The concept of Open Hardware arrived even on the Economist’s pages too.

Companies, for their part, say an open approach can help them get to market quickly with products that give customers what they want—without the need for market research. Such advantages, they say, outweigh the drawbacks of exposing what are usually seen as corporate secrets.

In some ways, open-source hardware is a throwback to the 1970s and 1980s, when early computers were sold in kits or shipped with schematic diagrams to make it easier for users to customise them. But the open-hardware trend has been reborn in recent years, thanks to the rise of the internet and the success of open-source software. Some enthusiasts point to 2005 as a crucial year: that was when work began on devices such as the RepRap (a rapid-prototyping machine that will, its makers hope, be able to replicate itself) and the TuxPhone, an open, Linux-powered mobile-phone. It was also when Sun Microsystems, a computer-maker, decided to publish the specifications of one of its microprocessors, the UltraSPARC T1.

Open-hardware business models are difficult to understand, because by turning users into product developers, they turn tradition on its head, says Eric von Hippel, professor of innovation at the MIT Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the author of “Democratizing Innovation”. That makes it necessary for companies to consider the users’ motivations too, he says. “The users have a built-in business model—they build to satisfy themselves,” he says. “The business model is ‘I can get stuff for myself, I can get a better design and I can benefit.’ The innovation is paid for within the activity itself.”

As well as tapping a valuable new source of ideas, an open approach can also lead to savings in market research, as users act as focus groups, indicating what new features they would like (and then helping to develop them).

Going open-source may also help to keep customers. “Once you’ve opened the guts of a machine, you’re a much more loyal customer,” says Mr Talley, who got a Chumby for Christmas. Sun says the primary advantage of open-sourcing the designs of its processor chips is an elusive marketing boost to its other products, such as server computers. “It builds a community that will buy our hardware,” says Sridhar Vajapey, who runs Sun’s OpenSPARC program.

An alternative approach is to make money from something other than the hardware. Chumby Industries, for instance, expects to make most of its revenue by piping advertising to its devices. “It’s a traditional media model, only with user control,” says Steve Tomlin, the firm’s founder and chief executive.

Some examples of Open Hardware that can be found in the article and in the comments are:

• Neuros OSD
• Chumby (wikipedia)>
• Tuxphone (wikipedia)>
• RepRap (wikipedia)>
• OpenMoko
• Gumstix (wikipedia)
• iRobot (wikipedia)
• TV-B-Gone
• BugLabs
• OpenSparc
• Free Telephony Project
• Adafruit Industries/ladyada.net
• Akvo: The open source for water and sanitation

via | Ponoko

The news of the publication of VIA OpenBook‘s CAD files has spread rapidly in the web. It is worth now to read some thoughts and quotes that Michel Bauwens of P2P Foundation published in the Foundation Blog.

Citing various sources, Bauwens notices how the openness of this project is actually very limited (CAD files relate solely to the plastic shell, while hardware and its related software remain closed), especially if we compare it to OpenMoko. Therefore, here are four different levels of openness for Open Hardware projects:

Closed: Closed Hardware is any hardware for which the creator of the hardware will not release information on how to make normal use of the hardware, in such a way that that information may be freely shared with others. A sure sign of closed hardware is requiring the signing of an NDA to receive documentation on how to make use of a device.

Open Interface: In the case of Open Interface hardware, all the documentation on how to make a piece of hardware perform the function for which it is designed is available. In the case of computer hardware, this means that all the information necessary to produce fully functional drivers is available. This is the minimum level of openness that makes hardware useful to the open software community. Surprisingly, large amounts of integrated circuits fall into this category. Any device for which you can get a complete data sheet from the manufacturer, with no limitations on sharing the data contained within, meets the Open Interface definition.

Open Design: Open Design hardware is hardware in which enough detailed documentation is provided that a functionally compatible device could be created by a third party. It is not at all uncommon for the programmer’s guides for a microcontroller to have complete instruction encoding formats, memory maps, block diagrams of the processor core, and other technical details that would make it possible to reproduce a compatible microcontroller. Open Design hardware allows you to see what was implemented and what it should do, but still keeps the finer details of how it was implemented closed.

Open Implementation: Hardware for which the complete bill of materials necessary to construct the device is available fall into the category of Open Implementation. In the realm of computer chips, this means the hardware definition language description of the device is available. For a circuit board, this would include the schematic. Everything needed to reproduce an exact copy of a device is available. This is the hardware parallel to the concept of open source software. The debate between ‘open’ and ‘free’ (libre) that exists in the software space exists for hardware as well. In this regard, the only hardware that can truly be claimed to be free, in the same manner that the Free Software Foundation defines free, is that which falls into the Open Implementation category. Unfortunately, unlike software, an idea and the desire to produce a hardware device that is free and open is not sufficient. Certainly in the semiconductor space, the ability to do so is beyond the individual and in most cases, beyond even a reasonably equipped development group.

Finally, here Bauwens reports an interview to members of Open Graphics Project (appeared on the Free Software Magazine), the project of a completely open source 3D card. In this interview we can find what are the specific obstacles to the Open Hardware diffusion (and which may be useful to reflect on the deployment of a more generic Open Design).