LWN.net Logo

Seigo: Spark answers

Aaron Seigo answers questions about the Spark tablet, which is based on Plasma Active, that he announced on January 29. There is more information about the hardware and software, delivery timeframe (May 2012), and pre-orders: "Pre-order registration will open early next week. This was one piece in the puzzle that was taking a bit [longer] than I hoped for to come together, but it's finally slotted in and our distribution partner has got the necessary infrastructure settled. I'll lift the veil off of the pre-order and our distribution strategy when it goes live."
(Log in to post comments)

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 3, 2012 16:26 UTC (Fri) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]

We do plan on providing Spark models with 3G
The sparks of hope this statement carries, I should push harder my willing self to wait even longer than May 2012 to get something even greater with my limited budget.

That might be the reason businesses do not reveal their future products

Q: There are no GPL compliant sources for the C71, right?
A: We are aware of this, and we've been working on it. It's been one of the hardest things to accomplish in the entire project.
Interesting, considering how hard it is to make the actual hardware!

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 4, 2012 7:49 UTC (Sat) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> > Q: There are no GPL compliant sources for the C71, right?
> > A: We are aware of this, and we've been working on it. It's been one of the hardest things to accomplish in the entire project.
> Interesting, considering how hard it is to make the actual hardware!

Well, they aren't making the hardware. The spark tablet is just a rebranding of the already-existing hardware from a random chinese manufacturer with a new OS image installed on it.

Said random chinese manufacturer "Zenithink" has so far not felt the need to comply with the GPL and release all the source-code for the linux kernel they ship with their Android OS image. And, really, why should they? After all, Android doesn't include busybox, and nobody else is actually enforcing the GPL...and none of their competitors are releasing the source code either!

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 5, 2012 10:35 UTC (Sun) by lab (subscriber, #51153) [Link]

> none of their competitors are releasing the source code either!

Not true. The big ones have become good at it. Examples:

http://htcdev.com/devcenter/downloads

https://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?...

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 6, 2012 16:30 UTC (Mon) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]

Those folks sell a lot into the western markets, where IP licensing compliance issues have to be on the up and up. Zenithink, Ainol, Momo, etc., don't. They sell out of shady Honk Kong distributors to places all over the world to places where a lack of GPL compliance isn't something that would get them shut down.

When Seigo says he has most of the kernel sources + some blobs, he is referring to the sources provided by the chipset manufacturer. However they don't have the source to the modifications Zenithink has done.

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 20, 2012 22:07 UTC (Mon) by G-A (guest, #83022) [Link]

"Said random chinese manufacturer "Zenithink" has so far not felt the need to comply with the GPL and release all the source-code for the linux kernel they ship with their Android OS image. And, really, why should they? After all, Android doesn't include busybox, and nobody else is actually enforcing the GPL...and none of their competitors are releasing the source code either!"

They should do it because they are required by the GPL to do it. Or rather, they should do it because *no* conscious consumer should by a device with pirated software preinstalled. Certainly, no FLOSS-fan should by such a device! And while the Spark will be released with sources, that doesn't help. No FLOSS-supporter can in good conscience buy a tablet produced by a *notorious* GPL-violator. Giving a FLOSS-undermining GPL-violator 100 dollars (or whatever their share is) to sell their GPL-violating device to a FLOSS-firendly organization, and then pay that organization 160$ to SUPPORT FLOSS software, seems like a ... rather interesting way to support FLOSS. To put it mildly.

And I'd assume supporting FLOSS on embedded devices is really the only reason to buy this low-specced device for many people. The screen resolution is especially bad, and you can get similar specced devices for less than half elsewhere. If Zenithink made no money on it whatsoever, I could consider paying twice the hardwares worth to support the software. (Not very likely...) But paying a GPL violator to promote Open Source software, now that's something I just won't do. Unless this was the *only* conceivable way of giving consumers a free software tablet, someone has made a really bad judgement call here.

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 21, 2012 12:18 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

The hard fact is Zenithink (and many other vendors) will only behave if they have a compelling reason for, and morality is not a very good motivation.

We could try to sue them. That is rather expensive, as we all know. What can we do? We could offer them a market. If the Spark manages to sell well, you can use that to lure them into releasing the code. Otherwise you could treat them to buy the next, better and more expensive (= more margin for them) version from someone else.

No one wants to lose a good customer, and this could get you much further than high moral ground, and much faster than litigation.

ITC?

Posted Feb 21, 2012 19:01 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

I wrote that nobody has yet used the ITC process to enforce the GPL a while ago--still true? The advantage is that if the ITC takes the case, then the US government assigns attorneys to enforce your copyright for you.

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 6, 2012 12:45 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]

I have to say that all the talk of getting devices out to developers sounds a lot like the talk around Nokia's N-series tablets when they were first introduced, although the intention to sell hardware to anyone - not just sell it (or give it) to members of what could be considered a clique - makes the initiative seem a bit more sincere.

Of course, the matter of the openness of the hardware and whether this kind of initiative should be dealing with that matter in addition to getting usable solutions out there to paying customers should serve as a reminder that such matters have not yet been satisfactorily resolved, despite some pretty reasonable opportunities to do so. The KDE community indulged Nokia in particular but were constantly short-changed by the same corporate mindset that squandered years of chances to leave Nokia in the sorry state it is in today.

It is sad indeed that the community is left to shoehorn their work onto whatever they can get their hands on, which is also my impression of the Geeksphone products, although I'd like to hear perspectives about those products from someone with more experience with them. Maybe some of the hardware initiatives (including the unfairly derided OpenMoko work) will bear fruit and provide a better foundation for Free Software than taking a chance that some vendor will ultimately do the right thing.

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 6, 2012 16:45 UTC (Mon) by jhhaller (subscriber, #56103) [Link]

Before one throws down one's money on a preorder, spend some time looking at the Notion Ink Adam's travails in trying to offer a worldwide preorder and delivery. I'm not saying don't buy it, but if one can't order via a local distributor in your region, there could be a number of logistical obstacles, such as direct shipping from China, payment of VAT, challenges of tracking one's order through a variety of shipping companies. Then, if it breaks, find out where the repair depot will be located, and how much the shipping to the repair depot will cost, and the process for a RMA. Getting the devices cleared through customs appears to be problematic in some countries. Finally, getting appropriate regulatory compliance is critical, such as CE marking for both the device and power supply, and approval for any market one may wish to take the device, like FCC approval for EMC. Devices won't make it past customs without relevant approvals.

The problem wasn't that the Adam was a bad device, but that because of all the logistical issues, the community turned on the company, which dramatically reduced the opportunity for future sales. This reduced the amount of funds available for support and new device development. It had a window where it was well liked, and spoiled it with poor execution. Luckily, there is a hacker community which has taken on the ongoing support, and is doing a very good job, but it's really only 3-5 people doing the work, and only for donations that aren't even enough to buy a new laptop.

Seigo: Spark answers

Posted Feb 6, 2012 19:35 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

The biggest problem with the Adam is that once it got into the hands of users, the default software is just lousy.

The company is counting on the hacker community to create ports of Android to the device, and is calling those ports 'official', but does not appear to be paying the developers for the work (but the interaction with the company is encouraging "secrecy" on some components and the feeling that "It's unprofessional to ship a ROM image with root access enabled"

Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds