What I want to see from Mycroft is some really basic and ‘unsexy’ stuff. I don’t yet think this project is at the point of considering ‘next phases and steps.’ I know that sounds cranky and contrarian, but I don’t mean it in a negative way at all! I hope my opinion (since you asked) is seen in a negative way. I mean my critiques to be positive.
I’ve been using Linux since 1998. I’ve seen a bunch of projects come and go! And that’s okay. Most usually the projects go away because they were mostly driven by a singular personality. It was his or her pet project. Sooner or later, it was no longer enjoyable to maintain the project. Supervising the project had become less about creativity and more about routine maintenance. Passion is lost.
I can usually see that turn coming when the leadership starts asking questions like “What else is there to be done with this?” Sometimes the reach out to their community asking “What would you like to see done with this project.”
Sometimes these questions are asked after the founding personalities leave the group, or take a (much needed) hiatus.
The questions aren’t bad. Sometimes they just show the team is either overwhelmed, underwhelmed, or looking for direction after having recently floundered.
Maybe that’s not the case with Mycroft! It is a cool project. But I suppose The allure to ‘monetizing the project’ may not be in the picture. With Mycroft’s two founding members having recently left the organization I’m guessing that’s the case here. Most founders don’t leave before they bring a financially viable product to fruition.
So all that to just lay some groundwork for what I’d like to see out of the project. I’m ‘just an end user’ who enjoys seeing the possibilities of the Mycroft project.
I think more attention needs to be paid to the unsexy foundational fundamentals of the project. It is not yet at the point where masses of people can easily use it or even write for it. It is just not yet adoptable or adaptable as far as I can see. It’s close, but you need to take a few months and get a “down to the basics” task-list together and get the items punched out.
This won’t be done with a “we’re always working on that stuff” mentality. It really needs to be an “all hands on deck” mentality. That way the boring stuff like better documentation and skills standardizations happen with no one feeling like they’re stuck doing it.
I’ve seen a bunch of products die off because the leaders wouldn’t admit that their ideas were untenable. A great example was when years ago a few guys decided to make a KDE tablet. Their were a few enthusiasts who thought the idea was neat. But when it became clear that the project was doomed the leadership wouldn’t give in. Even when other tablets were already made that you could load KDE on already were produced, they wouldn’t give up. Even when their own costs started skyrocketing, they wouldn’t give up. Even when they saw that not many people were willing to support the project with money via preorders (because the price for the product was ridiculously high) … you guessed it… they wouldn’t give up. Eventually, they died off with a whimper, and the founders lost much of the credibility they once held.
I’ve posted elsewhere on the forum that the Mark II is in just such a situation. I’m posting here because I truly want this project to succeed!
You have a good technology. The Mimic3 tech might even be a marketable piece of the puzzle. I don’t know. But your project has not done enough to adequately leverage the popularity and use cases for the SoC (or Raspberry Pi) form factor regardless of the ‘Picroft’ product. You really should dominate that space - or other projects eventually will. A good example of this might be the “OpenOffice Project.” They would not adapt and change to the needs of the users. They pursued a “money model” and eventually were bought by a corporate entity. They were also outpaced by LibreOffice, a fork of their very own project!
/End of rant. 