Intent to sell midiboxes

[TK.]

Setting up a business and contributing to the community are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but it's hard to estimate, if you are earning more from your business than giving back.

Worst case: not you, but maybe the next guy who requests for permission sells hundreds of MIDIboxes over Ebay, but gives zero support. I'm not sure if the community is ready to reply to an increased number of newbie postings like "how to send a certain sysex event" or "I want feature xxx - asap!".

So long this project is focused on DIY, the support effort regulates by itself (a little) to a range of people with technical skills.

Do you see the point?

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[5meo-geo]

Rah i still dont understand whats ur goal in setting up the bussiness and sell boxes but as u say "without any profit"

my jew head cant understand that....

whats the point of doing this????

smash sells MB related producs to make it easier for people to build their boxes and save time for users from searching the net for part's

u can order from him all the parts u need to build the box and it will cost ya less than if u go and buy same parts in different shops

but for your idea.....

i dont c any point of it if not profit

there is defenetly demand for this kind of product on the market

and anyway.....

how would u feel if i would get your demo music and release it as a cd under my name????

u wont have any law protecting you also

anyway here we have an old proverb...

"dont spit into the well that you drinking from"

[Synapsys]

So long this project is focused on DIY, the support effort regulates by itself (a little) to a range of people with technical skills.

Do you see the point?

Ok, against my better judgment I am going to add something to this thread.

Yes, TK, I see the point.

For example, Rah has no idea how much time (and therefore money) it is going to take to produce something as mundane as a product level Users Guide for the MIDIbox. Generally speaking, a non-technical person who might purchase a MIDIbox on ebay is going to expect to receive a clearly written functionally complete Users Guide with the equipment just like they would from a company such as Mackie. The word that such documentation does not exist will quickly spread via online forums and newsletters and will likely cause any substantial amount sales to cease.

The perspective customers are going to expect some level of support. This is, of course, the main concern here. If Rah directs these customers to this forum to obtain support the customer will quickly determine that this forum is not intended to provide “operational†support for the MIDIbox but rather technical support for building and getting the box to run once it is built.

Finally, I would like to give Rah some advice concerning liability when selling an electronic device to the public. Consider, for example, what would happen if a customer opens up the dual voltage SID power supply and injures (or kills) themselves due to exposure to mains voltage levels. Rah, or his so-called company, could very well be liable to the customer for damages. Better buy lots of insurance Rah.

These are only a few thoughts on this subject. I am certain there are hundreds more. Having started my own business many years ago, I know how difficult and expensive it is to make it successful. I don't think we MIDIboxers have much to worry about here. Failure is almost a certainty.

Regards,

Synapsys

[rah]

What contributions do you plan on making?

The very preliminary thoughts in my mind are concerned with the number of inputs and outputs; they're rather limited for the kind of boxes I have in mind.  From what I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) upping the number of analogue inputs to 128 or 196 would require a redesign of the core, a new AIN module and changes to MIOS.  I realise that one can chain multiple cores, but I believe a modification to support more inputs would be very useful in itself.  Even sticking with a basic core for 64 inputs, I would probably want to combine the two AIN modules onto a single board.  For that matter, combining a lowest common denominator of modules onto a single board would be a worthwhile goal if I was intending to produce many similar designs; eg, 1xCore, 2xAIN, 1xDIN, 1xDOUT.

As noted, a user-focused manual for MIOS and/or specific box designs would be a must if a box was to be sold as a product.

I also intend on only using free software for design work.  The state of free EDA tools is somewhat lacking at present, compared to proprietary alternatives.  I fully expect to find myself hacking software where necessary.

I hope that clarifies things for you.

Robert

[rah]

Worst case: not you, but maybe the next guy who requests for permission sells hundreds of MIDIboxes over Ebay, but gives zero support.

So long this project is focused on DIY, the support effort regulates by itself (a little) to a range of people with technical skills.

Do you see the point?

Certainly, I can see the point.  Any company that offloads support onto the MIDIbox forums would obviously be a issue.  However, you would have a very serious and legitimate grievance with that company, which would open them up to litigation; something most commercial interests will avoid like the plague.

The issue really is that any hypothetical MIDIbox production company would be selling a specific product and they would have to be very careful to distinguish between that product and the offerings of the MIDIbox community.  Any confusion between the two, intentional or otherwise, would spell disaster, and not just due to litigation.  I can just imagine the ensuing chaos if a customer managed to catch SmashTV on a bad day ;)

So yes, I see the point.  But I think any serious business would have to keep its customers and the MIDIbox community away from each other, at all costs.  Hence, I don't think there would be any risk to the forums if you were to consent to such a business.

With regard to eBay sellers, if you give permission to sell then you can stipulate that they must provide their own support and can't refer to the MIDIbox community in any way.  If they respect your wishes then the forums stay clean.  If they don't respect your wishes then the issue of permission won't matter anyway.

Robert

[rah]

Rah i still dont understand whats ur goal in setting up the bussiness and sell boxes but as u say "without any profit"

my jew head cant understand that....

whats the point of doing this????

I'm not doing this "without any profit" but I'm not doing it for profit.  I realise I'll have to clarify that.  My motivation isn't to line my own pockets.  If any serious money was raised then it would go on buying equipment for more MIDIbox projects; eg, oscilliscopes, bench power supplies, PCB etching equipment, maybe even milling equipment for enclosures.  My motivation isn't to buy more ice creams, or a Mercedes Benz.  My motivation is to do COOL STUFF :) That's the difference between business and capitalism.

but for your idea.....

i dont c any point of it if not profit

Then I pity you.

Robert

[rah]

Rah has no idea how much time (and therefore money) it is going to take to produce something as mundane as a product level Users Guide

As a matter of fact, I do.  I've written user guides for software before, so I've got a pretty good idea of what's involved.

The perspective customers are going to expect some level of support. This is, of course, the main concern here. If Rah directs these customers to this forum to obtain support ...

See my other post.

Finally, I would like to give Rah some advice concerning liability when selling an electronic device to the public. Consider, for example, what would happen if a customer opens up the dual voltage SID power supply and injures (or kills) themselves due to exposure to mains voltage levels. Rah, or his so-called company, could very well be liable to the customer for damages.

Umm.. why would I be liable?  I would be liable if someone got a shock from touching the enclosure or a button but I don't see how it would be my responsibility if someone took apart a box, fiddled around inside and got electrocuted.  That's just pure stupidity on their part.  Do I get to sue computer PSU manufacturers if I open one up and get a shock?  No, of course not.  It's a bloody PSU; it's got warning stickers on saying "don't be stupid enough to open this up and fiddle around inside".  Believe it or not, I am capable of forethought and can easily foresee the need for warning stickers, just as you have.

Also, I don't know about the industry legalities, but I would imagine that there would be some kind of license needed to sell commercial PSU units.  That's just a manifestation of the fact that producing electronics to deal with mains electricity is a far cry from fiddling with PICs.  It seems to me you're saying "don't sell MIDIboxes because you probably don't know anything about how to build a mains PSU."  Well I'm certainly not going to go experimenting with mains electricity if I don't what I'm doing.  Similarly, I'm not going to go selling PSUs if I don't have any necessary licenses or certification.  And this is only loosely related to MIDIboxes anyway.  To be frank, your argument is just silly.

Robert

[TK.]

Do you know the CE/GS/etc. licenses, which are required for all electronical devices which are sold within the european union? Doing EMC tests in special laboratories isn't that cheap.

However, before somebody gets me wrong: I still don't accept your plans before you've really demonstrated your contributions, my statements made yesterday are still valid (http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6216.msg38370#msg38370), and I will propably switch to a better license which matches better with my intentions.

A techniqual answer (because this is the main intention of this forum instead of starting flame wars):

The very preliminary thoughts in my mind are concerned with the number of inputs and outputs; they're rather limited for the kind of boxes I have in mind.  From what I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong,) upping the number of analogue inputs to 128 or 196 would require a redesign of the core, a new AIN module and changes to MIOS.

You propably need another PIC with more ADC channels in order to avoid jitter problems (biggest problem here: all PICs with more than 8 channels have an integrated EUSART, and this peripheral is buggy). You will also notice an increased latency caused by the higher number of conversions to scan all pins, and the memory consumption will be higher (which means: less room for features).

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[Jidis]

upping the number of analogue inputs to 128 or 196 would require a redesign of the core

Speaking of which:

Robert, from some of your recent replies, you don't really sound like a PIC DIY newbie. That's why I was suggesting, if it's feasible, to work up to a newly designed controller(s) circuit, rather than using TK's work as such a significant foundation of something being "mass produced", in a manner of speaking (no offense intended). Even if it ultimately served the same purpose (as mentioned, there's already a bunch out there), if it was new code and circuits, it would seem much more respectful to him and the others here, or to what he requested, as well as to the idea that he gave it to all of us to use for free. I may have also mentioned that I myself, would much rather see you hang around in here and help some of us with our ongoing battles, or vice-versa. You may even run across lots of desirable hardware ideas, which aren't planned for any future MIOS projects. It would also make it much easier on any new controller endeavor you were undertaking, as the forum is frequently home to non-MIOS MIDI/audio side projects people are working on, and many here, including TK, have shown a very admirable effort to help with them.

Beyond that, and without heading over to read all the license disclaimers in the code  ;D :

Has Thorsten or anyone mentioned an "agreeable percentage" of profits for someone who might be interested in something like Robert wanted to do? Not that there's likely to be that much left over, but you have to admit, there must have been a hell of a lot of source and circuit tweaks happening to get this stuff to where it is. I also must add that I hate the idea that if something like that ever took off, TK might leave this place or freeze the development on us. If one of the control manufacturers ever pulls him out of here, my online attacks on MOTU are going to look like a f***in' "handshake". (joke - I guess I'd have to wish him luck :'( )

AFA Smash & Co. are concerned, I've been pretty impressed by the prices of some of the MBHP kits, and have been tempted to just be lazy and grab one or two myself on occasion, but I'm too into honing up my own etch skills. In addition to helping people who don't make boards, it's likely even saving them a few dollars, since he's getting the stuff in quantity. He's probably also getting stuck with a bunch of the stuff we don't need. I really can't see that after the hassle of purchasing & listing everything, correspondence, and packaging/shipping orders all over the place,etc., it would even make all that much money. My guess is that since those guys make their own boxes as well, it's more akin to the small-scale pot dealers who smoke all day (not that I, personally, would know people like that 8) ).

Take Care All       

[rah]

Do you know the CE/GS/etc. licenses, which are required for all electronical devices which are sold within the european union? Doing EMC tests in special laboratories isn't that cheap.

No I didn't, which quite worried me, so I went and did some research.  The Department of Trade and Industry (UK) website contains Product standards - Electrical Equipment (Low Voltage Directive) - Guidance notes on UK Regulation, which results from EU harmonisation directives.  I'll reproduce some relevant, but somewhat dry, sections here for reference:

The modified Directive embodies a number of principles:

*  only electrical equipment which does not jeopardise the safety of people,

    domestic animals and property shall be placed on the market;

*  only electrical equipment which satisfies the CE marking requirements will

    be taken as complying with the requirements of the modified Low Voltage

    Directive and is thereby entitled to free circulation throughout the European

    Economic Area (EEA)*, unless there are reasonable grounds for

    suspecting that the product does not in fact meet the requirements;

*  electrical equipment is not required to be tested or marked for approval by

    an independent third party;

*  enforcement is the responsibility of each Member State within its national

    jurisdiction;

(my emphasis)

How to comply with the safety requirements: Electrical equipment that is

constructed to meet the safety provisions of one of the following in an accepted

hierarchy of standards and requirements will be taken to satisfy the safety

requirements of the Regulations, unless there are reasonable grounds for

suspecting that it does not so comply.

The CE marking requirements consist of three parts, all of which must be satisfied.

These are:

*    the affixing of the mark;

*    the drawing up of an EC Declaration of Conformity;

*    compiling and holding the Technical Documentation.

EC Declaration of Conformity: An EC Declaration of Conformity is a written

declaration by the manufacturer or his nameised representative that the equipment

to which the CE marking has been affixed complies with the requirements of the

Regulations. For the purposes of the Regulations the Declaration must:

*    Identify the manufacturer or the nameised representative;

*    Describe the electrical equipment to which it relates;

*    Where appropriate, specify the harmonised standard(s) or other specifications

    with which conformity with the safety requirements is declared.

...

A copy of the EC Declaration of Conformity is not required to accompany each

product but a copy must be retained within the territory of the EEA by the

manufacturer, the nameised representative or failing that the importer who first

places the equipment on the market in the EEA. A copy of the Declaration must

also be kept with the technical documentation

Technical Documentation: The Technical Documentation provides the

enforcement nameities with the means of assessing the conformity of the electrical

equipment to the requirements of the Regulations. For the purposes of the

Regulations the Documentation must:

*      describe the electrical equipment to which it relates;

*      contain information about the design, manufacture and operation thereof;

*      set out the procedures used to ensure the conformity of the electrical

      equipment with the safety requirements.

...

It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to compile the relevant Documentation

whether he is established in the EEA or not. However, the information must be

kept within the EEA for inspection purposes (see below) and this responsibility will

fall on either:

*      the manufacturer, if he is based in the EEA; or

*      the nameised representative; or

*      the person who first places the equipment on the market in the countries in

      the EEA.

The Documentation does not have to be assessed by an approved body but it

must be possible to assemble it whether or not the equipment has undergone any

independent testing, certification or approval. It must also be kept for a period of

not less than 10 years after manufacture of the equipment to which it relates has

ceased.

(my emphasis)

So, from what I can tell, all that is necessary is to draw up a declaration, write some technical documentation, and ensure the EC mark is printed on the product.  Of course, drawing up the declaration and writing the technical documentation requires knowledge of the relevant standards, that I would imagine would not be trivial.  Regardless, the main issue is that (expensive) third party certification or assessment is not required.

Robert

[moebius]

So, from what I can tell, all that is necessary is to draw up a declaration, write some technical documentation, and ensure the EC mark is printed on the product.  Of course, drawing up the declaration and writing the technical documentation requires knowledge of the relevant standards, that I would imagine would not be trivial.  Regardless, the main issue is that (expensive) third party certification or assessment is not required.

Yup,

It's non-trivial stuff.. You only have to know these electronic safety classes and other bullshit You won't ever be reading as Your GPL Bible.

But hey - I've got a test for You: Take a low voltage transformer - You should have plenty.

Short it. Just short its output. What happens? Uh, nothing I suppose. At least the mains circuit breaker won't kill the circuit. Ok, test didn't stop here.

I bet if You take 10 mains -> Low Voltage transformers and short them all out. At least one will catch fire. Yup, It was CE specs's and all.

Whoops - IF the device shorting out the transformer Just happened to be midibox made and sold by You.. was it an accident? Noo.. when the fire inspectors find the piece that caused the fire. Sorry, You're about to cover all the damages done, not excluding manslaughter.

Happy Happy Joy Joy!!

M

[rah]

A techniqual answer (because this is the main intention of this forum instead of starting flame wars):

You propably need another PIC with more ADC channels in order to avoid jitter problems (biggest problem here: all PICs with more than 8 channels have an integrated EUSART, and this peripheral is buggy). You will also notice an increased latency caused by the higher number of conversions to scan all pins, and the memory consumption will be higher (which means: less room for features).

Well, as I said, these are very preliminary thoughts.  I'll cross that bridge when I get to it :-)

Robert

[5meo-geo]

dude why u intend to steal the design so hard?????

there is tons of posible ways to make midi controllers

and if u plan to give chinese to adupt MB for 196 a-ins (i realy dont know what for and how do u want any soft to identify any ch' above 128 but anyway... its ur problem) u can ask the chinese to desing ya the whole thing aswell

maybe better proccesor????

faster plexers????

lower latency????

more midi ins/outs + midi routing ????

better software/interface????

and then publish the desing over here!!!!

and then some ass will come over and will try to make it comertial product ;D

[thefRont]

why are you still discussing this topic? rah asked for permission, TK denied it. end of story.

[5meo-geo]

thefRont coze some ppl dont take 'no' as an answer

[gabz]

Rah, you just Stink.

There's so much hypocrisy in your head that it overflows in each of your post

Greetings from france ...

And Rah, if people wants to buy things already made (not DIY) there's already a lot of Midi controllers really good and ready to use ... (I think of behringer ...) the world don't need you, sorry  ::)

And Big up, thanks from france to T.K. and all the community !!

In this fuckin Mad world, all is ruled by money, it's so good to see such free project ... We can't let some greedy Motherf****ers kill this spirit ...

I'm part of an other community cultivating exotic, medicinal plants, based on exchange and help, without any trace of money , and it's the same thing, there's alway guys which come all exited with their "projects" centered on money or others that think that the community is a shop ...

stop stop stop ...

Ps: sorry for my bad english

thanks for all

[Rigo]

rah

Honestly .Do you realy think you can make a controller that can compete with m-audio, kenton, behringer, novation, akai etc, etc. Just try to make a decent box , just one box, with all the features of the comercial boxes, usb ports, divers, librarians, lcd screens, all manuals,  professional looking panel, screen printing , memory banks, etc. I'll be surprised if you can make it under 100USD only for parts, not to mention labor costs.

[tarzan boy]

man that is awesome. I took a break from my midiboxing and this forum for 7 months, and now I see I just missed out, your list is FULL!

Listening to your knob twiddling mp3 right now. great work.

[ultra]

how can one justify selling someone else's ideas?  especially when the person whose ideas they are says no?  it simply should stop at that.

[moogah]

man that is awesome. I took a break from my midiboxing and this forum for 7 months, and now I see I just missed out, your list is FULL!

Listening to your knob twiddling mp3 right now. great work.

Hey thanks man :)  Wrong thread tho ;)  This one has been dead for months (as it should be).  I got confused based on the titles myself too, so no worries.

Don't loose hope about the 808 too, I'll be posting as much material as possible regarding how to get the parts needed etc so if people have the motivation to do the legwork themselves there's no reason that the list stops at 50, I'll be glad to help out in that regard, I just need to stop spending money on this project soon!  ;)

[mr.marvelous]

Maybe choosing the GPL wasn't a clever idea - my main intention was, that I wanted to give back something to the GNU community as a tribute for the great GNU software I'm using for myself. Of course, it was very clear to me, that this also opened the possibility for everybody to run my software on commercial designs, but at the time I made the decision, it wasn't predictable that the project could ever get such a big acceptance, that even those salesmen become interested.

However, you might find reasons to call me a naive guy, but I want to give you following considerations:

At any time I can switch to another license like the Creative Commons (see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/) in order to protect my designs against people who are trying to use it in a direction which I don't like.

Of course, this means that old software versions released under GPL are still free in the terms of this license. You can make variations and alterations, you could even develop something wonderful based on the old stuff.

But such a step would also mean, that you will be prevented from keeping your "products" up-to-date to the main branch - all tries will either lead to a lot of effort at your side, or they will be illegal.

Worst case for your venture: if I would switch to another hardware platform. An easy step for DIY people, a financial  risk for yourself.

Also your reputation won't be the best if the press or your feedback on EBay says "nice product, but sold against the will of the originator, and therefore not supported"

I definietly don't want to say, that nobody else but me could realize such projects (far from it - experts should know, that there are flaws which are hard to change without a major redesign - I've learned from it, you not), but I think that I'm allowed to say, that all people who follow the "MIDIbox spirit" will have a big advantage: a great community which is giving a lot of inspirations, which helps to debug and improve the projects, which motivates to continue and to realize things which are just different from commercial stuff you can find on the market.

Best Regards, Thorsten.

I think the problem lies in the fact that you chose the GPL as your license.  You expect people to rely on the honor system to uphold your personal requests. I think its almost equal as saying "we are going to release a server class variant of linux, BUT you can't use it in any commercial sense where you could profit off a SERVICE". The main problem is that It's completely legal under this license to provide a service, you wouldn't have to sell midiboxs, you are simply a contractor who is implementing an open source platform on a hardware platform. I understand that the PCB layouts ARE NOT licensed under anything, and TK reserves all rights on that end of things. But, you can't really tell someone to not put together commonly used parts in a specific fashion and not use the software platform...

I'm actually quite confused on the legalities of this. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

[seppoman]

Mr.M - Your statement is pointless because in the meantime you won't find any mention of GPL in the source code of the uCApps projects anymore. The current license is "Licensed for personal non-commercial use only. All other rights reserved." I don't want to jump into the old legal discussion because this didn't ever bring out something positive for the community. I'm just wondering what your motives regarding Midibox are, as you registered on the forum not even one week ago and already start probing the legal limits now...

S

[mr.marvelous]

Mr.M - Your statement is pointless because in the meantime you won't find any mention of GPL in the source code of the uCApps projects anymore. The current license is "Licensed for personal non-commercial use only. All other rights reserved." I don't want to jump into the old legal discussion because this didn't ever bring out something positive for the community. I'm just wondering what your motives regarding Midibox are, as you registered on the forum not even one week ago and already start probing the legal limits now...

S

I believe i was talking about something that is directly related to the topic at hand. I guess the old saying applies perfectly in this situation "if you aren't with us, you're against us". I realize that TK changed the license after i took a look at the source.

I understand that an older version of MIOS was licensed under the GPL; and i also realize that it's not licensed under the GPL anymore simply because the open source philosophy doesn't compliment the philosophy of midibox. Why someone would license their source under the GPL to begin with if they didn't want it to be used under the conditions of the license, that is beyond me. I respect TK's wishes with this project, and it is his right to do what he wishes with platform.

Is this really how you treat new comers? Scrutinize someone for participating in a thread? If the topic of the thread is not open for discussion, why is the thread open? I realize that its from last year, and i'm sorry that i bumped a year old thread. However, don't start throwing accusations around because i'm trying to participate in an open discussion. Someone should really just lock the thread since the discussion is obsolete, and dealt with. 

[nILS]

Mr. M don't get seppoman wrong here. His reply was completely fair and didn't accuse you of anything. He just brought the question up why you are jumping on an old thread that is as delicate as this one is that early into your midibox career. We've been seeing a lot of - let's just say "not nice and conflicting with TKs intentions" type of behavior here recently, that's why people tend to get suspicious very easily, which is sad but necessary. Don't get this wrong - noone's attacking you, just probing ;-)

[TK.]

I understand that an older version of MIOS was licensed under the GPL; and i also realize that it's not licensed under the GPL anymore simply because the open source philosophy doesn't compliment the philosophy of midibox. Why someone would license their source under the GPL to begin with if they didn't want it to be used under the conditions of the license, that is beyond me.

I selected the GPL at a time where MIDIbox was in a primitive state, giving other people the possibility to jump on the train and to continue with my initial work. Some years later I realized, that I spent an immense effort into the projects, but nearly nobody really contributed to the source code (*). Instead of that, sometimes low experienced people were trying to sell ready made MIDIboxes, completely based on my IP, over different channels to make profit without contributing in any way to the community (even not supporting the customers?)

I think it is my right to switch to another the license if I changed my mind based on such experiences, and I also think that I don't need to justify my own learning process. Meanwhile there are other powerful open projects for MIDI (or DAW control) like Arduino or Monome which have been developed by multiple persons and distrubuted under Creative Commons license. So, if somebody prefers such a license, just jump on there and help to support these communities.

Best Regards, Thorsten.

(*) this has changed, meanwhile people have contributed new software and hardware projects, even tough MIOS is not licensed under GPL anymore. So, it seems that the decision wasn't bad for the progress...