Matt Pobursky <piclist@mit.edu> wrote (reordered slightly):

> Consider that the amateur or custom low volume guy has to cough up an
> additional $1500 (minimum) for a vendor ID .... and without one you
> can't legally call yourself USB and use USB markings

    Matt:

    Most people don't pay $1500; they pay $2500, which covers not only
    the Vendor ID, but also free testing and certification for as many
    devices as you like, at a three-day "plugfest" during which you get to
    test your device not only for electrical and protocol compliance, but
    also for interoperability with dozens of other USB devices and
    multiple hosts and hubs, in all sorts of bus configurations. Testing
    at an independent lab costs significantly more than that for ONE
    device. 

    Unless you have a way to get all your devices FCC- and UL-certified
    -- which you usually ALSO need to be "legal" -- for less than $2500,
    it seems a little disingenuous to complain about the fee for USB
    certification.

    Besides, no one's going to throw you in jail or deport you if you
    sell a non-certified USB device with a Vendor ID that you just
    picked out of a hat.  At worst, you'll be doing your customers a
    disservice by selling them a device that'll potentially fail to
    work... And if you're making amateur/low-volume custom products, who
    cares?

    If a customer complains that your Vendor ID conflicts with a device
    he already has, you can build him a new one with a different ID; if
    you're selling so many devices that that's impractical, then I hope
    for your sake that you're making enough money from them to be able
    to afford your own Vendor ID.

> A look at the consortium member companies on the USB specifications
> can't help but make you a little suspicious and cynical. To them $1500
> (or even $15,000) additional cost for a given product is a fly spec on
> their budget -- to the small guy it's a deal breaker.

    You're "suspicious and cynical"?  Why?  Do you suspect that Intel,
    Microsoft, NEC, and Compaq -- the companies that jointly developed
    the USB spec -- are trying to muscle you out of the amateur/
    low-volume custom USB device business so you won't compete with
    them?  That doesn't make any sense to me.

    The USB-IF (the organization that controls the USB spec and certifies
    USB devices) is independent and non-profit; none of those four
    companies -- or any other -- controls it.  I don't know why they
    raised the Vendor-ID-only fee from its original $250 to the current
    $1500, but I suspect it was because they believed that the narrower
    gap between that cost and the full $2500 membership would encourage
    vendors to actually do the free testing.

    Also, note that the $1500 fee covers ALL the devices you'll build;
    it isn't $1500 "for a given product". 

    I've been to a couple of the USB plugfests.  Between the expense of
    organizing the things, renting the hotel suites, buying and
    maintaining the equipment, storing and transporting all the gear,
    training the volunteers and providing their rooms and meals,
    providing modest entertainment to the participants, and paying the
    few USB-IF employees who actually draw a salary, I don't think
    they're making any money on the deal. 

> I won't even get into the technical aspect of taking the venerable
> serial port which could be both a peer-peer interface or host-client
> interface (your choice) and more or less forcing the new standard to be
> PC-centric host-client only.

    That's ok; I already went into the technical aspects of the venerable
    serial port in a previous message.  I guess a lot of people have
    forgotten how truly awful those serial ports were.

> Just look at how difficult it is to make two PICs talk to each other
> over USB, i.e. no PC involved

    It's hard to get two telephones to talk to each other without a CO
    involved, too, but I'm not sure how that's an argument against the
    design of the telephone network. 

    If you want one PIC to talk to another, why not use RS232 or I2C or
    something?  You're in no way forced to use USB; in fact, I'd
    discourage it. 

> USB OnTheGo is making that somewhat possible, but very limited in
> functionality.

    Well, I probably wouldn't be so positive in my assessment of OTG,
    but I'll just agree with the second half of your statement and resist
    the urge to say more. 

    -Andy

=== Andrew Warren - aiw@cypress.com
=== 
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist