• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13
CuBox-i a new possibility?
#61
(2013-12-07, 01:17)emveepee Wrote: Edit: rabeeh has since contacted me privately to discuss, it's amazing how much communication helps!

So, They only support you after you raise a big stink?

looking at the old cubox forums support is non-existant. Did they just bail on their old hardware?
Reply
#62
(2013-12-07, 01:17)emveepee Wrote:
(2013-12-06, 17:29)husky55 Wrote: SOC integration is rather difficult in manufacturing and assembly so it's a good thing they did not ship an unproven and/or defective product. I rather they delay shipping than ship out a bad product. Not saying missing datelines is a good thing.

Agreed 100% and as I pre-ordered the original Cubox I almost expected that. But in taking responsibility the company should also let the paying customers know about these delays, via their web site, forum, blog or the broadcast email they use for marketing from time to time. Instead the FAQ still says shipping end of Nov. and posts about shipping dates get deleted. I'm not here to go on about that just thought I'd let potential xbmc customers avoid rushing to buy this, its not like the i.mX86 will be supported in Gotham anyway.

Edit: rabeeh has since contacted me privately to discuss, it's amazing how much communication helps!

Martin

Martin, would you mind sharing your contact with him?
Reply
#63
(2013-12-07, 06:56)draztik Wrote: looking at the old cubox forums support is non-existant. Did they just bail on their old hardware?

As an original Cubox owner - it certainly feels like it… It's similar with the ODroid U2 as well if I'm honest. (Though ODroid has a larger community)

I think the issue that they have is that they are a very competent, innovative, hardware manufacturer, but a small company. They don't have time or manpower to devote to software development or support. Which is a shame. The original Cubox is obviously capable of good things (the Geexbox stuff demonstrates this), but they've never quite engaged with the community well enough IMHO, and their developments have never been ploughed back into mainline stuff (The XBMC stuff is still effectively in their own tree rather than being pushed back to mainline AIUI)

I hope that the Cubox-i fairs better, and I think the iMX6 appears to be a better supported SoC than the Marvell one in the original Cubox.
Reply
#64
(2013-12-07, 11:27)nikotime Wrote: Martin, would you mind sharing your contact with him?
I figure action speaks louder than words but he's really optimistic. He did say the i2-ultra delay until January was for orders after they updated the web site and earlier orders were actually going to be shipping soon which was all my first deleted post was asking.

Martin
Reply
#65
That new CuBox-i really looks great on paper, but I will never buy another product from SolidRun as a company due to the horrible support that they had for the original Cubox, which they now even looks to have completely abandoned support for.

SolidRun made a lot of promises for the original Cubox that they just did not keep, like an Android image, upstream XBMC support, and much more.

Even though a bit pricey, the original CuBox hardware had much potential at the time of its initial release, but SolidRun as a company offered poor customer service and very bad software and community support, with close to no communication from the companies employees.

Plus add to that the fact that they ship their products from Israel so most their customers end up get their packages stuck in customs and have to pay additional local taxes and handling charges, and if you have to return a faulty product for repair you have to pay high shipping costs yourself.


So yes I was extremely disappointed by SolidRun's support as a company for the original CuBox, however that could be mostly due to that SolidRun did not marketed it as purely a development kit, which they should have done instead when they offered such poor support, thus you would expected better support for an end user product.

But again, initially I was not disappointed by the hardware of the original CuBox, as when it was first it was announced the original CuBox at the at the time looked really impressive on paper, just as the new CuBox-i looks great on paper today.

At the very least I hope that SolidRun as a company does not make any of the same mistakes with the new CuBox-i as they did with the original CuBox, and that they realize that they have to step-up with Linux-kernel and Android-kernel development themselves to add full support for all its hardware features, and sooner rather than later.

I however believe that they should really ONLY marked these as a development kit at first, and also not solely rely on their community to add Linux-kernel and Android-kernel support for their hardware, because that simply takes to long.

And if and when they are ready to market the new CuBox-i to none low-level developers and non-developer consumers after it has mainline code support upstream, then they should get proxy warehouses within Europe and USA/America for local shipping so people do not have to pay hidden custom fees and high shipping charges.


In any case, in the end I would seriously rather buy any i.MX6 based product at a higher price from any other manufacturer than SolidRun as not to get burned by the same company twice
Reply
#66
(2013-12-07, 01:17)emveepee Wrote:
(2013-12-06, 17:29)husky55 Wrote: SOC integration is rather difficult in manufacturing and assembly so it's a good thing they did not ship an unproven and/or defective product. I rather they delay shipping than ship out a bad product. Not saying missing datelines is a good thing.

Agreed 100% and as I pre-ordered the original Cubox I almost expected that. But in taking responsibility the company should also let the paying customers know about these delays, via their web site, forum, blog or the broadcast email they use for marketing from time to time. Instead the FAQ still says shipping end of Nov. and posts about shipping dates get deleted. I'm not here to go on about that just thought I'd let potential xbmc customers avoid rushing to buy this, its not like the i.mX86 will be supported in Gotham anyway.

Edit: rabeeh has since contacted me privately to discuss, it's amazing how much communication helps!

Martin



good now I can patiently wait for OpenELEC for my i4 ultra that i just ordered.
Reply
#67
(2013-12-09, 17:49)Hedda Wrote: That new CuBox-i really looks great on paper, but I will never buy another product from SolidRun as a company due to the horrible support that they had for the original Cubox, which they now even looks to have completely abandoned support for.

SolidRun made a lot of promises for the original Cubox that they just did not keep, like an Android image, upstream XBMC support, and much more.

Even though a bit pricey, the original CuBox hardware had much potential at the time of its initial release, but SolidRun as a company offered poor customer service and very bad software and community support, with close to no communication from the companies employees.

Plus add to that the fact that they ship their products from Israel so most their customers end up get their packages stuck in customs and have to pay additional local taxes and handling charges, and if you have to return a faulty product for repair you have to pay high shipping costs yourself.


So yes I was extremely disappointed by SolidRun's support as a company for the original CuBox, however that could be mostly due to that SolidRun did not marketed it as purely a development kit, which they should have done instead when they offered such poor support, thus you would expected better support for an end user product.

But again, initially I was not disappointed by the hardware of the original CuBox, as when it was first it was announced the original CuBox at the at the time looked really impressive on paper, just as the new CuBox-i looks great on paper today.

At the very least I hope that SolidRun as a company does not make any of the same mistakes with the new CuBox-i as they did with the original CuBox, and that they realize that they have to step-up with Linux-kernel and Android-kernel development themselves to add full support for all its hardware features, and sooner rather than later.

I however believe that they should really ONLY marked these as a development kit at first, and also not solely rely on their community to add Linux-kernel and Android-kernel support for their hardware, because that simply takes to long.

And if and when they are ready to market the new CuBox-i to none low-level developers and non-developer consumers after it has mainline code support upstream, then they should get proxy warehouses within Europe and USA/America for local shipping so people do not have to pay hidden custom fees and high shipping charges.


In any case, in the end I would seriously rather buy any i.MX6 based product at a higher price from any other manufacturer than SolidRun as not to get burned by the same company twice

and now I am having doubts!
Reply
#68
Me too ?
Reply
#69
Ya'll worry too much. They are finally shipping out the i2 Ultras and i4 pros (the early orders at least) so it won't be too lon til you receive yours, by which time GeexBox, which is already available to download, will be finer tuned and working ok.
Reply
#70
(2013-12-16, 11:31)nikotime Wrote: Ya'll worry too much. They are finally shipping out the i2 Ultras and i4 pros (the early orders at least) so it won't be too lon til you receive yours, by which time GeexBox, which is already available to download, will be finer tuned and working ok.

my concern is proper drivers and support!


as long as it is smooth and not labby like Pi, I'm good....


I use addons like TV-Desi Zone and 1 Channel
Reply
#71
Hi All,

I've just received my CuBox i2. I intend to give GeeXBoX a try tonight. I'll let you know how I get on. Any pointers from anybody would be appreciated :-)

Stuart.
Reply
#72
Congrats! I'd recommend following cubox-i.com/getting-started/ and use the correct image here http://download.solid-run.com/pub/solidr...xBox-xbmc/

Really looking forward to your thoughts
Reply
#73
Excellent. Thanks.

Just to add, I run a Raspberry PI with raspbmc at the moment, so I have something to compare it with. :-)

S.
Reply
#74
http://imx.solid-run.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=296 May help you as well. Glad you have a comparison point!

EDIT: And the recent posts in this thread! http://imx.solid-run.com/forums/viewtopi...1&start=20
Reply
#75
I've got a cubox-i test board (Carrier One) myself so am working on supporting the device
Reply
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • 13

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
CuBox-i a new possibility?5