4 ms·

No, this is not fair. If making accessories is not profitable, then don't make them. Instead release the documentation and let others make the accessories.

Wingy 5y ago
I understand this as it being profitable to make and sell accessories, but not to engineer the accessories. The engineering is done in the hope of being able to sell the accessory. If they can't sell the accessory, the engineering investment is purely loss.
- megous 5y ago
  So, not a charity...
  - codeflo 5y ago
    You do realize that most charities sell some things, right?
    - megous 5y ago
      They don't have to be profit oriented, though. They just have to balance the money flow.
      - tjoff 5y ago
        And what is protecting your investment to ensure it is not a massive loss, if not balance their money flow?
        megous 5y ago
        Anyway, engineering things to manufacture them and sell for profit is not a charity. It's indistinguishable from normal business. Also Raspberry Pi SBCs and accessories are made by Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd, not by the foundation. If you look up FCC testing reports, it's all submitted by Rpi Trading. That's not charity even legally. https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-ltd-raises-45m/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-lt... Charity, right? You wouldn't know from their own website, because they seem to not publicize their business structure very much. My guess that it's similar to mozilla foundation/co split. Foundation does nothing about the products, it's just a public face. And corportaion does all the product work, and is very for profit.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Charity doesn't mean "has to waste money".
- codedokode 5y ago
  But on the other side if you have a proprietary interface then there will be less accessories and the product will be less attractive for customers.
lloydatkinson 5y ago
Yeah, this is a dick move for sure. I had no idea the camera was locked down like this. Just plug in a better quality USB camera and you've bypassed the whole protection. Pointless.
jwr 5y ago
Anyone can make a camera, there are no restrictions. What is difficult are the algorithms for processing the data that comes off the sensor. The RPI foundation developed a complete solution (camera+software) and they don't want to see copycat cameras make use of their investment in image processing software. I find this to be completely fair game.
- matheusmoreira 5y ago
  Why can't the hardware provide access to the raw sensor data and let freedom-respecting software deal with it?
  - bri3d 5y ago
    It does. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc119a2ba4917e0fecfe5084425830ec53ccb.1505314390.git.dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc... You can think of the VideoCore ISP firmware task as a proprietary application and the Pi Camera as a hardware security dongle for that proprietary application. You can choose not to run that application and access raw data from CSI if you'd like, but if you want to run the special ISP firmware application, you need the hardware dongle. I think I feel the same way about the DRMed blob as I do about the Pi in general: I understand why the Pi folks did things the way they did, I don't think it's unethical by any stretch, but the situation is disappointing and I would prefer the alternative.
  - jwr 5y ago
    It does. Most people get enraged about RPI cameras unnecessarily. If you don't want to buy cameras from the RPI foundation and want to use/design/connect your own, nobody is stopping you. If you want raw sensor data off the RPI cameras, nobody is stopping you either. It's only when you want to use their image processing with a clone camera that you run into problems. I just can't get worked up about this, I think this is completely fair.
- dTal 5y ago
  This is the same argument for closed-source GPU drivers. "Oh, my special secret sauce algorithms!" Nah. If you want the cred from being open source, be open source.

Wingy 5y ago

I understand this as it being profitable to make and sell accessories, but not to engineer the accessories. The engineering is done in the hope of being able to sell the accessory. If they can't sell the accessory, the engineering investment is purely loss.

megous 5y ago
So, not a charity...
- codeflo 5y ago
  You do realize that most charities sell some things, right?
  - megous 5y ago
    They don't have to be profit oriented, though. They just have to balance the money flow.
    - tjoff 5y ago
      And what is protecting your investment to ensure it is not a massive loss, if not balance their money flow?
      - megous 5y ago
        Anyway, engineering things to manufacture them and sell for profit is not a charity. It's indistinguishable from normal business. Also Raspberry Pi SBCs and accessories are made by Raspberry Pi Trading Ltd, not by the foundation. If you look up FCC testing reports, it's all submitted by Rpi Trading. That's not charity even legally. https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-ltd-raises-45m/ https://blog.adafruit.com/2021/09/21/raspberry-pi-trading-lt... Charity, right? You wouldn't know from their own website, because they seem to not publicize their business structure very much. My guess that it's similar to mozilla foundation/co split. Foundation does nothing about the products, it's just a public face. And corportaion does all the product work, and is very for profit.
- detaro 5y ago
  Charity doesn't mean "has to waste money".
codedokode 5y ago
But on the other side if you have a proprietary interface then there will be less accessories and the product will be less attractive for customers.

lloydatkinson 5y ago

Yeah, this is a dick move for sure. I had no idea the camera was locked down like this. Just plug in a better quality USB camera and you've bypassed the whole protection. Pointless.

jwr 5y ago

Anyone can make a camera, there are no restrictions. What is difficult are the algorithms for processing the data that comes off the sensor. The RPI foundation developed a complete solution (camera+software) and they don't want to see copycat cameras make use of their investment in image processing software. I find this to be completely fair game.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Why can't the hardware provide access to the raw sensor data and let freedom-respecting software deal with it?
- bri3d 5y ago
  It does. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc119a2ba4917e0fecfe5084425830ec53ccb.1505314390.git.dave.stevenson@raspberrypi.org/ https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/patch/0d4dc... You can think of the VideoCore ISP firmware task as a proprietary application and the Pi Camera as a hardware security dongle for that proprietary application. You can choose not to run that application and access raw data from CSI if you'd like, but if you want to run the special ISP firmware application, you need the hardware dongle. I think I feel the same way about the DRMed blob as I do about the Pi in general: I understand why the Pi folks did things the way they did, I don't think it's unethical by any stretch, but the situation is disappointing and I would prefer the alternative.
- jwr 5y ago
  It does. Most people get enraged about RPI cameras unnecessarily. If you don't want to buy cameras from the RPI foundation and want to use/design/connect your own, nobody is stopping you. If you want raw sensor data off the RPI cameras, nobody is stopping you either. It's only when you want to use their image processing with a clone camera that you run into problems. I just can't get worked up about this, I think this is completely fair.
dTal 5y ago
This is the same argument for closed-source GPU drivers. "Oh, my special secret sauce algorithms!" Nah. If you want the cred from being open source, be open source.