01-05-2016, 07:58 PM
It is are correct in that there are two main points, but I don't think people understand how intertwined those two points are. In my view, it's the community that makes a product truly great. Communities grow out of many things including documentation, software, peer support, etc. I could be wrong but some of the best and most widely adopted products came from ecosystems with a greater degree of manufacturer support to open source, even if binary blobs were involved. I own multiple Allwinner SOC-based products and they're okay (i.e. Odroid-C, PCDuino 2 & 3) but they're not great. The community tries to create some really great software and support each other but they have one hand tied behind their backs in that they can only solve so many problems. There are issues with all three of those boards that the community simply can't solve without help so the products stagnated and the community lost interest. I don't believe the overlap is marginal. People get really excited when they can fully realize the potential of a product. I'm personally disappointed in the function of the binary blobs I have tried with other Allwinner SOCs I've tried. The functionality has been incomplete and buggy at best and plain broken at worst. This is where the overlap matters. If the blobs were really good and full-featured then great! But they typically haven't in the case of Allwinner. I will wait and see and I still hope for the best with this board as it relates to linux. The product will function in linux but I don't think it will thrive unless Allwinner devotes some development time to better binary blobs or they take the community up on some free development in exchange for information.
As for the practicality being about price for the features, yes and no. The specs of this board are above and beyond the competition, it can't be argued. Where value comes in is being able to use those features. If I can't use a $15 board for what is advertised and how I want then I'm left to seek alternatives, this is always the case, again I can't argue. When I see a feature such as Dual-core MALI400 and 4K resolution, then realize that those features will either be poorly realized or nonexistent, they fail to be a compelling feature. As for how this becomes great, hard work is a key but it is not "whining" to ask a company to comply with a license they violated for profit to shore up their practices. It's practical. I believe the community will be more motivated if there is a greater involvement from the manufacturer. This in turn drives more sales, which means more profit and potentially lower costs. It seems very advantageous.
I do believe that a great many people want to use this in linux and not just in a IoT fashion. I don't feel it's being overstated that the poor implementation of the graphics, older kernels, the allwinner uboot, binary blobs, etc. will hamper the practicality of the board as it relates to linux in the way many users will want to use it. As a matter of clarification, I believe their Android implementation will probably be very smooth with few hiccups. None of this will prevent me from having fun with the board but could spell truncated enthusiasm from the very community that will be needed to take this from okay to great.
As for the practicality being about price for the features, yes and no. The specs of this board are above and beyond the competition, it can't be argued. Where value comes in is being able to use those features. If I can't use a $15 board for what is advertised and how I want then I'm left to seek alternatives, this is always the case, again I can't argue. When I see a feature such as Dual-core MALI400 and 4K resolution, then realize that those features will either be poorly realized or nonexistent, they fail to be a compelling feature. As for how this becomes great, hard work is a key but it is not "whining" to ask a company to comply with a license they violated for profit to shore up their practices. It's practical. I believe the community will be more motivated if there is a greater involvement from the manufacturer. This in turn drives more sales, which means more profit and potentially lower costs. It seems very advantageous.
I do believe that a great many people want to use this in linux and not just in a IoT fashion. I don't feel it's being overstated that the poor implementation of the graphics, older kernels, the allwinner uboot, binary blobs, etc. will hamper the practicality of the board as it relates to linux in the way many users will want to use it. As a matter of clarification, I believe their Android implementation will probably be very smooth with few hiccups. None of this will prevent me from having fun with the board but could spell truncated enthusiasm from the very community that will be needed to take this from okay to great.