Open source firmware project for HifiMan?
Aug 30, 2010 at 1:05 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 13

Trogdor

Reviewer: Metal-Fi
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Posts
4,141
Likes
419
Hi Fang:
 
Is there any reason why the firmware for the HM series of players can not be open sourced to promote development and enthusiasm for the product?
 
I am not sure if you have any real IP buried in the firmware itself that might prevent this.  But even if that is the case, why not offer the ability for users/third-parties to develop new features on the HifiMan?  It promotes the project, reduces your cost (perhaps not up front but if the project gets more traction), and allows folks to experiment.
 
Obviously the biggest issue is support.  If a bad firmware image can brick the unit, I can see why you would be reluctant.  But perhaps there are ways to work around this issue (is there an emergency procedure to debrick bad firmeware?).
 
If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, please chime in.
 
Thanks!
 
 
Aug 30, 2010 at 4:49 PM Post #2 of 13

testrichard

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Posts
262
Likes
10

 
Quote:
Hi Fang:
 
Is there any reason why the firmware for the HM series of players can not be open sourced to promote development and enthusiasm for the product?
 
I am not sure if you have any real IP buried in the firmware itself that might prevent this.  But even if that is the case, why not offer the ability for users/third-parties to develop new features on the HifiMan?  It promotes the project, reduces your cost (perhaps not up front but if the project gets more traction), and allows folks to experiment.
 
Obviously the biggest issue is support.  If a bad firmware image can brick the unit, I can see why you would be reluctant.  But perhaps there are ways to work around this issue (is there an emergency procedure to debrick bad firmeware?).
 
If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, please chime in.
 
Thanks!
 

i will just chip in here, though alot of people wants RockBox to be embedded in 801 , that include me before some one told me there r pros and cons of it ~ therefore i think its more  than IP issue, RockBox might not draw the best out of hifiman.(dont shoot the messenger ~ )
 
2nd would probably be priority case, i think Fang have enough to chew already at the moment for all the 602 orders ~ cant imagine any one have time for more let along there suppose to have more product lines come in stream ??  (balance 801 board,JH3A kind of 801 board, HE4,HE3 etc etc)
 
 
 
 
Aug 30, 2010 at 8:56 PM Post #3 of 13

Trogdor

Reviewer: Metal-Fi
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Posts
4,141
Likes
419


Quote:
 
i will just chip in here, though alot of people wants RockBox to be embedded in 801 , that include me before some one told me there r pros and cons of it ~ therefore i think its more  than IP issue, RockBox might not draw the best out of hifiman.(dont shoot the messenger ~ )
 
2nd would probably be priority case, i think Fang have enough to chew already at the moment for all the 602 orders ~ cant imagine any one have time for more let along there suppose to have more product lines come in stream ??  (balance 801 board,JH3A kind of 801 board, HE4,HE3 etc etc)
 
 
 


 
Other than support, I am not sure how much extra work this is for Fang other then giving out the source code with build/flash instructions....I could be wrong...but why not harness the community so Fang doesn't have to spend a lot of money on Firmware development?
 
Sep 1, 2010 at 9:45 PM Post #4 of 13

khbaur330162

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
1,837
Likes
94
I second the open source motion, although, like testrichard pointed out, I can't really see this happening. Support seems low for the product seeing as a final firmware has not even been released. They seem more concerned releasing/developing new hardware to sell than actually backing their preexisting product and slew of frustrated customers. Sorry to sound harsh, but maybe this is a little of what is needed to get the sort of response we're looking for? Let's hope.
 
I'm still interested to see what Rockbox has to offer. Also, without hearing exactly what "drawbacks" there would be in store I'm sort of skeptical as to what this would entail. Drawbacks, or no drawbacks, I think Rockbox would provide more functionality/useability enhancement (playlist capability, codec support and system navigation) than what it might take away from a sound performance standpoint, if that's what we're even talking about.
 
Sep 3, 2010 at 7:13 AM Post #6 of 13

FrederikS|TPU

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Posts
1,298
Likes
12
Source code and complete specifications should be made available to the rockbox community in my opinion. A quick port of rockbox will probably be way better than the firmware available at the moment from hifiman.
 
Sep 3, 2010 at 10:39 PM Post #7 of 13

testrichard

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Posts
262
Likes
10


Quote:
Source code and complete specifications should be made available to the rockbox community in my opinion. A quick port of rockbox will probably be way better than the firmware available at the moment from hifiman.


Why ?
 
i have to ask because i think it just isnt fair to force others to disclose their intellecture property ~~ its one thing you could hack it yourself as you put own effort and it is another thing you want to strip away a guys idea ?
 
for all the successful DAP and MP3 player out there , why arent IPHONE disclose their OS ??
 
i think all the green technology from MIT is great !!! why dont they disclose it and share with IRAN or North Korea ?? why My university made money out of my graduate thesis ??
 
no matter how the things develop on this topic ~ i just think every one should respect others will.
 
Sep 3, 2010 at 11:14 PM Post #8 of 13

khbaur330162

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 5, 2006
Posts
1,837
Likes
94
Why not? The creation we're talking about is a clunky and bug ridden piece of software, not a cure for cancer (and even then, why can't we share?). Other people can do a better job with it. In the long run everyone benefits. He still has a kick*** sounding product, and people would be more prone to buying it when being backed by an open source community fine tuning the crap out of the software running it... and he doesn't have to do a thing. I fail to see the issue. Rockbox is non-profit, too, aren't they? What's this college making money on my thesis jive?
 
Sep 4, 2010 at 7:40 AM Post #9 of 13

Trogdor

Reviewer: Metal-Fi
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Posts
4,141
Likes
419


Quote:
Why ?
 
i have to ask because i think it just isnt fair to force others to disclose their intellecture property ~~ its one thing you could hack it yourself as you put own effort and it is another thing you want to strip away a guys idea ?
 
for all the successful DAP and MP3 player out there , why arent IPHONE disclose their OS ??
 
i think all the green technology from MIT is great !!! why dont they disclose it and share with IRAN or North Korea ?? why My university made money out of my graduate thesis ??
 
no matter how the things develop on this topic ~ i just think every one should respect others will.


 
Because the firmware on the hifiman is NOT really uber secret protective sauce.....like the iPhone OS...Fang isn't trying to protect the firmware....I sure hope not.  I realize he is busy with the 602 but I'd like at least a statement about this.
 
Sep 20, 2010 at 11:10 AM Post #11 of 13

krmathis

Head-Fi's Most Prolific Poster
Joined
Jan 13, 2004
Posts
34,761
Likes
76
I am all for open-source code as well.
But of course HifiMAN may have valid reasons for keeping it all closed.
 
Sep 20, 2010 at 11:42 AM Post #12 of 13

Trogdor

Reviewer: Metal-Fi
Joined
Feb 1, 2004
Posts
4,141
Likes
419
More than likely there might be a fear of quality control and therefore support overhead (the two usual suspects).  At same time, the benefits of community development/support I believe outweigh these concerns.  Nothing stops Fang from continuing firmware development for the HM series of players alongside open source solutions (this model is quite common).
 
Given the high-end nature (and therefore niche market segment), I just don't understand what's the big deal of open sourcing just the firmware piece.  Again I doubt much (if any) IP is in the firmware implementation.
 
Oct 31, 2011 at 2:48 AM Post #13 of 13

timeslip

100+ Head-Fier
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
205
Likes
30
I recently purchased the 603, and while I love the hardware.... I am finding it a PITA to convert all my Apple Lossless to FLAC, and losing the ability for playlists.  I once was very reluctant to move my entire music library under iTunes, but unfortunately it has become my world now.
 
 
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top