Nanonote End of life

Alan W Black awb at cs.cmu.edu
Wed Feb 12 09:11:38 EST 2014


I think its worth noting the Open Pandora project, and its successor the 
Pyra.  Those devices are certainly (much) more expensive that the 
Nanonote, but the open goals are very similar (and the similar issues in 
sourcing components).

I like the niche the Nanonote fills, its much
easier to carry and I use mine for reading books and playing movies (on 
planes) as it easily fits in my pocket.  The pandora is better at the 
higher end game emulators (though ReGBA does run ok on my Nanonote).

Pyra (successor to Pandora)
http://pyra-handheld.com/

And also I recommend these posts about sourcing SoCs when you have an 
intended small run.

http://pandoralive.info/?cat=45

Though there may be an alternative route, in taking a existing 
board/device (such as Raspberry Pi, or an Odroid device and building 
clam shell round it.  Or maybe even one of those tv sticks (e.g. mk802 
or later).  Then the problem would be more to do with getting a power 
system, display, keyboard and case.

Alan




On 02/12/14 01:56, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Ron K. Jeffries wrote:
>> My OPINION is a viable value for [number] must be greater than 10,000 at an
>> absolute  bare minimum.
>> 100K is more like it.
>
> You did read my reply to your previous post, didn't you ? :-)
>
> Just in case, here it is again:
>
> | Project prices for 100+ kunits but make sure you can survive
> | a 10 kunits first run. Anything smaller should be considered
> | development and be covered by burn money.
>
> So we ended up with the same numbers ;-) Smaller volume simply
> means that one can't ramp up an acceptably efficient process. For
> many smaller components, a single reel also holds a few thousand
> units, so things get a little messy if you go below that number.
>
> In the case of the Ben the break even point for the fab may have
> been a bit lower since they already had most things in place for
> the dictionary.
>
> Oh, and I must confess that I'm no longer sure about the number of
> Bens that were last in stock. From the whole production calculation
> that Wolfgang once explained to me, I remember the number 3000 but
> I don't remember if that was the size of a single run or the
> projected total volume. Maybe it was three projected runs of 1000
> units each, of which two were actually made. That would leave some
> 500 unsold Bens, not the 1000+ I claimed earlier.
>
> - Werner
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qi Hardware Discussion List
> Mail to list (members only): discussion at lists.en.qi-hardware.com
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.en.qi-hardware.com/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>




More information about the discussion mailing list


interactive