On Fri, 20 Jul 2001, Jeff DeMaagd wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Andrew Warren > > > > Jeff DeMaagd 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. I feel your pain. This is why niche products are usually horridly expensive. What could be simpler than, say, a 48-port digital I/O board for your PC? Now, how much will one cost you? Limited production, costly certification, and probably $5 a board just for the glossy catalog photos. Dale -- A train stops at a train station. A bus stops at a bus station. On my desk I have a workstation... -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu