----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Warren <aiw@CYPRESS.COM>


> Jeff DeMaagd <PICLIST@mitvma.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Sure, USB may be more flexible for end users of commodity products,
> > stuff like this and the extra complexity of the protocol simply
> > doesn't help the development of limited-run devices, particularly for
> > niche industries
>
>     True, but USB isn't unique in that regard.  The required
>     regulatory approvals for RF devices, for example, makes it
>     difficult to manufacture limited runs of THEM... But no one's
>     really complaining.

I am.  It's an additional big artificial hurdle that IMO isn't needed for
semi-pro or limited run devices.  I don't need a stupid logo, I just want to
be able to connect my projects to my computer and eventually be able to sell
them, and the industry is trying to push for additional complexity by
forcing out the simpler interfaces, in particular, with the PC200x
standards.  Some day I'd like to be able to sell devices that connect to
computers and every additional artificial burden makes that goal harder.
I'm all for compatibility and rigid standards testing but the IT industry
simply seems to have an outright loathing of anything "small time", as
evidenced in part by the fact that there is no hobbyist, experimental or
small business classification in the standards.

Jeff

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu