My recent thread

Rick WN2C

With all the feature wants out there, I think some people need to have been there when you transmitted on a frequency and had to tune the band to find an answer. Those were the days! 
Man, you all want to make it to easy. No work involved. Look at a screen and see where the signals are and pounce on them. 
What I don't get is this...if the DXers and contesters get those features they want, wouldn't they be good for the "boring old ham" too?

Steve G1XOW

If your need is just to chat on 75m to your buds then an FT-101 will do, nobody should be buying Flex with that usage in mind.

Licensed for over 30 years, I have owned 8 SDR radios in the last 10 years alone, most of them Flex. In the past 5 years I have logged over 34,000 contacts, mainly obsessive DX chasing and the odd contest which I don't play at either.

My point is that I buy the best radio because I want to **** out those last dribbles of RF from the noise, I want to hear and work what no other radio can. I want to bag the rare DX at the lowest part of the solar cycle when bands appear dead.

I want SSDR to be operationally, ergonomically, tactically and performance-wise better than anything else.  This will enable me to do what I couldn't otherwise do. That is why I buy Flex.

The fundamental hardware is the best we are likely to see for many years to come, but does anyone feel that we are even close to that point with SSDR?

So, if Gerald needs subscriptions to make it happen quicker then sign me up right now.

SOFTWARE, underpinned by great hardware makes my goals possible. It's as crucial as the FPGA in the hardware.

What I don't want is a $200,000 Ferrari that I cannot race hard just because the steering wheel is a bit loose and likely to curtail my best performance.

Ross - K9COX

I say this with a sarcastic smile...since when does a contester need an S-meter?

Steve G1XOW

59 TU

Cliff - G4PZK

There are folk who think that DXers and contestors are 'boring old hams'. Fancy spending all that money just to shout '59001' every 20 seconds. Each to his own and for whatever reason. Over the near 40 years I've been licensed the equipment and technology has improved massively yet the technical knowledge and dare I say interest of the operators has diminished to almost nothing.

Peter K1PGV

>And many of those features I don't really need, >such as DX cluster in the panadapter. It goes >back to what Gerald was saying - my feature may not be your feature Right. Which is why funding software development and maintenance out of current sales isn't likely to provide enough funds to make you happy. Because there are a wide variety of "must haves" you need to have a significant investment in forward development to get to a good number of those "must haves" done. Enough investment that you get some of your pet features, I get some of mine, Steve gets some of his. Because there's more overall investment, more features get done, and more people get satisfied. When the funding for forward development AND maintenance is limited, it forces you to triage too severely. Little stuff remains undone because it never rises to the top of the list. It becomes "COULD we do this feature? Sure. But we have these 16 other items to do that have higher priority." The only way to overcome this... the ONLY way... is to increase the level of funding. That's what it takes to get more features done. The question we're trying to pose/answer: How can Flex generate more revenue that can be directed to software development, so we can all have the *best* SSDR... not just a *good enough* SSDR. Peter K1PGV

James Watts

I still say the software portion of FRS is not profitable and can't be profitable in it's current pricing structure from FRS. Therefore the software development from them will never be fully implemented to it's fullest potential. My opinion, but I think the best way forward is FRS concentrate on great hardware, and release the software development to the open source community.

Jim, W8GN

Steve K9ZW

@Jim W8GN - Presumably a portion of each radio sold is also a software purchase?  Not knowing that dollar transfer value could anyone do a department level evaluation?

Open Sourcing may have other reasons to suggest, but it doesn't seem possible to make a financial case with only the upgrade pricing for some sold units of software as our only data point.

73

Steve K9ZW 

Martin AA6E

Software is never finished.  It never gets to its "fullest potential", almost by definition. For one thing, users' perceived requirements are always expanding.

It's no surprise if hardware sales subsidize software at FRS.  It has to be so, because the software has been free up to now.  You could take the position that software and hardware should be treated as separate businesses, but that's not realistic.  You wouldn't sell much hardware without software and vice versa.

My understanding is that the current SSDR cannot be open-sourced, because some of the key modules (e.g. FPGA libraries) are probably licensed from  3rd parties.  Flex could sell you the bare metal, I suppose, but you'd have to program from scratch -- no small project!  Open source does not guarantee you a superior product.  (You can use the published APIs to write your own back end user interface of course, like the iOS product.)

Flex has done a great job of providing cutting edge products for the ham market -- and listening to users. They sell lots of radios, and no one is forced to buy them.  If you require open source or some other feature that Flex doesn't offer, there are competing products you could choose.

73 Martin AA6E

James Watts

I don't REQUIRE anything better, I desire something better. If I REQUIRED something better, I'd not waste my time here and look at something else. While I don't currently own a Flex radio, I have in the past owned a 1000, 5000 and 6500. I want FRS to survive and be successful. However, I'm waiting on the sidelines for the time being.
 
Looking at track record and at the pace of features added since release, I think if we're being truthful here, FRS underestimated the build-out and development costs and time for SmartSDR. There are some standard features that are still missing that was on the road-map back in 2014.

Martin, without constructive criticism, there's no growing or getting better. To much "attaboy" is not conducive to growth of the platform. You would have to have blinders on if you think SmartSDR can't get better than it currently is. In my opinion there's lots of room for improvement. I'm not bashing FRS, but speaking personally.

Jim, W8GN

Tim - W4TME

"There are some standard features that are still missing that was on the road-map back in 2014"

Jim, I feel the need to challenge this statement since it isn't entirely correct.  I have a copy of the roadmap and just reviewed it.

Everything on it, every feature listed, has been implemented.  The only thing stated in the roadmap that was not fulfilled was the release date of v2.0 because we made the business decision to extend the capabilities of the 1.x release series, that everyone received free of charge. It is the establishment of delivery dates on the releases that resulted in FlexRadio curtailing the use of a roadmap.

Yes, there is always room for improvement and constructive criticism delivered in a professional and courteous manner is encouraged.

Ria

My opinion, but I think the best way forward is FRS concentrate on great hardware, and release the software development to the open source community.

I could not disagree more. Software for the radio can be developed by third parties today, and nobody but Flex and a few others are doing it. They have a developer program and an API, and it is very easy to develop software for the radio. The internals of the radio remain the same, but many of the things that are in the client can be 100% done by third parties. In fact, SmartSDR for iOS and dogparkSDR are third party apps. As are ddUtil, Flexmeter, FRStacks, SDR-Bridge, etc. 

But I haven't seen something like WSJT working natively, connecting to the radio (bypassing DAX application) or logging software being slice aware and connecting directly to the radio when those things can be implemented easily if a developer chooses to invest time in it. 

If you want a client with different colors, spots in the panadapter, pop out windows (which is coming in 2.0) and even a proper S-meter it can be done by third parties. Nobody's stopping anyone from doing it. 

But the internals of the radio can only be modified by Flex and arguably that is part of the overall hardware of the radio since the FPGA is programmable hardware. I would greatly prefer for Flex to retain control of the internals of the radio so that the critical piece of the radio doesn't become abandonware like many open source projects have become, or becomes unstable and an unaccountable third party who can fix it doesn't just fall off the edge of the Earth. 

And even "the open source community" has paid developers working at companies to develop software. RedHat is a commercial enterprise. As are Oracle (MySQL), Canonical (Ubuntu), SuSE etc. Even large open source projects today were developed by big companies - Google and Facebook come to mind. 

Bill -VA3WTB

I have seen this suggestion before, making SSDR open source. Why would anyone after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars and several years work all to give it away? And lose control over quality and the product. Maybe Microsoft should do the same thing. Gerald spent 14 years developing PSDR only to give it away so his competetors can use it. don't think he will do that again.

Steve K9ZW

@All - please be 100% certain I am not an advocate for Open Source nor for Open Sourcing SmartSDR.  What I wrote could be taken that way.

I had merely wanted to point out that from a single data point of pricing for an update that no person could develop an informed evaluation of the provider's business units.

The symbiotic relationship be Hardware and Software  as Martin points out is a huge factor making armchair quarterbacking meaningless.

As there can be no rational factual assessment of Hardware vs Software financial performance from sell prices alone, I had wanted to point out there was no rational financial argument to support going Open Source.

It is somewhat dismaying to see people make assertive statements based on factually hollow arguments.  The Myth that the Road-Map has never been delivered may live on at the troll infested forums at eSlam but have no place in an informed discussion. 

Reframing available information to support a preconceived notion is not the process through which valid business decisions are developed.  Bar Talk, yes, but solid advice, **** no. 

Additionally we should remember that how the inner mechanisms of anyone's business work is their private & personal affairs, and none of our business.

If many of our armchair quarterbacks took their own advice based on pricing without cost fundamentals they would fail at business.  Offering the same flawed opinions masqueraded as advice to others is really doing them a disservice.  We should avoid doing this.

In a community we all need to realize that in some ways we ALL are right and we ALL are wrong, largely based on the limited vantage we have and the type of information we have access to. 

Now for my 2cents from the soapbox:

• I think FRS is really doing something cool with the high level of interaction they take with their customers (like this community), innovation in replacement and new products, and business innovations like their TradeIN and TradeUP programs. 

• I've asked over the years about how they do business internally and they have pointed me to resources that they found useful that have made a huge difference for my team in a completely different type of industry.  I can share that these resources reflect the types of values that put FRS ethically and honorably in a very good place. 

• Well done FRS and well done community, especially where members have presented their observations, suggestions and criticisms in a positive way.  Doing so lets FRS and the community understand you without emotivism clouding the picture.

73

Steve K9ZW

James Watts

Again, just my opinion. I know many of you disagree with me. I don't think software development is profitable for FRS. Hence the need to refresh hardware to pay for software development. Limits on R&D costs are directly related and of course feature set.

Professionally, I am in the IT/Software development business and personally, I don't think FRS's current software development course is sustainable. I'm just expressing my opinion here based on our current business model, which may not completely apply to FRS.

Jim, W8GN

James Watts

And to add, I definitely want to rejoin the Flex family and will once I'm satisfied enough attention is being paid to the development of software. As Gerald has said many many times, the radio is SMARTSDR. I really don't have an issue with them releasing new hardware, progress must move forward. I also have no problem paying for software upgrades or if FRS decides on a subscription based schedule, as long as the development progresses.

Jim, W8GN

Bill -VA3WTB

You are correct to a point I think, Gerald mentioned the other day that they could never make money on software, and could never charge to offset cost.
They will never go open source so the sales from hardware is the only way to sustain the company.

Paul Christensen, W9AC

Michael Coslo

You have to remember though. Your eye candy might be something someone else will hate. Some of the features demanded by some people would cause me to think seriously about a different radio.

ctate243

I really appreciate it when folks take a more positive slant on things. I appreciate the innovation flex brings to the market.

What we have going on here is change.  Change in the way radio's are developed, change in the way radios are sold, change in the valuation model of radios, change on the impact of the firmware/software on the radio.  Ham radio in its current model has been around so long that the change perhaps for some is difficult to process.

  Change comes from innovation, and innovation comes with certain risk some flex realized and some their customers realized.  but out of that risk comes reward.  There have been some stumbles, there have been some priorities that don't line up with the masses, but overall the products being released are taking their place on the highest tiers of amateur equipment. 

The things FRS represent IMO are flat out the future of our transceivers and how we operate them.  They are cutting edge and a first. Im hoping everyone can take a step back, take a breath and appreciate what is going on here, we are all learning through this process. im hoping all can try and be as understanding and helpful and enjoy what you have and your involvement in the cutting edge of amateur radio.  

Michael Coslo

A subscription model would fail pretty quickly.  I'm irritated at the Adobe creative cloud subscription model, it works by you paying the monthly fee, and once you stop, it does too. 

James Watts

Paul, this will be my last comment on this topic. I'm expressing my opinion and based on other models I've seen. I'm not bashing FRS, I love FRS and want them to succeed. I also agree this is the future. However, we all must be able to digest constructive criticism. I don't know if you've ever been on a project development team, but if you had a room full of "me too" or "Yes" team members, you would never have the diversity of ideas to make a fully rounded product. 

I'll add a quote from Gerald from above:

Jon, hardware sales are the only current revenue model to pay for software enhancements. No hardware sales no software development.

Jim, W8GN

Steve K9ZW

That quote really needs timelining - as it reflects where FRS was at, and less where it is going. 

Nonetheless the hardware-software interaction/interdependence is the Symbiosis I've been pointing out, as it flows both ways.  The opposites are both true - Without Flex-6000 hardware there would be no market for SmartSDR....without SmartSDR to run there would be no market for Flex-6000 hardware.

Allocation of costs or profits in symbiotic business situations is at best arbitrary.

73

Steve K9ZW

73

Steve K9ZW

Michael Coslo

I have no issue with the 200 dollar model - I was wondering where that 1000 dollar price came from. 

One of the things that I think we get stuck on is the update process. We have it drilled into us form day one that we need all the latest updates. This is a little different.  We actually don't need to do this with the signature series. If your radio is working for you on V1.XX you don't really need to upgrade. 

I understand some folks frustrations, but that's the world of software. I'm itching for V2. Hopefully it will survive  the W10 update process better. I really hope we can detach the slices. The remote ability concerns me - I predict a lot of angry people expecting to use their radio remotely from places with not enough bandwidth.

But regardless, I'm excited.

Hey Flex? Take my money!! 8^)

Michael Coslo

Hey! I resemble that remark! hehe. Well all but the technology part. I'm intensely interested in both the computer and radio end, and as well with the contesting end. The best contesters tend to be really technically savvy too. 

This isn't to say I disagree with you, because you are pretty accurate in many respects.  I never had the experience of novice crystal control communications. That must have been a well earned skill. 

ctate243

Salvador, 

re:"
I personally feel like the alpha team, the elmers and a close group of sympathizers (some of them, not all of course)  *allow me to refer to this group as the flex insiders* are doing a great disservice to FRS by always replying to any criticism instead of allowing Flex to reply first. Tim is always on top of the threads and Gerald and co. do respond from time to time. Let FRS respond to criticism."

I waned to (respectfully of course) disagree with your statement regarding the this.  As you know I have volunteered to represent an aspect of the community via sharing feedback both directions, on my own time with no real direct benefit other than trying to help my colleagues and the community.  Im hoping your statement does not refer to the unpaid champions who attempt to help the community.  if so its also somewhat misinformed as to the not being critical reference.

just to be clear, I represent my colleagues far more vocally than I share on this community sometimes quite forcefully and passionately.  I will leave it at that, but were you to ask Gerald, Steve, Tim, Eric I am sure they would all say that I am not a "cool aid drinker".   I am not always the most popular alpha team member.

Steve G1XOW

@Steve K9ZW

...I agree with this to an extent. But don't agree with the notion that FRS always knows best and we are just being overly critical. Being a good engineer doesn't automatically make you a good technical marketeer, being a good sales person doesn't qualify you for the post of VP of sales - needing entirely different skills sets and experience.

Recognize too the potential value that this forum can offer FRS by way of experience, insight and feedback from others in similar roles and industries.

That experience coupled with enthusiasm when harnessed properly can be very powerful. A collection of like mind people from differing backgrounds forming a kind of steering committee [hate those words but it makes my point]. A collection of highly experienced people that FRS wouldn't want to carry on payroll.

I know there are certainly 5 or 6 people here that could help FRS in this way, even if only to bounce ideas around in confidence.

Without this forums input, FRS would be flying blind to a large extent, that is until they gained after-market feedback post product launch. This forum is one massive pair of ears, and well done to FRS for listening.

We won't always agree, but we certainly should respect our vastly differing backgrounds and experience.  Many here do run their own successful tech businesses, and are thus well aware of the essential nature and mix of financial management, strategy and market positioning.

Gerald-K5SDR

Michael, therein lies the fundamental problem that we struggle with every day.  What one person can't live without another hates and vice versa.  It is a no win situation for us for many decisions.  Every decision we make is a trade off.  

Steve K9ZW

@Steve G1XOW - I do believe you have valid points. 

FRS assembled an exceptional team of advisers and Alpha Team members drawn up as you correctly point out as being useful. They perhaps don't tell us end users enough about how these folk do so much, but it has never been a secret how they tapped into the amateur community for advisors. 

I know some of use wondered "why not me" when FRS assembled these sage groups, but reality is two fold - they picked based on those they had (or could form) a relationship with and second for many like myself we only imagined ourselves qualified. 

Is FRS 100% correct 100% of the time?  Do they even need to be?

They say the difference between an amateur and a professional is the pro recognizes and fixes their mistakes. 

FRS wisely considers the community as part of their information gathering, but I will completely disagree with you on the assertion that without it FRS would be flying blind, if for no other reason that other successful amateur radio products get by without an open community like this.  Also FRS has explained how they use focus groups and at times go out to see amateurs as they study how their radios can be made better.  Feedback loops are important, but we cannot say this sort of community forum is unbiased or even an absolute necessity.

I think we agree on much more than where we differ.

We also should never forget that a polite personal email or letter to FRS is a useful way to pass on thoughts as well.

73 & all the best,

Steve K9ZW

EA4GLI

We are very blind to all of these interactions that you speak of Chris. But I am really enjoying the last 2 days of forum activity, I am getting a clearer idea of what to expect in the near future. Unlike Tim and Clay I think this had been a great thread.