Search
Open source hardware bank concept
Why does Open Source Hardware need a bank?
Because Open Source Hardware is different from Open Source Software. Software can be made with time, but hardware needs time and money. The same kind of "openness" principles from the Open Source Software "time economy" transition nicely to the Open Source Hardware-based "time economy," but they seem to get muddled in the OSHW "money economy." Need proof? Just try to answer any of these questions: who makes money from it, who funds it, why do they fund it, and who's helping to make it sustainable for the community? Open Source Hardware lacks a way for individuals to come together, make a cool project, and get something out of it - without taking a second and third mortgage on their houses!
Principles :
A mechanism to:
Reduce margins and share costs for the community
Minimize the risk and opportunity cost of unsold inventory
Provide incentives for Open Source projects to move to production without risks
Allow the building and distribution of low-quantity, non-scalable products (e.g. niche applications that are potentially non-VC fundable, since "bad business idea" isn't the same as "bad hardware idea")
Give rewards and profits back as close as possible to those who contributed
A platform that:
Minimizes economic transaction costs to high-paid non-laborer economic types
Reduces barriers to contribution
Rewards innovation and encourages new ideas
Encourages project-level (not necessarily company-level) competition
People who:
Participate because they are getting as much or more out as they put in
Do it not just to make money and profit off of others for free
Have rare, valuable skills who volunteer their talents for recognition or fun
Are willing to build a more sustainable hardware innovation system
Are willing to teach others for the gratification of helping others learn new skills
What's the main issue the Bank is trying to solve?
Open Source Hardware has two main financial problems that the Open Source Bank will try to alleviate (in addition to a number of other tool-based problems, but others in the community are working on those thank goodness): "Throwaway Costs" and the "Quantity Monopoly." As if the current economy weren't bad enough already, both of these problems seriously hurt DIY'ers and potential Open Source builders who want to participate in the growing Open Source Hardware community.
Throwaway Costs - building physical hardware takes revisions. Early revisions have things wrong, like misplaced traces, wrongly sized solder pads, or just bad luck. In the OSS software world, when things go wrong, you just fix the code, hit compile again, and the only thing it really "costs" is your time finding and fixing the error. But in the OSHW hardware world, errors mean broken, non-functioning junk PCB's that cost money to make. And that means lost money. Who pays for this? Guys in college, or guys who just lost all their money in their houses can't afford to build 2, 4, or 6 revisions of hardware before it works!
The Quantity Monopoly - this is a term I'm giving to the fact that large companies, especially PCB houses and component suppliers, offer volume pricing discounts. Normally this is a good thing, but only if you're building 10,000's of finished products. In the DIY OSHW world, we're talking about building 1's to 10's to 25's at a time, and so the community gets burned every time by paying "quantity tax" to large suppliers. The has the side effect of pricing individual DIY builders out of many potential hardware developments, simply because they don't get cheap enough until you make 1,000's. It's a quantity monopoly, because there's only 1 quantity number that anyone wants to build: 100,000 of anything. This is a difficult topic, and in my interviews and conversations, I've found many people on both sides of the fence about this - some for, some against. The bottom line is: if stuff were cheaper, Chris, David, Mark, Mike, Omar, Justin, and I'd all personally be able to build and share more, so anything prohibiting this is what I'll call "bad."
this text is an excerpt from their blog
Official site : http://www.liquidware.com
Update
An official site of this concept emerged : http://www.oshwbank.org
The mission of the bank is to fund and invest in Open Source Hardware. It helps open source projects achieve scale discounts at low quantities of production, where most DIY happens. The objective of the bank is to break-even, and sustain and grow Open Source Hardware.
I don't get it? I visited the
I don't get it? I visited the website they put up for this open source bank but there is not much informaiton yet. Who is Chris, David, Mark, Mike, Omar, and Justin? Why not just setup a non-profit organization and hold fund raising events like all other non-profit ogranizations. Store the money in a federally insured bank and create a Board of Directors. Then establish a low cost membership that would allow Members to also have a vote in how the money is used. The more popular projects would end up getting more money which is a good thing. At least then you could hold swap meets, social gatherings, and other types of fund raisers.
www.harfordhackerspace.org
we had an update on that, a
we had an update on that, a new site made by them trying to clarify things a little
is pretty much as you say
is pretty much as you say Squintz but .. until now we see that they are thinking only about their projects and no others .. there are many interesting projects around the net .. and deserve attention
Most Angels or VCs wouldn't
Most Angels or VCs wouldn't even look at open source initiatives... There's no money in it for them...
I found lots of interesting
I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. Keep it that way.
payday loans canada
great article. so much good
great article. so much good information. thanks for sharing!
christine
www.thelonex.com
Most Angels or VCs wouldn't
Most Angels or VCs wouldn't even look at open source initiatives.
Store the money in a
Store the money in a federally insured bank and create a Board of Directors. Then establish a low cost membership that would allow Members to also have a vote in how the money is used.
The mission of the bank is to
The mission of the bank is to fund and invest in Open Source Hardware. It helps open source projects achieve scale discounts at low quantities of production, where most DIY happens.
if thats true i will a hng my self . i don't think so you are doing this
Store the money in a
Store the money in a federally insured bank and create a Board of Directors. Then establish a low cost membership that would allow Members to also have a vote in how the money is used. The more popular projects would end up getting more money which is a good thing. At least then you could hold swap meets, social gatherings, and other types of fund raisers.
Gadget Review
This is really good news for
This is really good news for everyone. Some softwares are just too expensive, and those updates! MAN! You aren't even sure if you're getting a real update or some kind of virus.
Such a concept could be used
Such a concept could be used to further the advancement of promising hardware. However, each developer to some extent believes his hardware is the next best thing. Surely a rating system would be needed to adequately fund the most appropriate projects.
First of all It was very
First of all It was very informative one and yes it is right that open source hardware requires both money and time which is not in case of open source software.
Myself - Jimmy
The has the side effect of
The has the side effect of pricing individual DIY builders out of many potential hardware developments, simply because they don't get cheap enough until you make 1,000's. It's a quantity monopoly, because there's only 1 quantity number that anyone wants to build.
Such a concept could be used
Such a concept could be used to further the advancement of promising hardware. However, each developer to some extent believes his hardware is the next best thing. Surely a rating system would be needed to adequately fund the most appropriate projects.
finished products. In the DIY
finished products. In the DIY OSHW world, we're talking about building 1's to 10's to 25's at a time, and so the community gets burned every time by paying "quantity tax" to large suppliers.
The Open Source Bank will try
The Open Source Bank will try to alleviate (in addition to a number of other tool-based problems, but others in the community are working on those thank goodness): "Throwaway Costs" and the "Quantity Monopoly." As if the current economy weren't bad enough already, both of these problems seriously hurt DIY'ers and potential Open Source builders who want to participate in the growing Open Source Hardware community.
Two main financial problems
Two main financial problems that the Open Source Bank will try to alleviate (in addition to a number of other tool-based problems, but others in the community are working on those thank goodness): "Throwaway Costs" and the "Quantity Monopoly."
Nice article. Good post.
Nice article. Good post.
They seem to get muddled in
They seem to get muddled in the OSHW "money economy." Need proof? Just try to answer any of these questions: who makes money from it, who funds it, why do they fund it, and who's helping to make it sustainable for the community.
Good post, great article
Good post, great article
I am looking for this into
I am looking for this into and just found your site. good post.
This is a difficult topic,
This is a difficult topic, and in my interviews and conversations, I've found many people on both sides of the fence about this - some for, some against. The bottom line is: if stuff were cheaper, Chris, David, Mark, Mike, Omar, Justin, and I'd all personally be able to build and share more, so anything prohibiting this is what I'll call "bad."
Great article. So much good
Great article. So much good information for business technology professionals. Well done!
Store the money in a
Store the money in a federally insured bank and create a Board of Directors. Then establish a low cost membership that would allow Members to also have a vote in how the money is used. The more popular projects would end.
However, each developer to
However, each developer to some extent believes his hardware is the next best thing. Surely a rating system would be needed to adequately fund the most appropriate projects.