Gauging interest in a DM48 or DM50?

[rprosperi]

(10-01-2024 09:40 PM)c3d Wrote:  [snip

I'll try to represent them fairly, but I do not speak for them, this comment is only based on earlier discussions with them.

First, SwissMicros does something which is very smart, which is to focus on a specific niche market. Their current niche is HP calculator enthusiasts, and the way they approach it is by building calculators that faithfully emulate existing HP models. While they can improve slightly, e.g. with larger and better screens, running faster, showing multiple stack levels, or including a built-in help viewer, the basic rule is that the existing HP manuals should apply just as well to the corresponding DM model. This goes all the way down to exact placement key and labelling, or simulating printing.

They only deviated once from this philosophy, and I believe they see that as a disaster. They worked with the WP43 team to try and bring a non-HP calculator, albeit one that was clearly "in the spirit of" RPN calculators. Prototypes of the calculator were built, but then there was a dispute. I was not part of that dispute, so I can only report hearsay, but my understanding is that the creator of the WP43 project and the SwissMicros team could not come to an agreement regarding who would own the really impressive user manual. In any case, my impression is that SwissMicros derived all the wrong lessons from that, namely that working with an "external R&D department" was dangerous, and that they'd better stick to the known evils of existing HP calculators.
[snip]

Your speculation on what happened is just that, speculation, and is based on incomplete information, much of which isn't public. Please feel free to share your own opinions and conclusions here, but don't try to represent others actions and/or conclusions as that usually, as it does here, misleads people to believe things that are not so.

Regarding model naming, prefix letters, etc. there are cases to be made for and against all of the choices mentioned above, and all are as valid or invalid as various opinions about them are.

A related observation is the C47 project, which uses nomenclature completely unrelated to any prior model or series, currently likely has more users than all other 3rd-party projects combined, so the name itself is clearly not the key criteria.