>> After looking at many of the producer's websites >> and digging for answers, there seems to be a lack of >> knowledge or interest in doing so. Maybe commercial >> reasons are the base for that, I don't know. My >> question is: is there a forum or a group of people >> that tries to motivate these producers for including >> all things needed to run the equipment?
Yeah, the IPC, engineering (ACM, IEEE, often enough the APS) and design (ID?) community. The people boxing things and packing them into container ships FOB Finland are usually acting as Q/C conscious droids from a spec list negotiated a couple of times, 7 months out; they need somehow to get the signal propogated from the engineers through 8 months of live marketing-person hype. That's a bit long for a consistent and constant message; but who's going to punch up the Workmanship (while keeping it fungible) in month 5 and 7? Better make it easier for the various executives to do that. Argh. A rift in The Channel. The Grand Line must be near, maties. Secondly, I guess the business school and administrative (e.g. sysadmin, BOFH, Board) people who need to know that the neat tech docs aren't going to cause brand dilution or cooption because of excess internal strategic info inside; that is, once your product is snap-together (apart) except for 2 screws, which happens when the first unit made that way sells through, you need to write off secrecy and special regard (e.g. liability discussion) about the types, positions and designers of the connectors, and yet not include the address of some plastic case designer who doesn't want visits about the actual Channel Brand or its products. So oddly enough we have a need to create a toy, skeleton specs model at the time of delivery (or dock inspection....)
