EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: egonotto on December 18, 2024, 04:52:57 pm
-
Hello,
at Batronix the R&S® MXO44-ULTM costs € 29.631,- incl. 19% VAT. As far as I can see, it includes all available options.
Then there is the R&S® MXO44-2415 which costs € 30.237,90 incl. 19% VAT, but it has neither the function generator nor the MSO option nor the memory extension nor the R&S® MXO4-PK1 option bundle.
Who can understand that, I certainly don't.
Best regards
egonotto
-
Just sounds like a special offer on a scope with all the toys enabled. Nothing particularly unusual.
-
Hello,
yes, but I would be very annoyed as a customer if I had bought the more expensive device because I hadn't seen the special offer.
I don't think it's good for a company to inform customers like this.
Best regards
egonotto
-
yes, but I would be very annoyed as a customer if I had bought the more expensive device because I hadn't seen the special offer.
This is how every market works - from foods to clothes, from cars to specialty equipment - and it's been this way forever, probably even before money was invented. How is it possible you are surprised?
-
For me is amazing how after 2 years from launch, this scope does not have functions that come standard with many entry level scopes:
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
-
yes, but I would be very annoyed as a customer if I had bought the more expensive device because I hadn't seen the special offer.
I don't think it's good for a company to inform customers like this.
I worked at Altium when they slashed the price from $10k to $2k, permanately, without warning. People who bought it at $10k the day or week or month before were not very happy to say the least.
-
Hello,
at Batronix the R&S® MXO44-ULTM costs € 29.631,- incl. 19% VAT. As far as I can see, it includes all available options.
Then there is the R&S® MXO44-2415 which costs € 30.237,90 incl. 19% VAT, but it has neither the function generator nor the MSO option nor the memory extension nor the R&S® MXO4-PK1 option bundle.
Who can understand that, I certainly don't.
Best regards
egonotto
Both overpriced to begin with.
-
yes, but I would be very annoyed as a customer if I had bought the more expensive device because I hadn't seen the special offer.
I don't think it's good for a company to inform customers like this.
I worked at Altium when they slashed the price from $10k to $2k, permanately, without warning. People who bought it at $10k the day or week or month before were not very happy to say the least.
That is why usually companies start with a "limited time price reduction offer" prior to such steep change in price - this helps smooth the customer backlash. Working on the corporate world, I can tell that unfortunately not many can see the benefits this brings in the longer run. Oh well...
-
Altium dropping from 10k to 2k is quite extreme example :-DD. But price reductions happen. You should always base your buying decision on the sales price you are going to buy at, and the value you expect the product to bring to you. For example, a car creates value by allowing you to get from place A to B, and you should choose a car so that you can afford the payments. Similarly, you buy an oscilloscope or a PCB EDA tool so that you can do work which your customers pay for.
When you see price drop, you should be happy for others. You lose nothing; you got exactly what you paid for, with the conditions known to you.
If you could see to the future, there would be much better ways to make better earnings than buying Altium or oscilloscope for cheaper: for example, see lottery, stock markets, ...
If you expect to buy a car, drive around for free, and sell it later with little drop in value, I have bad news for you. It was kind of hilarious to see how people complained non-stop that EVs are too expensive, and then when manufacturers finally dropped their prices by 5000EUR or so endless complaining ensued.
-
I agree with you that what you paid at a given time is what you thought it was worth it, thus not warranting complaints. However, the human mind works in non-linear ways... 😁
-
For me is amazing how after 2 years from launch, this scope does not have functions that come standard with many entry level scopes:
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
^^^ all available in a 4ch $440 DSO and the B brands will just keep eating the A brands lunch until they wake up.
-
For me is amazing how after 2 years from launch, this scope does not have functions that come standard with many entry level scopes:
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
^^^ all available in a 4ch $440 DSO and the B brands will just keep eating the A brands lunch until they wake up.
Do you think the A brands revenue is dropping?
-
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
From my perspective, this is still a sign that they are concentrating on what their customers are asking for, i.e., those older features are lower-priority since customers can always continue to use their older 'scopes if those older features are immediately needed, or could purchase a $400 'scope to dedicate to that older task if it really came to it.
It's just dawning on me how powerful the zone trigger is; the attached screenshot shows a simple use-case, triggering on a harmonic. You could use this to trigger whenever a signal clips (for instance), or whenever the frequency shifts (e.g. out-of-lock signal).
If it were down to me, I would much rather they concentrate on the new features and get to the other features later, but that's just my perspective, I have other 'scopes to do some of that if need be.
As to the reason why they don't seem to have some of the older features yet, my theory (pure speculation) is that simply because they have moved to that highly multi-cored architecture, those traditional features may not make as much sense to directly port across from their older 'scopes, i.e., to gain more benefit of the new architecture. It may be a while before they reach feature parity with their older 'scopes. Maybe they need to hire more developers, though, to speed it up since there may well also be eventually some customer frustration from maintaining older 'scopes since there's still a cost involved with that.
-
It's just dawning on me how powerful the zone trigger is; the attached screenshot shows a simple use-case, triggering on a harmonic. You could use this to trigger whenever a signal clips (for instance), or whenever the frequency shifts (e.g. out-of-lock signal).
Imagine having 2 Zone triggers for really complex waveforms.....available in a $1400 4ch DSO.
-
Unfortunately that's apples and oranges (unless I'm guessing wrong which oscilloscope you're referring to).
This is the reason why "12-bit" on it's own is not all that sufficient for 'scopes (from my perspective, anyway). It's the features that are now possible which give power to the user.
With the decent spectral analysis enabled in part due to the higher resolution and knock-on requirement for the more intensive performance capable processor, you can process a lot more in the frequency domain. The zone trigger capabilities (which I have yet to deeply explore, I've only briefly tried it out) can work directly on the frequency-domain view. The difference is quite large, because you can trigger on a single frequency-domain component (or multiple components) of any arbitrary signal.
-
Unfortunately that's apples and oranges (unless I'm guessing wrong which oscilloscope you're referring to).
This is the reason why "12-bit" on it's own is not all that sufficient for 'scopes (from my perspective, anyway). It's the features that are now possible which give power to the user.
100%
Okay 12bit, add another 1k and jump to $2400 and have dual Zone triggers in those too.
-
That feature you're referring to is different I believe (still useful, but there is a significant difference:
Unless I'm wrong (I could be, I'm unclear which scope and therefore which feature), the feature you refer to cannot trigger from a zone constructed in the frequency domain view. This is the quite large difference I'm referring to.
-
That feature you're referring to is different I believe (still useful, but there is a significant difference:
Unless I'm wrong (I could be, I'm unclear which scope and therefore which feature), the feature you refer to cannot trigger from a zone constructed in the frequency domain view. This is the quite large difference I'm referring to.
It is not apples and oranges but marketing again muddying the waters...
In spectrum analysers world that is called Frequency Mask Trigger for many years.
Zone trigger was name used exclusively for time domain zone trigger. Nobody ever used name "zone trigger" for frequency mask trigger.
In fact, usual logic is for marketing to claim two functions instead of overloading name existing one. I gives them two thing to brag about instead of claiming "our one function is better than the competition because it is more complex"
Frequency Mask trigger and cross domain triggering is very powerful feature if your work can benefit from it.
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
From my perspective, this is still a sign that they are concentrating on what their customers are asking for, i.e., those older features are lower-priority since customers can always continue to use their older 'scopes if those older features are immediately needed, or could purchase a $400 'scope to dedicate to that older task if it really came to it.
Older features like Frequency measurement, Mask test or Histograms?
What do you mean older features?
It is like saying "we just released new graphical multimeter. It has logging and plotting, and gorgeous large color screen. Older features (like Voltage, Current and Resistance measurements) will be developed later, and released in a FW next year if users show enough interest ..."
Would be little weird.
What you call "old features" I call basic requirements. You do those first and then move on to more advanced, rare functions.
As a side note, this just shows how widely different people expectations are and how really hard is to please everybody.
-
It is not apples and oranges but marketing again muddying the waters...
In spectrum analysers world that is called Frequency Mask Trigger for many years.
Zone trigger was name used exclusively for time domain zone trigger. Nobody ever used name "zone trigger" for frequency mask trigger.
In fact, usual logic is for marketing to claim two functions instead of overloading name existing one. I gives them two thing to brag about instead of claiming "our one function is better than the competition because it is more complex"
Frequency Mask trigger and cross domain triggering is very powerful feature if your work can benefit from it.
I suspect they called it the one name in their belief to reduce complexity, i.e., the end user applies the feature (whatever one calls it) identically, regardless of its time-domain or frequency-domain. In the workflow, the user selects the channel (e.g., time domain channel or spectrum) and then draws the zone, i.e., there is some consistency.
Granted, that does complicate a comparison with other instruments, which also have the same-named feature but which cannot do it in the frequency domain, so I meant it's apples and oranges in terms of what it actually does, versus the name being identical.
Older features like Frequency measurement, Mask test or Histograms?
What do you mean older features?
It is like saying "we just released new graphical multimeter. It has logging and plotting, and gorgeous large color screen. Older features (like Voltage, Current and Resistance measurements) will be developed later, and released in a FW next year if users show enough interest ..."
I mean older as in existing features in their older 'scopes, which users could continue to use at a pinch on their old instruments until they are re-implemented on the new architecture (with, one would hope, some gains in functionality and/or performance).
Would be little weird.
What you call "old features" I call basic requirements. You do those first and then move on to more advanced, rare functions.
As a side note, this just shows how widely different people expectations are and how really hard is to please everybody.
Agree, everyone has different expectations, their field teams would have fed that back to them hopefully, so they can organize their roadmap. I know I wouldn't want to have to keep old 'scopes in service forever.
There is also the possibility that some features may never make it into new instruments if (say) a new feature can achieve the same result better. I don't have a directly applicable example of that, but this reminds me of a time I worked on a product category (not test instrumentation) which also changed architecture significantly, and it took the team several years to achieve (near) feature parity. The new product range had better performance and new features, but even with the sizeable team that we had, we couldn't hope to launch on day one with all the features that the previous range had, i.e. acct mgrs had to be prepared to tell some customers that they should not adopt the new range just yet (there was a long period before end-of-sale/support on the older equipment).
Also, a few features in our case were legacy, simply because people didn't use them anymore (to determine that needs extremely good information from the field and analysis of what licenses people purchase, what bugs they raise, etc.). I'm not suggesting that's the case with these particular features for the MXO of course (I don't know their roadmap).
-
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
From my perspective, this is still a sign that they are concentrating on what their customers are asking for, i.e., those older features are lower-priority since customers can always continue to use their older 'scopes if those older features are immediately needed, or could purchase a $400 'scope to dedicate to that older task if it really came to it.
It's just dawning on me how powerful the zone trigger is; the attached screenshot shows a simple use-case, triggering on a harmonic. You could use this to trigger whenever a signal clips (for instance), or whenever the frequency shifts (e.g. out-of-lock signal).
If it were down to me, I would much rather they concentrate on the new features and get to the other features later, but that's just my perspective, I have other 'scopes to do some of that if need be.
As to the reason why they don't seem to have some of the older features yet, my theory (pure speculation) is that simply because they have moved to that highly multi-cored architecture, those traditional features may not make as much sense to directly port across from their older 'scopes, i.e., to gain more benefit of the new architecture. It may be a while before they reach feature parity with their older 'scopes. Maybe they need to hire more developers, though, to speed it up since there may well also be eventually some customer frustration from maintaining older 'scopes since there's still a cost involved with that.
Maybe XY is old and less used but Histograms are not old or obsolete at all. Also Freq. Counter is timelessly useful. And Mask test is extensively used in labs although the versatility of the zone trigger can be used to cover some use cases for mask test.
Maybe they should say that they are trying to introduce a new concept focused only on signal investigation or something like that. Two years is too much to say: "we didn't find the time to work on that".
All the colleagues on this class of scopes does not miss those features.
Triggers implementation is powerful indeed, but the way how overall UI speed slowdown with just a few measurements added make me think that just some of the feature are empowered by hardware while the rest of the hardware platform is not so powerful.
-
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
From my perspective, this is still a sign that they are concentrating on what their customers are asking for, i.e., those older features are lower-priority since customers can always continue to use their older 'scopes if those older features are immediately needed, or could purchase a $400 'scope to dedicate to that older task if it really came to it.
It's just dawning on me how powerful the zone trigger is; the attached screenshot shows a simple use-case, triggering on a harmonic. You could use this to trigger whenever a signal clips (for instance), or whenever the frequency shifts (e.g. out-of-lock signal).
If it were down to me, I would much rather they concentrate on the new features and get to the other features later, but that's just my perspective, I have other 'scopes to do some of that if need be.
As to the reason why they don't seem to have some of the older features yet, my theory (pure speculation) is that simply because they have moved to that highly multi-cored architecture, those traditional features may not make as much sense to directly port across from their older 'scopes, i.e., to gain more benefit of the new architecture. It may be a while before they reach feature parity with their older 'scopes. Maybe they need to hire more developers, though, to speed it up since there may well also be eventually some customer frustration from maintaining older 'scopes since there's still a cost involved with that.
Maybe XY is old and less used but Histograms are not old or obsolete at all. Also Freq. Counter is timelessly useful. And Mask test is extensively used in labs although the versatility of the zone trigger can be used to cover some use cases for mask test.
Maybe they should say that they are trying to introduce a new concept focused only on signal investigation or something like that. Two years is too much to say: "we didn't find the time to work on that".
All the colleagues on this class of scopes does not miss those features.
Triggers implementation is powerful indeed, but the way how overall UI speed slowdown with just a few measurements added make me think that just some of the feature are empowered by hardware while the rest of the hardware platform is not so powerful.
Thank you for explaining better what I meant than what I was able to...
When answering to shabaz I was trying to be respectful to each own requirements and priorities, but was aparently too subtle.
I no universe R&S developed Frequency Mask trigger before Basic things like frequency counter because of people asking for it..
They simply released scope a year (or two) too early in development cycle because nowadays management driven by money people do all kinds of things that make sense only in their heads..
Since Frequency mask trigger needs to be implemented in the very architecture of the scope, that (at least core of it) was developed together with core of the scope, meaning very early.
Other features are "just an applications" so you can develop them later and "deliver" in FW update.
Basically scope was released before it was feature complete. They did that because they are banking on brand loyalty and fame as a "guarantee" to people "listen, you know we are good for the promise, just buy scope now, and you'll get it all eventually, honest promise!!".
Basically, they extended the concept of credit to equipment features. You pay now, and we will pay it back to you in features of equipment in installments.
It is "scope on credit in reverse.". You used to get equipment now and pay for it in installments, and some interest to bank that gave you credit. It would cost you more, but you could get a lot of equipment and pay for it over time, as money poured in later...
Now you pay full price and get scope in pieces, over time, in instalments. It takes a year or two before you actually get full function of what you paid for in full, upfront.
And some of these pieces of equipment gets half amortized in value before it starts to fully function..
If I were to buy a scope so expensive, and it was missing half a functionality that is in datasheet, I would compile a list, calculate how many percent of functionality is missing.
Then I would write them a letter where I demand that percent of money of what I paid for it to be returned to me. And when they deliver it all, I would pay it back. Promise. You know I'm good for it...
-
If they release in the near future the features mentioned before, it will be acceptable. But if they will release them as an option pack(paid), it will not be so fun. As Shabaz said we will need to open the 400E scope to use that functions :)
-
If they release in the near future the features mentioned before, it will be acceptable. But if they will release them as an option pack(paid), it will not be so fun. As Shabaz said we will need to open the 400E scope to use that functions :)
If 90% of my work can be done with scopes that cost a fraction, then why would I buy expensive scope?
For one function?
I might rent it occasionally.
-
If 90% of my work can be done with scopes that cost a fraction, then why would I buy expensive scope?
For one function?
I might rent it occasionally.
That's very good, but you're just plucking one scenario out of the air.
What if your shiny new expensive instrument does everything you need of it 89% of the time, including brand new features, including new ways to use such instruments such as the zone trigger's frequency mask trigger capability (a nice example of how 12-bit has practically improved things, rather than just being a banner spec), plus a load of features your older equipment does, leaving you with needing to hire some even higher-end equipment occasionally, or, shock horror, even pulling out your older instrument from time to time. That scenario is reality for some, you either work with this, get to use the new features, or you go elsewhere for a different instrument, or stick with what you have. It's no big deal.
-
If they release in the near future the features mentioned before, it will be acceptable. But if they will release them as an option pack(paid), it will not be so fun. As Shabaz said we will need to open the 400E scope to use that functions :)
There have definitely been several new licenses since the product introduction. Protocol packs (e.g., aerospace) were created, plus a license for power analysis features (arguable whether that's a fair thing to be separately licensed or not).
All other new features as they have arrived have all sat in the base or pre-existing licenses, i.e., not charged additionally (effectively built-in to the up-front cost the customers have been paying). Some of those new non-additionally-charged features are the zone trigger (with frequency mask trigger) and the DVM feature, but whether that's an indicator of how possibly future (if ever implemented) zone mask, frequency counter, etc. features are also offered is just a guess I'm afraid. There is the chance they could be chargeable.
Personally, I would not pay for a histogram, mask, or frequency counter option if it came to it (I nearly always just use the 'scope frequency measurement feature or use a dedicated frequency counter instrument) - not an option for all, of course.
-
If 90% of my work can be done with scopes that cost a fraction, then why would I buy expensive scope?
For one function?
I might rent it occasionally.
That's very good, but you're just plucking one scenario out of the air.
What if your shiny new expensive instrument does everything you need of it 89% of the time, including brand new features, including new ways to use such instruments such as the zone trigger's frequency mask trigger capability (a nice example of how 12-bit has practically improved things, rather than just being a banner spec), plus a load of features your older equipment does, leaving you with needing to hire some even higher-end equipment occasionally, or, shock horror, even pulling out your older instrument from time to time. That scenario is reality for some, you either work with this, get to use the new features, or you go elsewhere for a different instrument, or stick with what you have. It's no big deal.
Truth is that I think you are the one claiming victory because MXO4 supports one specific feature you need. You are also honestly admitting you are using only fraction of features.
I would say MXO4 is a very good scope for you and your needs.
I, OTOH think it is not very good general purpose scope in state it was released. It missed many features that, unlike you, many other people use very often or on a daily basis.
And my new, shiny, 12 bit oscilloscope that I paid 4x times less, does 98% of what I need and it has many things MXO4 does not have. Only thing it does not have is Frequency mask trigger, which I don't need that much.
Whenever I needed to look for correlation between some frequency in RF and some event in time domain, I was always able to trigger in the other direction...
And since few of my scopes have gated FFT, I can look for spectrum in specific part of capture...
So like I said, you are happy that you have found an instrument that you like very much, and you are lucky you could afford it.
For me it has wrong feature set and looking from my standpoint it is very expensive for something that only partially works for me... So for me, bad choice.
-
To be honest, the MXO44 trigger show his strength in the sensibility side, giving the word "stunning" a reality using it. It is fast and very stable. Also it need some time to understand how it can be configured, because it is more complex.
But the reality is that all 12 bit scopes in MXO class are in the same boat thinking at price/performance. MSO44 or Lecroy Wavesurfer 4000HD, both are asking even more money for an even lower performance on some aspects. They have maybe more options available to buy but everything cost a lot of money.
This is also my opinion, after using MXO44: I can get done almost all the jobs using a far less expensive scope. Maybe not in the same conditions and not with the same level of support (maybe here we can justify the price difference, though with the recent changes on R&S support policy this is now debatable for some).
Maybe is the Asiatic brands fault for giving the "fire to the people" ... :)
-
Truth is that I think you are the one claiming victory because MXO4 supports one specific feature you need.
What victory? It's an example of a feature implemented ahead of an older feature. Literally an example of a situation where someone might prefer the manufacturer to work on a newer feature than one they may already have supported elsewhere.
Obviously, manufacturers spend all their time deciding which features will meet customer needs, and which are a priority for their instruments and in which order they need to be developed, so it's not a stretch that some may have concluded, correctly or incorrectly, that you know what, if a user needs lower-prioritized feature XYZ more often, then sadly they will have to advise that customer to use what they already had, or maybe even go elsewhere. I've had manufacturers tell me similar things in the past; "this product is not a good match, or mature enough for your needs, please continue to use what you have for now, let's re-visit in 6 months time" or similar.
You even suggest a similar thing of using an alternative product yourself as a workaround for whatever 'scope you're using not having a particular feature:
"And since few of my scopes have gated FFT, I can look for spectrum in specific part of capture..."
For some, it will inevitably be a bad call because they happen to use those particular features often or on a daily basis. Did R&S get bad input for their product roadmap? I don't know, but it's been two years, so there's a chance some of their customers do not require those features in that instrument for now, are working around it, or maybe even were lost as customers. No idea.
I, OTOH think it is not very good general purpose scope in state it was released. It missed many features that, unlike you, many other people use very often or on a daily basis.
And my new, shiny, 12 bit oscilloscope that I paid 4x times less, does 98% of what I need..
I'm very happy that you got good value for money, this is essentially all everyone wants to achieve (no sarcasm in case it's not obvious) hence discussions like this.
EDIT:
Also worth mentioning is that it has been a good opportunity over the past year or two for making feature enhancement suggestions since I figured it was a good time since it was a new instrument with a lot of development going on.
I did get a response each time, sometimes offering an explanation why they had implemented things in a different way than what I expected (e.g. certain defaults and units selected didn't meet my initial thoughts, some still don't, but at least I have a reason now), but some ideas were taken on-board, and are at least on their list to be prioritized.
I was glad they seem to be taking things on board (at least, it seemed to me anyway - they mentioned that the DVM functionality came from user requests, for instance, and that a certain other feature partly came from my request).
-
@skander36 regarding your screenshots..
Nice.. glad you're looking into this area. I'm looking forward to using the power analysis too.
I guess that many power-related features will get loads of attention from users for the newer MXO 5 8-channel, so there's a chance that may result in more traction for additional features in that area, which should spread over to the 4-series, too.
I was hoping that some power-related tasks could eventually be turned into apps on the 'scope Apps menu; for instance, a dedicated semiconductor testing app would be neat for users, since reality is, some tasks are a pain to set up with any 'scope.
-
@skander36 regarding your screenshots..
Nice.. glad you're looking into this area. I'm looking forward to using the power analysis too.
I guess that many power-related features will get loads of attention from users for the newer MXO 5 8-channel, so there's a chance that may result in more traction for additional features in that area, which should spread over to the 4-series, too.
I was hoping that some power-related tasks could eventually be turned into apps on the 'scope Apps menu; for instance, a dedicated semiconductor testing app would be neat for users, since reality is, some tasks are a pain to set up with any 'scope.
Indeed, from the demos related to power we can see that they can be converted to apps by offering a graphic setup guide and a set of predefined settings as for ex. Siglent do.
Bode Plot also can be used for PSRR testing.
-
I enjoy that we are having a discussion, instead of the alternatives..
I actually have very expensive instruments in my lab. My comments was that in last few years, many high end features creeped down to entry level instruments, and there is so much more that you can do with them that it should seriously make us rethink what we buy...
I also said (non-ironically), that I am glad that you are happy with your instrument. And I also consider that if your instrument works so well for you that you are lucky and you also got good return on investment. Fact that it would not be good fit for me (and something else is) is irrelevant to your situation.
What I was confused by was your classification of "basic functions" as "old functions", based on some criteria that is not clear to me.
None of the functions mentioned are old or new. Mask trigger function is an old thing, just not very common. And mask testing is not some gimmick that they used to put on the scopes to test thermionic valves, so it is old and have no use now. It is basic function, that there is no excuse for a modern scope not to have.
Then I realized you are interpreting R&S development strategies as something "smart and positive".
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
Your statement about teams needing to decide priorities, and product roadmap, shows something odd.
R&S team should know by now product roadmap for scope. It is not their first rodeo. Or ist it?
How you explained it (and I might have misunderstood) it seems like some startup that is making a scope first time and they are figuring it out on the fly.
Which is a scary though for R&S product.
But you might not be wrong, because this is second generation of scope they half developed and released and were completing post release. Except with first gen it was faster and less to do.. With this one, it's been 2 years, and that is just...
That puts them in the similar position as Rigol, that does that with very questionable results..
They put together teams that quickly develop products that does not follow some long term strategy but they send these questionnaires that test what buzzwords should they put in their new products, and ignore all previous lessons learned. They quickly churn out products that sound good in a first place, but are never polished or finished, and are missing some good stuff that previous generation had, making it flashy but less usable instruments than before.
And Rigol is selling not because of the instrument excellence, but because they are inexpensive enough that people are tolerating it, mostly because it kinda works, and they usually don't have much choice for the money.
Which is a shame, because they have shown they can make good products, but they choose to make "some" products and all is well as long as it sells..
R&S should not follow in their footsteps. If they do, what is a brand value then?
Those are my, mostly philosophical, ruminations about this.
-
Your statement about teams needing to decide priorities, and product roadmap, shows something odd.
R&S team should know by now product roadmap for scope. It is not their first rodeo. Or ist it?
How you explained it (and I might have misunderstood) it seems like some startup that is making a scope first time and they are figuring it out on the fly.
Which is a scary though for R&S product.
But you might not be wrong, because this is second generation of scope they half developed and released and were completing post release. Except with first gen it was faster and less to do.. With this one, it's been 2 years, and that is just...
That is weird indeed. The RTM3004 has a whole bunch of power analysis functions (for example) and you'd say these should be portable. Unless the new MXO series has a significant change in how the UI is driven which would make it hard to use the existing software as-is. The UI on the RTM3004 is a bit slow here and there and it wouldn't surprise me that improving the UI performance for the MXO series would mean a massive rewrite (not only for the UI but all features/functions that need some kind of UI representation) requiring lots of R&D resources.
-
For me is amazing how after 2 years from launch, this scope does not have functions that come standard with many entry level scopes:
- Freq. Counter
- XY mode
- Histograms
- Mask test
^^^ all available in a 4ch $440 DSO and the B brands will just keep eating the A brands lunch until they wake up.
Do you think the A brands revenue is dropping?
Well when one of them is publicly listed as an individual entity, that is trivial to check:
https://investor.keysight.com/investor-news-and-events/financial-press-releases/press-release-details/2024/Keysight-Technologies-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Fiscal-Year-2024-Results/default.aspx
Revenue was $4.98 billion, compared with $5.46 billion last year.
So, yes, an (ex) "A" brand is in revenue decline year on year.
-
Your statement about teams needing to decide priorities, and product roadmap, shows something odd.
R&S team should know by now product roadmap for scope. It is not their first rodeo. Or ist it?
How you explained it (and I might have misunderstood) it seems like some startup that is making a scope first time and they are figuring it out on the fly.
Which is a scary though for R&S product.
But you might not be wrong, because this is second generation of scope they half developed and released and were completing post release. Except with first gen it was faster and less to do.. With this one, it's been 2 years, and that is just...
That is weird indeed. The RTM3004 has a whole bunch of power analysis functions (for example) and you'd say these should be portable. Unless the new MXO series has a significant change in how the UI is driven which would make it hard to use the existing software as-is. The UI on the RTM3004 is a bit slow here and there and it wouldn't surprise me that improving the UI performance for the MXO series would mean a massive rewrite (not only for the UI but all features/functions that need some kind of UI representation) requiring lots of R&D resources.
The MXO software is completely unrelated to the RTB/RTM software. Though they are skinned to somewhat look the same, they're organized completely differently, and if boot times are any indication, share absolutely nothing under the hood. (The RTB/RTM boot in just a few seconds. MXO takes far longer to boot.) From the menu/control structures, I suspect the MXO software is either derived from, or is new but intended to look and behave like, their higher end scopes (RTO/RTP). The RTA looks like RTB/RTM. And the ScopeRider handheld scope is definitely based on a different architecture from RTB/RTM, but the software looks similar, but definitely different, too.
In other words: a cohesive color scheme and fonts, and some shared general traits, but otherwise a slew of different software platforms.
-
The MXO software is completely unrelated to the RTB/RTM software. Though they are skinned to somewhat look the same, they're organized completely differently...
That's the heart of the situation, it sure seems it. I think it's got to be related to the architecture with the MXO-EP. From what little I've seen, their architecture looks similar in several ways to another product I'm aware of (not test-related). Their general-purpose CPU will be doing relatively little (unlike some earlier 'scopes), since most of the ADC processing will be in their MXO-EP instead, dispatched to all the individual cores there for processing of many features in a chain, with chains in parallel maybe*
We couldn't get all the features out the door in the first release either, and it took quite a while to achieve near-parity. But it was a plaster that had to be ripped off because the older architecture wasn't fit for purpose for the newer requirements that were coming from customers, plus the bandwidth needs of customers kept rising.
Their obvious benefit is quicker scaling upward, of course (i.e. double up the MXO-EP in the MXO 5) but a not-so-obvious benefit (which I hope they do) could be to virtualize all the dozens of cores, plus the general-purpose CPU core, all into one single cheap processor, for the customers who need the features, but don't need the bandwidth, i.e. a lower-cost MXO that doesn't have the hardware capability for upgradeable BW, but with the benefit of a lot cheaper BoM than their MXO-EP versions must be costing. Those users should benefit from all the features** on day one, since that plaster will have been long peeled off by then.
* I have no idea; I'm guessing extremely wildly with zero knowledge in test instrumentation architectures. I wish R&S would share more details about how their product processes the data. Some may say it doesn't matter: it may be considered a black box, but we found that wasn't what technical customers wanted. They wanted to know in detail what they purchased since they are the ones that have to become experts in knowing how that instrument precisely behaves because they have to use it day-in, day-out. Easier to know how an instrument will handle if you know it's internals broadly.
** In our case, we had a few features we could never re-implement, sometimes having to predict in advance that customers are moving away from some things (e.g., say a dedicated wow-and-flutter measurement feature would be hard to justify in a 'scope toward the end of the cassette format timeframe, even though there may be boutique manufacturers of tape decks even 20 years later that still require it). I don't mean that applies to the features we are discussing of course, it's just a made-up example.
-
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
From a manufacturer liability point of view, it's better to have a feature non-existant than it is to have it buggy and produce dodgy results.
-
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
From a manufacturer liability point of view, it's better to have a feature non-existant than it is to have it buggy and produce dodgy results.
Yes and that makes me have flashbacks to years ago...
"No son, fact that others do it don't make it right..." :-DD
It is simple, they do it because they don't get pushback by customers.
They don't get punished for that behaviour.
Or maybe companies do get punished long term, but ignore it for short term bookkeeping wins that gets nice bonuses to management.
Every time someone says "They are too big to fail", remember USA being largest car manufacturing nation and technology leader. Where is Motorola now? What PCs does IBM make today?
-
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
True but there should be a short time between releasing a product and finalising the firmware to have all the specified features / functions. Otherwise potential customers get confused with what functionality a device offers as there are many outdated spec sheets floating around, all telling a different story.
-
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
True but there should be a short time between releasing a product and finalising the firmware to have all the specified features / functions. Otherwise potential customers get confused with what functionality a device offers as there are many outdated spec sheets floating around, all telling a different story.
Sure, no aurgument, I'm just explaining what happens in the real word, that's why I put *insert reason here*.
-
Fact is that the development team size and budget for development team were obviously too small to finish the job in time, and they had to release unfinished product because of pressure to start selling. That happened either because they deliberately choose to do so (which is not really something you have to do for such an expensive instrument, so greed), or they had inexperienced people making that decision.
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
From a manufacturer liability point of view, it's better to have a feature non-existant than it is to have it buggy and produce dodgy results.
It's a time-to-market strategy and everyone does it for sure. But unlike the others, R&S has chosen to restrict access to the firmware, and those without access are stuck with equipment "as-purchased".
R&S's product release strategy and firmware access restrictions are at odds. Someone over there is not thinking.
-
Regarding the firmware: it is quite possible that the geopolitical tensions with Russia and China are the cause. A few days ago I wanted to download firmware from Tektronix like I have been doing for over a decade and this time they need to review the download before releasing it.
-
R&S aren't alone in this. Off the top of my head, Keysight, Tektronix and Rigol are guilty of this. Rigol for example, took them like a year or so before their new series of scopes had hires mode enabled.
I'd be surprised if there aren't examples of releasing scopes with basic features missing from every manufacturer, for *insert reason here*.
From a manufacturer liability point of view, it's better to have a feature non-existant than it is to have it buggy and produce dodgy results.
It's a time-to-market strategy and everyone does it for sure. But unlike the others, R&S has chosen to restrict access to the firmware, and those without access are stuck with equipment "as-purchased".
R&S's product release strategy and firmware access restrictions are at odds. Someone over there is not thinking.
Not saying it's not a crap move, but I greatly doubt there is anyone that bought a legit R&S product that can't get the firmware update for their product either from R&S directly, or via the dealer they bought it from. This is one of the reasons dealers exist, to provide local aftermarket support.
-
It would be great if @pdenisowski could comment on some of the missing features for the MXO 4/5 series oscilloscopes.
I found this discussion both interesting and quite relevant!