Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:>Steve Pope wrote:>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker boards". >> >> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >> Is there a specific meaning?>Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market >space. "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in >a club environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals.Sounds great. Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) S.
"Maker board"
Started by ●March 4, 2017
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: > >>Steve Pope wrote: > >>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>> boards". >>> >>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>> Is there a specific meaning? > >>Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>"Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. > > Sounds great. > > Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a > consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, > but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. > > My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--)Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- cycle costs. My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. My biggest concern about some pimple-faced goon designing such a thing into a product is that they'll make all the expensive mistakes that I learned not to make 30 years ago. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com I'm looking for work -- see my website!
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:>Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: > >>Steve Pope wrote: > >>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker boards". >>> >>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>> Is there a specific meaning? > >>Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market >>space. "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in >>a club environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. > >Sounds great. > >Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance >that, a consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. > >My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--)They're already mainstream, sort of. This is the result of a recent project for a client. A complete satellite demodulator with mostly off-the shelf parts. The antenna and LNA are bespoke, but still low-cost and simple. The tuner and "maker board", in this case a $9 CHIP running Linux, are cheap and plentiful. The entire thing is less than $100. http://www.anchorhill.com/site/index.php?/site/section_products/software_defined_bpsk_demodulator/ I use one of these Stratux things when flying, and they're pretty popular and replace a unit that is otherwise $600-$900 with $150 of parts and a Raspberry Pi 3: https://www.everlastconcepts.com/products/stratux-dual-band-ads-b-and-weather-receiver-with-wass-gps-and-power-pack Modern SoCs with multi-core 1.2GHz ARM cores, plus powerful GPUs, are seriously cheap and powerful. I'm seeing more and more places where these cheap little boards are either being used for nearly full prototyping if not the product itself. Much of this stuff is heavily enabled by open-source software. If you want to make a product, though, you have to be very careful about what software components are necessary and their licensing terms. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On 3/6/2017 1:15 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: > >> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: >> >>> Steve Pope wrote: >> >>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>> boards". >>>> >>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>> Is there a specific meaning? >> >>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. >> >> Sounds great. >> >> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. >> >> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) > > Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards!Who doesn't? Why would anyone *not* use a production board for a design if the volume isn't thousands? But if the term "maker board" is limited to the low cost units made for the hobbyist market, then I say there is a much smaller market for commercial use than boards made by a commercial vendor. The Beagle Board and rPi seem to be stable platforms, but you can't count on compatible units remaining in production for a long time. The cost of having to port software even between an rPi and an rPi 3 is *much* more than the savings of not using a commercial unit available for 10 years. It all depends on the project requirements.> It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks > impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we > (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- > cycle costs.Mostly that comes from not buying low priced, but short lived hobbyist hardware.> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the > quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a > prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go.Yes, exactly. But there are applications with short product lives or that are not very hardware dependent. This is a factor that needs careful consideration. -- Rick C
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:45:47 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 3/6/2017 1:15 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: >> >>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Steve Pope wrote: >>> >>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>>> boards". >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>>> Is there a specific meaning? >>> >>>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. >>> >>> Sounds great. >>> >>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >>> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >>> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. >>> >>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) >> >> Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! > >Who doesn't? Why would anyone *not* use a production board for a design >if the volume isn't thousands? But if the term "maker board" is limited >to the low cost units made for the hobbyist market, then I say there is >a much smaller market for commercial use than boards made by a >commercial vendor. The Beagle Board and rPi seem to be stable >platforms, but you can't count on compatible units remaining in >production for a long time. > >The cost of having to port software even between an rPi and an rPi 3 is >*much* more than the savings of not using a commercial unit available >for 10 years. It all depends on the project requirements.A large number of the cheapie boards run Linux on ARM cores, e.g., Beagle Bone, RPi, CHIP, Orange Pi, are essentially all software compatible. i.e., executable developed on one will run on any of them. Even if they're not ARM, if it's a reasonable Linux distribution it's often just a recompile to port to a different platform. This assumes that you've been careful about library usage, etc.>> It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks >> impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we >> (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- >> cycle costs. > >Mostly that comes from not buying low priced, but short lived hobbyist >hardware.This is a concern, but not a big one. Even the mainstream development hardware is often a fast-moving target with short life cycles. I think the "maker" and hobbyist hooks in the cheapie dev platforms actually make them live longer. For example, Arduinos have been around for how long now? Way longer than most professional development platforms. The Beaglebone has been around for a long time and was one of the first low-cost Linux-ARM platforms and still enjoys a lot of use, I'm sure patly because the hardware is totally open-source. There are still people making special-purpose stuff that is pretty much just a Beaglebone board with a few hacks to place some specialized hardware on the board. So I think many of the cheap hobbyist hardware platforms actually wind up with longer life cycles than pro stuff.>> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >> quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >> prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. > >Yes, exactly. But there are applications with short product lives or >that are not very hardware dependent. This is a factor that needs >careful consideration.For something like the BBB (Beaglebone Black), the hardware (board) design is open-source and free. Even if the multiple vendors all stop making it, you can ramp it yourself as much as needed. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On 3/6/2017 3:18 PM, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org wrote:> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:45:47 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/6/2017 1:15 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: >>> >>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Steve Pope wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>>>> boards". >>>>>> >>>>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>>>> Is there a specific meaning? >>>> >>>>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. >>>> >>>> Sounds great. >>>> >>>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >>>> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >>>> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. >>>> >>>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) >>> >>> Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! >> >> Who doesn't? Why would anyone *not* use a production board for a design >> if the volume isn't thousands? But if the term "maker board" is limited >> to the low cost units made for the hobbyist market, then I say there is >> a much smaller market for commercial use than boards made by a >> commercial vendor. The Beagle Board and rPi seem to be stable >> platforms, but you can't count on compatible units remaining in >> production for a long time. >> >> The cost of having to port software even between an rPi and an rPi 3 is >> *much* more than the savings of not using a commercial unit available >> for 10 years. It all depends on the project requirements. > > A large number of the cheapie boards run Linux on ARM cores, e.g., > Beagle Bone, RPi, CHIP, Orange Pi, are essentially all software > compatible. i.e., executable developed on one will run on any of > them. > > Even if they're not ARM, if it's a reasonable Linux distribution it's > often just a recompile to port to a different platform. This assumes > that you've been careful about library usage, etc.It also assumes you are doing work that doesn't actually *use* the features of the board such as I/O. The TI chip the Beagle uses has auxiliary processors. You would need a cloned board to port that code. There's often a lot more to embedded apps than network calls.>>> It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks >>> impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we >>> (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- >>> cycle costs. >> >> Mostly that comes from not buying low priced, but short lived hobbyist >> hardware. > > This is a concern, but not a big one. Even the mainstream > development hardware is often a fast-moving target with short life > cycles.And the short life cycle products are mostly the higher volume products. Short life cycles don't mesh well with high NRE like custom development. Most projects with limited production and significant software development will either be long life cycle products or if short life cycle have high profitability which we all know is not so easy to find. These are relatively infrequent or we here would all be millionaires.> I think the "maker" and hobbyist hooks in the cheapie dev > platforms actually make them live longer. For example, Arduinos have > been around for how long now? Way longer than most professional > development platforms. The Beaglebone has been around for a long > time and was one of the first low-cost Linux-ARM platforms and still > enjoys a lot of use, I'm sure patly because the hardware is totally > open-source. There are still people making special-purpose stuff > that is pretty much just a Beaglebone board with a few hacks to place > some specialized hardware on the board.Your definition of "a long time" is different from mine. The BeagleBone (BB) was introduced less than six years ago and is not totally compatible with the BeagleBone Black (Black) which was introduced not quite four years ago. Before the Black was introduced I inquired about the future availability of the BB and was told to *not* design it into any products unless I was willing to build my own hardware. They were not interested in supporting commercial apps meaning, they wanted to be able to make revs to the design without worrying about maintaining compatibility. I haven't inquired about the Black in this same way, so I don't know if they support commercial use or not. THAT is the big difference between "maker" boards and commercial hardware. With commercial hardware your app will continue to run for the life of the product. That is why companies like BittWare, Signatec, RTD Embedded Technologies and many others exist. If your application really only needs a few years of production or can afford a porting effort, then low cost units suffice. But if low cost matters, you likely aren't in high volume and low price isn't a real factor.> So I think many of the cheap hobbyist hardware platforms actually wind > up with longer life cycles than pro stuff.Only if you don't mind paying for the software over and over again.>>> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >>> quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >>> prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. >> >> Yes, exactly. But there are applications with short product lives or >> that are not very hardware dependent. This is a factor that needs >> careful consideration. > > For something like the BBB (Beaglebone Black), the hardware (board) > design is open-source and free. Even if the multiple vendors all > stop making it, you can ramp it yourself as much as needed.Avoiding making a board is the whole point to using a COTS product. I made a lot of money supplying a custom board to a major networking company, mostly because they didn't want to incur the cost of ramping up production. There's a lot more to building a board than having the BOM and artwork. BTW, they already owned the design, they paid me to do that so it was theirs to begin with. -- Rick C
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:>On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote:>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote:>>>Steve Pope wrote:>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>> boards". >>>> >>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>> Is there a specific meaning?>>>Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>"Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals.>> Sounds great.>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K.>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--)>Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards!Certainly we should. I have not yet used a Pi, but did propose using one for a recent low-budget project. The same project would have also needed an additional custom board containing mostly thru-hole components but some number of surface mount. As was pointed out upthread, modern CPU's/RAM's cannot really be included on the cheap in a custom board.>My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go.I believe the Pi design is open and you can copy it. (Check on this first before doing it!) But you'd still have to worry about sourcing all the components they used. Steve
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:58:09 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:>On 3/6/2017 3:18 PM, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:45:47 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 3/6/2017 1:15 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: >>>> >>>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Steve Pope wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>>>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>>>>> boards". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>>>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>>>>> Is there a specific meaning? >>>>> >>>>>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>>>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>>>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds great. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >>>>> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >>>>> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. >>>>> >>>>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) >>>> >>>> Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! >>> >>> Who doesn't? Why would anyone *not* use a production board for a design >>> if the volume isn't thousands? But if the term "maker board" is limited >>> to the low cost units made for the hobbyist market, then I say there is >>> a much smaller market for commercial use than boards made by a >>> commercial vendor. The Beagle Board and rPi seem to be stable >>> platforms, but you can't count on compatible units remaining in >>> production for a long time. >>> >>> The cost of having to port software even between an rPi and an rPi 3 is >>> *much* more than the savings of not using a commercial unit available >>> for 10 years. It all depends on the project requirements. >> >> A large number of the cheapie boards run Linux on ARM cores, e.g., >> Beagle Bone, RPi, CHIP, Orange Pi, are essentially all software >> compatible. i.e., executable developed on one will run on any of >> them. >> >> Even if they're not ARM, if it's a reasonable Linux distribution it's >> often just a recompile to port to a different platform. This assumes >> that you've been careful about library usage, etc. > >It also assumes you are doing work that doesn't actually *use* the >features of the board such as I/O. The TI chip the Beagle uses has >auxiliary processors. You would need a cloned board to port that code. >There's often a lot more to embedded apps than network calls.That was essentially the caveat on libraries that I made.>>>> It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks >>>> impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we >>>> (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- >>>> cycle costs. >>> >>> Mostly that comes from not buying low priced, but short lived hobbyist >>> hardware. >> >> This is a concern, but not a big one. Even the mainstream >> development hardware is often a fast-moving target with short life >> cycles. > >And the short life cycle products are mostly the higher volume products. > Short life cycles don't mesh well with high NRE like custom >development. Most projects with limited production and significant >software development will either be long life cycle products or if short >life cycle have high profitability which we all know is not so easy to >find. These are relatively infrequent or we here would all be >millionaires.>> I think the "maker" and hobbyist hooks in the cheapie dev >> platforms actually make them live longer. For example, Arduinos have >> been around for how long now? Way longer than most professional >> development platforms. The Beaglebone has been around for a long >> time and was one of the first low-cost Linux-ARM platforms and still >> enjoys a lot of use, I'm sure patly because the hardware is totally >> open-source. There are still people making special-purpose stuff >> that is pretty much just a Beaglebone board with a few hacks to place >> some specialized hardware on the board. > >Your definition of "a long time" is different from mine. The BeagleBone >(BB) was introduced less than six years ago and is not totally >compatible with the BeagleBone Black (Black) which was introduced not >quite four years ago.Cycles move quickly these days. Not keeping up means early obsolescence to competitors that do.>Before the Black was introduced I inquired about the future availability >of the BB and was told to *not* design it into any products unless I was >willing to build my own hardware. They were not interested in >supporting commercial apps meaning, they wanted to be able to make revs >to the design without worrying about maintaining compatibility. > >I haven't inquired about the Black in this same way, so I don't know if >they support commercial use or not.It's open-source, and TI doesn't care. There really isn't a "they" any more. Using the design means populating TI parts, so they're happy for people to run with it.>THAT is the big difference between "maker" boards and commercial >hardware. With commercial hardware your app will continue to run for >the life of the product. That is why companies like BittWare, Signatec, >RTD Embedded Technologies and many others exist.Actually, the "maker" boards generally *are* commercial hardware. And my experience hasn't matched yours on "pro" platforms supporting legacy users. You're always at risk to market forces, and if there's not continued money in supporting your chosen platform, don't be surprised to become an orphan.>If your application really only needs a few years of production or can >afford a porting effort, then low cost units suffice. But if low cost >matters, you likely aren't in high volume and low price isn't a real >factor. > > >> So I think many of the cheap hobbyist hardware platforms actually wind >> up with longer life cycles than pro stuff. > >Only if you don't mind paying for the software over and over again.What software? One big reason to use the Linux platforms is that much of the support and tools are open-source and free, not to mention the OS itself.>>>> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >>>> quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >>>> prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. >>> >>> Yes, exactly. But there are applications with short product lives or >>> that are not very hardware dependent. This is a factor that needs >>> careful consideration. >> >> For something like the BBB (Beaglebone Black), the hardware (board) >> design is open-source and free. Even if the multiple vendors all >> stop making it, you can ramp it yourself as much as needed. > >Avoiding making a board is the whole point to using a COTS product. I >made a lot of money supplying a custom board to a major networking >company, mostly because they didn't want to incur the cost of ramping up >production. There's a lot more to building a board than having the BOM >and artwork. BTW, they already owned the design, they paid me to do >that so it was theirs to begin with.Good for you, but there are many reasons to elect to use or not use any COTS or custom platform, and there are many reasons why even a tiny company may elect to do custom hardware rather than COTS, for large or small quantities. It's a big world out there with lots of crazy stuff going on, so the solution spaces vary greatly. The cheapie "maker" or "embedded" platforms are just one potential direction among many, but for some applications they're an easy way to get stuff done quickly and cheaply. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On 3/6/2017 4:19 PM, Steve Pope wrote:> Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote: > >> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: > >>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: > >>>> Steve Pope wrote: > >>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>>> boards". >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>>> Is there a specific meaning? > >>>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. > >>> Sounds great. > >>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >>> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >>> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. > >>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) > >> Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! > > Certainly we should. I have not yet used a Pi, but did propose > using one for a recent low-budget project. The same project would have > also needed an additional custom board containing mostly thru-hole > components but some number of surface mount. As was pointed out > upthread, modern CPU's/RAM's cannot really be included on the cheap in > a custom board.Depends on what you mean by cheap. BGA is not hard to use and everything else is durn easy. Cell phone type CPUs are BGA only, but embedded ARM Cortex M type CPUs are easy to find in leaded (QFPs, SOIC, TSSOP, etc) and non-leaded packages (QFNs). I think the bigger issue is simply do you want to roll a board or not? Once you are rolling a board it is cheaper to ditch the through hole stuff, they have to be hand inserted, and put it all on one board unless there is a reason to modularize.>> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >> quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >> prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. > > I believe the Pi design is open and you can copy it. (Check on this > first before doing it!) But you'd still have to worry about sourcing > all the components they used.Not open source. rPi foundation has never provided a schematic or BOM that I know of. Beagle boards *are* open source, I think they will even give you the Gerbers or at least the PCB layout files and schematics. There is nothing to stop you from copying the rPi as long as you don't use their artwork directly. You would need to do your own layout perhaps. -- Rick C
Reply by ●March 6, 20172017-03-06
On 3/6/2017 4:22 PM, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org wrote:> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 15:58:09 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 3/6/2017 3:18 PM, eric.jacobsen@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Mar 2017 14:45:47 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 3/6/2017 1:15 PM, Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 06 Mar 2017 06:37:01 +0000, Steve Pope wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Pope wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've recently seen in job listings, contract requirements etc. >>>>>>>> references to desiring engineers who are "experienced with Maker >>>>>>>> boards". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What exactly is a Maker board? I gather it's not a brand name, >>>>>>>> but some general concept ... it sounds a little new-age or something. >>>>>>>> Is there a specific meaning? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Arduinos and Raspberry Pi are market leaders in "maker" market space. >>>>>>> "Maker" is a sort of movement where kids learn electronics in a club >>>>>>> environment using these and small breadboard-style peripherals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sounds great. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe my concern is a prospective cutomer will take the stance that, a >>>>>> consultant would usually charge $80K to do a certain design, >>>>>> but with a "Maker Board" they can do it for $10K. >>>>>> >>>>>> My larger concern is .. they might be right. :--) >>>>> >>>>> Then we consultants should learn to do one-offs with maker boards! >>>> >>>> Who doesn't? Why would anyone *not* use a production board for a design >>>> if the volume isn't thousands? But if the term "maker board" is limited >>>> to the low cost units made for the hobbyist market, then I say there is >>>> a much smaller market for commercial use than boards made by a >>>> commercial vendor. The Beagle Board and rPi seem to be stable >>>> platforms, but you can't count on compatible units remaining in >>>> production for a long time. >>>> >>>> The cost of having to port software even between an rPi and an rPi 3 is >>>> *much* more than the savings of not using a commercial unit available >>>> for 10 years. It all depends on the project requirements. >>> >>> A large number of the cheapie boards run Linux on ARM cores, e.g., >>> Beagle Bone, RPi, CHIP, Orange Pi, are essentially all software >>> compatible. i.e., executable developed on one will run on any of >>> them. >>> >>> Even if they're not ARM, if it's a reasonable Linux distribution it's >>> often just a recompile to port to a different platform. This assumes >>> that you've been careful about library usage, etc. >> >> It also assumes you are doing work that doesn't actually *use* the >> features of the board such as I/O. The TI chip the Beagle uses has >> auxiliary processors. You would need a cloned board to port that code. >> There's often a lot more to embedded apps than network calls. > > That was essentially the caveat on libraries that I made. > >>>>> It's also good to educate customers on how, while our bit looks >>>>> impressive as a line item, it's just one part of a larger whole, and we >>>>> (hopefully) know how to do our work to minimize the rest of the life- >>>>> cycle costs. >>>> >>>> Mostly that comes from not buying low priced, but short lived hobbyist >>>> hardware. >>> >>> This is a concern, but not a big one. Even the mainstream >>> development hardware is often a fast-moving target with short life >>> cycles. >> >> And the short life cycle products are mostly the higher volume products. >> Short life cycles don't mesh well with high NRE like custom >> development. Most projects with limited production and significant >> software development will either be long life cycle products or if short >> life cycle have high profitability which we all know is not so easy to >> find. These are relatively infrequent or we here would all be >> millionaires. > >>> I think the "maker" and hobbyist hooks in the cheapie dev >>> platforms actually make them live longer. For example, Arduinos have >>> been around for how long now? Way longer than most professional >>> development platforms. The Beaglebone has been around for a long >>> time and was one of the first low-cost Linux-ARM platforms and still >>> enjoys a lot of use, I'm sure patly because the hardware is totally >>> open-source. There are still people making special-purpose stuff >>> that is pretty much just a Beaglebone board with a few hacks to place >>> some specialized hardware on the board. >> >> Your definition of "a long time" is different from mine. The BeagleBone >> (BB) was introduced less than six years ago and is not totally >> compatible with the BeagleBone Black (Black) which was introduced not >> quite four years ago. > > Cycles move quickly these days. Not keeping up means early > obsolescence to competitors that do.Low volume designs can't afford to redesign every couple of years. High volume designs don't need maker boards.>> Before the Black was introduced I inquired about the future availability >> of the BB and was told to *not* design it into any products unless I was >> willing to build my own hardware. They were not interested in >> supporting commercial apps meaning, they wanted to be able to make revs >> to the design without worrying about maintaining compatibility. >> >> I haven't inquired about the Black in this same way, so I don't know if >> they support commercial use or not. > > It's open-source, and TI doesn't care. There really isn't a "they" > any more. Using the design means populating TI parts, so they're > happy for people to run with it.You are confused. My comments were about *using* the Beagle boards in commercial work, not copying them. They recommend you do your own production for commercial work. The design is open source, but for a low volume project, why would you want to pay for ramping production, debugging, etc???>> THAT is the big difference between "maker" boards and commercial >> hardware. With commercial hardware your app will continue to run for >> the life of the product. That is why companies like BittWare, Signatec, >> RTD Embedded Technologies and many others exist. > > Actually, the "maker" boards generally *are* commercial hardware. And > my experience hasn't matched yours on "pro" platforms supporting > legacy users. You're always at risk to market forces, and if there's > not continued money in supporting your chosen platform, don't be > surprised to become an orphan.Which of the above companies ditched you? I've had chips obsoleted, but that was after more than 13 years in production. I can still buy them from a 1st tier disti who bought around 100k of them. Commercial boards are typically not removed from production until a chip is EOL'd. Once a board is in production the costs of maintaining that is minimal. The price may go up as the production volumes go down, but why kill a cash cow?>> If your application really only needs a few years of production or can >> afford a porting effort, then low cost units suffice. But if low cost >> matters, you likely aren't in high volume and low price isn't a real >> factor. >> >> >>> So I think many of the cheap hobbyist hardware platforms actually wind >>> up with longer life cycles than pro stuff. >> >> Only if you don't mind paying for the software over and over again. > > What software? One big reason to use the Linux platforms is that > much of the support and tools are open-source and free, not to mention > the OS itself.The software that is written for the app! If it is anything other than simple networking code, it uses features of the board that may be different in new versions. Even the BeagleBone and BBB are not 100% compatible in I/O etc.>>>>> My biggest concern about designing such a thing into a project is the >>>>> quality and product lifetime of the board -- I'd certainly brief a >>>>> prospective customer on said concerns if that's how they wanted to go. >>>> >>>> Yes, exactly. But there are applications with short product lives or >>>> that are not very hardware dependent. This is a factor that needs >>>> careful consideration. >>> >>> For something like the BBB (Beaglebone Black), the hardware (board) >>> design is open-source and free. Even if the multiple vendors all >>> stop making it, you can ramp it yourself as much as needed. >> >> Avoiding making a board is the whole point to using a COTS product. I >> made a lot of money supplying a custom board to a major networking >> company, mostly because they didn't want to incur the cost of ramping up >> production. There's a lot more to building a board than having the BOM >> and artwork. BTW, they already owned the design, they paid me to do >> that so it was theirs to begin with. > > Good for you, but there are many reasons to elect to use or not use > any COTS or custom platform, and there are many reasons why even a > tiny company may elect to do custom hardware rather than COTS, for > large or small quantities. It's a big world out there with lots of > crazy stuff going on, so the solution spaces vary greatly. The > cheapie "maker" or "embedded" platforms are just one potential > direction among many, but for some applications they're an easy way to > get stuff done quickly and cheaply.Yep, there is a market for "maker" boards, but that is limited to products at lower volumes and a short life span. The basic tradeoff is NRE vs. recurring costs. Low volume jobs need to minimize NRE and so can use "maker" boards as long as there is no need for a long life span. That usually means not much profit so again, a squeeze on NRE. If it isn't worth spending some money on, there isn't much money to get from it. -- Rick C
