[quote]Quote from obarthelemy on December 4, 2011, 15:54
@scribe: I think you\'re overlooking the fact the Broadcom think their architecture, both hardware and software (the 2 can\'t really be split apart at that low a level) gives them a competitive advantage. They don\'t want to make that info public in anyway, for fear of being copied (or spotted copying someone ^^). NDAs, non-competes and confidentiality agreements only go so far and are very hard to enforce / follow up on anyway, so I can understand them.
So, support has to be in-house. As Jamesh said, Broadcom will be very happy to set that up for you in exchange for commensurate remuneration/sales. Sorry they\'re not interested in low-volume, end-user markets. Few chipmakers are, especially for bleeding-edge tech, like the VideoCore4.
I personally feel lucky they\'re OK with working with the piddling Pi Foundation (no offense :-p ), and receptive to some opening up. I\'m counting my blessings, let\'s not spoil a good thing by endlessly bitching to poor Pi guys caught in the middle about openness / features / prices / whatever ?
Since I\'m not working with Pi nor Broadcom, let me spell it out:
- Broadcom controls the info, and want to keep it in-houser. For good or bad reasons is immaterial.
- The guys from Pi can\'t do anything about it, especially since Broadcom is already mighty nice to let them buy parts, use proprietary knowledge, experts, and expensive equipment. For Pi, pissing Broadcom off by endless whining can\'t achieve anything good. The message has been passed on, and I\'m sure Broadcom is, independently, aware of the issue.
- End users bitching to Pi achieves nothing, except spoiling the fun for the (volunteer) Pi guys (and gal). Bitching to Broadcom would be a bit more relevant, but probably more hurtful, they\'d probably dislike being pissed on when trying to do a Good Thing (tm).
- The deal regarding what\'s open or not has been discussed and documented to death. It\'s take it or leave it, it\'s not like Broadcom is a convicted monopoly ^^[/quote]
I\'ll be clear, I\'m going to buy a Pi for personal use, I hold nothing against the team and thank them, I just think it\'s a shame that its use commercially is limited and for this reason am a little upset that when just wishing to discuss how and why, and incredibly over defensive posture and excuses relating to costing are the focus of discussion when deep down we all know, as you\'ve said, that this isn\'t the key motivation of not making datasheets available and chips in low-volume. I\'m not seeking a Broadcom response or action, only to highlight the matter which, again as you\'ve said, is not a practise only followed by Broadcom, but sadly has an impact on many smaller firms, markets and start-up projects.
I think however, that there\'s a key difference between exposing how to operate an SoC vs how it\'s put together and how each component functions internally and would implore for the sake of open development and the success of the Pi that Broadcom considers a datasheet and manual, that perhaps doesn\'t go into as much depth in areas as would be typical, so that the community can have something to work with.
[quote]Quote from jacklang on December 4, 2011, 15:57
You can\'t ignore the question of support. These are complex chips, with complex interfaces
To get the best out of them the development team has to be extremely knowledgeable. That is where the cost lies.
Sorry, I\'m not ignoring, only that I\'ve suggested approaches in previous posts that exist currently in the industry.