very sad story. It sounds like open-source hardware could have thrived if it weren&#x27;t for China subsidizing local companies and enforcing bad IP claims for its domestic companies (which was really IP stolen from other countries but filed for patent first in China by Chinese companies).
评论 #36789097 未加载
评论 #36789632 未加载
评论 #36789751 未加载
评论 #36789248 未加载
评论 #36788684 未加载
评论 #36789794 未加载
评论 #36797437 未加载
评论 #36793305 未加载
评论 #36793112 未加载
iancmceachern将近 2 年前
Wow, Eagle gets shut down, Sparkfun, Arduino and Prusa all go closed source. The amazing free open hardware future we&#x27;ve all been promised is falling down around us.<p>I do like Limor&#x27;s response &quot;I’m going to keep shipping open source hardware while you all argue about it,” She&#x27;s fighting the good fight as always.<p>I&#x27;ve been designing hardware for decades. I&#x27;ve come to learn that it&#x27;s more about staying ahead of competitors technically than keeping them from copying you. There will always be copies, you just need to be selling the next better version while the copies are of your previous version. There is no &quot;make a thing, profit for 20 years&quot;. If companies like prusa or sparkfun stay knowledge leaders, people will be willing to pay a few extra dollars foe their product over a clone just to have the improved support, documentation and quality, also to support what they want to support. Making this change makes these companies no different than the clones now. This move takes away incentive for me to order products from these companies and I believe will actually cause them to loose more business than they are expecting. Their whole sales model is built around this. It&#x27;s why I order stuff from them, or used to.
评论 #36792855 未加载
评论 #36792235 未加载
评论 #36792173 未加载
HeyLaughingBoy将近 2 年前
&gt; Adafruit founder Limor Fried doesn’t find much value in arguing about who is right in the clone wars.<p>Agree wholeheartedly. The clones are here to stay. I push people, beginners especially, in the direction of Adafruit because their documentation and build quality are excellent. I also use a lot of Adafruit hardware in my own freelancing work. Their products are well worth the price premium.<p>With the exception of M5Stack, I haven&#x27;t found a product line that I think is as well thought out.<p>That said, clones have their own place in the ecosystem. Often the differences between a cheap clone and the more expensive original are nonexistent across all axes: quality, support, documentation, etc.<p>Most people are not going to pay more for an identical product.
评论 #36792503 未加载
评论 #36789673 未加载
评论 #36794837 未加载
bayindirh将近 2 年前
I think we&#x27;re going through a recession in Free&#x2F;Open Source ecosystem. Hardware and Software companies all alike trying to protect their &quot;investments&quot; by making things harder for other parties.<p>Eagle, Spark Fun, Arduino, Prusa, Red Hat, SourceGraph, VSCode Plugins (was it OmniSharp), etc, etc...<p>MIT &amp; BSD licenses are used as a weapon against GPL more and more...<p>Rust&#x27;s &quot;Rewrite In Rust&quot; movement is used to replace GPL tools with MIT versions which can be closed on a whim...<p>&quot;{VSCode,Chrom}ium&quot; projects give the illusion open source while being effectively used to harvest community effort, too.<p>I don&#x27;t think we&#x27;re on a good track.<p>Disturbing times.
评论 #36794187 未加载
h2odragon将近 2 年前
Go back to the start of Intellectual Property law. Patents are supposed to be a deal between the inventor and society, inventors get rich for 17 years of exclusivity then the public gets to have the whole design available to use. Fair deal.<p>What we have now is <i>not</i> a fair deal, to the point that people are trying to re-invent the notions that the laws were originally supposed to embody.
评论 #36788942 未加载
评论 #36791859 未加载
评论 #36788678 未加载
buildbot将近 2 年前
Shouldn’t any international patent office reject these suspect patents based of open source software and hardware? Also, why does for example, US customs not step in and enforce stopping the importation of infringing devices? They seem to be happy to do that to sparkfun before, seizing one of their shipments <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hackaday.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;20&#x2F;fluke-issues-statement-regarding-sparkfuns-impounded-multimeters&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;hackaday.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;03&#x2F;20&#x2F;fluke-issues-statement-regar...</a>
评论 #36789246 未加载
评论 #36788966 未加载
评论 #36789771 未加载
pclmulqdq将近 2 年前
I&#x27;m just going to be the one who says it: Arduino has always been a money-grab and a grift.<p>Open-source was just marketing for Arduino, and it worked for them when they were selling an undifferentiated dev kit for 10x the price it should actually have had (and at least a 30x markup on their actual manufacturing cost). They then load down those dev kits with software that is so inefficient that it upsells people on huge chips for problems that could otherwise be solved with a 10-cent chip. On top of that, the initial Arduino software was pretty much stolen from a grad student, who got no credit, and using open source also gave them free contributions from motivated users.<p>Fast forward to now and they have a &quot;community&quot; and are trying to start selling more complicated dev kits with the same ridiculous markup, and have found themselves unable to compete with Chinese companies that charge a fair price. The end result, killing the openness, is inevitable.
评论 #36791428 未加载
评论 #36789866 未加载
评论 #36790852 未加载
评论 #36790018 未加载
评论 #36791707 未加载
评论 #36790832 未加载
tedivm将近 2 年前
I think it&#x27;s really interesting that Sparkfun is selling products that they advertise as being open source, but then refuse to actually share the source. This is pretty sketchy behavior on their part, especially since they were notified about the issue three weeks ago and still haven&#x27;t fixed their website.
Joel_Mckay将近 2 年前
At one time it was taboo to copy hobby kits verbatim without adding anything significant to the design.<p>China IP address show up within weeks of starting any new small open project, and 2 months later one often sees project cloned alpha PCBs available on Ali-express&#x2F;ebay&#x2F;Amazon&#x2F;tindie&#x2F;sparkfun. The defective legacy RAMPs 1.4 with potential fire risks are still being sold a decade later.<p>It has become such an issue, that even finding the original authors to support their projects becomes increasingly difficult as google starts to overflow with pages of SEO ad links.<p>I wouldn&#x27;t say anything has changed, but open hardware doesn&#x27;t seem sustainable unless you are an active small factory in China.<p>Good luck =)
gchadwick将近 2 年前
Feels like the author just sweeps the clone issues aside simply commenting they&#x27;re not a problem without going into detail.<p>Ultimately if your revenue depends upon you selling the hardware you open source it will be very hard going as other companies can easily churn out high quality (or indeed less high quality but super cheap) versions without paying any of the significant development cost and hence undercut you by a wide margin.<p>Indeed referring to these other versions as &#x27;clones&#x27; seems to miss the point of open source hardware, isn&#x27;t the entire point making the design open so others can build and iterate upon it for whatever uses they wish (including commercial exploitation).
评论 #36790227 未加载
评论 #36789944 未加载
TravelTechGuy将近 2 年前
It is a very sad story.<p>Our company committed to open sourcing all of our code (it&#x27;s in the web3&#x2F;blockchain space), and we had, and continue to have, spirited discussions about which parts we should maybe license differently, as they contain novel IP.<p>But my main question is: if your code is open-sourced, and the community contributed: fixes, features, actual new products - what gives you the right to close it? Are you going to go back and compensate every contributor? How can you justify revenue made on the backs of contributors.<p>Side note: if what Prusa is alleging about Chinese patents given for open-source code produced in the west, and then having international priority, is true, I think the UN (or whoever handles international patents) should look into that. We can&#x27;t control what goes on in China, but we can damn well make sure no Chines company makes money outside of China, with co-opted IP.
评论 #36789792 未加载
mcdonje将近 2 年前
Open source projects with permissive licenses are subject to this kind of abuse by companies who benefit from the community and then wall off their derivative projects without paying the community back by way of contributions.<p>I do think there&#x27;s a place for permissive licenses, particularly for academic and government projects. However, it seems like private entities can&#x27;t be trusted to play nice, so copyleft licenses should probably be used by more open source projects to protect the public knowledge base.
评论 #36789581 未加载
sircastor将近 2 年前
I feel that one of the problems with Open Source in general is that there are the terms of the license, and then there is the &quot;good faith&quot; expectations of the community. In the case of 3D Printers, for instance, first there is license that says &quot;Here&#x27;s the design and the software, if you make and sell something derivative, put those changes up for everyone else&quot;<p>But the unspoken good faith statement is &quot;You&#x27;re going to take this, and make it better, and we&#x27;re all going to benefit from your efforts to make it better&quot;.<p>The printer clones were not made with an eye towards making things better, but made with an eye toward making things <i>cheaper</i>, and more specifically, <i>more profitable</i> for the manufacturer. It could be argued that cheaper is a form of better, but I think generally the consensus is that the cheaper clones did the job less well, and the sellers already had our money.
评论 #36791764 未加载
dmvdoug将近 2 年前
I don’t understand. These businesses gained what popularity&#x2F;reach they have in large part by chanting the Open Source mantra. Then, when they’re (at least moderately?) successful, they close up and the mantra falls silent. How is that a good decision? It necessarily alienates users, who have probably come to depend upon the openness. It’s a knife in the back to the rest of the open source community. For what? More profits? But if they gained a moderately successful position through positioning themselves as open source, how are they going to profit from basically throwing up their hands and saying just kidding guys ha ha that was a mistake all along?<p>I mean, I understand the enshittification point. Perhaps this is yet another example of that. Chalk up yet another victim to the financialization of literally everything.
评论 #36799070 未加载
RobotToaster将近 2 年前
Prusa turning his back on open source was a massive disappointment, he built his entire company&#x2F;brand on the back of the open source Reprap project (the entire point of which was to <i>encourage</i> people to make clones, ironically)
评论 #36790557 未加载
unintendedcons将近 2 年前
Chinese practices poisoning the well for everybody, again?
评论 #36790640 未加载
评论 #36790173 未加载
snvzz将近 2 年前
Where Open-Source Hardware companies go opaque, it&#x27;s a chance for new OSH companies to pop up and replace them.<p>If I was ever interested in these companies, it was because I prefer OSH. Should they stop doing OSH, I&#x27;ll simply look elsewhere.
e28eta将近 2 年前
The author, Phillip Torrone, talked a little about the article during one of their live shows, starting around 12:25 minutes.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;EOzkO33PnrI?feature=share">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;live&#x2F;EOzkO33PnrI?feature=share</a>
paulkrush将近 2 年前
I want a new or more terms for this. Open source hardware kinda implies it&#x27;s a legal catagory. It&#x27;s a dream, and way to be social, not a legal thing. I am begining to like &quot;DIY&quot; better. As &quot;This is hardware that is standard and easy to copy.&quot; Because it&#x27;s so easy to copy and everybody does, it&#x27;s easy to live in this world. I need to process this thought more. Also I am using the word hardware to imply mecanical design. I think it&#x27;s easier to have open source hardware if you are taking about pcb boards.
alranel将近 2 年前
A couple facts about Arduino to make sure the discussion doesn&#x27;t take weird directions:<p>- In the last years, the Arduino team has been releasing MORE open source stuff than it had been doing in the past. This is documented transparently in the yearly open source reports: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.arduino.cc&#x2F;2022&#x2F;01&#x2F;13&#x2F;the-2021-arduino-open-source-report-is-out&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.arduino.cc&#x2F;2022&#x2F;01&#x2F;13&#x2F;the-2021-arduino-open-sou...</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.arduino.cc&#x2F;2023&#x2F;01&#x2F;20&#x2F;the-2022-arduino-open-source-report-is-out&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.arduino.cc&#x2F;2023&#x2F;01&#x2F;20&#x2F;the-2022-arduino-open-sou...</a> Even recently, the flagship Arduino product (UNO) was renewed and with no surprise it&#x27;s still completely open source.<p>- In parallel, a vertical line of industrial products (managed by a subsidiary called &quot;Arduino Pro&quot;) was added that for documented reasons has all the requirements of open source hardware (including full schematics and fully open source software stack) except for the CAD files which are available on request. This level of openness is the same as a Raspberry Pi, if not higher because all components are available on the market. The existence of this additional product line does not imply at all that Arduino reduced its commitment to open source because, as said above, such commitment is even higher than in the past.<p>Based on these facts, in no way it is reasonable to state that &quot;Arduino is going closed source&quot; or that its business is &quot;opaque&quot;. All opinions are legit, but if they don&#x27;t take facts into account it&#x27;s just misinformation or marketing...
kapitanjakc将近 2 年前
I am not at all educated on this topic, just want to understand a bit more<p>- How does an Open source hardware company make profit?<p>- If they do want to make profit by going closed source, what is the issue in that ?<p>- Does it matter if they go closed source? People still figure a way out to tinker with most stuff.
评论 #36792073 未加载
villgax将近 2 年前
Likewise in software with Facebook AI releases
pierat将近 2 年前
&gt; Last year (2022) Arduino took in a Series B funding round of $32 million. [link:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.adafruit.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;07&#x2F;series-b-funding-round-of-32-million-for-arduino&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.adafruit.com&#x2F;2022&#x2F;06&#x2F;07&#x2F;series-b-funding-round-...</a>]<p>&gt; [quote from the link] “So today, we dial up our vision for universal innovation with a clear strategy to expand our portfolio for professionals, supported by a Series B funding round of $32 million led by the global deep tech investor Robert Bosch Venture Capital (RBVC), joined by Renesas, Anzu Partners, and Arm.”<p>Remember folks, &quot;VC&#x27;s rhyme with feces&quot;. They will enshittify your business faster than every toilet being used during the Super Bowl.<p>Arduino is the latest casualty.
评论 #36791475 未加载
评论 #36789658 未加载
评论 #36791646 未加载
jtode将近 2 年前
Black tattoo ink is cheap, especially when you&#x27;re fat with capitalist juice.