Related
Found an article on Sparkfun's website today, thought it would be worth a look for you Nexus One guys. Did a search on the site, didn't see anything about it, so here you go.
I can't post links yet, so bare with me plz...
Sparkfun said:
Here at SparkFun, we have never shied away from launching our products up into the sky. From homemade rockets, to pumpkins, to high-altitude balloons, we genuinely enjoy seeing electronics we have spent hours working on flying through the air.
So naturally, when we saw this project about someone else launching some of our parts in a rocket, we had to share. This is an awesome project called the PhoneSat Rocket.
This suborbital rocket was launched out in the Nevada desert and is based around an Arduino Main Board and a couple of Nexus One cellphones. Check out the above video for a documentary of the whole launch!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Small documentary of the launches:
Flight video from the second Nexus One launch:
Wired Magazine Article on them:
Wired Magazine said:
Cheaper, Better Satellites Made From Cellphones and Toys
* By Jess McNally Email Author
* July 30, 2010 |
* 3:20 pm |
* Categories: Space, Tech
*
MOUNTAIN VIEW, California — Instead of investing in their own computer research and development, engineers at the NASA Ames Research Center are looking to cellphones and off-the-shelf toys to power the future of low-cost satellite technology.
The smartphone in your pocket has about 120 times more computing power than the average satellite, which has the equivalent of a 1984-era computer inside.
“You can go to Walmart and buy toys that work better than satellites did 20 years ago,” said NASA physicist Chris Boshuizen. “And your cellphone is really a $500 robot in your pocket that can’t get around. A lot of the real innovation now happens in entertainment and cellphone technology, and NASA should be going forward with their stuff.”
The biggest challenge of sending cellphones and toys into space is whether the parts can get up there without shaking apart and work in a vacuum at extreme high and low temperatures.
To do some preliminary testing, two Nexus One cellphones caught rides on two rockets on July 24 that launched 30,000 feet into the atmosphere at a maximum speed of mach 2.4 (about 1,800 miles per hour). One of the rockets crashed into the ground after its parachute failed, but the other made it back with the cellphone unscathed.
Both cellphones were able to record the acceleration of the rocket using their built-in accelerometers, and the undamaged phone captured 2.5 hours of video of the event through a hole in the side of the rocket.
“Everything that didn’t break is a piece of data,” said volunteer engineer Ben Howard. “We know that the batteries didn’t break and that the computer worked the whole time.”
If the cellphones ultimately get used to power satellites, they will probably be sent up without a screen and with a different battery to make them lighter. The screen and battery make up 90 percent of the Nexus One’s weight.
Next, the team will build a stabilizing mechanism for the satellite using the cellphone, $100 toy gyroscopes and parts similar to those of the Mindstorms Lego, so the satellite can orient itself in space. By installing three spinning gyroscopes and getting them to spin at different velocities, a satellite can move in any direction. The same technique is currently used on many satellites, but requires multimillion dollar technology.
The project will likely use CubeSat’s as a standardized carrying case for their cellphone-powered satellites, because the boxes have already been tested and are known to hold up in the journey. Often companies who are sending up satellites on rockets have extra space on their rockets, which is how most amateur satellites will likely get into space, and the people paying like to be sure that nothing will break and damage the rocket on the way up.
The whole goal of the project is to make satellites cheap and affordable, so that anyone with bit of time and a couple of thousand dollars can send their own satellite into space.
Upgrading the computing power of satellites using cellphones would mean increased satellite capabilities, possibly including artificial intelligence.
“We’re not sure yet exactly what people will want to do with their satellites, and that’s the point,” said NASA education specialist Matt Reyes. “What can you imagine doing with your phone in space?”
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Last but not least, a mission statement of sorts:
Hopefully some of you guys are into this sort of thing as I am. It's REALLY awesome how far we as a people have come if you sit down and think about it.
Great stuff for the high tech Nexus...reach for the stars
Cool. It really makes sense for CubeSats. The Space Shuttle only has one megabyte of RAM, but that's because it doesn't need any more and the processes are meticulously coded. The basic CubeSat is a four inch box. One of the goals is to make them usable by the general public, like school teachers, to send experiments to space, and they aren't going to have a team of engineers to write software for them. Cell phones are really the only off-the-shelf processor available.
Yeah it's a neat deal for sure. Being able to consolidate a lot of systems that cost millions into a pocket sized cell phone is huge.
Sent from my HTC EVO
Hey guys,
Recently I have been seeing companies releasing devices for Android that are not phones e.g.
Android USB Sticks:
techland.time.com/2012/05/18/pc-in-your-pocket-74-android-stick-goes-on-sale/
or more recently a game console:
kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console
I'm in University now studying Electrical Engineering and I've had an interest in electronics since I was young, so now I thought it was possible for me to design my own device. But so far my only luck with getting anywhere was drafting designs of the device and finding development boards online. Sure i could start off with development boards to test software (which i'm planning to do) but I am quite lost as to where I should go next. For example where to I get a manufacturer to produce my device or where to purchase a processor/motherboard that is custom designed for my project.
It would be really great if someone could point me in the right direction,
Scott
that's an ambitious project, I've just finished 2 degrees in EE and in the long term i'm looking to do similiar projects, but right now it is beyond my capabilities. But what i have done is buy a very cheap dev kit from STmicroelectronics with their ARM m4 chip onboard. (STM32F4)
this chip should be powerful enough to get started on and all the pins are broken out, plus the device includes a programmer and is powered over usb.
It was less than €20 but is still sat in its box as I've a lot to learn before cracking it open.
Have you any experience with RTOS for ARM, Keil offer a free trial version of their well respected uVision MDK software, it supports the above board directly and removes the need to configure a tool chain etc. Personally i'm trying to get eclipse on ubuntu to program it bit Keil uVision will allow me to blink LED's etc so long as my program is under 4Kb.
I too am only starting down this project but i hope the little i know has been of some help.
As for custom devices, well thats a whole other ball game, you will need to make out a schematic, then a board layout, then gerber files. After that you need a small run on a pick and place / reflow line. It's very rare these work out first time round, attention has to be paid to details like noise sinking, pull up resistors, matching logic levels and optically isolating external devices etc.
It's great that you are looking beyond your course material, I've learned much more from personal geekery rather than just taking notes from a lecturer. Anything you do outside the course will benefit you in a better degree at the end.
I've never been designing device from scratch, and I'm also just first grade student. Anyway I could imagine how this might look for small company or single person:
1) Decide what do you want to build-up. Easiest todo is custom dev-board, it can be always redesigned and packed into tablet case. The hardest to-do is mobile phone, and it's nearly impossible to create such thing due to high level of embedding everything, and need to sign pretty serious agreements with RF CPU (and other things like transceivers, antennas, duplexers) supplier like Infineon or Qualcomm.
2) Think what main components you'll need, like LPDDR, SoC (CPU), PMIC (SoC manufacturer usually recommend PMICs to be used and provide reference board schemas for using both), battery fuel gauge, charging controller (both might be built into PMIC, depends on model), screen+touchscreen (there are dozens of such, one might want to decide its size already, but in case of dev-board like build it usually can be replaced by some smaller/bigger with small HW modifications or without modifications at all), sensors like gyro, compass, pressure, light, whatever.
3) Search through suppliers websites and decide what models of ICs you want to use (I'd pick only open hardware), order engineering samples and get reference schemas, rather start from SoC(OMAP4460 for eg.)+PMIC pair, then decide about the rest.
4) Don't forget about extension slots like USB ports, DC supply, serial converters, whatsoever.
5) Start designing PCB board. IMO it's impossible for begginer to project any usable PCB for embedded system, I'm begginer and I'm failing with simplest boost HF DC/DC converters (like 10-20 parts on board), while such board would have thousands of elements on it, and multi layer board to fit it everything in some rational size.
6) Find company that will make prototype for you - they should make board + solder all the components you provide them - one with no professional (and very, very expensive) soldering stations is not able to solder BGA components at home.
7) Test it out.
Relatively, assuming that main components are free engineering samples, this might be not so money-expensive way to create some useful stuff. But for sure it's very, very time expensive, and begginer alone will nearly for sure fail.
//edit:
I just re-read my post and figured it might be pretty demotivating. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I'd suggest you to start from something easier - ARM dev board is the thing you need. As Quiggers stated above.
Just noticed these - cheap and powerful dev boards:
http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Allwinner_A10#Other
Custom design
I'm looking to do the same, has this worked for you? I'm looking to build a custom android based mobile device as the original poster. I haven't had any look finding the correct electrical or device engineer to provide me any assistance. Are you available to assist?
Quiggers said:
that's an ambitious project, I've just finished 2 degrees in EE and in the long term i'm looking to do similiar projects, but right now it is beyond my capabilities. But what i have done is buy a very cheap dev kit from STmicroelectronics with their ARM m4 chip onboard. (STM32F4)
this chip should be powerful enough to get started on and all the pins are broken out, plus the device includes a programmer and is powered over usb.
It was less than €20 but is still sat in its box as I've a lot to learn before cracking it open.
Have you any experience with RTOS for ARM, Keil offer a free trial version of their well respected uVision MDK software, it supports the above board directly and removes the need to configure a tool chain etc. Personally i'm trying to get eclipse on ubuntu to program it bit Keil uVision will allow me to blink LED's etc so long as my program is under 4Kb.
I too am only starting down this project but i hope the little i know has been of some help.
As for custom devices, well thats a whole other ball game, you will need to make out a schematic, then a board layout, then gerber files. After that you need a small run on a pick and place / reflow line. It's very rare these work out first time round, attention has to be paid to details like noise sinking, pull up resistors, matching logic levels and optically isolating external devices etc.
It's great that you are looking beyond your course material, I've learned much more from personal geekery rather than just taking notes from a lecturer. Anything you do outside the course will benefit you in a better degree at the end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Technexion
I have used OMAP3530 CPU. The TAO3530 is a good starting point and you can get a Tsunami board.
s8500 board with tablet touchscreen
hi dudes,
i have an old wave s8500 but the screen is broken. and i have an old tablet screen 7" from herotab8/dropad8.
can i use the tablet screen with the s8500 board? is not drivers necessary for the touchscreen? and where will i get the drivers?
and do i not need the datasheets of the pins to connect?
)
What we REALLY need is for someone to make a SoC that's basically like the one in the Raspberry Pi, but substitutes a FPGA for the GPU that's big enough to re-implement GPU functionality... long after the chip has left the fab & gotten soldered onto an open-ended generic ARM stick with no specific purpose, and thus manages to officially avoid getting infected by DRM-mandated licensing terms (ie, anything *officially* licensed to support h.264 or HDMI) that keep making totally open drivers nearly impossible. After all, if the drivers were 100% open source, there's no way they can stop you from commenting out the part responsible for implementing Cinavia, or lying to endpoint devices (like your home theater amp) about HDCP compliance
To deflect infringement claims, a company that made Android boards from the FPGA-equipped SoCs could make it with a soldered-on DVI port instead of HDMI (HDMI connectors are encumbered by viral licensing, DVI isn't), and put a reference design on their website for a wacky octopus cable that used the DVI-A pins to output unbuffered 3-bit pseudo-VGA, and used the remaining pins as a high-density breakout connector for a bunch of half-duplex RS-485 ports and GPIO lines that just *happened* to use DVI/HDMI logic levels
Of course, you'd never be able to legally sell a product based upon that board to end users in the US with the taboo technologies supported "out of the box", but other companies outside the US not subject to our self-inflicted wackiness could, and hopefully WOULD, buy enough of those boards to drive the price down enough to make them cheap for American hobbyists to buy on eBay and use for our own guerrilla Android-powered hardware projects.
In theory, the Xilinx Zynq 7000 series sort of does this... but at the moment, they're so ungodly expensive, you could almost buy a half-dozen Nexus 7 tablets for the price of their Android-capable dev board.
sounds great dude
Nice
Nice post
Hardware for Android D
Its not even turning on now...guess i will have to take it to a computer shop now, are you sure it has to be major things like "dead hard drive to a burned up chip to a bad motherboard."?
I have been somewhat following the whole Phonebloks and ARA scene, participating in the Dscout missions, and generally have to say that there is a lot of buzz and hype with very little meat behind it. The general populace is thinking legos, colors, fancy shmancy materials, and other appearance related nonsense. There seems to be very little technical content, and the majority of the crowd seems to be lured by key words such as "eco", "reusable", "repairable", "customizable" and so on.
Certainly, in terms of driving sales, this is good attention, something Motorola needs.
The downside, however, seems to be that people do not understand how things work, have no patience for it, and want things to "just work."
I highly doubt that this will be something that is user friendly out of the box.
The biggest misconception seems to be that you will be able to build anything you want out of this. If this idea is not curbed, this project will fail. People will become disappointed. Already they seem to think that they can have an espresso maker and a telescope added to the thing.
On top of it all, Motorola has a track record of taking good ideas and executing them poorly. Think Atrix lapdock.
So what is the clear mission of this project?
Ease of repair? That can already be done using current production methods. Look at the iPhone vs Galaxy series in terms of screen replacement. Its night and day.
Reusing parts? What could you reuse from an iPhone 4 when building a 5s? The headphone jack? Batteries die, radios, memory, sensors, processors, become old news by the time they hit the assembly line, and screens evolve at a fast pace.
There is no mention of a core device with expansion bays, the project seems to suggest you could swap all basic components on the fly. This is nonsense. Is it really worth taking steps back to make separate little bricks for Bluetooth, Wifi, NFC, GSM radio, etc., when current production methods can squeeze these into a single system-on-chip design at a fraction of the cost?
Imagine for a minute if Googorola took the Moto X approach to hardware: You log into your Motomaker account, and at checkout you pick your options. 3 choices of screen size, 3 choices of processors, 3 choices of storage capacity, an 8, 13, or 16 Mpix camera, 3 different battery capacities, cdma, gsm, or global radio, etc., then once you select your hardware, you customize the case colors, and you're done.
I know this rant is way into the TL;DR territory, but there are other factors to consider, perhaps profitability being paramount. Open source phone, with open source modules, etc. How will Motorola make $ on this? How long till knock off modules hit the market? What is the pricing scheme, etc.
I would love to get a serious discussion going, touching on some of the things I brought up.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using xda app-developers app
I wouldn't say they're doomed from the start but their social network app and stuff seems pretty gimmicky to me. I definitely think that modular phones are in the future but they need to spend more time talking about the actual hardware and open sourcing drivers and stuff instead of their weird Instagram clone in my opinion. I'm still staying optimistic if they don't do it someone else will.
Sent using Tapatalk
Nice idea, but people here at xda would have a nightmare with such a thing, meaning rom development for every and each component combination.......
Lets ask ourselves, when would it be appropriate or papamount to upgrade a hardware component of any of our phones now? The reasoning now is more like, 'it would be cool if we could'. I cant think of any necessary reason now for needing to change harware unless it needs repair. I believe necessity should be a starting point for this whole concept. Necessity often drives truly good design.
I personally think that this would be good because of the fact that technology advances at such a rapid pace that being able to upgrade your components when a better version comes out would be good. Obviously there would be some compatibility issues between some parts that would be unavoidable. It would be more for the person who wants the high end device. Take me for example, I have the S4 and I love it but next year when the S5 comes out it wouldn't be the latest and greatest and I can't upgrade for two years. I could love a Moto X but I don't wanna pay the off contract price for it. So I think this is the only time it would be good and efficient, not a huge game changer but a slight game changer.
Also about the knock off or cheap parts, if they have the drivers and protocols open source than it shouldn't be to big of an issue, not anymore than buying a knock off replacement screen. Still something to look out for when buying modules.
I think that the idea from Phoneblocks or Ara are really good but I think that the project will prospere
Project Ara.
Being a modular design, brings complications, but with those complications comes new opportunities in the hardware section as well as the software side of the development.
The metric is quite valid and tangible, even more so today, wth the manufacturing techniques available, this idea actually makes far more sense than feeding the giant a steady diet of the same old thing.
You save money if all you require is a modified version of the RF section, you install that block.
The same goes for the remainder of the phone, easy upgrading, no downtime, and lower overall cost for the entire market, not to mention the lowering of landfill garbage from dumped devices that could not be upgraded.
The engineering end of this is wonderful, I wish it arrived years ago. A 'Lego-Phone' you build and upgrade as you need to, no more buying an aircraft carrier, when all you require is a shuttle.
We can finally drive the market, provide for ourselves, push manufacturers in the direction we need them to head, instead of driving us with their own thoughts on what is necessary.
I don't use much in the way of media, so anything more than 720P is of little use, but I do appreciate an HDMI-type format screen.
The RF section is far more important to my needs, and of course, a micro-SD card slot.
I prefer a sensitive front end, high dynamic range, and a superbly augmented IP3(third intercept point) as a basis for my receiver design.
I have grown tired of matchbox quality RF systems, and when in poor signal areas, or in a heavily wooded area with sparse cell tower penetration, i prefer my phone have the ability to connect with a site even if the RSSI indicates no signal, at least a data channel should be able to 'hear' a short text message for help if sent.
If the phone can't hear well, it can't talk well, either.
Most subscribers assume that cell signals are routed through the power lines*!*
I have had customers that actually said this...But this is the basis of my most desired and important 'want', a solid RF system, receiver and transmitter section that works!
High density areas have few problems with dropped calls, if the site loading is low, but in rural areas, loading is not an issue, it's accessibility, and sites spaced 10 miles apart, can actually have users drop calls even near by, due to dense foliage or hilly/mountainous terrain, even though the tower is within eyesight, you still drop a call. This is where fresnel zones come into play, and where a good RF section makes the difference.
If you think rain kills RF signals, see my pic I just snapped from my door, of the trees filled with heavy snow!
Poorly designed RF systems can't decode signals properly, the B.E.R suffers, causing message failures, call time-outs as well as just lousy QOS due to noise, echoing, raspy speech processing and a host of other problems.
The memory subsystems are important, as well as the GPU and video systems, but you can still make a call if the video drops, not so much if the RF section dies.
We all have our own desires, as well as what is most important to our needs, but overall, i do believe that project Ara is a great step in the right direction for a change....Where the customer drive the market, not the manufacturers!
Now I don't know if you were aware, but Google only owns Motorola's Research Lab. The actual company was purchased by Lenovo a few weeks ago.
Besides, I sort feel the same way, because, besides the hubbub, it doesn't seem like a very user friendly process in my mind. That's why I think it feels like nothing more than a research project with a couple of news reporters locked inside their facilities.
Sent from my ST21i using XDA app-developers app.
Don't forget to hit thanks if I helped!
In the beginning, they will have to offer options in a controlled environment like one poster abive said. It will be similar to
1. CHOOSE YOUR PROCESSOR:
a. Good
b. Better
c. Best
Etc etc....
The first question probably will be "Choose Your Carrier". Then all of the module choices will be pre-screened to function together on that network.
Samsung Galaxy S4 "Fort Knox Edition"
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
PenguinStyle said:
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just making sure it wasnt a misinterpretation but google did not create android, Android Inc founded by andy rubin(correct me if im wrong) http://www.techradar.com/news/phone...e-phones/a-complete-history-of-android-470327
PenguinStyle said:
Guys, believe in Google. They made a search engine wich is now the most used engine. They also made a very good browser, an operating system for mobiles, an online map wich has street view and many other good things. Why they couldn't make project ara?
Sent from my LG-P880 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All those things you mention are software, that runs on high performance computers. What ARA requires is a total rethinking of the hardware and engineering of today's mobile phones.
Can any module be swapped for some other type of module? How do they interface? What bandwidth limitations do these interfaces introduce?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
SynGates said:
All those things you mention are software, that runs on high performance computers. What ARA requires is a total rethinking of the hardware and engineering of today's mobile phones.
Can any module be swapped for some other type of module? How do they interface? What bandwidth limitations do these interfaces introduce?
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The ARA developers conference already answered most of this, so its possibility is not the question. Its availability and adaptability is the question. Will people flock to it or despise it?? Will it make people feel more in control?
If google can advertise this thing as something that gives people more power it will definitely catch on. Plus if Google is truly looking to start their own mobile network as rumoured, then they could start in that manner and make others envious to catch on.
Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
It's going to be a wait and see what happens on release thing I think. I don't personally don't think it's going to explode instantly onto the mobile scene but give it a year or two and hopefully it will start changing the game. With everything being open source it might pave the way for smaller companies to get into the handheld scene where they don't have the money or resources to develop full devices but can focus on just a single module. Much like the way of the custom pc market.
replicamask said:
It's going to be a wait and see what happens on release thing I think. I don't personally don't think it's going to explode instantly onto the mobile scene but give it a year or two and hopefully it will start changing the game. With everything being open source it might pave the way for smaller companies to get into the handheld scene where they don't have the money or resources to develop full devices but can focus on just a single module. Much like the way of the custom pc market.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My sentiments exactly.
Koreans will really fight against this project. They won't be willing to loose the cellular market to Google. ARA has a lot of potential in developing countries, provided the prices for modules will be adequate. But yes, even with adequate pricetag such innovation will require a drastic change in marketing-infected minds of people.
Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk 4
I hope it could work really well. I'd like to see the ability to transfer all the core modules from one endo 'frame' to another - SIM, WiFi, ROM, storage plus camera and perhaps CPU/RAM from a larger 'everyday' frame to a smaller 'night out' frame. I'd like an 'everyday' camera and a 'holiday' camera. I might carry a speaker module, but would swap it in against a torch module only for those occasions I'd need it. I'd carry spare battery modules and expect to see external chargers for them.
Didn't read the whole thread, but I'd say the whole "eco friendly" concept is BS from the beginning. People will start buying new components everytime they are out, thus generating MORE electric waste.
till22 said:
Didn't read the whole thread, but I'd say the whole "eco friendly" concept is BS from the beginning. People will start buying new components everytime they are out, thus generating MORE electric waste.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is possible and a good point. I think they could counter this by placing some inherent value on modules so you could trade them in for cash or credit towards other modules.
I think this will work much better than trading in phones since all modules should work for all ara phones.
What you all need to remember is that the microcomputer revolution didn't really become a mass market phenomenon until the IBM PC arrived with its open "Industry Standard Architecture". This allowed the rapid emergence of third party expansion cards and other "PC compatible" hardware, and "PC clones". Not only did this accelerate the pace of technology development it also pushed prices down significantly. If IBM had not made the PC architecture both expandable and open, general purpose computing would have remained an expensive and specialised tool available only to business and the very rich. Imagine the effect that wouls have had on the development of the worldwide web a decade later.
If you are of the generation who grew up uaing laptops you may not have realised that modular technology is cheaper and more flexible, and it means longer hardware lifecycles.
THIS IS A RESOURCE FOR SMARTWATCH MAKERS
Northern English pronoun & adverb for nothing is 'Nowt'. The Nowt smartWatch by XDA members.
The corporations won't make a good smartwatch due to greed, smaller firms can't, due to lack resources and software access/rights (more greed by corporations). Crowd funding has repeatedly failed, see Omate TS. Time for a simple revolution ... can XDA members (or the people in general) build a good smartwatch?
Software is one of the biggest issue, but can't a 1000+ committed, devs, electronic engineers, analyst, passionate horologists and very ... very tenacious dreamers attempt it? Starting with finding solutions to the most common issues faced by those who 'have already been there and not quite made it'? If there's one place where the right people are, its here on XDA.
Lots of debates about the issues have been made and forgotten, see the Omate TrueSmart threads and some blogs.
Here's one: http://www.smartwatchgroup.com/overview-smartwatch-industry/
http://www.xda-developers.com/smartwatches-had-no-year-again/ - another one, see @Lokifish Marz comments. Other comments below to start the discussion off . . . .
______________________________________________________________________________
@Lokifish Marz said:
General rules with Chinese Android smartwatches
Broken firmware
Major security holes
Little to no official support (this includes the phone side app)
English (or any other language other than Chinese) for the phone app is very rare
Incomplete source code (when you can even get it) that is a generic build pulled from a phone
Inconsistent battery life due to broken firmware
IP67 is more like IP54 if lucky
Poor build quality and QC by western standards
Not Lokifish supported (I've walked away from the industry as a whole until they get their collective heads out of their butts)
kuronosan's time is limited so fixes may be slow
Depending on your needs and goals. Talk to Ingenic. The HW is a little slow on the Newton (SmartQ Z uses it), not sure about the Newton 2. Either way they have source (Linux, Android, etc). The package is small enough that you could design and build a smartwatch that's about the same size as a real watch, but the display will need a new "crystal" to pull it off nicely. Find a compatible round display, and you should be able to use off the shelf watch cases with minor modifications giving you a 200m diver's smartwatch if you do it right.
*Side note
Even with a 1/2 million buy in for 3000 units we designed ourselves, Umeox still would not have provided source code, and little to no support. That's what the Chinese ODM's are like. kuronosan can verify this.
______________________________________________
@Lokifish Marz said:
JZ4775 supports;
Linux (image and source available from Ingenic)
Android (image and source available from Ingenic)
Wear (Com 1's prototype was running Wear before Google strong armed Com 1 and pretty much killed the company)
_________________________________________
simple1I said:
I've come to the conclusion that the only way to build a decent smartwatch is by 500 (or more) xda members coming together on a project:
- committing our own money.
- Electing a group of experts.
- HARDWARE - building from scratch,
- SOFTWARE - take what's out there and amend it.
- trawling thru members ideas.
- People powered, no management, no profits. Not even kickstarter.
The advantage over all other watches would be the 'no profits', so a good quality long lasting watch could be crafted.
I'll leave it for someone else to post the disadvantages...
____________________________________________________
@Lokifish Marz said:
- You would still need some sort of hierarchy.
- 15-20% net profit cap would still be much lower than the industry and allow for growth.
- HW is not the big issue. SW, case design and source are
- ODMs deal in +1000 unit lots so the "buy in" is very expensive
Let's just say this comes from a been there, tried that perspective minus the xda member support. XDA members were not approached, neither was the public, due to one main reason. Corporations with far more purchasing power and capitol are known for "borrowing". Especially in China.
This is of course off topic so back to Mars I go.
____________________________________________
So . . . the software and stealing ideas and people is an issue, how can we overcome these?
If this goes anywhere I'll contribute, and also see if I can get Watch U Seek involved.
Maybe a WUS/XDA collaborative work smartwatch? If that happened, that alone would have a lot of pull in both the traditional and smartwatch communities.
XDA/WUS watch project
Lokifish Marz said:
If this goes anywhere I'll contribute, and also see if I can get Watch U Seek involved.
Maybe a WUS/XDA collaborative work smartwatch? If that happened, that alone would have a lot of pull in both the traditional and smartwatch communities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For those that dont know WatchuSeek is the largest watch forum, @Lokifish Marz - would you like to post a thread on WUS or shall I, its just that you'll receive more attention or I can start it and you can add your support?
CEO of OnePlus, Pete Lau's excellent interview, one former hardware employee of Oppo that made a successfull product in 1.5 years with only five employees. How did they start? With lots & lots of community ideas, we (the XDA community) to a certain extent already have loads of ideas and feedback already, we have learned a lot of the Omate Truesmart watch failure and Lokifish Marz has (i'm sure others too) have already attempted the first iteration, this is all feedback and ideas to base the new watch on.
@E:V:A - you mentioned - http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=52695562&postcount=28 -
There are plenty of HW/SW experts who'd have been willing to contribute for free (including myself) to an awesome product, but in hindsight, Omate's primary purpose was clearly to become rich quickly, and not to create or build.
The most important success indicators are:
1) How you handle customer issues
2) How you keep your product's marketing promises
3) How fast you can deliver the product
4) How you get and keep an expert team
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you say?
Get as many core points covered as possible (devs and the like), then approach WUS members. I'm still pretty much unknown there (most of my stuff is in the Russian section) but have no issue posting on WUS once HW/SW folks are on board. I suggest this route because traditional watch lovers are a very hard sell and the more flashed out it is, the greater chance of getting folks on board.
Like I've said elsewhere, my ideas at this point are up for grabs so here's a partial list off the top of my head;
PCB and battery same size as display or smaller
Design it as if it's a dial and movement, allowing for greater case variation
1-2mm border between edge of display and case max
Dress = 1 crown, no pushers
Sports = 1 crown, 2 pushers
Diver = same as sports but sealable mic port and functional bezel
42mm or smaller (the big watch thing is starting to go out of style anyways)
Square designs based in iconic square watches
I also personally suggest Acrylic "crystals" on certain models. The may be easier to scratch but near impossible to shatter, and most scratches can be buffed out.
I also suggest playing with the concept of lume in the display itself on certain models. It has some technical hurdles but has a number of advantages. One being that as long as you have a light source (flashlight, etc) you can "recharge" the "secondary passive backlight" (lume) and get a couple hours of night adjusted eyesight visibility without the use of a backlight. The battery savings is obvious.
In response to your list;
Set standards, warranty terms and procedures early and stick to them. Back it up with people that care and know the product first hand
Don't approach the market until a fully functional prototype with all the features exists.
Don't offer it til in a position where all you need to do is send the money to the ODM for production of the final product.
Not sure about the get part but, the team needs to be seen as being a part of the device itself. I even had the idea of using microdots or micro engraving the teams names into the inside of every watch. The physiological reasons are obvious. If there is a pay thing, that's what business planners and accountants are there for.
@Lokifish Marz - I see this will take a lot of planning, I haven't forgotten, I'm thinking things thru.
The most important question is, will this project be for a stand-alone or a notifier? This will determined what support we'll get form the community.
Greetings,
I am a senior Electrical Engineer with 9 year experience and I do PCB design for a living. I am interested in helping this project. To start with, we need a list of what we want / need in the design, a wish list. From there we can put together a plan for building the circuit board, the specifications document. Let me know if you can use me. I do have access to PCB layout and design tools, and experience using them.
As long as you dont mind MIPS android, you could use the M200, from igenic. They provide Android or linux based sources, and the newton2 dev chip is cheap, $100.
Edit: I forgot to add: 1.2 gHz plus a low power core, along with active voice recognition.
If you get this off the ground, I will help with UI, concept, and clock design and offer any other assistance I can provide.
I know we don't have enough support at the moment, but can we start with some ideas based on past experiences.
Standalone like the InWatch Z or a notifier like the Qualcomm Toq? Both of these examples are best thing we have to a decent attempt at a smartwatch.
Should we build a notifier or a Standalone? Or like the LG Urbane both.
One idea I've been thinking about, would a color screen like the new Pebble Time work with Android? I don't think it would handle video, the battery life would be an advantage.
I don't think a standalone device is really practical as a first try. I believe there are regulations in the EU and US, regarding basebands and IMEIs, that the small Chinese companies just ignore. Also, if you are thinking of using off-the-shelf cases then getting decent reception for phone antenna becomes a big problem and using a special strap for it, as some manufacturers do, would not be an option.
As someone who has been wearing a Mimi mi-w3 for the last few months I would never again consider a watch that doesn't have an always on, sunlight readable screen and I suspect that may well be true for many other people. Perhaps you could put together some kind of poll or survey?
Pseud O'Nym said:
I don't think a standalone device is really practical as a first try. I believe there are regulations in the EU and US, regarding basebands and IMEIs, that the small Chinese companies just ignore. Also, if you are thinking of using off-the-shelf cases then getting decent reception for phone antenna becomes a big problem and using a special strap for it, as some manufacturers do, would not be an option.
As someone who has been wearing a Mimi mi-w3 for the last few months I would never again consider a watch that doesn't have an always on, sunlight readable screen and I suspect that may well be true for many other people. Perhaps you could put together some kind of poll or survey?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're 100% right about the W3. It would really be hard to go back to a watch that was unreadable out doors.
chainsol said:
As long as you dont mind MIPS android, you could use the M200, from igenic. They provide Android or linux based sources, and the newton2 dev chip is cheap, $100.
Edit: I forgot to add: 1.2 gHz plus a low power core, along with active voice recognition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ingenic has been at the top of my list for some time for those very reasons.
simple1i said:
Should we build a notifier or a Standalone? Or like the LG Urbane both.
One idea I've been thinking about, would a color screen like the new Pebble Time work with Android? I don't think it would handle video, the battery life would be an advantage.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Companion should be first. The display is a preference thing. I don't like E-Ink due to it's low ppi, poor refresh rates and ghosting. A smooth UI will require something else. I still think transflectives are the way to go for a number of reasons, and a black transflective (Sony SW2) is better than silver (inWatch). I still have yet to play with the secondary backlight but will as soon as I figure out what smartwatch to sacrifice to test it.
I saw your post about a case in another thread. The problem with most smartwatch cases is they are not designed to the same standards as a traditional case. There are also far more watch case manufacturers than smartwatch case manufacturers due to smartwatches being completely in-house. That allows for more base variations and most likely lower costs.
Off topic- Latest watch project. Original on the left, finished mod on the right.
Standalone
Remember for standalone: we'd have to go through all of the certifications for connections in the us, and for Android in general, to have google apps, we'd have to pay for inspection: 25 to 75k.
chainsol said:
Remember for standalone: we'd have to go through all of the certifications for connections in the us, and for Android in general, to have google apps, we'd have to pay for inspection: 25 to 75k.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Straight Android = No official certification, ever.
Wear = Google partners only.
Linux = No limitations, but it has to be a truly complete package.
Lokifish Marz said:
Straight Android = No official certification, ever.
Wear = Google partners only.
Linux = No limitations, but it has to be a truly complete package.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aha, I misread an article slightly, we'd be using a pretty standard version of Android, with no competition to Google, so you are absolutely right.
Watch size and case design
Case sizing
Something often ignored in the smartwatch world is proper case sizes. It's almost as if they are betting that the recent (past 5-10 years) over sized watch fad continues so they can ignore what is considered proper watch sizing. Speak with any watchmaker or jeweler with a reputation for quality and you will get some very simple rules.
A proper fitting watch should never be wider than your wrist. The strap should also never droop over the wrist. Apparently smartwatch makers never got that 100 year old memo;
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Now there is a simple guide to proper sizing that many in the watch community agree on. It's called the the "Golden Ratio". The golden ratio is probably one of the most common seen ratios seen in the world. Architects, painters, car designers, and even nature uses it.
Now there cannot be a one size fits all of course, but you can get close. First one has to take into account certain commonalities in wrist sizes. The average man's wrist is about 7.5 inches in diameter, and the average woman's wrist is around 6 inches. A 40mm case diameter it puts you in between too large for women with small wrists, and too small for men with larger wrists. Additionally, if you look at the entire Rolex large unisex collection, it averages out to about 40mm. Other quality/luxury brands are also about the same.
At 40mm diameter it puts the near ideal display size at 31-33mm in diameter, or 1.2-1.3in . This allows for a Sports and Diver's model with functional bezel while giving enough leeway for a slightly smaller "dress" watch. Another factor in case design is the case/bezel to crystal ratio.
Bezel to display ratio
Dress/Formal
On most dress/formal watches they have a case/bezel to crystal ratio of about 1:0.937. This means the display diameter is 93% that of the case/bezel diameter. This allows for two things. Larger display or smaller case. Traditionally, dress/formal watches are smaller in size so I suggest a smaller case for this group.
Sports/Diver's
Here that average ratio is 1:0.8, or 80%. This gives a bezel that is not too fat or too thin while retaining enough width for markings.
Display resolution
240x240 and 320x320 are a little short on ppi. 400x400 is slowly coming available which puts a 1.2-1.3in display over the 300ppi mark should a source for such a size be found. This also puts the display at Nexus 4/iPhone 5 level of detail.
Square vs Round
Square smartwatches are often referred to as "not a watch" by the uninitiated. This is of course very far from the truth. Some of the generally agreed upon iconic watches are square. Part of the issue with smartwatches is an attractive square design is difficult. A perfect square is unpleasant to the eye but the wasted space around square displays is equally unpleasant. There is also the issue of orientation of rectangular displays. Most are horizontal which leads to a "fat watch" look. If square displays are to be used then a taper at the top and bottom should be used or a minimalist design. Here's some examples;
Tapered (tapered poses an issue with overall length being too great unless smaller displays are used)
Minimalist (even with lugs this can be a very attractive design)
(This is all based on a ton of research, informed smartwatch users complaints, and traditional watch users complaints, with a dash of personal opinion for flavor.)
EDIT:
Something to investigate. If a more suitable size can be found with a decent capacity or even custom size.
It's easier to go companion and add features than standalone and add companion.
In terms of open-source smartwatch,there is an important development going on here!
Check the github repo, it's almost ready!
First a watch...
So as long as we don't have huge opposition (which is unlikely) it's agreed then, we'll build a companion watch.
But like most 'everyday watch' it needs lots of functions that make it a good watch first, that can also do excellent notifications. My backup & most trusted watch is a Casio Protek, it just works all the time . . . can't really afford a Rolex, which also 'always works' too with greater style & class. But I must say as classless as a Casio may be to some, its like a Toyota, not much to look at, but reliable. No offence to anyone, I have both.
By a good watch, I mean stylish, durable with enough functions that it can be used/worn without a phone, as a time peice, as a sports aid with lots of sensors to make it alive. So in a matter of speaking it needs to be a like a standalone minus the SIM.
Still lots of discussion about the hardware is needed, but we really need to also start a serious and challenging discussion about the software/OS, here's where most smartwatch' fail, however we have a huge pool of talent on XDA. I intentionally haven't posted any announcement on the other (Sony, Samsung, Pebble) forums, because we need to get some general idea for the software first then get others to help develop those ideas, else we'll might be flooded with too many suggestions.
So software?
Web OS, no or no? [emoji51]
Wear is a no & can't
Linux was mentioned...?
Linux for the Ingenic is available and GPL compliance should not be an issue. Would be a foundation and up build which is more difficult, but could be tailored specifically to our needs unlike Android or Wear.
WebOS has a lot of potential and is open source as well but HW specific source may not be available for Ingenic. That requires somebody very familiar with WebOS to work with Ingenic on building it. Again, compliance should not be an issue.
NucleusOS may be an option but not sure if they have an Ingenic build and full GPL compliance may be an issue.
Anybody here familiar with what going on the BSD side of things? I ask because GPLv2 and GPLv3 are not compatible with each other and allows for proprietary code to be withheld. BSD licenses are more a "as long as you give me credit" type setup and is far more open/flexible than GPL.
If I missed anything let me know.
Hi guys, I am the owner of OXY SmartWatch, a new SmartWatch available in two versions: Round and Square.
Here a few preview renders of our final product:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
This is our website:
http://www.oxytechs.com/
And our Google+ page where you can follow our progresses:
https://www.google.com/+Oxytechswatch
The watch is running Android 4.4 AOSP and we have built a custom version of Android that is more feasible for SmartWatches than Android WEAR. Plus we have custom Android Studio templates to work with our product and we give the possibility to install any ROM without breaking warranty or support.
In this thread I want to share with this community a preview of the Watch and our links.
We are also looking for Android Developers, Android Kernel Developers and iOS Developers.
We also accept candidates from remote locations so feel free to share with us at info[at]netarchitectures[dot]co[dot]uk your resume or feedbacks about our product.
If you want to join our Developer Program, follow this link:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/android/software/oxy-smartwatch-development-t3185452
The watches have:
CPU MIPS M200 Dual Core
512 MB RAM
4 GB Disk Space
Heart Rate Sensor
Vibration
AMOLED Touch display covered with Gorilla Glass
Speakers and Microphones
Magnetic contact charging mechanism
Gyroscope, Accellerometer and Magnetometer
Bluetooth 4.0 and BLE Compatible with iOS and Android and PC
Light sensor
400 mAh LiPo Battery
72 hours with BLE and 1 week without Bluetooth enabled
Stainless steel IPV6 water proof
Right now we are working at our website www[dot]OXYTECHS[dot]com and for the end of August you will be able to see the full product description, accessories and various demo.
The 15th of November 2015 we will open the PRE-SALE Campaign.
We have a batch of 5,000 pieces available per model, so a total of 20,000 pieces:
5,000 Round Stainless Steel
5,000 Round Black Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Stainless Steel
5,000 Square Black Stainless Steel
This project is related to the porting of IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform) for OXY SmartWatches.
The platform IWOP is available here for download: http://iwop.ingenic.com/.
OXY is giving hardware development kit to each developer who is willing to contribute to the platform.
Attached to this thread there are architecture views, UX mocks and interaction design about the OXY custom ROM.
More details related to OXY are available here: http://www.oxytechs.com/
OXY ROM is composed by:
A watchface manager
Home launcher
Control manager app
Settings app
Apps navigator
A set of utilities apps delivered with the product
XDA:DevDB Information
OXY SmartWatch V 1.0, ROM for the Android General
Contributors
raffaeu
Source Code: http://iwop.ingenic.com/
ROM OS Version: 4.4.x KitKat
ROM Kernel: Linux 3.10.x
Based On: IWOP
Some preview videos of OXY ROM:
Notifications Manager
Watchfaces Manager
Phone Calls Manager
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Lokifish Marz said:
Only IPx6, multiple (more than 3) actions to access key info and apps for "Probably 249 or 299"? Hard sell, even with custom ROM support.
On the square version, a bezeless display is easily possible if the PCB and battery are not larger in area than the display area.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi Lokifish and thank you for your feedback.
The answer you mention is about the Black version, which is full Black Stainless Steel, including the wristband. Consider that only the wristband has a production cost of 28$ (without VAT) the price of 249$ does not look that bad to me. Think about OLIO SmartWatch, it's a full Stainless Steel watch with locked ROM and it's sold for almost 600$ a piece.
About the square version, we couldn't find ANY manufacturer in Taiwan, China and Singapore capable to produce a full baseless square display, only round can be baseless but if you know any manufacturer capable of making AMOLED display squared with Gorilla Glass I would be more than happy to get your help, we are still in the beta version of our product and any feedback is welcome and well appreciated.
The OLIO is also design by watchmakers, uses 316L SS, and has a water resistance 50 times greater than that IPx7 with no time limit like IPx7 has.
As far as the band, you can get decent quality folded SS bands for around $15-20 USD at full retail price.
A bezeless square display can be done. It requires an approach not seen in smartwatches though that makes assembly a little more difficult but is still doable. Also, "Off the shelf" designs simply don't cut it as it requires the "crystal" be cut a certain way.
Have your guys look over "U.I Design", "Why this Martian.. ", and "I bet your smartwatch..." links in my signature below. Feel free to pick my brain and use the information in the links. The minimum I ask is that you give proper credit if you use any of it.
Looking at your G+ posts, nice job with the Ingenic BTW. I designed and built a smartwatch using the same platform. Too bad I killed it during a 5 ATM water resistance test.
Hi Lokifish, again useful details and feedback.
You are right, a nice and decent band is probably available on AliExpress for less than 20 bucks, but we made our with a different manufacturer and for the first batch we ended up with a cost of 28$.
This is another reason why we want to get this project into the community, to get feedback and suggestions from people that faced these problems before us.
About OLIO, of course they used high quality materials, a nice design, but I personally disagree about the ROM and UX choices (but this is my personal feeling). The point for me it's about the price. Pebble manufacturer their watch for 18$ and sell it for almost 199$, now dropped to 149$ if I am not wrong.
We are a startup and we will probably endup in some incubators or crowdfunding website in order to start the mass production. Probably the price will be around 199$ on retail but again, the prices and costs we are facing are a bit different than the one faced by watchmakers that have been on the market for many years.
What we believe is different between OXY and the rest of the world is the community, we want to make an open product, we want to make the customer capable to install custom ROM, customize the body and more. This is where we see the added value that other watch makers do not have at the moment.
@Lokifish Marz - thanks for the reply and pointing out OXY ... I feel like there's ... just a little hope ... maybe
@raffaeu - please take into account Lokifish Marz's advice, he will be very valuable to you, from a historical, current & future point of view. You'll save a lot of time and effort.
There are only a few people in the world that can make a decent, let alone a 'good smartwatch', due to greed/profit, but it can be done with the right goals and vision. Always know your history! Courtesy to the Martian ... again
I'm not a techy as such, but an important aspect of a good product is the non-functional business aspects, how to make a robust watch and then marketing, communication, support, together with making a little profit of course. Techies alone can't do this (no offense). Out of desperation we started the Nowt Watch thread, please have read, some very interesting discussion. No doubt you're at a stage where you can't go back with your current products, but we can always better our understanding and add to our knowledge and experiences.
I purchased an Omate clone recently (I had to get it out of my system), some of the non-techy issues, charging it - a pain! Straps - awful! A companion watch, should still be like a stand-alone watch first, meaning, above all its a robust time-piece that many can/would use without a phone as maybe a sports and leisure watch.
I'm curious, what does OXY mean? You have my support if you want it. I used to be a software tester, as well as marketing, strategy, process ... all that boring important stuff. Good luck
@Lokifish Marz has some interesting articles and idea that we are taking into consideration. Our primary targets are:
make an open source product
build a brand and trust from the community
make a real watch, solid, durable and with style
We designed OXY to being able to run with a phone and without, in fact without the battery stay charged for almost 1 week. Secondly is the charger which is magnetic, so that our customers are not having the frustration of the USB cable pain.
We are here to get feedback, idea and of course help. Anybody is welcome to join us, we are also hiring so anything is possible. Of course we are a startup so we still need to pay salaries and bills but we are not willing to become rich but we are willing to build a trusted brand for IoT products and more precisely for smartwatch. I always say that OXY is a mission for me and not a company.
OXY is an acronym for oxygen, something that you need and that's required to humans to live.
Feel free to contact me @simple1i and we can discuss further our project. In the meantime I'll have a look at your links.
Oh I see Oxy. I do like the name Horology, that's what all good (smart)watch lovers are, there's an idea for a name of a smartwatch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you decided to used Android because it's the cheaper/faster (way to get it up and ready) option? Do you have Playstore on the OXY? Google can be very awkward about this.
Listening to the tech' community is a good thing, but for a 'fine dining' watch the experts are few, you need the Horologists, the real trick to to know what opinions to take on and what to discard. Then its a matter of goods ideas/functions vs costs. This might be a tough one to address, but the OXY needs to be either better then the Moto 360 2's (rumoured specs) or similar with a lower cost. So far I'm impressed. I am waiting to see what Pebbles does with the I/O port on the back of their watch, what hardware add-ons will they come up with? A good future proof strategy for them to expand functionality.
I'll be in touch.
@simple1i it was not easy, we had to search for conflicts with other trademarks, copyright and we also needed something simple to pronounce considering that our product will be sold worldwide. OXY sound easy but it is still a nice sound to pronounce
Our PCB is an extension of Ingenic Newton2. We had to modify the plug for the display because the original one was not enough for round and square displays plus we added an heart rate, a vibration motor a different Bluetooth and a Lipo battery of 400mAh. We changed the USB port and overall we came up with the cheapest but more flexible solution.
Why? Because we have a public AOSP for Android 4.4 and Linux which means that our product can fit any development configuration without any license problems. Just use git, download our AOSP and create your own smartwatch.
Google play will be added later, as I said our goal is to provide an open platform with a default set of apps but without any license or warranty limit. Our license and warranty will cover only the hardware, about the software our customers will be able to fully customize the product.
For sure v1 won't be perfect, for sure we will need time to build up a community but based on the fact that we have an AOSP on git, that you can easily make custom apps with Android studio and that our price range will be lower than other android smartwatches, I think and hope that our product will be well known very soon.
Finally, we will run a crowdfunding but our mass production is already set. A big, big advantage compared to other crowdfunding campaigns
Unless Google has retroactively changed a number of things and not published it, official Google Services support (certification, service framework, Play Store, etc) is a no go. A couple of smartwatch manufacturers found out the hard way, one of which made it into tech news because of it. That's just one of many sites that covered it and I was working directly with Omate at the time this happened. The only smartwatches with official support run Wear, which requires partnership status.
Here's a good place to start
@Lokifish Marz partnership status is a no go. Also Pebble tried somehow to have a sort of partnership with Google, even if Pebble does not run Android at all, but they go a big no. Regarding Android WEAR, we have submitted in June 2 requests including draw, project details, hardware details and more and we never got an answer from anybody. We know that our OXY can run Android WEAR, we also took apart the SDK of Android WEAR to see how it works and at the end we choose to stay Open Source and give up on Google WEAR for now. Then in the future anything can happen, we are totally open to any conversation but our mission is to make an Open Source Smartwatch, so having a smartwatch locked down by Android WEAR .apk is not our business model right now. The giant Samsung has left Android WEAR and also OLIO did not even approach Google at all. Why? Probably because Google is taking some business decisions that cannot fit all watchmakers out there right now.
About Google Play, that's a different story. Our current hardware is better than Asus Zenwatch and the Moto 360 v1.0, the only limit for Google Play is the resolution. Our Round watch has a resolution of 400x400 while the squared has a resolution of 320x320 and we are using the same displays manufacturers used by LG and ASUS. But again, when you talk about smartwatch, you open a Pandora Box. It is the new business for any manufacturer, Forbes announced an estimation of over 30 billion dollars business between now and 2020.
But again, we can manually install Google Play and it just works fine, so what's the point here? We need first to create a community, distribute our product with a basic ROM so that users can receive notifications, phone calls, download and create watchfaces and all the things you want to achieve with a smartwatch. We have already setup an Azure play store where any developer can grab our SDK and our Genymotion virtual image, create apps and distribute them via our Cloud.
Then, probably next year, we will see how the things go and we will be able to present again a request to Google for both, Android WEAR and Google Play.
Again, I have spent now almost 1 year in R&D and I feel confident that Android WEAR is a closed business. You must be a big firm otherwise is a no go for now. About Google Play I am more positive but only time will say. For now we are focused on our website and marketing campaign, building a community and customizing our existing ROM and SDK. Btw, if you look at the potentialities of OXY, we have already a more powerful product in terms of frameworks and hardware, than a Pebble, which has sold more than 1,---,--- pieces between 2012 and 2015. We also got a conversation with Cyanogen which gave us a go to customize Cyanogen for OXY but at this point is worth to have our own Open Source Android version and move from there with the help of the community.
I get the issues with Wear and Google, I've been there multiple times. I also agree that open source is needed for the development community. The issue with not having Google Services support (Play Store) on an Android based smartwatch is that a fully stocked app store needs to be in place and filled with all big names like Facebook, EAT24 and the like and properly formatted to the display/UI/UX. If not, it severely limits your customer base. That's why many of the Chinese based smartwatches have had a hard time getting traction.
Now if you have a long haul plan that brings in average Joe smartwatch and watch buyer on, lets say, v.2 that's great. Keep in mind that after the multitude of less than stellar attempts by others, both xda and G+ can be very unforgiving. Especially if crowdfunding is involved.
This is starting to get into areas where private conversation may be justified so lets table this until after you make a decision. Then we can pick it up elsewhere.
@Lokifish Marz you got the point and probably you got it because you have been there before us. The only big difference thing is that we want to build a smartwatch, I don't think it would be of any use having a squeezed Facebook or Google+ app on your 400 pixels smartwatch. We are focusing on other criteria.
Motion track so that you don't have to press a button to view the time, real time notifications that when received turn on the display and show the notifications on top of the watch and many other watch oriented functionalities. V1 will give to crowdfunders a working "companion", a smartwatch that is a smartwatch, a companion app that can download .apk and install them and a decent SDK that allows developer to create custom apps and watchfaces or customize existing functionalities.
I am open to have a nice conversation with you guys. This month I'll visit China and Taiwan soon, where we are manufacturing the watches but it would be nice to setup a private call/chat for when I'll be back. Probably you know better than anybody else other members of XDA that may be seriously interested and involved in the project.
Update
We are preparing some VMs on Azure running Ubuntu LT12 with our Android AOSP source code.
Right now we have 3 versions for the AOSP: Android Square watch, Android Round watch, Ubuntu Touch.
Compilation is quite easy, for Android is something like:
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_wisesquare_iwop
./build/smk.sh --preset=oxy_v11_naturalround_iwop
Next step for us is to host the whole repository over a public Git and distribute the Ubuntu VM so that anybody can start to download the VMs (already synchronized) and contribute. As soon as everything is ready I will open a different thread and start to have private conversations with the people interested in the OXY project.
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
simple1i said:
Re: Ingenic Newton2 - (someone made this point) you can buy the Newton1 or Newton2 as a devkit, but you cannot buy the modules wholesale. So this isn't truly a SoM - it isn't meant to buy off the shelf and integrate into a product. It's meant to be a reference design that you can either copy, or tweak, or modify in to suit.
In other words, with Newton, you're still going to need to have someone manufacture and assemble PCBs, and it'll require a normal (and expensive, unpleasant) certification process. A true SoM would come pre-certified, making that process a lot easier (you still need to do a certification, but one one that's much less rigorous and costs a lot less)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@simple1i You got the point. We bought Newton2 and made our watch using 3D print. Later we joined IWOP (Ingenic Watch Open Platform) which is a custom version of Android but more powerful than WEAR and better designed. At that point Ingenic gave us access to resources that are absolutely not available to private, so you can purchase the Newton2 dev kit but you cannot go far without their IWOP platform.
After that, we joined a partnership with two manufacturers, which are partners of Ingenic, and start to built our PCB and changed the Display (the display of Newton2 kit sucks, it has only 130 DPI).
About certifications, there are two phases. First you need to be sure that your PCB is ready for mass production, second, when the smartwatch is ready, you have to make IFC and CE at minimum, depending on where you want to sell. And this is the most painful part cause especially for CE, the process is long and full of obstacles. Consider that products like Pebble or other crowdfunded watches were shipped without any certification cause they were T2 prototypes expressly produced for the crowdfund campaign.
It looks like a nice piece of kit - in fact I love the design, it actually looks like a watch! Unfortunately, I'm not really sold on the idea of buying a 'smart' device where there's a very good chance of there being zero app development. Android Wear is rubbish right now (and of course, as you say, is a closed platform which creates big issues for us 'experimental' types and smaller organisations like yours trying to bring a device to market) but at least it's a group of companies working towards a common goal - in my mind that's far more likely to foster a community of developers than yet another smartwatch platform with a small userbase which will depend on yet another third party companion app and the headaches that creates with ongoing OS updates and trying to properly handle notifications and other interactions with the host device. I love the Pebble platform and larger ecosystem - I find the hardware and usage model vastly preferable to Wear (passively lit displays and buttons vs backlit displays and touchscreens, though I prefer the black and white ones, the Time lacks the contrast that makes the OG so easy to use AS A WATCH.) but they're odd looking devices which are 'obviously' not normal watches (not that I care, but I guess most people do) and the companion app has serious issues - they tend to get fixed fairly promptly but other app updates cause new issues pretty frequently - I still can't figure out how to stop it giving me notifications from the GMail app twice... What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Azurael said:
What makes you think you could even do as well as a company who easily garners the kind of support they do on Kickstarter (and hence probably has a sizeable budget for a development team)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@Azurael you make a good point here.
I do not want to talk about WEAR because it's obvious that WEAR is the biggest market so far, but only because Google is pushing really hard to get tons of Watchfaces and Apps available for their platform. Also, comparing ourself to WEAR will sound very arrogant. We will never be able to become big like Google WEAR community and this is not the mission of OXY.
About Pebble, if you look at their backlog, most of the incoming releases have bug fixes and enhancements of the Firmware. And this is after almost 4 years (Pebble started in 2012). They sold their crowdfunding watch made of plastic, without heart rate, without AMOLED touch display and without microphone or speakers (1 version of pebble) for a range between 99$ and 149$. We will sell OXY for 199$ in PRE-SALE, and in my opinion that's a great deal compared to the hardware of the Pebble.
So, on our side we played the "partnership role" with Ingenic Semiconductor. Ingenic has developed an entire platform on top of Android AOSP called IWOP (Ingenic Wearable Open Platform). It is a set of APIs that allows you to achieve exactly the same results of WEAR but even more. It is designed specifically for Ingenic Hardware so it uses less energy, it is bug free because the hardware is tested and provided by Ingenic (so no issues with multiple smartwatches vendors) and it is already largely adopted in Asia. The advantage is that behind us there is a big hardware company which supplies already thousands of pieces to Chinese manufacturers, so it is in their interest to keep the platform up to date and bug free.
Of course we lack on apps, this is the only problem of OXY and I am totally aware of, but I am not worry about it. When Pebble came out, and same applies for WEAR, there were almost no apps or watchfaces available. After a couple of years of adoption the marketplace became bigger and bigger and now the two platforms are well known. Compared to Apple Watch, our SDK is way more powerful and more developer friendly.
We will play the same strategy here, except that we have already commissioned almost 100 apps to an external Software House in order to have a pre-set of free apps available on our platform as soon as we will be out with our PRE-SALE campaign. Than, we will start our "developer program" which will grant to each developer a free OXY smartwatch and access to all our documentation and articles. In addition to Pebble or WEAR with OXY you can also create your own ROM, your own Home Launcher and customize even the kernel. I am sure that many developers will be happy to put their hands on such a platform and get a smartwatch for free.
We have already discussed with Ingenic this topic and they are eager to expose their platform to the US/EU market, considering also that we will be the first company selling MIPS architecture in EU and US I feel confident that the gap about the lack of apps will be covered soon.
On the business plan, we will probably feed the platform for 2015/2016, so a low margin of profit will be generated but again this is not our plan (to generate money) but to make an open platform for smart devices. I think that it's important for us to explain exactly our mission in order to get the right amount of followers. Plus a bit of "viral marketing" would be beneficial too
Hardware talk
On the hardware side, could you have added more sensors if there was a need for them? And are any disadvantages for adding lots of extras sensors, like power consumption, over heating or less space to work on the PCB? Of course for every sensor you need an app for it.
Others might disagree with this view, that sensors make a device comes alive, the watch can sense more about its environment, just like a living thing. Also with the open source OS and SDK devs can make use of more of the sensors, making the watch a multi purpose device. I was hoping for a compass, it's one of those things that many won't use but like the idea of having it, just like a Swiss Army knife.
A barometer with a compass and heart rate monitor, could appeal to the sportsman. The Suunto watch gives nice weather icons to a good degree of accuracy. At least there enough sensors for the development of an app that can detect if the watch is being worn or not to stop certain functions like notifications and maybe even put the watch to sleep to save battery or have it on 'bedtime' mode.
Another advantage of having lots of sensors is that it makes the watch more of a stand-alone device.
If you talk about the Newton2 development kit the short answer is no, the long answer is yes, but with some re-design. We had to re-design the PCB of the Newton2 because we added an extra BlueTooth for iOS, an Heart rate sensor, a vibrating motor, a microphone and 5 speakers. Plus we re-designed the USB charge which is an extra PCB in the Newton2, while on our watch is into the same PCB.
Finally, the biggest and most complicated step is about the display. Newton2 use an MIPI interface specifically designed for their display, so in order to fit a Round and Square display from commercial companies like AMOLED Corp you have two options:
Make two PCB with two different MIPI, one per Display
Modify the displays MIPI to fit the same plug and play mechanism
We did not put a Baromoter because it is not easy to find a good provider and it does not deal well into mini PCB. About the GPS, we had one but we removed because it is absolutely battery drainer. If you run 3-4 hours with your GPS on the watch will end up without battery, while capturing the GPS from your Phone and streaming the amount of mt into the Watch app is way easier in terms of power consumption.
All weather apps that you see on Smartwatches are not using an internal barometer but they simply get weather conditions from a public HTTP API and stream the result into the Watch from your Phone.
What we have in additional is the WiFi so that you can run the watch in autonomous way, for example OXY can detect if you have internet on your watch, if don't then it grabs info from the internet of your Phone.
You can get fancy with sensors, we would to introduce in the future V2 more health sensors but it is early right now and you still have to deal with minimal space, each mm count.