The tools and techniques for creating hardware designs are very different from those used for software; and because of this, developing open hardware is a significantly different and greater challenge than creating free software. In the second part of my interview with the developers of the Open Graphics project, I wanted to explore these factors and the solutions this one open hardware project has found.

Timothy Normand Miller: “I had about eight years of experience with graphics driver development and about four with graphics chip design, so I figured if I got enough other experts together, designing a completely open graphics solution would be feasible” (Photo by James Dinan)

There is a great deal of free software infrastructure for creating free software which today we tend to take for granted: the gcc compiler, the glibc standard libraries, the CVS (and now Subversion, Bazaar, and other) version management systems, the internet itself, email, usenet, the world wide web, internet relay chat, bug tracking software, listmail managers, online forums, and even massive integrated project management services like gForge—all available for free, with very few strings attached; this is mainly thanks to the GNU General Public License, the GNU project, Linux, X11, and the hard work of countless free software developers.

But for a moment, rewind to the world of the 1980s, when the GNU project began, before all of that infrastructure was created.

That’s exactly where hardware design still is today.

“Just as it took the pioneering work of the GNU project to change the world into one in which free software innovation is easy and natural, it will take bold initiatives to pioneer open hardware”

And, just as it took the pioneering work of the GNU project to change the world into one in which free software innovation is easy and natural, it will take bold initiatives to pioneer open hardware. In the meantime, like the early GNU project which ran on proprietary Unix operating systems (that being the only ones available), we cope as best we can.

In this second part of the interview, I spoke to project founder Timothy Miller (TM), open hardware board members Lourens Veen (LV) and Attila Kinali (AK), as well as Timothy’s Traversal Technology partner Andy Fong (AF) and physicist Dr. Petter Urkedal (PU) who designed a “nanocontroller” for the Open Graphics architecture.

Q. Because Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) must be manufactured in bulk, the TRV10 chip that will be developed for the Open Graphics card (OGC1) is a major cost-driver for the final product. What kind of volume is that going to require, and how do you expect to attract that level of customer interest?

TM: In 2005, we computed that we could do a 100,000 chip run for $2 to $3 million. This would be like $30/chip at cost. Add cost for the PCB, other components, packaging, margin for failures, marketing, engineering, overhead, and a reasonable profit margin, and we’re looking at at least $100 per board in low volume. However, in that time, the economics will have surely changed quite a lot. We’ll still need millions, but we don’t know the pricing structure.

Q. Even if you do believe the customers are there, will Traversal Technology be able to find the capital?

TM: There are lots of people who don’t want to put out any cash yet, because so far, we’re a big risk without any proof that we’re a good investment. Once we’ve proven that we can make real hardware, many people who are “waiting and seeing” will recognize that we’re a good risk.

Q. What technological changes have led to the recent boom in open hardware development?

AK: There are two things that made open hardware possible: the possibility to cheaply produce electronics (A PCB that would have cost $100 twenty years ago can now be produced for $10, even in low quantities); and the availability of powerful computers in every home to run EDA software without the need of special workstations.

Q. How does the much greater cost of replication and derivation make things harder for hardware than software?

AK: If open hardware wants to use the same methods that FLOSS profited from, building hardware must become a lot cheaper. Note that I do not speak about producing hardware as this can not get cheaper than a certain level. But if we would be able to use some hardware building blocks that are mass-produced just to put together a new device, we could use the same hardware over and over again to build new devices, just like software uses the very expensive computer it runs on to build new “devices”.