no intention to start a flame, Don, but you really don't understand.

the whole point of free software is *not* to go ahead and forge my own
proprietary solution, but to re-use as far as possible existing parts.
As a supplier of such parts, you would have a larger market, even if it
was just me, i.e. just +1

the parts I am interested to buy are the hardware, not the software.

Instead, you choose to lock your hardware with your software, foregoing
this *extra* potential. of course most consumers will want
software+hardware, but the one does not exclude the other. you don't
need to do anything extra for customers like me. just unbundle and set
free, and see how demand for your hardware develop. nothing to lose, really.

Yuv


Don French wrote:
> You should develop your own motorized pano head, Yuv. Then you won't
> have any dependencies on anyone or anything. Seriously. You should
> develop your own. The investment should not run you over a few hundred
> thousand dollars and four years of your life. Well, that is what it
> took me. And you can then have a single purpose device, just like you
> want.
>
> To that point, by the way, because AutoMate has the ability to store
> programs that can be triggered by closing a contact, you can actually
> have a single purpose device that does not require carrying around a big
> old cell phone or PDA. You just need one once to upload the program
> associated with a trigger event. Then you can trigger it to run at any
> time by closing a switch attached to one of the two sensor inputs.
>
> But for those who have more than one camera and lens and who don't
> always shoot the exact same panorama size and who might have use for an
> intervalometer or a self timer or who want to run programs based on
> external events or who want to be able to turn on external devices, I
> think that using a cell phone or a PDA is not that big a problem. I
> might be wrong, but that is my target market. I expect that it is tens
> of thousands times larger than the market of people who want to develop
> their own firmware. But I could be wrong. And if you are convinced that
> your way is the best way to do it, again, I encourage you to forge
> ahead. You will have that market niche all to yourself, I expect. I
> wish you the best of luck.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Yuval Levy <yahoo06@...> wrote:
>
> Don French wrote:
> > I will make an XP/Vista version in the near future.
>
> won't help. It's another dependency I'd rather not have.
>
>
> > A Java version is in the works
>
> and another dependency.
>
>
> > And there are plans for making versions for other cell phone
> > operating systems, such as Symbian and Palm OS.
>
> and more dependencies, and more money spent, making the product more
> expensive and adding to it "features" I don't need. Of course if you
> could unbundle those "features", I would not mind...
>
>
> > Yuv, I will take your suggestion under consideration. As it
> stands, I
> > provide a way to upload new firmware by sending a stream of data
> from
> > the hand-held. So it would not surprise me if a clever hacker
> figured
> > out the format of the data stream and started uploading their
> own. But
> > there are warranty issues to consider when someone is running
> > non-authorized code. That is, I can't be responsible for ways in
> which
> > someone reprograms the unit and thereby causes damage to the unit.
>
> how about just providing the API to the firmware upload, and the
> documentation on how to code firmware, and let the users / market do
> the
> rest? each of the above dependency cost money to develop. If you do it,
> it goes into your "general costs" and get split amongst all buyers, so
> WindowsCE buyser finance some of the things they don't need, Java
> buyers
> finance some fo the other things they don't need, and we all end up
> paying more than what your gear is really worth.
>
> The way *I* would like to use such a tool (and would consider to buy
> it)
> is if you'd provide the API to upload a new firmware, a basic firmware
> with documented source, and that's it.
>
> For myself, I would not use a cell phone, a notebook, or any other
> device to control it. I would program a firmware that does *exactly*
> what I need it to do, and then the only thing I need is the ON/OFF
> button. Turn it on and it will run the program in the firmware.
>
> A cellphone is added clutter. A notebook is added clutter. All I need
> are a couple of motors, a controller, the interfaces that you already
> have on board and the documentation.
>
>
> > And remember that the machine is already programmable through the
> custom
> > programming feature and there really isn't much you can't accomplish
> > through that feature.
>
> not interested. the "custom programming" is again an unnecessary layer
> between me and what I need.
>
> Look at other manufacturers, such as VIA
> <http://www.wired.com/gadgets/pcs/news/2008/05/via_design> - this is
> what adds value to hardware. you can not think/imagine all the use that
> customers will put your hardware to if you set them free.
>
> Yuv
>
>
>
>
> --
> Don