Campaign to save the YAPP

[nimbusgb]

Yet Another Pointless Project

Encompasses the low cost, unsupported, DIY, open source nature of the projects. Mostly done for the fun of the knowledge or acquiring some piece of equipment at very, very low cost.

YAPP alternatively - Yet Another Profitless Project

 

[Colvic Watson]

YAPP alternatively - Yet Another Profitless Project

Or Yet Another Practical Project?

 

[Swanrad2]

What point? Commercial gear sold as navigation equipment can make the tea, so long as you buy that manufacturer's compatible £5,000 fuel cell... Angus has demonstrated that a truly competent design engineer can develop project after project in quick succession in his spare time, which discredits all the stuff about commercial development costs, and then sells it on at cost which reveals the profit margin in the industry, let alone all the leeches who take a percentage even before HM Govt. One of my oldest friends is an electronics design engineer, making a good living by taking on contract work from well known manufacturers whose development engineers want four years to meet a contract with a two week limit. The first requirement is to listen to the design parameters and look to address these and not waste time and money on things that are not in those parameters.

But what really gets me is that instruments are brought out with hundreds of unwanted functions but which , presumably to sell another item, leaves one of the basic requirements uncovered. I do however understand that when compared to TVs, the market sector is relatively small and the limited turnover does necesitate a higher margin.

Rob.

The 'leeches' you refer to, I assume, are the supply chain that delivers the product to market? The alternative being what exactly? I have no objection to doing stuff for yourself, but the world doesn't run that way - in order for Angus to deliver these goods at such a low cost he must have developed the knowledge and acquired the money somehow. Doubtless as part of the real world in which people get paid for going to work (not just the designers).

 

[JohnGC]

What point? Commercial gear sold as navigation equipment can make the tea, so long as you buy that manufacturer's compatible £5,000 fuel cell... Angus has demonstrated that a truly competent design engineer can develop project after project in quick succession in his spare time, which discredits all the stuff about commercial development costs, and then sells it on at cost which reveals the profit margin in the industry, let alone all the leeches who take a percentage even before HM Govt. One of my oldest friends is an electronics design engineer, making a good living by taking on contract work from well known manufacturers whose development engineers want four years to meet a contract with a two week limit. The first requirement is to listen to the design parameters and look to address these and not waste time and money on things that are not in those parameters.

But what really gets me is that instruments are brought out with hundreds of unwanted functions but which , presumably to sell another item, leaves one of the basic requirements uncovered. I do however understand that when compared to TVs, the market sector is relatively small and the limited turnover does necesitate a higher margin.

Rob.

The "point" of this poll and thread - Should Angus be allowed to continue informing us about YAPPs?

I have no knowledge of your friend or his contracts, so can't comment. I do have 30 years of my own experience. Please see post 20 if you would like to see why I don't think Angus's YAPPs constitute a commercially viable business and why I believe (like you) that he should be allowed to continue.

 

[JohnGC]

The 'leeches' you refer to, I assume, are the supply chain that delivers the product to market? The alternative being what exactly? I have no objection to doing stuff for yourself, but the world doesn't run that way - in order for Angus to deliver these goods at such a low cost he must have developed the knowledge and acquired the money somehow. Doubtless as part of the real world in which people get paid for going to work (not just the designers).

Quite. YAPPs are clearly not a business in the sense that Angus is currently making a living from them.

 

[JumbleDuck]

Yet Another Pointless Project

And derived, I suspect, from yacc: Yet Another Compiler Compiler which is an ancient Unix utility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacc

 

[bedouin]

(Who said "No' - the knives are out!).

I think they only said no just to prove that there was nothing on which all forum users would agree

 

[Cardo]

Looks like the mods reversed their decision. I'm hoping Angus carries on providing YAPPs as I'm always interested to see what he's come up with. :encouragement:

 

[AntarcticPilot]

And derived, I suspect, from yacc: Yet Another Compiler Compiler which is an ancient Unix utility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacc

You need not suspect - it is so. Angus confirmed it when I asked that question in a thread long ago! I guess I'm one of the few dinosaurs who knew about YACC - though I never used it.

 

[nigelmercier]

Thanks all for your support.

But who voted no?

 

[TheEcho]

Dinosaur? Sob....
I was taught YACC at university in the nineties... I'm still in my thirties, save me from extinction for a few years more!

 

[Cardo]

Thanks all for your support.

But who voted no?

The person who reported him in the first place?

 

[rob2]

I must say I'm surprised at some of the flak on this one. I guess it's symptomatic of why the complainant thought this was a "business". Commercial kit never seems to me to address the actual needs of the end user as Angus sets out to do (and my friend). Actual development costs can be minimal, but by the time various bodies have imposed testing and certification requirements, they probably fade into insignificance - perhaps this is why you can't buy any basic kit anymore but have to have all those unwanted functions so that only one product has to be certified? The detail is the thing, I'm simply putting forward the fact that a job can be done cheaply and efficiently like all the YAPPs but I wish those who disagree would substantiate their arguments with some detail.

Rob.

 

[Pladdatoo]

But who voted no?

An interesting question.

In a poll such as this, are the comments/resaons for saying NO visable to all and/or were any left as a matter of interest

 

[pagoda]

The Mods have got it wrong on this one.

100% AGREE. His activity is in the interests of all practical owners who want to improve their craft without paying out an arm and a leg for simple electronics which everybody should have access to.
I mess about with electronics for my boat as well, so all power to Angus !!

 

[FullCircle]

Well, all well that ends well.

Pleased to see that reason and sanity have not departed just yet.

 

[JohnGC]

I must say I'm surprised at some of the flak on this one. I guess it's symptomatic of why the complainant thought this was a "business". Commercial kit never seems to me to address the actual needs of the end user as Angus sets out to do (and my friend). Actual development costs can be minimal, but by the time various bodies have imposed testing and certification requirements, they probably fade into insignificance - perhaps this is why you can't buy any basic kit anymore but have to have all those unwanted functions so that only one product has to be certified? The detail is the thing, I'm simply putting forward the fact that a job can be done cheaply and efficiently like all the YAPPs but I wish those who disagree would substantiate their arguments with some detail.

Rob.

Sorry it sounds like flak, I didn't intend to do that.

You say that Angus should be allowed to continue. Then you imply he also follows a viable business model. In the context of this thread, those are contradictory points of view.

Your point about actual development cost versus testing and certification is true but overlooks the fact that for a commercial product it is a legal requirement. In my experience we have far fewer products on the market that have EMC issues than was the case prior to mandatory EMC testing and CE marking. Would you be happy with an untested pacemaker or a GPS receiver that changed the position it reported every time your phone rang? There are plenty of reports on this forum of uncertified LED lights that interfere with VHF radios and it is clear even from photographs that some of them at least could never pass an EMC emissions test. Some people will accept that but I think saving a few quid on a product that stops my much more expensive VHF working isn't a saving and isn't safe.

Are you implying that the development costs should be the major proportion of getting a product to market? Why should that be the case? For a commercial product all of the testing and certification is part of the development it isn't separate.

Jobs can always be done more quickly and for lower cost if the specification is sufficiently limited. "Limited specification" pretty much defines a YAPP. I don't know about your friend's situation but many contractors are called in to deal with a single design while the incumbents are pulled from one project to another and back again or are troubleshooting problems with a previous design.

Are you sure all those unwanted functions are unwanted by everyone?

I think your analysis is naive but although it may not seem like it, I do have sympathy with your experience. It is sometimes impossible to find equipment that does exactly what I want and I have to compromise, buy or make a YAPP or dig more deeply into my pockets.

 

[prv]

I guess I'm one of the few dinosaurs who knew about YACC - though I never used it.

I'm no dinosaur (at least by the standards of this forum) but I've certainly heard of yacc and lex. I've not actually used them, though I once used a Java analogue of yacc for some parsing problem.

Lots of other things have used the YA<x> form, though. I've even been Yet Another Pete at times.

Pete

 

[dom]

...perhaps this is why you can't buy any basic kit anymore but have to have all those unwanted functions so that only one product has to be certified?
Rob.

+1 ...it is thought provoking to know how much a task-focused, non-blinged-up piece of kit costs to produce and to see how well it performs in practice. It is also interesting to see the kind of ideas such a talented mind can come up when freed from constraint and regulation.

None of this is a necessarily a criticism of marine electronic companies, but all of us must wonder whether the explanation for exorbitant marine electronic costs is sometimes, "Oh my, how naive you are; do you have any idea how expensive my Roller costs to run?"

 

[prv]

None of this is a necessarily a criticism of marine electronic companies, but all of us must wonder whether the explanation for exorbitant marine electronic costs is sometimes, "Oh my, how naive you are; do you have any idea how expensive my Roller costs to run?"

To think that pricing has anything to do with costs, even costs of Rolls Royces, is naive. To a first approximation, the goal of pricing is to charge exactly the price that results in the highest overall sales (sales in pounds, not units). If you can tweak this by charging different (groups of) people different amounts for an even higher sales figure, so much the better. Costs have absolutely nothing to do with it, except to set a floor below which it's not (usually) worth bothering.

Pete