Community support for free hardware

The "Spark" tablet (later renamed "Vivaldi") was first announced at the beginning of 2012; it was meant to be a fully open device that would be "designed by and usable by us on our terms". By 2014 standards the specifications and price (€200) look a bit dated, but they were not totally out of line at the time. The software stack was to be based on the Mer distribution and the Plasma Active interface. Behind it all would be an application distribution environment that would encourage free software while allowing developers to monetize their work. By all appearances, it was set to be an interesting device.

Improv followed toward the end of 2013. It was a reasonably well-equipped development board that, once again, would run Mer. The schematics were licensed under the GPL, and the anticipated profits were destined to support community resources like the Mer open build service. Interested people were encouraged to order without delay, because "we expect the first lot to sell out quickly".

Your editor, who duly put in an order for an Improv board, recently received an email saying that this board would never arrive. Instead, the developers would be making a partial refund of the cost of the board ($52 of the $75 original cost, as it turns out). In the end, there were not enough orders to cover the cost of making that first lot of boards, so the whole project has been canceled. The message also relayed the unsurprising news that the Vivaldi project, which had long been stalled and silent, would also be wound down. The project appears to have failed completely, at considerable cost to its backers.

Why might this be? According to the above-mentioned email:

Free and open hardware is indeed important, but it is worthwhile to consider "free" and "open" independently. Open hardware is fully documented and unlocked; users have the ability to put their own software onto it if they so desire. Free hardware has all of that; in addition, the designs (including, preferably, the files used as input to the manufacturing process) are made available under a free license, allowing others to modify or extend the design.

There can be little doubt of the value of open hardware. The ability to understand what the hardware does and to change how it is used (by changing its operating software) brings a great deal of freedom to users. It allows that hardware to be used in settings and for purposes that its designers could never have envisioned. One might argue that open hardware will not exist if users are unwilling to put their money where their interests are and buy that hardware. It is also worth noting that much hardware that was not intended to open tends to be forced open by determined users. The apparent ease with which much closed hardware can be jailbroken might serve to reduce the demand for truly open hardware somewhat.

That said, there are, in fact, some signs that this demand does indeed exist. The success of Arduino, or of other development boards similar to Improv, is one case in point. Google's "Nexus" program offers hardware that, while not being quite as open as we might like, is far better than what many of us would have expected just a few years ago; customers are willing to pay the substantial cost premium to buy Nexus devices rather than use the "$0" devices from carriers. The Open Compute Project has drawn substantial industry support and has published a number of open hardware designs. So the interest is certainly there.

There is, perhaps, less interest in free hardware — hardware with designs published under a free license. Free hardware might be just as important as free software, but there is a crucial difference: almost anybody with basic skills can take advantage of the freedoms offered by free software. One might "fork" a free hardware design, but, for most of us, the ability to realize any changes to that design in real hardware is beyond reach. Perhaps, someday, it will be easy to render designs into working hardware in small quantities for a reasonable cost, but that day is not here yet. Until that day comes, it should not be surprising that the issue of hardware freedom tends to get an apathetic reaction. It just doesn't seem as relevant to many in our community as software freedom does.

Meanwhile, given that there does seem to be a market for open hardware, why is it that projects like Vivaldi and Improv struggle? It is probably a simple issue of money. Creating an interesting piece of hardware, getting it built, and selling it to users is a cash-intensive business. A handful of free software developers attempting such a project funded from their savings and using a personal weblog as the primary marketing channel will probably have a hard time. Serious funding does not guarantee success — well funded products from established manufacturers fail regularly — and a lack of that funding does not guarantee failure. But, while a new software project can be started with almost no budget at all, trying to create a new piece of hardware on a shoestring budget is sailing against the wind.

So the failure of Improv and Vivaldi is not necessarily a failure on the part of the community to support an important principle. It is probably better described as yet another startup company with some interesting ideas that never quite managed to take off. Eventually somebody will likely succeed with a fully free hardware project — as Arduino has done — and they may well benefit from some of the groundwork that was done by the developers behind Improv and Vivaldi. But they will have to succeed as a business, and not just as a piece of interesting hardware design.