Should The EEVblog Meter Be Open Source?

[QuantumLogic]

For a device that is supposed to display "calibrated" values that stay constant over time (ie. measuring voltages, currents, resistances to within some 0.3% of actual), I don't see value in fiddling with the circuitry/programming inside it after purchase. 

As a toy/learning device (like Arduino), sure, open source it and have fun.  Is that the purpose of this project?  Is it aimed at becoming the first open source DMM just for the novelty of it?  Add bluetooth for remote control/monitoring/datalogging, etc.  I don't know what else you'd want a DMM to do that existing ones don't already do.  I have no imagination nor thought about it much.

I suppose price is a factor, so if the open source meter has features (or can add features over time via community updates) X, Y and Z which only DMMs that cost >$500 have, yet the open source meter only costs 1/2 that (note: I have no idea the price point of this meter), then sure it would be neat and give a real smack to the industry as a whole.  "Look at this cool relatively low cost open source DMM that has more features than (insert well-known DMM manufacturer name here) and more features are being added every month for free!"   Yeah, that would be cool.  I can see value in that for sure.

But once modifications have been made to the meter the trust in output accuracy/lack of drift/whatever decreases, except for the hardcore modder/experimenter who compares with reference equipment to ensure reliability/accuracy after changes have been made.  As a basic hobbyist, I doubt I'd want or need to modify a handheld meter nor take advantage of firmware updates nor develop mods of my own.   When I pick up a DMM, I want and expect it to "just work and be somewhat accurate" in its readings.  If I just fiddled with the circuitry or code (done by me or someone else), I'd still have that feeling of "is this right?" in the back of my mind as I take measurements.  I don't want to have to think about that when working on a circuit that is being measured because my focus is on that circuit, not the meter being used.

The only update I'd see as useful would be some sort of accuracy increase due to better code algorithms that had been thoroughly tested across many samples and statistics to back up the claims.  Only then would I consider upgrading my "testing device that is supposed to be reliable and accurate".   But due to the limitations of the chosen chipset/hardware, I doubt such a thing would happen in reality because the percentage gains would be rather tiny.   

If the open-source stuff was limited to everything outside the measuring circuitry and code, then obviously I'm worrying about the wrong thing here and you can just ignore what I said.  Adding fog lights, ground effects and a rear spoiler to a DMM could be great fun knowing the engine is still going to pass emissions.

All that said, I may not be the intended audience for this type of product.  I totally get that.  I see a DMM as more of a tool than a plaything.  It has one job to do, kind of like a microwave.  Sure, an open source microwave could act as a calculator (if it has the full keypad like most do), but I'd not have any interest in that.  If I had an idea of a use for open-sourcing a DMM, like adding bluetooth to it for remote control because of "reasons", then sure, this project would be of very high interest to me.  But I don't.

[stmdude]

I would be a much easier sell.
I'm kind of liking the idea of schematic + drivers + an info page with datasheets etc.

The problem with that is it greatly reduces the usefulness of open-sourcing it - I think the most likley thing people will want to do is make minor tweaks and mods , not rewriting the whole thing from scratch.

Well it's not really open sourcing it. It's closed source, but some helpful technical details are provided so that people can do their own thing if they really want.

Might I suggest using the word "hackable" instead of open-source if you go this route?  It would cut down on the "this isn't pure OSHW/OSS" complaints..

[10101]

So being the beginner i am i chose yes, why is that ?
Well the main reason is that we (beginners) can learn alot from other people's designs specially from an experienced person like Dave the aussie.
Then when we (beginners) screw up and for some reason break/burn a multimeter it could be easier to repair (that's a plus in terms of wanting to buy).
And the last one is that even if your sales aren't what they could be open source stuff spread quickly and that's more advertisement for your youtube channel. 

PS: if possible maybe make a diy kit so we can solder it ourselfs with proper leaded solder ? 

[Kilrah]

I guess I'm just missing the point of the original question. Open source is better than closed source all other things being equal, but I don't think it is a huge selling point.

Well IMO it can be - for example I'm currently in need of a meter, obviously this one is going to interest me and has made it into my list of choices, if it was open source I wouldn't look anywhere else anymore. I use many pieces of open source equipment and do software mods and contributions to mainline on those projects and there is no doubt it give a whole different dynamic to the products. I can add details if anybody's interested in reading me.

But then when I read this...

Well it's not really open sourcing it. It's closed source, but some helpful technical details are provided so that people can do their own thing if they really want.

That isn't open source and would have an impact close to zero. The whole point of open sourcing is to allow for quick and easy modifications to the current code to add desired behavior or fix something that is either buggy or somewhat badly designed. Say the secondary display that only shows temp... when you've got access to the source it's a matter of a couple of hours to "fix" that and put something more useful there. If it requires rewriting a complete firmware from scratch there's pretty much no chance anyone will bother even if they have a bit of technical data. The kind of person who would start such a project would only need a day to reverse engineer the hardware anyway.

This isn't unheard of (the main OSS project I'm part of started that way), but can be counted on one hand's fingers.

[charlespax]

My T400 temperature datalogger is open source and my experience has been wonderful. Several people from the community have contributed ideas and bug reports. A few customers have been hacking on it to meet their specific needs. Only a small portion of users will ever hack on the hardware, but to them the ability is invaluable.

There is very little risk in making hardware open source. If your project is a simple PCBA, it is easy to copy with or without the source code, so there is little advantage of keeping things a secret. Something more complex like a multimeter is a bit more difficult to copy, but is certainly possible. The enclosure, schematic, layout, and BoM can be reverse engineered for a few hundred dollars. Someone would have to write new software, but that can be done very cheaply.

The real thing that protects your hardware from being copied is neither the engineering cost nor the development cost, but the opportunity cost. Why would someone copy the $100 EEVblog meter when they could spend the same effort copying a $400 Fluke meter? If anything, an open source design would put off some copiers. If I were a copier, why would I copy an open source device that anyone else could easily make? The arguments against making something open source are the same arguments against making clones.

When I made the MakerBot Replicator I made sure everything was released as open source. Outsiders thought we were crazy, that people would just copy us. And they did. I remember counting at least ten clones at MakerFaire New York in 2014. They were all the same interface, mechanical system, and even injection molded parts. But even with all the source files available, nobody was more successful than we were. Engineering design files are not what makes a product succeed; it is the people who make it and the brand that represents those people. It's the reason why Arduino stands taller than the clones, it's the reason Adafruit gets a 6x markup on the WS2812 LED, and it's why people will buy the world's best open source multimeter from Dave Jones.

[Brutte]

Handheld is out of the question.
It is a matter of the trust you have in that device. Handhelds main usage is to do some mains diagnostics - I do not want to scratch my head and wonder if the sw revision I have used does 230V properly or freezes after 128 samples.. Competing with that market with openness and tweaks is IMHO pointless (would require some signed drivers) and even if that open source DVMs were given away - I'd still prefer a $4 ICL7106 for mains measurement, KISS.

However, a desktop (like in : "not size and weigh constrained"), low voltage (<48V) open arduino shield with decent case, capable of doing all the autorange voodoo is the way to go. No certification, no lethal voltages, occasionally some

[dadler]

I vote yes on open source firmware.

This is not necessarily because I need an open source multimeter, but because there are no other open source multimeters of this calibre available. I want one, I do not need one.

If it is open source, sales volume will likely be much increased due to exposure via publications/word-of-mouth/blogging/etc.

Most people do not need to be able to hack the firmware on their multimeter, but the ability to/novelty of the option will be a big selling factor.

If your intended market segment is bulk sales to companies and enterprise, then of course I don't see much value in open sourcing the firmware. If your target market is the sorts of individuals on this forum, people who do electronics because they enjoy it, I see lots of marketing potential in open source firmware.

[Kilrah]

Handheld is out of the question.
It is a matter of the trust you have in that device. Handhelds main usage is to do some mains diagnostics - I do not want to scratch my head and wonder if the sw revision I have used does 230V properly or freezes after 128 samples..

Then leave it as it is when you receive it and don't play with firmware, end of story. If others want they can and that's the point.

[pickle9000]

Handheld is out of the question.
It is a matter of the trust you have in that device. Handhelds main usage is to do some mains diagnostics - I do not want to scratch my head and wonder if the sw revision I have used does 230V properly or freezes after 128 samples..

Then leave it as it is when you receive it and don't play with firmware, end of story. If others want they can and that's the point.

Just like any modified equipment in the lab, a label describing the mod and what not to trust.   

[apelly]

I think a lot of people are missing the point.

Just because you can hack on it, doesn't mean you have to.

Will it affect resale value? Depends if the new owner wants to be able to hack on it. Christ, just reflash the original firmware and it's either in spec or it isn't. If it isn't, you can fix it. How awesome is that?

I always prefer open source. Do I mod everything I use? Of course not. Is it handy sometimes? Bloody oath it is!

Can I see a use for an open meter? No. Can I see the future? Of course not! Why limit your options?

I don't know if it's too late, but if it's going to be open, a dot matrix display would be nice. That opens a whole world of opportunity. I think I read that there's already mcu headroom limitations though.

[apelly]

This isn't really the thread for it, but while I think of it, threaded metal inserts for the case screws would be a good thing.

[AlxDroidDev]

I have more meters than I need, but if there were an open source meter that I could build at home with easy to find parts and ICs (like the ICL7107, ICL7135, MAX133, MAX134, MAX1499, just to name a few) and microcontrollers (like STM F0..F4, AVR, etc), than I would love to build one of those every now and then and just see how far I can push it w/o the fear of destroying it. I certainly would make this my "default" meter.

[bitwelder]

Well it's not really open sourcing it. It's closed source, but some helpful technical details are provided so that people can do their own thing if they really want.

Might I suggest using the word "hackable" instead of open-source if you go this route?  It would cut down on the "this isn't pure OSHW/OSS" complaints..

Agree. False claim of open sourcing is even worse than a fully closed sourcing. So IMHO better to use a different term or make it really clear, even on the on the outside package the limits of the 'open source' clause.
Where is the "No bullshit" ethics when it counts?

[wilfred]

I would be a much easier sell.
I'm kind of liking the idea of schematic + drivers + an info page with datasheets etc.

The problem with that is it greatly reduces the usefulness of open-sourcing it - I think the most likley thing people will want to do is make minor tweaks and mods , not rewriting the whole thing from scratch.

Yup, the reason for buying an open source DMM is to be able to add some odd features I need or which would simplify my measuring tasks, like automation (especially with a Bluetooth interface available). Automation is a feature which you get only with expensive bench multimeters. I think an open source DMM could be a niche product for this kind of application, mainly for the hobbyist and the maker crowd.

You would only need a documented API to automate measurements. That can be a long way short of open-source. Automated measurements is already a niche application, and an open source DMM would be a second degree of "nicheness" (yeah "niceness" if you prefer).

If you sold 10000 of these things, would more than 100 people attempt to modify the firmware? I think it would be more like 1 individual who might bother. Then they can do a speaking tour of the makerfaires.

[jancumps]

...

(though you will also get the more religious factions whinging that it's not "OS enough", but there's no pleasing some people!).

Death, taxes, and people whinging about open source details.

... aaaaand they arrived

[EEVblog]

Might I suggest using the word "hackable" instead of open-source if you go this route?  It would cut down on the "this isn't pure OSHW/OSS" complaints..

Good idea. If not fully open source then I like that term if say the schematic and protocols etc are available.

[EEVblog]

If you sold 10000 of these things, would more than 100 people attempt to modify the firmware? I think it would be more like 1 individual who might bother. Then they can do a speaking tour of the makerfaires.

I'd say 1 in 100 would bother if that. That's pretty typical of open source hardware.
People like the idea of open source hardware more than they will actually ever take advantage of it.
I'd be willing to bet that hyping it as being the worlds first open source multimeter in a crowd funding campaign would double the number of backers.

[Siwastaja]

Anything you choose to do, please just do not scam people by using "open source" as a meaningless buzzword for a closed project with some API and basic data available. This happens way too often.

Opensourcing means that you publish all relevant schematics and code. It would be a very nice thing to do, but a closed-source project with good APIs and a custom user code layer would be almost as good, if done right. Both would be good selling points for me, but calling a closed-source project "open source" would make me leave immediately.

[EEVblog]

This isn't really the thread for it, but while I think of it, threaded metal inserts for the case screws would be a good thing.

For the case, no.
For the battery/fuse cover, yes, and captive too.

[pickle9000]

So will it have an unmarked button?

[wilfred]

If you sold 10000 of these things, would more than 100 people attempt to modify the firmware? I think it would be more like 1 individual who might bother. Then they can do a speaking tour of the makerfaires.

I'd say 1 in 100 would bother if that. That's pretty typical of open source hardware.
People like the idea of open source hardware more than they will actually ever take advantage of it.
I'd be willing to bet that hyping it as being the worlds first open source multimeter in a crowd funding campaign would double the number of backers.

Mmmmm..... yeah... if it really did double the number of backers then maybe it would be worth it. But it would have to actually be proper open source.
The trouble is OS fans are zealots for a cause. Borderline religious zealots in some cases and they are loud when the strict letter of the license terms are violated. It's a can of worms. I can't help thinking for a DMM which has always primarily been a tool you might as well make it the right tool for the buyer right from the start.

If it was a logic analyser that you could add new protocol support or a router which is basically a computer with sort of standard i/o ports I could sort of understand it, but a DMM? If people wanted to hack it to add built in SD card data logging storage then why not just add that on right up front or coloured backlighting for whatever functional reason or even MP3 continuity buzzer sounds and so on.

Basically it seems kind of sad to have hacking the DMM as the project rather than using it to debug an actual project.

[stmdude]

I hope Dave is putting in some kind of easter-egg on the PCB..  I love the old marked track on the Blizzard accelerator. "Do not cut"

[mikeselectricstuff]

If you sold 10000 of these things, would more than 100 people attempt to modify the firmware? I think it would be more like 1 individual who might bother. Then they can do a speaking tour of the makerfaires.

I'd say 1 in 100 would bother if that. That's pretty typical of open source hardware.
People like the idea of open source hardware more than they will actually ever take advantage of it.
I'd be willing to bet that hyping it as being the worlds first open source multimeter in a crowd funding campaign would double the number of backers.

Although few people would actually mod the code, if someone did a really useful mod, quite a few more may use it.

[Fungus]

Standard Microchip ICSP header is there.

My first hack will to to make an adapter to use the connector as a transistor tester.

[nctnico]

Yup, I'd be interested, but I don't think I would care about the "Open Source" part of it.
If I wanted to mess around with the meter, the first thing I would want is accessable ISP pins, to recover from my own issues. Also, a way to restore the original firmware.
After that, I'd want to be able to find the datasheets for things like LCDs and other special chips in use (ADCs, etc).

Standard Microchip ICSP header is there.

I was already affraid it would contain a PIC. Don't bother open sourcing it because the required tools aren't available for free. Yeah sure there are free PIC compilers but I bet the memory will be small so you really need the full optimising compiler version to have any success at making your own code fit AND implement additional features.

Edit: if you open source something make sure it can be modified by others as easy as possible. For the circuit boards this is a bit of a non-starter due to absense of a data interchange standard between CAD packages but at least make sure the software can be modified using non-crippled freely available tools.