On behalf of the S-A-A-2 design team I'm writing this to clear up confusion around our stance towards clones.

Firstly, we do not have a problem with clones. In fact, we encourage making variants of the S-A-A-2 design, or even verbatim clones, as long as basic business ethics are observed. We released the design as open source and do not take any royalties. So far the vast majority of clone manufacturers are playing completely fair and we are fine with them selling S-A-A-2 devices. I like to see variants like the 3.2 inch "black gold" clone, and even recommend them when people ask me where to get a S-A-A-2 with metal enclosure.

However, recently there has been anti-competitive behavior from one clone manufacturer that I won't name, and it involves manipulating rankings on platforms like taobao using fake orders and reviews, as well as dumping devices at close to cost to overseas reputable distributors. The "black gold" clone were playing completely fair and slowly gained sales because of the superiority of their product, and we never had an issue with them. The aforementioned manufacturer used a flood of traffic since day 1 of their launch to take over the taobao search rankings, and since then both hcxqs and the black gold clone suddenly saw their sales on taobao go to near zero. It's one thing to sell and make money off of our design (which we allow), it's another to try to cut off the livelihood of the original creators, using their design. Even the Shenzhen cloners know this and will generally keep a low profile and not screw over the original creators. Prominent members of the NanoVNA community sided with the aforementioned clone manufacturer and are continuing to promote them on various social media, and this is why we will no longer be open sourcing future designs. It is a sad day for open source hardware. It's not clones that killed open source, it's one particular bad actor and one or two influential members of the community that convinced our entire team that it's a losing battle and we are better off protecting our IP rather than share knowledge in the future. Unfortunately, the S-A-A-2 team is not just me and is composed of many of the best RF engineers in the open source space, one of which designed an earlier open source VNA and is now working on a high dynamic range full two port VNA. We will miss out on a wealth of knowledge that would have been shared openly if not for this incident.

Let me end this by saying we do not need any sympathy, all of the S-A-A-2 team members are doing fine. However, something needs to be fixed before open source hardware can continue to flourish.

Open source is a bad idea for this type of product. The original intent of open source to make things more accessible for many is not working in this case.
Proliferation of clones that may have or not faithfully copied the original while others made various modifications, variations in components, QC methods etc lead to an overall uncertainty about the final product quality .
In the end, buyers need to endlessly investigate what clone exactly are they getting , which becomes more time consuming than the product is worth and there's always the risk of getting a subpar clone . The original designers will unfairly be blamed for design flaws and quality issues which are not their fault .
If on the other hand the original is a proprietary product , it can establish its reputation in the market without being "diluted" by unauthorized copies.
Customers will gain the certainty of a consistent quality product and the manufacturer/designers will have a much clearer reputation and future path.
I bought a V2 from the first batch and works great. It was easy to select as there were no clones .
A friend requested assistance recently in buying one and I was totally confused by the bewildering variety of product and feature combinations available now.
All sorts of unknown hardware inside all sorts of boxes and with various displays or connectors, not to mention firmware differences and possible bugs.
In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very cheap price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
The moral of the story, open source does not work regardless of how well intentioned it may have been.

Matt
This was done solely to avoid the hassle of an unknown product.

Your points are valid, no argument there. However, a google search for NanoVNA or NanoVNA2 will quickly lead you to their "official" sites, along with preferred sources. If you want to buy it at a lower price than what's there, you should be prepared to get something less than what you expect. As a wise man once said: "there's no such thing as a free lunch".

Respectfully,
Pat

I agree with the points made by Matt and Pat.
An early example can be seen is what happened to the mchf rig.

Open source is NEVER a bad idea. It is more trustworthy, more fair. If
somebody looks for a guaranteed product, must buy an original, not a
clone - there is no other option. Buying a clone means a hassle of an
unknown product, also there is no other option.

Martin, OK1RR

Dne 04. 09. 20 v 22:12 matt.tudor.ee@engineer.com napsal(a):

> Open source is a bad idea for this type of product. The original intent of open source to make things more accessible for many is not working in this case.
> Proliferation of clones that may have or not faithfully copied the original while others made various modifications, variations in components, QC methods etc lead to an overall uncertainty about the final product quality .
> In the end, buyers need to endlessly investigate what clone exactly are they getting , which becomes more time consuming than the product is worth and there's always the risk of getting a subpar clone . The original designers will unfairly be blamed for design flaws and quality issues which are not their fault .
> If on the other hand the original is a proprietary product , it can establish its reputation in the market without being "diluted" by unauthorized copies.
> Customers will gain the certainty of a consistent quality product and the manufacturer/designers will have a much clearer reputation and future path.
> I bought a V2 from the first batch and works great. It was easy to select as there were no clones .
> A friend requested assistance recently in buying one and I was totally confused by the bewildering variety of product and feature combinations available now.
> All sorts of unknown hardware inside all sorts of boxes and with various displays or connectors, not to mention firmware differences and possible bugs.
> In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very cheap price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
> Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
> The moral of the story, open source does not work regardless of how well intentioned it may have been.
>
> Matt
> This was done solely to avoid the hassle of an unknown product.
>
>
>
>

> In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very cheap
> price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
> Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
>

good luck getting that up the tower  or working on a field day site in
the rain :-)

Graham

i know have a picture in my haed ... a ham climbing up a rohn with a BIG
shoulder strap around his neck (with an 8714 dangling behind him)

muahahaaa

buy an saa2n (n socket, metal case, 4inch screen) ...only 60 bucks ... 
or wait till the new v2plus comes out

greetz sigi dg9bfc

Am 05.09.2020 um 08:22 schrieb graham.d:

>
>> In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very
>> cheap price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
>> Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
>>
>
> good luck getting that up the tower  or working on a field day site in
> the rain :-)
>
> Graham
>
>
>
>

Open source has nothing to do with your dilemma, which is easily
solved by a short visit to official sites and reading for 30 seconds.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 05:32, <matt.tudor.ee@engineer.com> wrote:

> Open source is a bad idea for this type of product. The original intent of
> open source to make things more accessible for many is not working in this
> case.
> Proliferation of clones that may have or not faithfully copied the
> original while others made various modifications, variations in components,
> QC methods etc lead to an overall uncertainty about the final product
> quality .
> In the end, buyers need to endlessly investigate what clone exactly are
> they getting , which becomes more time consuming than the product is worth
> and there's always the risk of getting a subpar clone . The original
> designers will unfairly be blamed for design flaws and quality issues which
> are not their fault .
> If on the other hand the original is a proprietary product , it can
> establish its reputation in the market without being "diluted" by
> unauthorized copies.
> Customers will gain the certainty of a consistent quality product and the
> manufacturer/designers will have a much clearer reputation and future path.
> I bought a V2 from the first batch and works great. It was easy to select
> as there were no clones .
> A friend requested assistance recently in buying one and I was totally
> confused by the bewildering variety of product and feature combinations
> available now.
> All sorts of unknown hardware inside all sorts of boxes and with various
> displays or connectors, not to mention firmware differences and possible
> bugs.
> In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very cheap
> price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
> Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
> The moral of the story, open source does not work regardless of how well
> intentioned it may have been.
>
> Matt
> This was done solely to avoid the hassle of an unknown product.
>
>
>

"i know have a picture in my haed ... a ham climbing up a rohn with a BIG
shoulder strap around his neck (with an 8714 dangling behind him)"
When working for the BBC in the 1970's, I sometimes saw antenna engineer colleagues climbing towers with a big heavy Rohde & Schwarz POLYSKOP SWOB sweeper on their backs!  Power was usually available from the antenna tower lighting circuit!
-Hector

The sad thing here is close sourcing a product cuts off people in the community from access to code and schematics to helps them learn and build niche modifications the originals or clones will never implement. But I dont think closing source does much to stop the bad actors. For example, let's look at SDRs, on ebay you can now buy Ettus USRP, Airspy, and I think RsPlay clones, none of these are open hardware. These listings are starting to flood google shopping so much that when you type SDR in the search the clones show up over the originals.

What's a hardware dev suppose to do? I personally have some more complicated products I wish to sell, a portable LCR/Impeadence analyzer and seperate SDR boards for RX and TX each with 4 to 8 coherrent channels and beamforming built in. I want to open source them and even document there development from beging to end so anyone wanting to build this kind of stuff can easily learn how it's done. I also want to make money so I can live and continue to develop hardware.

I think the answer is to add a closed source piece to the equation that has no bearing on the design, it's just an encrypted validation chip that is required for FW updates and software drivers, making exact clones useless with the pc software and unable to be updated. It may not stop clones which is fine but it would make way more work for bad actors who only care about cash hopefully pushing them to move on to a new product!

give users or developers access to the API , not hardware design.
In the 3GHz+ range nobody can make positive contributions to a design unless they already have the knowledge, experience and tools ( software and hardware) .
If they don't have the tools , how could improve performance and contribute back to the project when they can't even validate their own results due to lack of equipment?
A 6GHz directional coupler can't be measured with a 3GHz VNA . The tools used for development need to be at least as good or better than the prototype under test.
That rules out any hardware contribution from people who want a cheap board because cheap is all they can afford .
Giving users access to the software API on the other hand opens the project up to a wider audience, people who may have theoretical knowledge, programming skils, much larger audience and much more to gain for the project, improvements in user interface, algorithms, applications beyond the original design etc.

The schematics arent as much about modifying as learning, a 60db VNA with
3ghz range at 70 bucks is a hell of a thing.. buying the parts to make a a
4ghz vna with a cheap analog devices 4ghz pll costs WAY more than 70 bucks,
closer to 300, hell mini circuits 800-2000mghz directional coupler I bought
for scalar analyzing was almost as much as the minivna2 with case and cal
kit! I haven't looked at the schematics yet but while installing a battery
I noticed all the parts are quality brand name stuff, AD, ST Micro, etc.

I am very interested in phased arrays above 1ghz and being able to see how
they implemented all this capability for 70 bucks goes a long way
educationally, what if I need to do cheap impeadence measurements at each
antenna element for feedback in a system, well now I probably can by
incorporating nanovna2s techniques. Also there may be room for a random joe
to add some extra filtering or replace rf front end parts with ones that
are higher spec for his specific use case..

All I'm saying is open source helps out in various ways, if you believe in
sharing ideas. It's a shame some people abuse it and ruin it for the
designers and the people wanting to learn from the designers. There has to
be some kind of middle ground to keep the knowledge free but keep the ass
holes away!

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020, 12:37 PM <matt.tudor.ee@engineer.com> wrote:

> give users or developers access to the API , not hardware design.
> In the 3GHz+ range nobody can make positive contributions to a design
> unless they already have the knowledge, experience and tools ( software and
> hardware) .
> If they don't have the tools , how could improve performance and
> contribute back to the project when they can't even validate their own
> results due to lack of equipment?
> A 6GHz directional coupler can't be measured with a 3GHz VNA . The tools
> used for development need to be at least as good or better than the
> prototype under test.
> That rules out any hardware contribution from people who want a cheap
> board because cheap is all they can afford .
> Giving users access to the software API on the other hand opens the
> project up to a wider audience, people who may have theoretical knowledge,
> programming skils, much larger audience and much more to gain for the
> project, improvements in user interface, algorithms, applications beyond
> the original design etc.
>
>

Open source has always confused me since I see it as "working for free". I understand how OS can allow more people to contribute to development and widens the effective audience for a product, but unless there is control of some aspect that secures a revenue stream, then talking about the merits of OS alone seems to miss the point that it still has to be sustainable somehow. I work for a semiconductor company that won't touch OS code and develops code in house that is then given away free (under license) but that is not open. This tactic is to drive the actual money-making activity, which is to get people to build with our silicon, which they have to first buy, of course. All the hardware designs and API are free, however. So OS on its own has no inherent pay back like this, unless it is negotiated with manufacturers and some exclusivity is given for that, and bad clone players are ruthlessly sued for breaching a license they never bothered to get in the first place. To me, OS is extremely risky if you want to make money, though a glorious ans magnanimous gesture to the technical community if you have another source of income.

Open source has always confused me since I see it as "working for free". I understand how OS can allow more people to contribute to development and widens the effective audience for a product, but unless there is control of some aspect that secures/rescues a revenue stream, then talking about the merits of OS alone seems to miss the point that it still has to be sustainable somehow. I work for a semiconductor company that won't touch OS code and develops code in house that is then given away free (under license) but that is not open. This tactic is to drive the actual money-making activity, which is to get people to build with our silicon, which they have to first buy, of course. All the hardware designs and API are free, however. So, OS on its own has no inherent pay back like this, unless it is negotiated with manufacturers and some exclusivity is given for that, and bad clone players are ruthlessly sued for breaching a license they never bothered to get in the first place. To me, OS is extremely risky if you want to make money, though a glorious and magnanimous gesture to the technical community if you have another source of income.

OS is definitely not the best choice for making money off of things but in
software you can using the GPL V2(?) charge to download the compiled
binaries but not the source code. Many OS Linux server operating systems
make their money off of support plans, And plenty of other OS enterprise
software does the same thing. So much of OS software revenue comes from
support plans and similar.
Only enterprise software makes a lot of money in OS.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:50 PM Peter KA6Z via groups.io <p.knazko=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Open source has always confused me since I see it as "working for free". I
> understand how OS can allow more people to contribute to development and
> widens the effective audience for a product, but unless there is control of
> some aspect that secures/rescues a revenue stream, then talking about the
> merits of OS alone seems to miss the point that it still has to be
> sustainable somehow. I work for a semiconductor company that won't touch OS
> code and develops code in house that is then given away free (under
> license) but that is not open. This tactic is to drive the actual
> money-making activity, which is to get people to build with our silicon,
> which they have to first buy, of course. All the hardware designs and API
> are free, however. So, OS on its own has no inherent pay back like this,
> unless it is negotiated with manufacturers and some exclusivity is given
> for that, and bad clone players are ruthlessly sued for breaching a license
> they never bothered to get in the first place. To me, OS is extremely risky
> if you want to make money, though a glorious and magnanimous gesture to the
> technical community if you have another source of income.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
73,
Tripp Sanders
K5TRP

And yet RedHat is a billion dollar company built on OSS.
Cloning has nothing to do with OS. People have been cloning
closed products for decades.
Plenty of sources online that explain the OSS movement, benefits,
caveats, philosophy, the ecosystem etc.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 02:50, Peter KA6Z via groups.io <p.knazko=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Open source has always confused me since I see it as "working for free". I
> understand how OS can allow more people to contribute to development and
> widens the effective audience for a product, but unless there is control of
> some aspect that secures a revenue stream, then talking about the merits of
> OS alone seems to miss the point that it still has to be sustainable
> somehow. I work for a semiconductor company that won't touch OS code and
> develops code in house that is then given away free (under license) but
> that is not open. This tactic is to drive the actual money-making activity,
> which is to get people to build with our silicon, which they have to first
> buy, of course. All the hardware designs and API are free, however. So OS
> on its own has no inherent pay back like this, unless it is negotiated with
> manufacturers and some exclusivity is given for that, and bad clone players
> are ruthlessly sued for breaching a license they never bothered to get in
> the first place. To me, OS is extremely risky if you want to make money,
> though a glorious ans magnanimous gesture to the technical community if you
> have another source of income.
>
>
>

First copies of SAA-2 (as reported by Gabriel) were
board level clones, cloners did not realise that the
project was OS, so there goes your argument.

On Sat, 5 Sep 2020 at 05:32, <matt.tudor.ee@engineer.com> wrote:

> Open source is a bad idea for this type of product. The original intent of
> open source to make things more accessible for many is not working in this
> case.
> Proliferation of clones that may have or not faithfully copied the
> original while others made various modifications, variations in components,
> QC methods etc lead to an overall uncertainty about the final product
> quality .
> In the end, buyers need to endlessly investigate what clone exactly are
> they getting , which becomes more time consuming than the product is worth
> and there's always the risk of getting a subpar clone . The original
> designers will unfairly be blamed for design flaws and quality issues which
> are not their fault .
> If on the other hand the original is a proprietary product , it can
> establish its reputation in the market without being "diluted" by
> unauthorized copies.
> Customers will gain the certainty of a consistent quality product and the
> manufacturer/designers will have a much clearer reputation and future path.
> I bought a V2 from the first batch and works great. It was easy to select
> as there were no clones .
> A friend requested assistance recently in buying one and I was totally
> confused by the bewildering variety of product and feature combinations
> available now.
> All sorts of unknown hardware inside all sorts of boxes and with various
> displays or connectors, not to mention firmware differences and possible
> bugs.
> In the end he bought an old 8713C off an auction site for a very cheap
> price and upgraded its firmware to 8714 .
> Cost about double of the metal box 4" LCD nanoVNA of unknown hardware.
> The moral of the story, open source does not work regardless of how well
> intentioned it may have been.
>
> Matt
> This was done solely to avoid the hassle of an unknown product.
>
>
>

What I meant by isn’t the best is isn’t the easiest choice.

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:43 PM Tripp K5TRP via groups.io <trippsanders99=
gmail.com@groups.io> wrote:

> OS is definitely not the best choice for making money off of things but in
> software you can using the GPL V2(?) charge to download the compiled
> binaries but not the source code. Many OS Linux server operating systems
> make their money off of support plans, And plenty of other OS enterprise
> software does the same thing. So much of OS software revenue comes from
> support plans and similar.
> Only enterprise software makes a lot of money in OS.
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:50 PM Peter KA6Z via groups.io <p.knazko=
> yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
>
>> Open source has always confused me since I see it as "working for free".
>> I understand how OS can allow more people to contribute to development and
>> widens the effective audience for a product, but unless there is control of
>> some aspect that secures/rescues a revenue stream, then talking about the
>> merits of OS alone seems to miss the point that it still has to be
>> sustainable somehow. I work for a semiconductor company that won't touch OS
>> code and develops code in house that is then given away free (under
>> license) but that is not open. This tactic is to drive the actual
>> money-making activity, which is to get people to build with our silicon,
>> which they have to first buy, of course. All the hardware designs and API
>> are free, however. So, OS on its own has no inherent pay back like this,
>> unless it is negotiated with manufacturers and some exclusivity is given
>> for that, and bad clone players are ruthlessly sued for breaching a license
>> they never bothered to get in the first place. To me, OS is extremely risky
>> if you want to make money, though a glorious and magnanimous gesture to the
>> technical community if you have another source of income.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> 73,
> Tripp Sanders
> K5TRP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
73,
Tripp Sanders
K5TRP

The post does say clones aren't the problem, whether board level clones or using published design files.

In fact even the board level cloners understood well the non-aggression principle that the ecosystem depends on, and understand that they rely on and are making profit from the work of the original developers, and are not dumb enough to kill a cash cow. What this aggressor did will harm the entire ecosystem including innocent clone sellers, because original developers will resort to copy-protection methods or proprietary firmware (in case you haven't noticed the GPL doesn't work, it hasn't prevented several NanoVNA manufacturers from closing their firmware source).

Dear Matt,

Staying with old, professional kit is sustainable for a while. I tried this with spectrum analysers, notably HP141 and plugins ( and oscilloscopes). I bought my first one, maintained it to a degree, but bought two more mainframes and various plugins as a protection against future failure I could not repair.  I ran out of bench and storage space, and it was a drag ( impossible) to move the analyser anywhere else in the house, outside or lend to friends.

This modern stuff seems to cost the same, is equally difficult to maintain, but is portable, available and does not fill my mancave. I can put it in my pocket and go round to a friend.

I am often accused of being an “old fart” ( well, I am retired). I have ancient and vintage cars, ancient computers (pdp8 and Elliott920), an old lathe, an old house, etc, but some modern things are just better and easier. One exception to this is apalling interface of modern televisions!

I have learned a lot from these open source devices. I hope it can continue.

Thankyou, all designers and contributors.

Steve L. G7PSZ

Of course, and I have read many of them. I'm not saying it doesn't work or that I don't know how it works, just that it's risky as a revenue generator in a way that's not comfortable for everyone. Redhat may be a billion-dollar company (now part of IBM, thanks very much), but Apple and Microsoft are orders of magnitude larger, and their OS (sorry, OSS) philosophy other than Darwin in Apple's case is quite non-existent, which I guess is what has given such impetus to open source in the first place. But the gentlemen's agreement necessary among the 'ecosystem' players (clone-makers, open-source developers, etc.) to not butcher the supply-chain of both the hardware and the software is a tenuous business model at best, though more power to it.

You do realize that Linux is the most used operating system
out there?
The worth of the company is not a measure of success of a
model, just that it works.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 16:29, Peter KA6Z via groups.io <p.knazko=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Of course, and I have read many of them. I'm not saying it doesn't work or
> that I don't know how it works, just that it's risky as a revenue generator
> in a way that's not comfortable for everyone. Redhat may be a
> billion-dollar company (now part of IBM, thanks very much), but Apple and
> Microsoft are orders of magnitude larger, and their OS (sorry, OSS)
> philosophy other than Darwin in Apple's case is quite non-existent, which I
> guess is what has given such impetus to open source in the first place. But
> the gentlemen's agreement necessary among the 'ecosystem' players
> (clone-makers, open-source developers, etc.) to not butcher the
> supply-chain of both the hardware and the software is a tenuous business
> model at best, though more power to it.
>
>
>

Well, Apple and Microsoft have been fighting each other to be the most rapacious (as in tight monegrabbing) organisations in the world.
The leader used to be Microsoft, but they were surpassed by Apple about 7 years ago, but Microsoft is returning to the forefront with “early” dropping of updates for their os- eg 7 dropped recently, and changing one-off purchase of packages to annual subscription eg Office365. You would not believe the annual bill for companies with 100 pcs running Windows and Office.

Many, MANY decades ago, I think the front runner was IBM. I remember the letters also stood for “ I’ve Been Mugged”.

Steve L

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:20 PM, OwO wrote:
>
> (in case you haven't noticed the GPL doesn't work, it hasn't prevented
> several NanoVNA manufacturers from closing their firmware source).

Who is from manufacturers close firmware? I don`t know any V2 provided vs different from original. (Only NanoVNA-F not provide it)

The GPL is a licence like any other, if there is no one to enforce it ...
If you close the firmware you shoot yourself in a foot: you have reduced
your market instantly. Now, maybe that is what you want: taking the route
of semi professional VNAs that have been around for some years but that
also means that you have to up your game: marketing, manufacturing, support.
All those things that you do not have now and that you can do without
because
people will tolerate that in a cheap OS project.

As for your competitor:
When your product was released he was faced with a dilemma.
He had his product that he was making a killing on since his profit margins
are
4x and he is dominating the market (he was the first and he had a polished
product).
Your product shows up, better performance, rough around the edges that is
targeting
the same market and even claims the name. He does the only thing reasonable
for his
business. Takes what he knows (supply chain, case design etc) and tries to
dominate.
Unfortunately for him (and to the benefit of the users) the profit margins
are much lower,
and the new product takes off (judging by the aliexpress listings the V2 is
going to take over).
Now he is stuck at the aggressive pricing level and he does not have the
means to innovate
further. There is your chance.
Learn from it and adapt. As I have stated a number of times before: you
have a chance to
dominate but you (keep saying you, HQCS or whatever the name of the company
is) have to
up your game: do all those things that your competitor does best and that
you, apparently, have
no idea about.


On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 05:20, OwO <OwOwOwOwO123@outlook.com> wrote:

> The post does say clones aren't the problem, whether board level clones or
> using published design files.
>
> In fact even the board level cloners understood well the non-aggression
> principle that the ecosystem depends on, and understand that they rely on
> and are making profit from the work of the original developers, and are not
> dumb enough to kill a cash cow. What this aggressor did will harm the
> entire ecosystem including innocent clone sellers, because original
> developers will resort to copy-protection methods or proprietary firmware
> (in case you haven't noticed the GPL doesn't work, it hasn't prevented
> several NanoVNA manufacturers from closing their firmware source).
>
>
>

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 07:38 AM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:

>
> You do realize that Linux is the most used operating system
> out there?
> The worth of the company is not a measure of success of a
> model, just that it works.
>

Well, the worth of any company is very much the measure of success! I am not against open source at all, just addressing the perils. There are perils in every business model. I happen to prefer Arch Linux, but I like to also pay for what I use, and so I contribute (donate) to the effort. I also pay monthly an amount to Wikipedia Foundation, and also to several Patreon developers I like, and a myriad of freeware developers, etc. I'm not against the free exchange of ideas and expertise, but money is needed somewhere to have success without (too much) compromise. As for Linux, it's dominant as an operating system only if you include Android. The worth of the company that maintains that particular open-source project is not an insignificant part of that particular version of Linux's success! If every open-source project had Google's backing and resources, it would fare pretty good, too :)

Regardless, I might be tl;dr so will only add that I'm amazed at the miracle of my NanoVNA2, and hope some of the $70 I paid for it goes back to the developers somehow..

We are talking about the model, as for worth as the measure of success
of a company: Enron ...
Linux would be dominant even without Android as it is everywhere, these
days,
and there are many different companies that employ Linux developers.
Even Microsoft, strange times ;)

In this aspect OSH is not that different from OSS. If you want to make
money
via sales/support/services you enter the business side of the game, same as
other
companies with the proprietary model. You gain certain advantages due to OS
and also
handicaps. If you don't know how to play the business game, you lose no
matter the model.


On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 19:03, Peter KA6Z via groups.io <p.knazko=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 07:38 AM, Dragan Milivojevic wrote:
>
> You do realize that Linux is the most used operating system
> out there?
> The worth of the company is not a measure of success of a
> model, just that it works.
>
> Well, the worth of any company is very much the measure of success! I am
> not against open source at all, just addressing the perils. There are
> perils in every business model. I happen to prefer Arch Linux, but I like
> to also pay for what I use, and so I contribute (donate) to the effort. I
> also pay monthly an amount to Wikipedia Foundation, and also to several
> Patreon developers I like, and a myriad of freeware developers, etc. I'm
> not against the free exchange of ideas and expertise, but money is needed
> somewhere to have success without (too much) compromise. As for Linux, it's
> dominant as an operating system only if you include Android. The worth of
> the company that maintains that particular open-source project is not an
> insignificant part of that particular version of Linux's success! If every
> open-source project had Google's backing and resources, it would fare
> pretty good, too :)
>
> Regardless, I might be tl;dr so will only add that I'm amazed at the
> miracle of my NanoVNA2, and hope some of the $70 I paid for it goes back to
> the developers somehow..
>
>
>

The issue is adding a metal enclosure to the V2_2 worsens isolation and
dynamic range. The clones prioritize sellability over performance. But
that's fixed now with the plus4 design which has better isolation to
begin with, so will come with a metal enclosure by default. Still, the
pricing isn't going to come anywhere near the S-A-A 2N, and last I heard
the price would be 115usd for the full set (with case, battery, cables,
cal kit, etc).

The V2 clones on aliexpress sell as low as 40 USD and that comes with
metal enclosure and cables, that's not the problem. HackRF clones sell
at half the price as the official one and come with more accessories,
but the difference is in the HackRF case the community KNOWS they are
clones and call them "clones" and know they do not support the original
developers.

In the case of the V2 people like CT2FZI (who runs the nanovna-v2 group)
tries to distort reality by going as far as promoting a clone on the
group homepage as if it's somehow official, in a group that pretends to
be the official NanoVNA V2 group. I also got info that he's actively
promoting the clone in the NanoVNA facebook group as well. New users who
see that won't understand that buying from them do not support original
developers. I would really appreciate if you guys can help me and put
pressure on CT2FZI to change his nanovna-v2 group name to
nanovna-v2-users, and if any of you have facebook keep an eye out for
that and point out the fact that buying hugen's V2 does not support
original developers.

Price won't be a problem if the upgrade is significant.
An idea to differentiate the offer: provide the files for the calibration
standards.

I'm kind of surprised that HCXQS still hasn't produced a version of V2
with a basic plastic case that would rival the Hugen version in price.

Keep in mind that plenty of people would trade a bit of performance for
the metal case and N connectors, especially now when good quality standards
have been provided.

On the other hand I suspect that most people buying it have no idea that
the metal version has performance issues.

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 03:40, OwO <OwOwOwOwO123@outlook.com> wrote:

> The issue is adding a metal enclosure to the V2_2 worsens isolation and
> dynamic range. The clones prioritize sellability over performance. But
> that's fixed now with the plus4 design which has better isolation to
> begin with, so will come with a metal enclosure by default. Still, the
> pricing isn't going to come anywhere near the S-A-A 2N, and last I heard
> the price would be 115usd for the full set (with case, battery, cables,
> cal kit, etc).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 at 03:48, OwO <OwOwOwOwO123@outlook.com> wrote:

> The V2 clones on aliexpress sell as low as 40 USD and that comes with
> metal enclosure and cables, that's not the problem. HackRF clones sell
> at half the price as the official one and come with more accessories,
> but the difference is in the HackRF case the community KNOWS they are
> clones and call them "clones" and know they do not support the original
> developers.
>
>
Don't you think that is the failure of HCXQS? They did nothing to build that
community, they don't even have a website.




> In the case of the V2 people like CT2FZI (who runs the nanovna-v2 group)
> tries to distort reality by going as far as promoting a clone on the
> group homepage as if it's somehow official, in a group that pretends to
> be the official NanoVNA V2 group.


There are no links to manufacturers on the group homepage or wiki.
There is one image on the main page and that is of your prototype.
You have been saying this for a while now and ATM that is simply not true.
I have no idea about facebook as I don't use it.


> I also got info that he's actively
> promoting the clone in the NanoVNA facebook group as well.

New users who
> see that won't understand that buying from them do not support original
> developers. I would really appreciate if you guys can help me and put
> pressure on CT2FZI to change his nanovna-v2 group name to
> nanovna-v2-users, and if any of you have facebook keep an eye out for
> that and point out the fact that buying hugen's V2 does not support
> original developers.
>
>
That is newer going to work, especially after all the drama. It comes close
to asking someone to change their domain name. Another dropped ball on
HCXQS side, they should have created the group long before the release.

New users, that ask for advice, get the full story and links to all of the
versions
from regular members ...

>
>
>
>

Dear Gabrielle and forum,

I must confess to owning three v2 devices, of which one is the uncashed original release, one with the 3.2” screen in circuit board case and a v2N in metal case. I noticed that if I placed the fiberglass cased one on a metal biscuit tin, noise and isolation did get a bit worse at the highest frequencies as I laid it on the tin.

I have invested in a roll of RF-absorbing woven tape, used to stick inside plastic cases of mobile phones etc. It is supposed to absorb rather than reflect RF. I stuck some on the inside of the fiberglass case but have not yet been able to make any reliable assessment of improvement.  I intend to stick some on the inside of the metal case v2N when I get the chance.

Everyone may observe that their microwave ovens have metal- lined cooking compartments and the case does not absorb enough energy to protect the magnetron if no absorbing food is inside. Most glass platters are designed to absorb some, as a “sacrificial load” if it is started up with nothing inside. I must see if strip of tape gets hot inside the microwave when I get home.

Steve L.

There is RF absorbing ferrite sheet (see attached). The plus4 uses this
on the inside of the metal case, otherwise isolation is only around
65dB. Most of the isolation improvements in the plus4 comes from the new
reflectometer which doesn't use baluns and so doesn't radiate as much.
Be careful about putting RF absorbing material in the microwave, if it's
a good absorber it can catch fire in seconds.

Thank you.

I presume the ferrite impregnated sheet is better than the carbon- impregnated sheet I have. I will try and get some of the ferrite stuff. If you are using it, it must be a good product.

I must confess that, for me, a decent metal case wins every time over a plastic one for robustness and confidence in using it in multiple environments. My V2N is the one I would grab every time. Short of the car driving over it, it gives the feeling of mechanical indestructibility. I also have a TinySA which comes in a plastic case identical to the 2,8” cased nanovna. Sometime, I might try rehousing it in a slightly bigger metal case complete with a switchable preamplifier to improve sensitivity.

Steve L. G7PSZ

Hi OwO,
you mentioned in the first post that one person of your team works at high dynamic two port VNA device. Was that the project from Jan:

https://github.com/jankae/VNA2

or you meant different design?

Slawek/SP9BSL

Hello OwO,

I am new to the nanoVNA world, and I don't understand much about this clone phenomenon, I would like to know if what I bought (SAA-2N with N connectors, manufactured by Zeenko, with metal case) is a clone or not.

Thanks for your attention

--Cheers
Attilio

Long story short, we (original developers of the V2) have an ongoing
dispute with Hugen/Zeenko about unfair competition and officially do not
allow him to use our design: https://groups.io/g/nanovna-users/message/17875

SAA-2N internally uses an exact copy of our V2_2 board design, and he
introduced it (and is still selling it) basically at cost, which we
consider to be malicious dumping. Consider that other 4" clones on
Aliexpress sell at much higher. If you think this is me being petty:
plenty of other vendors are using our design and I have no problems with
them, and even allow them to use my design without any royalty, for
example sysjoint's -F V2. They just need to, you know, not try to screw
us over.

I honestly just wish for Hugen/Zeenko to leave us and our design alone.

So I apologize to you, but I was not aware that Zeenko was an unfair competitor to you. I am comforted by the fact that being the same as hardware will allow me to stay up to date with non-clone software. Thanks Owo.

--Cheers
Attilio

Any idea when Tindie will have new ones available?  I know it says late February/early March, and we're almost a 1/3 of the way thru the month, so just curious.

Thanks.

Should be about a week now, it's just waiting for assembly (PCBA) of the
LCD modules.

I hope I don't miss it this time.

Am 2021-03-07 um 15:55 schrieb OwO:

> Should be about a week now, it's just waiting for assembly (PCBA) of the
> LCD modules.
>
>
>
>
>

It would be nice to have some information about that, and I'm not just
curious, I want to buy a nanovna.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021, 10:53 bruiser419 via groups.io <bruiser419=
yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

> Any idea when Tindie will have new ones available? I know it says late
> February/early March, and we're almost a 1/3 of the way thru the month, so
> just curious.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

I didn't see your answers, it's nice to hear that news. Thanks.

On Sun, Mar 7, 2021, 10:55 OwO <OwOwOwOwO123@outlook.com> wrote:

> Should be about a week now, it's just waiting for assembly (PCBA) of the
> LCD modules.
>
>
>
>
>
>