3 ms·
Don't know whether there was an update to the fine article, but the article currently seems to mostly refute your points. > Pine formula is that it reliably ge
by nsajko 4y ago
Don't know whether there was an update to the fine article, but the article currently seems to mostly refute your points.
> Pine formula is that it reliably gets brand-new hackable devices into the hands of the community at an affordable price point
I guess this depends on the definition of hackable, but the revelation that I got from the article is that Pine actually doesn't operate that way, they just sell the cheapest hardware they can instead of "hackable" hardware.
- megous 4y agoIME The hardware is quite hackable. Schematics are usually available. SoC documentation is available, often times some kind of code is available, Pine64 listens to feedback, pine64 wiki has quite a lot of information, etc, etc. Some of these accessories to the main product surely feel like they started as someone hacking something together and writing about it on the forum, and Pine64 deciding to make it into an product. I guess fingerprint reader backcover for pinephone seems like it came about this way.
- cunidev 4y agoAuthor here. Can confirm that PINE64 is still way more hackable than COTS alternatives (Also, the article wasn't updated, apart from a couple of dead link fixes)
- selfhoster11 4y agoPointing to two tier-2/3 products as proof that they began shifting away from open/hackable hardware is misleading - it's far more likely that they are simply exploring, or made a product design misstep. They have dozens of products at this point, and their SBCs, phones and laptops are the products people are most likely to care about. The amount of people who would object to less-than-open headphones or whatever is low, because the amount of interest is lower in the first place.