From: Andreas Stemmer <Andreas.Stemmer_at_web.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:06:17 +0200

> The thing is, it will be hard to convince people like me to invest in your
> version of the remote (assuming you make it available), when all it does
is
> talk to a RockBox. Wouldn't you be happier investing all this time and
> effort into a remote that could easily adapt to other devices. It may be
> trivial for you to mod the hardware if you have the skills/equipment
> required, but many RockBox users don't. And the more people you get
> interested in the remote, the better it will be - economies of scale and
all
> that.

What kind of other devices are you thinking of. I intended to make a remote
for Rockbox exclusivly. Perhaps I don't understand what you want to say,
but if we wanted to build remotes for other devices (a MD-player for
example)
we would have to build a interface that translates (electrical and logical)
the commands of the other device to standard UART and our protocol. That's
more or at least the same effort as building a complete new remote: two
devices (remote and interface) that need power and one protocol translation.

It's true that the remote could be cheaper, smaller and universal if we make
a
standard interface and a small adapter cable and I can understand that you
want to have one small, cheap remote for all your devices and different
adapter
cables for each device. But if the users aren't able to build the remote
themselves (if we make schematics and code available) the won't be able to
design the adapter cables either.

Andreas Stemmer
Received on 2002-10-11