ChuWi Forum»Forum General Discussion General Discussion [Poll][1] What should be expected from Chuwi? Rememb ...

Follow Us

[Poll][1] What should be expected from Chuwi? Remember point zero?

[Copy link]

ZenBalancer|Post time:5-1-2017 12:23:36 View:484|Reply:6

Edited by ZenBalancer at 5-1-2017 15:58

There are different Chuwi user groupings, demanding different things from Chuwi.

In two major situations the "flashed by" suggested approaches have the following overlap: "Do this or that, or 'we' will never buy another Chuwi product ever again!"

That approach won't be the reason Chuwi would respond or change course. Not only because the plural pronoun (I looked it up) 'we' doesn't actually refer to everyone nor the "majority" of (potential) Chuwi customers. But also because Chuwi's approach as far as I can tell, isn't driven by threats nor pure fear. Perhaps for different reasons depending on the situation, not only because "they" are stereotypically supposed to know Kung fu, because that's not only racist on my part, but also irrelevant in a "battle of will".

Another approach referencing the law, and what 'we' can do lawfully. A path that, as far as I can see, faces immense hurdles in the form of the challenges of (international) lawful enforceability. I'll reference this point as point zero, or 0. As in, remember 0.

How much can we actually expect? What is realistic? For that I'll try to use my perspective as the setup to answer relevant questions to this thread.

So what are all of Chuwi's responsibilities in the broadest terms?

First, what is Chuwi?

"In my words", Chuwi is a commercial ("capitalistic, for profit") company, designing and manufacturing "affordable innovative" consumer-oriented (electronic) products. Also usable for bussiness, but with components-class "natural limitations", thus not focussed on commercial nor Enterprise solutions. As far as I can tell.

Chuwi isn't dependant on donations like most open-source software organisations, nor like those with open-content. In other words, Intelectual Property is not something Chuwi must only prevent itself from infringing on that of others, but Chuwi also "must" protect its "own property" because of the "nature of the business" in the market it is active in.

Chuwi's goals and methods are more nuanced than that, and my words doesn't do them justice, so do read their About page if you haven't, all the way to their 2015 timeline: http://en.chuwi.com/about.html
FWIW.

Now hopefully we are thus far "on the same page". So onto the second part.


So what are all of Chuwi's responsibilities, as a commercial company in the current market,  in the broadest terms?

I continued to start a draft outline, with suggestive questions rather than being certain. It's not intended to be rhetorical, because I'm not a %100 sure. And thus not only unsure about what you think.

  • Adherence to local laws in individual countries, including the ones it operates in, like China?
  • Adherence to International law, emissions and trading agreements?
  • Innovate to express itself and differentiate from competitors?
  • Advertising responsibly and being accountable?
  • Working on a steady revenue-stream to keep the business operational (including after-sales support)?
  • Generally being fair to owners, employees, customers, investors and the local and global environment?
  • Balance between intellectual property as its added value, versus contributing using "complementary business models" improving the experience and/or possibilities of the local and global community?
  • Embodying "agile manufacturing" and being flexible enough to be "co-steered" with the growing (potential) customer community?
  • Being transparent about feasability and roadmap as much as possible bussinesswise?
  • Continuing building up and maintaining its local and global reputation based on all of the above?

What triggered this thread in me finally, was the most recent demand in the Lapbook 12.3 announcement sidetracked by another user (common occurrence by dissatisfied users). That one was implicitly referencing a thread that invokes the specific GPL license which the Linux Kernel source code is claimed to be bound by.

Which is used as an argument demanding Chuwi to release any modified linux kernel for all of its devices so that the community can upgrade Android versions on their own I presume. And Chuwi thus far having passed on to me as well, that (paraphrased) according to their current vision they will not be releasing that. I assume they will apologise for the inconvenience. And in the above context, it seems it's also an internal  struggle I think in number 7 in the above list. And remember 0 when considering "force".

Use the search term "kernel" in the forum to see all of those threads.

At the basis of humanity, is a general sense of decency (a tip from an ex-colleage), when we can afford to (easier if it doesn't kill us), especially when we're not clashing one way or the other. That sense of decency is mutual between a "healthy company" and other "healthy individuals". This is also intended as a contribution in that regard. Of course no one can rewrite history. So we have to deal with that, one point a time. Source code "debacle", SD card issue (got a lot of attention recently), charging issue (dubious), etc..

This thread isn't meant to be limited to a few specific occurrences like the one focussed on for now, but instead to be reused as "an overview", to reference Chuwi in it, when Chuwi is behaving in one way or the other. Also to reference competitors comparatively to Chuwi using the same points. This thread is meant to be reused almost like continuing to "beat a dead horse". Not sure if the latter makes sense.

Thoughts?
You actually read it all? Sorry about that.. again..

Edits: typo, improvements, layout, focus markup, "tag" + correction.

Multiple Polls: ( Maximum 4 choices ), Total 8 Users voted View Voters
20.00% (2)
40.00% (4)
40.00% (4)
0.00% (0)
Your User group have no permission to vote
Reply

Use magic Report

ZenBalancer| Post time 4-20-2017 17:09:35 | Show all posts
Edited by ZenBalancer at 4-21-2017 02:14

As far as suggestions for Chuwi's complementary "alternative business model" to contribute to the local and global community, in terms of making releasing the Android linux kernel modified source code more acceptable, there has to be willingness from competitors that also have been offering dual boot or Android, to do the same. How many competitors do actually release companies' source code work that made their tablets possible and competing with others doing the same?

I assume (disregard the name spelling) Cynogen or current Lineage Android ROMs wouldn't work on those phones, if there were "closed source" alteration to the linux kernel. So is this necessity, a dual boot thing? And is this the case for other dual boot competitors? Because there are at least a few in that regard, that have competing W/A dual boot devices.

Edit: clarity.
Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Link: overview of replies to your username. They have to click for theirs.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? (2017Q2 sample) + After-sales?
Reply

Use magic Report

ZenBalancer| Post time 4-24-2017 06:37:58 | Show all posts
Here is to me, a relevant example for challenge of going open source for the first time from closed source:
“The biggest issue was getting permission,” Melton says, “and part of that is convincing people of why this was a good idea.”

-- https://www.wired.com/2017/04/ae ... toward-open-source/
Although not the best example, because not the same situation.

If you can however provide the best/convincing example for Chuwi, you might then also benefit and be able to contribute to the modified linux kernel for the dual boot Android Chuwi devices. Or if they don't have time to consider contributions, they might allow to fork it.

Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Link: overview of replies to your username. They have to click for theirs.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? (2017Q2 sample) + After-sales?
Reply

Use magic Report

vanderhulst| Post time 4-24-2017 07:31:53 | Show all posts
Never buy something from Chuwi from 11 tablets
- 3 exploded chargers
- 8 discharging while connected to charger
- 4 keep freezing in windows with just webpage open

Even after they repaird still issues not fixed + illegal windows versions that are not activated
Reply

Use magic Report

ZenBalancer| Post time 4-30-2017 07:33:19 | Show all posts
Edited by ZenBalancer at 4-30-2017 16:34
vanderhulst replied at 4-24-2017 16:31
Never buy something from Chuwi from 11 tablets
- 3 exploded chargers
- 8 discharging while connected to charger
- 4 keep freezing in windows with just webpage open

Even after they repaird still issues not fixed + illegal windows versions that are not activated

I think this is meant for attention to the following thread: Non-Charging Vi10 pro while turned on and connected

Let's focus on your issue there. You can always PM a number of Moderators that have the time and are open for that. I'll work on a list for that later. Maybe.

Currently I'll make a copy of relevant info to your thread from this and yet another thread, and then forum search or consult Emily's profile to see all her threads, especially recent ones, for new common solutions.

Edit: quote completion.
Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Link: overview of replies to your username. They have to click for theirs.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? (2017Q2 sample) + After-sales?
Reply

Use magic Report

longjohn119| Post time 5-1-2017 10:44:16 | Show all posts
The Kernel source for Atom processors is available from Intel ...... I doubt Chuwi made any relevant charges to the source code which was written by much much smarter people at Intel .... They can't even do a BIOS correctly much less recode a Kernel ..... I bet they could cut down support problems by simply hiding all the irrelevant and/or dangerous settings unnecessarily exposed in the BIOS at least on the Hi10 (Who in their right mind sets the minimum backlighting at 40% in the BIOS? This thing is useless at night in the dark because you can;'t turn down the backlighting to a more sensible 10 or 20%)

The problem is NOT the source code being unavailable because it is available from Intel. What is not available are the Kernel Signing Keys and you can't get a recompiled kernel to boot without them ......  
.
Reply

Use magic Report

ZenBalancer| Post time 5-1-2017 12:23:36 | Show all posts
Edited by ZenBalancer at 5-1-2017 21:32
longjohn119 replied at 5-1-2017 19:44
The Kernel source for Atom processors is available from Intel ...... I doubt Chuwi made any relevant ...

I'm not good at this stuff. Forum search for the term "kernel" to see the 5 threads and all the arguments and reasoning that was used for that request. But Emily specifically replied that Chuwi will not be releasing the "kernel sources". So what are both sides of this issue talking about? If there were no modification necessary and no modification were made at the kernel level by Chuwi's side. Why would they say something that makes it seem that there are indeed unreleased necessary modifications? This is very confusing. To me.

Edit: you mean this is what both sides are referring to by "kernel source"? Those kernel signing keys? Why aren't both sides clear about that? Or are you one of the few that really knows what's going on or is exactly meant?

Edit: big typo fail! Set bold, clarity + addition.
Reply button? Also lists for a response, @username doesn't.
Link: overview of replies to your username. They have to click for theirs.
Chuwi? Time-constrains乁( ◔ ౪◔)「
3: 1+1+1 Links: Laplets vs Tabtops + is Chuwi good or bad? (2017Q2 sample) + After-sales?
Reply

Use magic Report

You have to log in before you can reply Login | Register

Points Rules

Quick Reply To Top Return to the list