> avoid asking people to do surface mount unless it is reasonably straightforward - it was never meant to done that way.
This is the kind of comment that I was hoping to read here. Would you mind elaborating? What is considered straightforward? Can a PCB be designed or printed in such a way that makes it straightforward to surface mount components? Does the number of PCB layers factor into this?
> do you mean sell an electronic product as a kit?
Not quite. The person who would do the soldering would not necessarily be the end consumer. They would do it as part of a network of assemblers, for a fee or pro-bono as a community service. I wrote about this in more detail on the project page [1].
I like Modern C. I have reviewed it favorably in several places. I agree it is intermediate.
I think 21st Century C by Ben Klemens and C Programming a Modern Approach by King are both more approachable alternatives as a modern C companions to K&R.
Note that this is not a complete list, fwiw. For example, I doesn't include "Effective C." [1].
I like "Effective C" over "Modern C" because it's more engaging ... "Modern C" is super rigorous and feels a bit like reading an annotated spec of the language, which is what an expert may need, but makes for a dull read for a casual C user like me.
I just learned about Easy EDA! The drag and drop of parts is insanely cool. Just wondering if you can mix KiCad with Easy EDA in one workflow? Or, when would one choose KiCad over Easy EDA and vice versa?
Awesome article. Just wondering, how can a hardware company voluntarily submit their device for reverse engineering and dismantling as a show of good faith? Given the right circumstances this is basically a free security audit and marketing for the company.
They could just provided schematics, blueprints, parts explosion graphics, etc.
I have been a fan of the Sony MDR-7502 headphones since Moses was in a basket. They provide an explosion of each of the parts and their numbers so that you can order replacements. Granted, these are "old skool" dumb wired headphones, so no software is needed, nor are chips necessary to look up and what not.
Yes it would. I also think they are playing with their target audience. The headphones mentioned were meant for professional use, PlayStation ones are meant for consumers.
This doesn't mean they shouldn't have done it. They should. But they get away with it more easily.
If a company wants somebody to do a hardware audit for marketing purposes, they should pay money for that. Please fairly value people's labor, especially when you seek to profit from it.
Well, influencers are able to work out alternative means of compensation because the content is more valuable than the work performed. For example a blogger that is renowned for teardowns might do the work in exchange for access to early release models so that their content is highly relevant. That is worth more than the hourly cost to perform the teardown work. Compensation negotiation is part of the art of that deal.
If an influencer is indeed able to monetize the content sufficient to match market price for the labor, then sure, that is also fairly valuing people's labor. But that's definitely not what's happening here.
If someone wants to do the hardware audit for free, or in exchange for some kind of promotional exchange, is that a bad thing? I’d breakdown a lot of devices if I could get a duplicate one intact, for free
Any company with sufficiently interesting hardware is welcome to send me a copy. Most hardware isn't very interesting though, so they'd likely have to pay me too.
As far as I know the first Apple computer was not really a computer but a box of parts that the customer had to assemble themselves. The early days of Apple is probably the best example of "building in public" because so much of it was actually just selling the dream. In any case, the opposite is infinitely worse. Too many people wasted away for years "building in private". If and when they did finally release it was to the sound of crickets. Hacking for pleasure is one thing. If you're trying to build a business then you must be always be selling and marketing.
That's true. But despite being the same legal entity, there is very little in common between 70s Apple and the Apple of today. We shouldn't really expect consistent behavior.
I have always been curious about a different approach. Let's say that I interview you and a few other people, and then match you in a party with someone whose skills and character are complementary to yours. Then I match both of you with an idea that suits your party's combined skill set and also has a chance of making money. You're welcome to pivot and try something else after reasonable time and effort was put in. Everything else is boilerplate like 49/51 equity split and vesting schedule so you can focus on delivering maximum value.
That sounds great but I don't like the idea of you or someone else matching us to a specific idea. I would rather work with my partner on coming across ideas.
This is the kind of comment that I was hoping to read here. Would you mind elaborating? What is considered straightforward? Can a PCB be designed or printed in such a way that makes it straightforward to surface mount components? Does the number of PCB layers factor into this?