Am 19.09.2011 um 16:05 schrieb Jim Jannuzzo: > Of course, you are speaking for yourself. That's understandable. For myself, > I would rather have the continuing (very fast) pace of evolution of the > radio, rather than a total re-write to Deep Impact.
Actually, DI isn't a re-write of PSDR. It's (going to be) a platform for developing new features that PSDR isn't really suitable to be the base for. And developing DI while bringing out new features isn't a contradiction - if carefully executed it's quite doable. We are a 10 people company here (which I am the CEO of) - I know what I am speaking of. > It may not be perfect, but it sure is darn good. No doubt! > From a sales prospective, would DI generate more sales of Flex radios? Yes. > Will the additional sales (if any) generate the income to continue to develop > the Flex and fund the DI R&D? Yes. Why? See below. > Not in my estimation. Newcomers to Flex radios are over-awed by the switch to > software defined radio ergonomics. The display is just a thin surface to the radio. Sure, handling the radio via PSDR is a totally new experience. And a very good one. Still, there are many shortcomings of the user interface that need to be addressed. Also, I fear that PSDR is a lock-in trap. The more features are implemented within PSDR the less attractive is a move to DI - due to migration / re-implementation efforts rising with every feature. It may come to a point where it really is no more attractive to move to DI ... > They don't care if the architecture behind the radio lets developers inside > more easily. DI is not about opening up all the internals. It's about enabling new features in a more scalable, flexible way. And what let's FRS deploy on the major OSes in use today: Windows, Linux, Mac OS X. If done properly that's not really that complicated. > And what would Flex do about competitors who want to usurp PSDR without > compensation? That was fine in the "litle Flex days" with volunteer > development, but Flex must now fund its software development internally. > This is a critical tipping point in the growth of any small private company. Of course it is. But: Why do you assume DI would let competitors use the software without compensation? If FRS decides that it is a requirement to have investment protection against competitors then that will be designed into DI, of course. What about making DI a separate product? For FRS customers who buy a Flex-XY00 radio DI could be included. Others may buy DI as a standalone component to work with other hardware. That could be another revenue stream, bringing more customers to FRS. Now, imagine, DI would also be able to have "the Super Duper Feature" only enabled when working with a Flex-XY00 ... Might convince some people to upgrade their other hardware to a real FRS device ... Still, it's FRS to decide what to do. And I really want to thank FRS to withstand open critique here so well! That's not something every company allows their customers do openly. Congrats to that bit of communication style ... 73 Frank DG1SBG > >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:10:46 +0100 >> Subject: [FlexEdge] Re - Deep Impact >> >> For almost five years FRS has been making announcements about a New >> Architecture/Deep Impact development which, it was claimed, would permit >> implementation of enhancements such as independent mode/filter etc selection >> on the Multiwatch VFO; implementation of Multiwatch and independent >> mode/filter etc on the optional second receiver; totally separate >> panadaptor panels for the main and second receivers; rewriting of the GUI to >> sort out the appalling mess created when the second receiver was added (the >> epitome of an afterthought). Additionally, many of the user enhancement >> requests (now standing at some 644) have, in the past, been annotated with >> wording to the effect that implementation would be dependent upon the NA/DI. >> Not to mention the many other enhancements requested directly by Brian Lloyd >> et al. >> >> Now that the Deep Impact development has, seemingly, been abandoned, an >> announcement apparently being made at the Dayton Dinner in early May but >> advised to the wider Flex community only a few days ago by Neal Campbell, >> (neither confirmed nor denied by FRS themselves) the question is: >> >> What happens next? >> >> If DI has been abandoned does that also mean that all these enhancements >> have also been abandoned and will never see the light of day? >> >> If incremental enhancements are going to be the order of the day, what are >> we talking about in terms of the above enhancements...another five >> years...ten years...twenty years...sometime...never? >> >> Many Flex customers are in danger of falling off their perch due to an over >> abundance of patience...don't you think you owe them something more than the >> contempt you have shown over the last few years? >> >> >> >> >> >> G4PNX >> _______________________________________________ >> Flexedge mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz >> This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is used >> for posting topics related to SDR software development and experimentalist >> who are using beta versions of the software. > > _______________________________________________ > Flexedge mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz > This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is used > for posting topics related to SDR software development and experimentalist > who are using beta versions of the software. _______________________________________________ Flexedge mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexedge_flex-radio.biz This is the FlexRadio Systems e-mail Reflector called FlexEdge. It is used for posting topics related to SDR software development and experimentalist who are using beta versions of the software.
