We are using an ARM-based SoC from NXP. We chose this to ensure that the device can only run signed, trusted code by implementing secure boot and signature verification of software updates. We will make a developer program available in the future.
I didn't use Protonet so I shouldn't speculate about what's similar or different about the products. I think we are in a time right now where people have a strong desire to own their data and are looking for a viable alternative to the cloud. They key, beyond building something very private and secure, is in nailing the experience and we're excited to share more about that.
Okay, so that narrows it down to the i.MX family.
We chose this to ensure that the device can only run signed, trusted code by implementing secure boot and signature verification of software updates.
Maybe read this?
https://blog.quarkslab.com/vulnerabilities-in-high-assurance...
Hopefully the HAB fix is the reason for the 8. Otherwise this seems like overkill for the work involved.
What's the base operating system and hardware architecture the box is based on? It says "Linux" on the page but doesn't go into specifics.
Why not just use regular hardware, e.g. Intel NUCs, or even allow people to run your software on their own hardware (like OwnCloud does)?
In Germany there was/is a startup, Protonet (https://protonet.com/), that had almost the exact same idea a while ago. They went bankrupt though and one of the reasons was that it cost a ton of money to design and produce their own hardware, which also looked very cool (orange hexagon!) but didn't provide much added value beyond what a normal, boring-looking compact PC could provide (at 500 € less than their box for the same specs). They also marketed their own OS, which was based on a modified Linux distribution, modified open-source software and a shiny management layer on top as well. They found out that developing and maintaining a Linux fork isn't so easy either, so they eventually canned it. So what's different about Helm in your opinion?