Pine64s “problem” was they only ever did the hardware. Like they sponsor some software, but they make and sell hardware. They gained a lot of popularity from the Pinephone, but very little changed internally at Pine64. They’re still the same they always were
What? I get really annoyed at hardware companies that do software. Like, first thing I’m gonna do with anything I buy is wipe it and install my own OS. Why would you waste so much time making a forked OS?
I think you are confusing “making another fedora fork for a laptop brand” with “porting a booloader to the device” or “writing a driver for the screen”. Simply put you would not be able to use the hardware without the software. Outsourcing it to the community makes the hardware cheaper but the sideeffect is that the software will be crappy even after years of development. For some reason people aren’t very keen on writing the low level stuff.
If you compare the Espruino smart watch to the Pine64 smartwatch, it’s a night and day difference. My guess is that it’s because Espruino handles the low level stuff and let community do the fun stuff, while Pine64 leaves everything on the community. Imo you need a fulltime developer who actually spends time looking in the datasheet and figuring out, how to properly put the PineTime to sleep, not just people who peek into the docs every Saturday.
We’re talking about low level software that makes the hardware usable here, the reason that Raspberry Pi is the king of this market is because they have the software support that allows their hardware to just work. Pine64 relies on the community to do this for each of the boards they release.
Pine64’s most successful products have been the ones they release as full products with working firmware.
but then, you need software for less computer-like devices too, like a smart watch or earbuds. do you immediately reflash those too? and who will make the software?
Sure thats true as long as the basic support on compatibility is there, but as I understand it Pine is so hardware-only that they make it hard for other projects to even support their hardware, i.e. with lacking drivers as the other comment addressed.
Pine64s “problem” was they only ever did the hardware. Like they sponsor some software, but they make and sell hardware. They gained a lot of popularity from the Pinephone, but very little changed internally at Pine64. They’re still the same they always were
What? I get really annoyed at hardware companies that do software. Like, first thing I’m gonna do with anything I buy is wipe it and install my own OS. Why would you waste so much time making a forked OS?
Do one thing, and do it well.
I think you are confusing “making another fedora fork for a laptop brand” with “porting a booloader to the device” or “writing a driver for the screen”. Simply put you would not be able to use the hardware without the software. Outsourcing it to the community makes the hardware cheaper but the sideeffect is that the software will be crappy even after years of development. For some reason people aren’t very keen on writing the low level stuff.
If you compare the Espruino smart watch to the Pine64 smartwatch, it’s a night and day difference. My guess is that it’s because Espruino handles the low level stuff and let community do the fun stuff, while Pine64 leaves everything on the community. Imo you need a fulltime developer who actually spends time looking in the datasheet and figuring out, how to properly put the PineTime to sleep, not just people who peek into the docs every Saturday.
Oh yeah, I’m not referring to drivers. I’m thinking of things like PureOS
We’re talking about low level software that makes the hardware usable here, the reason that Raspberry Pi is the king of this market is because they have the software support that allows their hardware to just work. Pine64 relies on the community to do this for each of the boards they release.
Pine64’s most successful products have been the ones they release as full products with working firmware.
for example to make sure you have got drivers.
but then, you need software for less computer-like devices too, like a smart watch or earbuds. do you immediately reflash those too? and who will make the software?
Especially when software already exists, it prevent duplicating efforts.
Sure thats true as long as the basic support on compatibility is there, but as I understand it Pine is so hardware-only that they make it hard for other projects to even support their hardware, i.e. with lacking drivers as the other comment addressed.