I agree with endsormeans if i haven choosen n900 i would have been a satisfied android user but now i just cant take it though i have a andro device.

It was the same in my case, except that the first drug-device that started it all was Openmoko Neo Freerunner here

Anyway, the price of Neo900 is hardly a matter of us wanting to sell it expensive. It's mostly inevitable cost of design and production.

With production run estimated at around 350 devices at the moment, it's practically "custom made", and such things always cost much more than their mass production equivalents.

We understand that the price is high and that not everyone who would like to get it will be able to afford it, even when valuing its freedom, security and privacy really high. The only thing we can do to make it cheaper is to make it common - and I'd say we're exactly trying to do that, but with baby-steps. Neo900 first, world domination of open devices next After all, you have to start somewhere.

Still, I guess discussing the "why so expensive" matter again and again is a PITA to everyone involved, so please try to keep it to minimum! Thanks

I don't know if I got your question right...

I pondered building a PCB with a 1GB RAM chip and a 1GB NAND storage chip and solder that in place of the unobtainium chip on top of the SoC - but it would be real frankenstein, and probably extremely demanding to get it right, considering the ball pitch and signal propagation timing restrictions and all.
In short it might be possible but I don't consider it a feasible solution, particularly for series production of a reliable and sturdy device.
Note that we found a 1GB RAM-only PoP chip, and NAND can get attached in the "usual" classical way.

/j

Got it actually i didnt read the docs i thought them diffrent thing

I asked about even more frankenstein PCB, but your idea is more elegant, sadly non of them are feasible solution.

And for the price, after recent findings of Replicant Team in Samsung Devices(I got GNote2), paying little above the market for data privacy(let's not forget the other cool features, but this one IMHO is most important), I think it's worth it.

I just really, really hope that Neo900 will end up with VGA output, even if via (sorry for repeating myself) any_random_with_enough_pins, easily obtainable, flat socket on PCB (think something like socket for connecting screen module, just smaller and more simple), leaving doing connection and device's body modification to users. As long as plug for that socket is obtainable too, of course

I said "even if", but actually, it would be my favorite way of implementing it, actually (apart from using USB socket for same purpose, aka MHL, which won't happen, probably, for various reasons presented earlier by devs).

If Neo900 lack this feature, I'm really afraid that Pyra (even without optional GSM module) paired with regular N900 (which are cheap as ICE nowadays. ICE, got the pun?), may become a really good alternative for mobile computing/cellular needs, at nearly same price tag and "ideological" openness. If only for *my* needs, then no problem, but otherwise, it may hinder "way to mobile world domination" quite a lot.

Especially, with momentum of FOSS development that OpenPandora keep (and is even increasing, lately), which can't be said about Maemo. Sure, sentiment to Fremantle (particularly, Hildon) means a lot, but even it have some borders.

/Estel

I agree with Estel on that. If Neo900 gets any monitor-compatible output (be it VGA, or DVI, or HDMI), it will look a lot more charming. Imagine an N900-like device which can completely replace PC in most common tasks when provided with a wireless keyboard and mouse, external monitor and HDD, while still being a quite compact mobile phone/computer when you're on the go. That's what I'm trying to make of my N900, btw, but it has quite some limitations, and RCA-only video output is one major of them.

Will the measurements be different in the physical size comparing n900 and neo900 ?

Yes, Neo900 will be a tiny bit higher due to the sandwich solution and spacer frame (<3mm, about as much as a match)

The main argument for not including extra ports/sockets has been that it would require case modification which is understandable. Any thoughts on including extra ports inside the spacer frame? If they don't fit in the spacer frame, it could perhaps be a custom option to have a larger spacer frame for those that are willing to have a slightly bulkier device as a trade-off.