Originally Posted by Oldgazer

Ok, let me ask you a serious question: Would you rather buy a legitimate product from a legitimate company with a long track record of designing and making quality products and a stellar customer support reputation, or would you rather buy a cheap copy from a company that has a very short history and a questionable reputation?

If you want some background, read this: Jumper T12.

The good stuff starts at post #25... Caveat Emptor

I bet this has been discuss thousand or million of times seriously.
buy what you can afford. brand loyalty or supporting the original designer really make no sense to me, $ wise.

if I earn miserably low wages you expect me to support reputable companies and buy their $1k tx while I can get a copycat for $200.
just to show I support the original company?

cheaper parts in generally is helping the community grow by making the entry cost lower.
new pilots can try the hobby without leaving a huge hole in their pockets.

I remember the 9XR-PRO which was a very fine design but very bad ly enginnered.

Originally Posted by Blue Sky

...when the main drive behind the development of 9xr/openTx was the sale of cheap Chinese radios that are copies of the Futaba 9C's. ...

This is ridiculous claim... 9X has nothing in common as design with Futaba 9C !
If we don't count shape, square with rounded corners, two sticks and some switches, which are common to 99% of the radios in the last decades.
Maybe rather some JR model resemblance... but not a direct mold copy, as was Taranis.

Originally Posted by renatoa

This is ridiculous claim... 9X has nothing in common as design with Futaba 9C !
If we don't count shape, square with rounded corners, two sticks and some switches, which are common to 99% of the radios in the last decades.
Maybe rather some JR model resemblance... but not a direct mold copy, as was Taranis.

Maybe just me, but to my eye all three look similar, obviously not identical. Still, you can't tell me that using a similar shape and the whole "9X" X9D" "X9R" thing wasn't a thinly veiled attempt to steal market share away from Futaba.

Futaba deserves this, anyway... it is now a brand to avoid, the least desirable system to invest into...

Originally Posted by Blue Sky

Not to denigrate the tremendous good that OpenTx has brought to the RC community, but it does seem disingenuous for them to complain about Jumper copying Taranis hardware, when the main drive behind the development of 9xr/openTx was the sale of cheap Chinese radios that are copies of the Futaba 9C's. Indeed the Taranis 9D is just such a ripoff right down to the ergonomics of the case, sliders, pots, switches, speaker etc.

If you read the thread I linked to you will learn there is more to the story than just copying the hardware. After all, an RC radio is just a radio, and all RC radios share some commonalities in much the same way that cars, televisions, smartphones, and just about every thing we use have things in common. Leaving that aside, the issue with OpenTX is that Jumper also copied the QX7 master, patched it to run on the T12, and tried to pass it off as legit OpenTX, and they did this without following the "vetting" procedure found here: OpenTX Support for New Radios.

This process is more than just a rubber stamp. It takes time, effort, and collaboration between the manufacturer and the OpenTX devs, with the purpose being to insure that the hardware and the firmware work. As a case in point, it took FrSky and OpenTX a year and a half to get the Hourus sorted out.

When Jumper contacted the OpenTX devs they were politely told what the requirements were and Jumper was also told that OpenTX was short handed and they just didn't have the resources available to take on another project. Then OpenTX discovered that Jumper had already patched the QX7 firmware and what they actually wanted was a rubber stamp certification. At that point Jumper was told they could fork the firmware, change the name, and give credit to its lineage.

Jumper forked the master, but they are still copying the masters, patching to suit their hardware, and pushing it out the door. And, if the truth be told as a result of their unwillingness to go about this the right way, JumperTX is an inferior product. When you update a Taranis you get options like noheli, eu, flexr9m, nogvars, and so on. and the firmware is compiled on demand. With JumperTX you get what they give you... And here's another point: Because the FAI Mode and FAI Choice options are "missing", a Jumper T12 or T16 may not be legal for use in an FAI sanctioned competition.

FWIW, I think you will find the rear half of the case of a 9X is identical to the case of the Taranis/JR.

Mike

Originally Posted by blade81

I bet this has been discuss thousand or million of times seriously.
buy what you can afford. brand loyalty or supporting the original designer really make no sense to me, $ wise.

if I earn miserably low wages you expect me to support reputable companies and buy their $1k tx while I can get a copycat for $200.
just to show I support the original company?

cheaper parts in generally is helping the community grow by making the entry cost lower.
new pilots can try the hobby without leaving a huge hole in their pockets.

At one point I thought so to, but the sad fact is, going 'cheap' on the radio is courting disaster. Besides that, I'm not about to give money to a den of thieves.

Well, I see long history of copying hardware and it's not limited to Jumper.

Originally Posted by Harri Pihl

Well, I see long history of copying hardware and it's not limited to Jumper.

But, as far as I can tell, Jumper is the only one who has copied (not forked) an OpenTX master and then patched it to work on their hardware. So is that right, or is that wrong?

“To be, or not to be, that is the question...” by William Shakespeare ...

The reality is that FrSky earned some of their success off the back of Futaba when they offered FAAST and FHSS compatibles. Set the bar pretty low in my honest opinion.

Originally Posted by Oldgazer

But, as far as I can tell, Jumper is the only one who has copied (not forked) an OpenTX master and then patched it to work on their hardware. So is that right, or is that wrong?

As long as I know you can fork, copy, patch, do what you want to do with the Open Source software, as long as it will remain Open Source. You need to comply the SOFTWARE license. And how is it related to the HARDWARE? Where is the reference to the hardware in the Open Source license?

Earned probably money, but not fame, from FASST compatibles.
The majority of threads in their beginning has been focused on their system, not on FASST compatibles, maybe 1:10 the ratio of the threads/posts between FASST/ACCST.
While the sales figures were exactly reversed, go figure... 10 FASST receivers sold for one Frsky system conversion. And Futaba users just buy and no shout... ashamed maybe
FHSS compatibles come much much later... and is the work of a British engineer, supposedly knowing the IP laws, this should tell us something...

Originally Posted by Blue Sky

Maybe just me, but to my eye all three look similar, obviously not identical. Still, you can't tell me that using a similar shape and the whole "9X" X9D" "X9R" thing wasn't a thinly veiled attempt to steal market share away from Futaba.

Please get the copy right. Nothing to do with Futaba. And the story is quite well known.

FrSky bought the X9D case molds from another Chinese company who had cloned the JR 9X/DSX9/9303 unsuccessfully. It's damned near identical aside from the button layout at the bottom.

The electronics inside however are 100% FrSky developed, unlike certain other manufacturers.