5 ms·

One might even imagine someone would write something like this in an effort to reinforce the parents the point. The strongest interpretation of "we'd love to

One might even imagine someone would write something like this in an effort to reinforce the parents the point. The strongest interpretation of "we'd love to release the full schematics" the subtext: but we can't / don't want to due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion as it would help distract us all rather than getting on with our goals.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
somethoughts 4y ago
I feel its likely the marketing verbiage w.r.t. repairability was targeting the average "prosumer level repairability" - which is probably more closer to an iFixit level of repairability (i.e. more on the torx screw and less on the solder/depop spectrum of repair) [1]. That said in response to these HN and Youtube threads - perhaps they could update it to be more specific about their definition of repairability as well as why schematics will be or can't be released. In the future - if Intel is the issue - it might be smart to design some additional modularity and relegate the proprietary Intel stuff to some sort of system on module (like the RPi4 Compute Module) and increase the amount of open source able main board. [1] https://www.ifixit.com https://www.ifixit.com
- stormbrew 4y ago
  It seems likely that the 'module' would just cover the entire space of the board as-is if they did this with a modern intel system anyways, especially when there's also SODIMM module slots, an m.2 slot, and 4 full tb4 ports on the board. All those high speed bus interfaces are probably tied directly into the CPU, the chipset, or both, and so are largely gonna be covered by any confidentiality agreement intel imposes on vendors of those parts. The Pi4 CM is a much more modest device by comparison. It has no ram expansion and only a few lanes of PCIe, USB3, and some other fairly standard IO interfaces otherwise. Realistically, the frame.work mainboard is the compute module. You plug it into the equivalent of a CM carrier board with the TB4 ports.
cmeacham98 4y ago
It's not just about the reason, but other details too. Does "we'd love to release them" mean "we just mean more time", "there's a 50/50 chance we'll be able to release them", or "we'd love to but it's a long shot". If they are going to come out, will it be in weeks, months, or years?
- needle0 4y ago
  Them not mentioning it, despite mentioning it making their optics better, pretty much seem to point to the NDA not even letting them discuss the stuff you stated.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion Being so vague and listing no reasons doesn't seem helpful to me.
tyrfing 4y ago
The strongest and most likely interpretation is that they simply don't own the IP, and it's based on a licensed reference design. It makes zero sense for a startup like this to have done all of it from scratch - just copy everything possible and innovate the actually interesting parts. If they don't own the design, they can't say that due to NDAs, and the best they can do is a maximally broad interpretation of "repair shop".
- moring 4y ago
  IMHO, the best they can do is being honest about what they can't say due to an NDA. For example, if they can't say that they don't own the design, they might say "due to an NDA we cannot say who owns the design". This goes a long way to earn trust.
  - jimnotgym 4y ago
    It depends if the NDA allows them to discuss it at all!
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      These has to be a limit to this madness, can I get an NDA that does not let you state your name to anyone
      - vel0city 4y ago
        There are limits to contracts in the law. There would have to be some form of consideration to that contract. If you gave me a million dollars a year but I just can't use my current legal name in casual conversation, I'd take that contract. If you just wrote a contract that said "you can't use your name, you get nothing" its an unenforceable contract under US (and most of the developed world's) contract laws under the principle of consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
  - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

somethoughts 4y ago

I feel its likely the marketing verbiage w.r.t. repairability was targeting the average "prosumer level repairability" - which is probably more closer to an iFixit level of repairability (i.e. more on the torx screw and less on the solder/depop spectrum of repair) [1]. That said in response to these HN and Youtube threads - perhaps they could update it to be more specific about their definition of repairability as well as why schematics will be or can't be released. In the future - if Intel is the issue - it might be smart to design some additional modularity and relegate the proprietary Intel stuff to some sort of system on module (like the RPi4 Compute Module) and increase the amount of open source able main board. [1] https://www.ifixit.com https://www.ifixit.com

stormbrew 4y ago
It seems likely that the 'module' would just cover the entire space of the board as-is if they did this with a modern intel system anyways, especially when there's also SODIMM module slots, an m.2 slot, and 4 full tb4 ports on the board. All those high speed bus interfaces are probably tied directly into the CPU, the chipset, or both, and so are largely gonna be covered by any confidentiality agreement intel imposes on vendors of those parts. The Pi4 CM is a much more modest device by comparison. It has no ram expansion and only a few lanes of PCIe, USB3, and some other fairly standard IO interfaces otherwise. Realistically, the frame.work mainboard is the compute module. You plug it into the equivalent of a CM carrier board with the TB4 ports.

cmeacham98 4y ago

It's not just about the reason, but other details too. Does "we'd love to release them" mean "we just mean more time", "there's a 50/50 chance we'll be able to release them", or "we'd love to but it's a long shot". If they are going to come out, will it be in weeks, months, or years?

needle0 4y ago
Them not mentioning it, despite mentioning it making their optics better, pretty much seem to point to the NDA not even letting them discuss the stuff you stated.

Dylan16807 4y ago

> due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion Being so vague and listing no reasons doesn't seem helpful to me.

tyrfing 4y ago

The strongest and most likely interpretation is that they simply don't own the IP, and it's based on a licensed reference design. It makes zero sense for a startup like this to have done all of it from scratch - just copy everything possible and innovate the actually interesting parts. If they don't own the design, they can't say that due to NDAs, and the best they can do is a maximally broad interpretation of "repair shop".

moring 4y ago
IMHO, the best they can do is being honest about what they can't say due to an NDA. For example, if they can't say that they don't own the design, they might say "due to an NDA we cannot say who owns the design". This goes a long way to earn trust.
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  It depends if the NDA allows them to discuss it at all!
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    These has to be a limit to this madness, can I get an NDA that does not let you state your name to anyone
    - vel0city 4y ago
      There are limits to contracts in the law. There would have to be some form of consideration to that contract. If you gave me a million dollars a year but I just can't use my current legal name in casual conversation, I'd take that contract. If you just wrote a contract that said "you can't use your name, you get nothing" its an unenforceable contract under US (and most of the developed world's) contract laws under the principle of consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago