I think that both sides (SW and HW) can learn to coexist better, and tbh, there is really a necessity for them to.
The reality is that the reason software is currently the top industry/value creator when it comes to revenue is an artifact of an open ecosystem where the barriers to entry are low, and where there is space for many to experiment.
Traditionally, the engineering world doesn't see things the same way. Part of this is culture, and that's hard to change - engineers see what they do as an art, and this is fine,and it's a good thing as some engineering systems do have a disproportionate impact, but I think the tone of the response also does reflect an attitude of perfectionism and "this at any cost" that I think holds the field back.
I think the solution is not rather to "just let people run amok" (though as it happens, this is the strategy China is testing for us and it appears to not have broken too much yet - the land of trillions of SOIC-8 Bluetooth MCUs with no shielding and a 5-line BOM) but rather for the engineering world to embrace the software developers and provide a happy path to compliance.
If you want North America to compete with China on having ubiquitous technologies everywhere (this is the only way to build out the supply chain), we have to come up with a way to fix certification and part of the attitude has to be "we're going to teach you how to cheaply get your product to market in a way that respects the spectrum", and not "it's expensive, deal with it". This one is tough for people to accept but we cannot ever go back to stuff being expensive, as the floodgates have already been opened.
This is something that the government has to do, probably - provide funding to run (at least, cut down versions of the labs for precompliance) cheaply, put out good resources. Encourage or fund the creation of low-cost and easy to understand paths to compliance. As anyone knows, if you try to hold your nose to stop a nosebleed, the blood just goes down your throat. Same with all of the stuff from China. If you want to meaningfully improve device compliance, making the process hard and painful will just increase the number of random Amazon/Temu Bluetooth nonsense with a total lack of attention to design at all. If we made the process more accessible, it's possible that this would drive the industry to create solutions that might not even cost more, but are more compliant - which would be a win overall.
EMC compliance rules are needed so that all our electronic devices (running software mind you) can continue to function. Part of the rules are about squeezing as much "performance" as possible out of the "thing" that is the electromagnetic spectrum. It's simple physics.
The other part of the rules are for human safety. Devices can directly hurt people (like a microwave) or indirectly (like a crappy device that prevented ambulance phone calls going through).
It's as simple as that (and not perfectionism or being mean to the poor software people).
""we're going to teach you how to cheaply get your product to market in a way that respects the spectrum"
I'm available to do exactly that for you at my hourly rate :D
hard agree, it sucks immensely that I can design a cool 4 layer PCB with multicore processor in an afternoon, throw on a standard bluetooth module, and have it manufactured and shipped to me in a week for like $100, but heaven forbid I want to sell five of them to fellow nerds on a niche forum without breaking multiple laws, and the path to compliance is, uh, find a consultant with EMI testing experience and industry connections and/or spend $5000?
and then amazon is full of absolutely noncompliant untested stuff with no consequences
Don't forget having to spend $X000 for the privilege of being allowed to read the standards you're required to follow, and needing a consultant to tell you which standards you have to follow in the first place.
Hard agree that pricing for standards is generally insane. IMO if the law requires it, it should be free + maybe a $10 admin. Anything else is BS. Standards bodies already make a killing off their membership fees. There are alternatives and workarounds though, here is one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36452660
If you don't want to hire a consultant then don't. You can do it yourself. Go get a EEE degree and then spend 5-15 years working as a EEE in product development and certification. Then you'll be good to go :)
Or just blind self certify and pay the lawyers, Friendly Spectrum Agency and other spectrum users (like cell phone companies) when they come knocking and asking for damages from you.
Amazon absolutely requires sellers to supply FCC certification and Suppliers' Declaration of Conformity documentation for FCC regulated devices. You can report any noncompliant products to them and they do remove them.
Just wait till you learn about say, product liability, CPSC regulations, "voluntary" safety standards, and so on
> The reality is that the reason software is currently the top industry/value creator when it comes to revenue is an artifact of an open ecosystem where the barriers to entry are low, and where there is space for many to experiment.
The reason software has more pay is because it scales really well. You write software once and then sell it, and your costs per copy is low. That means if you write software that increases productivity 20% that can sell for $$$$$$ while your costs are essentially fixed.
The reality is that the reason software is currently the top industry/value creator when it comes to revenue is an artifact of an open ecosystem where the barriers to entry are low, and where there is space for many to experiment.
Traditionally, the engineering world doesn't see things the same way. Part of this is culture, and that's hard to change - engineers see what they do as an art, and this is fine,and it's a good thing as some engineering systems do have a disproportionate impact, but I think the tone of the response also does reflect an attitude of perfectionism and "this at any cost" that I think holds the field back.
I think the solution is not rather to "just let people run amok" (though as it happens, this is the strategy China is testing for us and it appears to not have broken too much yet - the land of trillions of SOIC-8 Bluetooth MCUs with no shielding and a 5-line BOM) but rather for the engineering world to embrace the software developers and provide a happy path to compliance.
If you want North America to compete with China on having ubiquitous technologies everywhere (this is the only way to build out the supply chain), we have to come up with a way to fix certification and part of the attitude has to be "we're going to teach you how to cheaply get your product to market in a way that respects the spectrum", and not "it's expensive, deal with it". This one is tough for people to accept but we cannot ever go back to stuff being expensive, as the floodgates have already been opened.
This is something that the government has to do, probably - provide funding to run (at least, cut down versions of the labs for precompliance) cheaply, put out good resources. Encourage or fund the creation of low-cost and easy to understand paths to compliance. As anyone knows, if you try to hold your nose to stop a nosebleed, the blood just goes down your throat. Same with all of the stuff from China. If you want to meaningfully improve device compliance, making the process hard and painful will just increase the number of random Amazon/Temu Bluetooth nonsense with a total lack of attention to design at all. If we made the process more accessible, it's possible that this would drive the industry to create solutions that might not even cost more, but are more compliant - which would be a win overall.