The hardware and software are delivered as one unit. Think of buying a fancy smart refrigerator. The user doesn't install anything. They turn it on and use it. In this case we'd pre-integrate the rugged tablet with the application and have it launch in single application (kiosk) mode. In other words, from the user's perspective, they turn it on and use it and it isn't a general purpose computer.
While I definitely like the idea of using one of the many Python or JS frameworks for desktop app development, we just can't have the source be openly visible at the moment. It isn't about end users, it's about others.
Yes, I understand, it is impossible to protect against everything. There are a million ways to mess with any system. I get it.
I don't have an adherence to Windows or Linux. Equally comfortable in either environment. I've been using them both since version 1.0.
Part of my thought experiment at this stage is to try to understand what the best decision might be from more than one perspective. Questions such as what UI libraries might be available in each platform. Or, how difficult might it be to hire competent desktop application programmers in each case. Remember, this isn't about building a website. There are millions of very capable web technology coders. That doesn't qualify them to write code that can interface with and control devices in an industrial installation.
Windows has their IoT version which seems to be designed for this sort of application. I need to get in touch with them to discuss. This isn't a high volume application, maybe 1000 units per year. Not sure how that might fit their licensing scheme.
Cost isn't necessarily an issue. If the Qt commercial licensing approach wasn't such a scary mess, I would not have any reservations about paying for that. The problem is that I have to hire an attorney to actually understand it (if I want to be responsible and informed). I have less than zero desire to hire an attorney to choose a development framework.
> If you're super early stage, I'd recommend trying to find out if there are any accelerators sponsored by your local government, they tend to have way less applications since they're only pulling from a local pool.
Not sure how to self-characterize. We've probably invested somewhere in the order of $300K of our own funds in this to get where we are. Keep in mind this is hardware (+software), which means the monetary scale is very different.
We are at the stage where we are going to start showing our pre-production prototype to potential customers sometime next month. Frankly, the closer we get to a sale the less interesting VC money or an incubator becomes. In other words, if I close a $5MM sale next month (which is in the realm of possibilities) there is no way anyone is getting 7% of the business for $150K.
> There is probably a value-add to YC besides just money
Definitely. Not interested in money for the sake of money. Money by itself is useless and easy to waste.
> Someone outside of the startup world asked me "what is YC" and my reply was "the accelerator that rejects you."
I don't take that as a negative but rather more as a reality. They get so many applications it is inevitable that the vast majority of applicants will not be accepted. That's just reality.
> Did you read the second sentence, though? It seems like it applies here
I guess I didn't! :)
That's interesting because I looked around to see if that was possible and did not find it to be so. I wonder if they have some back door access to YT videos due to, well, being YC?
I don't think there's a way to watch a video on YT without the count being incremented. Actually, the only way is if you watch your own videos with some frequency (not defined anywhere I could find).
Yeah, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned filtering based on the text portion of the application.
That's alright. We are moving forward on our own and haven't been waiting for investors at all. Our project is likely to end-up in the news by the end of May (hopefully because we booked orders). We were also asked by the White House to submit technology details. So...we are moving forward, which is good.