Possible P2 Logos

1234568

Comments

  • It should be something "professional", like this:

    800 x 550 - 13K
    Feel the need for speed between your PC's com port and Prop?
    Try the FTDI 245 and the FullDuplexParallel Object.

    Check out my spin driver for the Parallax "96 x 64 Color OLED Display Module" Product ID: 28087
  • ke4pjw wrote: »
    It should be something "professional", like this:
    I liked that logo better than the current monochrome one. I also like the Propeller hat but understand that it might have to change.

  • jmgjmg Posts: 12,070
    T Chap wrote: »
    Varied opinions on the beanie. I don’t like the beanie hat with propeller on top. Seems cute and hobby and toyish me. Recently a client that has some limited experience with electronics asked me which processor I used in my product that he was buying. I said the Propeller. He said “oh yeah it’s that maker space micro, so you’re into the maker space?” I said “no it’s a very serious chip with 8 cores bla bla bla”. I don’t like trying to bolster the perception that I’m using a hobby micro. That beanie hat in my opinion contributes to the toy image...

    Yup - that's the commercial reality, and the middle manager (hopefully) about to sign off on a large P2 order, also has that same limited experience, but he/she is the one signing the order.
    Parallax do need to get significant orders for P2, if it is to hit critical mass.
    They will need to sit down with OnSemi, and come up with some form of longevity promise, as other vendors in the embedded space already do.


    For those hobbiests who 'love the beanie', it can still exist on some packaging and some branding, but it's not for on a chip.
  • I always liked it in a hat with a propeller. Now legs with the hat. ;-)

    I like that concept. Carries on the propeller spirit. Parallax is unique, why shouldn't the chip package marking be as well.
    ke4pjw wrote: »
    I will never understand the hate for the propeller beanie logo. To me it is very iconic and great branding.
    Ditto. Anyone not choosing a Propeller because of the logo instead of the datasheet probably should not be buying it anyways. They are probably the same people that would avoid the best available industrial fan from these guys or think that the Chevy Nova didn't sell well in Mexico (it actually surpassed GMs expectations in Mexico and Venezuela)
  • Juan CarlosJuan Carlos Posts: 11
    edited August 10 Vote Up0Vote Down
    ke4pjw wrote: »
    I will never understand the hate for the propeller beanie logo. To me it is very iconic and great branding.

    I agree.
    I like the beanie


  • I like the beanie II
    158 x 161 - 33K
  • I like the beanie II
    I don't like the legs. Maybe just keep the beanie along with the P2 designator. The beanie just indicates that the chip is in the Propeller family.

  • The beanie has to go! But I think that's a foregone conclusion with Parallax -- thankfully.

    The beanie was entirely appropriate when the P1 came out. ('Remember the ad with the dog on the bicycle? It was perfect for the transition from the BASIC Stamp to the Propeller.) But Parallax has entered a new playing field with the P2, where more professionalism is expected if they expect to play with the big boys in the MCU arena. And a childish propeller beanie just doesn't cut it there.

    It was fun while it lasted, folks, but now it's all about getting down to business -- business that Parallax sorely needs.

    -Phil
    “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • twin prop :D
    800 x 400 - 2K
    "Are we alone in the universe?"
    "Yes," said the Oracle.
    "So there's no other life out there?"
    "There is. They're alone too."
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 5,576
    edited August 11 Vote Up0Vote Down
    I like the beanie, but it could be stylized a bit to make it look more modern and professional. Take a look at the SimpleIDE icon. Most people probably see an "S" shaped to look like an integral sign followed by a C. It conveys the idea of a "Simple" integrated C language tool. However, if you rotate the icon 90 degrees you probably will see that it is also the outline of a beanie hat. Maybe a similar logo can be developed for the P2 that is based on the beanie.
    257 x 257 - 13K
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 22,022
    edited August 11 Vote Up0Vote Down
    Dave Hein wrote:
    I like the beanie, but it could be stylized a bit to make it look more modern and professional.

    If it's identifiable, in the least, as beanie, it won't be seen as professional.

    -Phil
    “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • To be honest, engineers rarely evaluate a chip based on it's name and/or logo. They evaluate a chip on its features, cost and performance. Development tools are also very important when selecting a chip for a project. I seriously doubt that the Propeller name and logo limited the sales of the P1. The limiting factors were the proprietary Spin language and the limited development tools. The small 32K RAM was also a hinderance to adoption.

    The P2 should sell well with almost any name and logo as long as there are a lot of development tools for it. My biggest concern for the P2 is that Parallax has done very little tool development for it. I know that they have very limited resources, but it seems like they could spend some money on developing the tools.
  • Regardless, first impressions are important. And if the first impression is a childish logo, it could scotch the deal. I say to Parallax, "Put your best, most professional, foot forward. ABC: Always be closing."

    -Phil
    “Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
  • After seeing all the other logo ideas I still think the current design is the best. After all, we're just talking about the markings on the chip itself. Most chips don't have their own logo, but they might have a nickname, such as the various generations of the Intel processors. I think the P2 is a fine nickname for the chip, or it could also be called the Prop 2 or Propeller 2.
  • But Parallax has entered a new playing field with the P2, where more professionalism is expected if they expect to play with the big boys in the MCU arena. And a childish propeller beanie just doesn't cut it there.

    It was fun while it lasted, folks, but now it's all about getting down to business -- business that Parallax sorely needs.

    -Phil
    Phil,
    Respectfully, I don't see any negatives against the beanie logo. There is many barriers, the logo isn't one of them. If the function and support is there then no one cares about a spot of engraving on an internal component of the finished equipment.

    The Prop2 will be used in a variety of ways by enthusiasts, including professionals, competing with many PIC/AVR type projects but can't truly crack the PIC/AVR market - It's too big and expensive for most, even if the chip is only a tiny part of the cost of the product ... Nor the DRAM hogging ARM/MIPS/RISCV market for that matter either - Hasn't got the RAM needed. This being the most acute limit of the Prop architecture.

    As has been noted, many folks won't touch it simply because the development tools don't fit their setup.


    IMHO, Putting something distinctive into the brand is worth the effort.

    "Are we alone in the universe?"
    "Yes," said the Oracle.
    "So there's no other life out there?"
    "There is. They're alone too."
  • The thing is if hobbyists and makers love the beanie logo, then have it, just for those chips. Most of these chips are sold assembled on boards or very small quantities, and in which case it is not a problem to put a good quality color beanie sticker on the chip to dress it up.

    However, for OEMs they would just purchase the chip in trays as they do now without any concern for stickers and the basic P2 logo we have now. In fact I would prefer this option from a "professional" point of view whereas I don't mind the sticker for any hobby quantities and boards.

    Tachyon Forth - compact, fast, forthwright and interactive
    useforthlogo-s.png
    --->CLICK THE LOGO for more links<---
    Latest binary V5.4 includes EASYFILE +++++ Tachyon Forth News Blog
    P2 SHORTFORM DATASHEET +++++ TAQOZ documentation
    Brisbane, Australia
  • jmgjmg Posts: 12,070
    evanh wrote: »
    The Prop2 will be used in a variety of ways by enthusiasts, including professionals, competing with many PIC/AVR type projects but can't truly crack the PIC/AVR market - It's too big and expensive for most, even if the chip is only a tiny part of the cost of the product ... Nor the DRAM hogging ARM/MIPS/RISCV market for that matter either - Hasn't got the RAM needed. This being the most acute limit of the Prop architecture.

    As has been noted, many folks won't touch it simply because the development tools don't fit their setup.
    That's the problem - P2 is a niche product, in a crowded market, so it needs all the help it can get.

    evanh wrote: »
    Phil,
    Respectfully, I don't see any negatives against the beanie logo. There is many barriers, the logo isn't one of them.
    The question is not so much if some small portion of current P1 users like the beanie logo, but more if any (potential) NEW users will be put off by it, and that most certainly is then a negative.
    If enough find is quaint and dated, it's time to avoid putting it on the chip package.

    Examples have been given above about the perception problems Parallax already face, it's smarter to not make those any worse.
  • The beanie logo doesn't put anyone off at all. The real detractions are all practical ones.

    "Are we alone in the universe?"
    "Yes," said the Oracle.
    "So there's no other life out there?"
    "There is. They're alone too."
  • Of the several PCB designers I know through customers or cas olleagues, I know 5 really well, all of which have more than 15 years each worth of experience with numerous chips and design products for multiple industries. I posed this question to them on Tuesday afternoon:

    "In your selection of a potentially new MCU/Processor for a design, does the logo, name, or nickname of the chip have any bearing on your selection?"

    The last answer came back tonight. I removed some of the non-relevant parts of their responses, but here they are:

    "The specifications for the chip's function are what makes the decision. The marking is nothing but cosmetic and has nothing to do with what the chip does. That's an odd question, what makes you ask?"

    "I rarely see what the marking on the chip is apart from AVL ordering data for my BOM. If it's in the datasheet or design guide, I might see the logo, but don't really care what it looks like. However, when I was back at
    , I always loved using Cypress parts because their tree logo looks very similar to the signs of the restaurant my parents owned while in Japan."

    "Why on earth would it? Unless you feel the logo will turn away business, which would be very hard to prove, I don't know why this is even a question. I have never cared what logo is used by the parts I select."

    "In cases where the PCBA will be visible by the end users, it could be a factor, but usually the end user knows what is present on the board, so it rarely matters. In cases where the device used is a marketing point of the product due to the device's features, the features outweigh logo design or usage. In many of my designs, the end user never knows what is inside, just knows the specifications and features.
    On the topic of logos, here is a chart of IC logos to peruse: https://www.elnec.com/en/support/ic-logos/?method=logo It has the RealTek logo that we put on our soundcards at Packard Bell, remember those fun boards?"

    "Are you getting in to marketing or something? Usually your questions are challenging, so you must be asking this for someone else? I guess I will answer it anyhow, although it may cost you lunch at Maria's, we're overdue for carnitas. For selling the MCU itself, it could be a reason to review your logo, but I could care less what logo sits on what I use. The physical chip is not part of my design process in most cases until I begin looking at the PCB layout. More important is schematic, firmware, selection of parts by spec, and preliminary BOM cost. I can always moderate PCB cost during layout stages if the MCU package is a factor"

    So, yes it is a small sample size of the thousands of designers that are potential market targets for the P2, but some interesting insight. I never knew that my one colleague lived in Japan as a kid, so that was cool to find out.
    Also, many people use "AVL" as a generic replacement for the term "MPN" even though they are not interchangeable. AVL is Approved Vendor List which may include MPNs, Manufacturer Part Number, but the AVL is more so used to define your suppliers of MPNs. So, an AVL may list Digikey, Future, and TTI as the approved vendors for part number XYZ, while the preferred MPN for XYZ is "TI - SN74LVC74AMPWREP"
  • WBA's results concur with my thinking. The logo issue only really crops up when orientation of the part markings on a component-visible product is off alignment. That would apply to text just as well as logos though. And Peter's stickers of course save the day, or hiding parts under others. So logos need not be a limiting factor if some design creativity is applied.

    Keeping terminology to industry standard seems more important than the logo.


    example: 8 core instead of 8 cog


    I'd be tempted to lead with that as the name, and include smart pins somehow. Tell it like it is.

    P1 seemed to get missed by lots of designers because they skimmed passed cogs as an unknown feature, or didn't get P1 presented to them in parametric searches at all.


    So on the chip, and docs too, big bold letters, something like...:


    8 CORE

    ..

    8 CORE uC

    ..

    PLX
    8 CORE

    ..

    8 CORE SP

    ..

    8 CORE
    SMART

    ..

    PLX
    8 CORE
    SMART


    etc...


    Goo search for 8 CORE uC or 8 CORE SMART brings billions of replies, but nothing with all those keywords, so you'd soon get to the top of those results. At least, it's a space seemingly as yet un-taken. And I'm surprised- Seems many chipmakers before have tried to obfuscate the product name from potential customers by applying funky logos and hip names.

  • I think the other terminology was the issue. Like using Cog instead of core or cpu, etc.
    I also think the name in of itself made it more of a hassle to describe, look for, etc. Like whenever I talk to my friends about it, I can't just say Propeller, I have to clarify that it's a MCU and that when they say Cog they mean Core.
    In searching you always have to put Parallax in front of Propeller to avoid getting a bunch of boat and plane results.

    That said, I personally like the name. So I dunno.

    I think we should change the cognew/coginit instructions/keywords to be core instead.
  • You don't go around saying you use a Microchip made MCU, you say "Pic" or "A-V-R". Prop, or Propeller, is fine.

    I doubt an incorrectly spec'd core count is limiting the Prop in parametric listings, it'll be the lack of specific built-in hardware. Core count probably isn't even a parameter in most tables since most people aren't expecting/wanting more than one core in a small MCU.

    Even with the ability to list the hardware I/O in Smartpins everyone will still need to be educated to get better market penetration.

    "Are we alone in the universe?"
    "Yes," said the Oracle.
    "So there's no other life out there?"
    "There is. They're alone too."
  • Changing a few labels won't help. The Prop is just too different to expect great bags of money to roll in.

    "Are we alone in the universe?"
    "Yes," said the Oracle.
    "So there's no other life out there?"
    "There is. They're alone too."
  • I wonder if it was really the beanie logo that put people off from the P1. It is more likely that it was Spin and no C/C++ or other standard language.
  • Maybe they can just make beanie stickers for people that really want one on their chip...
    Prop Info and Apps: http://www.rayslogic.com/
  • Nah, we want proper laser etching like the grown ups get.
  • T ChapT Chap Posts: 3,847
    edited August 11 Vote Up0Vote Down
    David Betz wrote: »
    I wonder if it was really the beanie logo that put people off from the P1. It is more likely that it was Spin and no C/C++ or other standard language.

    Certainly not just the beanie cap. You have hobbiests and serious engineers that make up the online discussions, separately and sometimes combined like here. I have seen how the propeller was dismissed by guys on the a EE forums as a hobby chip. Often they don’t even have any real knowledge of the propeller. But there is a perception. Part of the perception comes from the hobbiest Basic Stamp association. Parallax attempted to disassociate the P1 from that hobby stigma years ago and it didn’t work as I recall. Remember parallax semiconductor? An attempt to show a serious processor and non hobby “division” of the company.

    At a first glance from outside looking in, someone might see a chip with a toy for its logo made by a company known by its hobby-dominant offerings and get a first impression even without any understanding of the potential.

    As someone that has a full time business using props in the various gadgets I make, I honestly don’t care what the logo is because my typical client doesn’t know what a microprocessor is and doesn’t care. The just want my gadget to give them the function and value it gives. I never used prior micros except for a few months of Basic Stamp as a friend said “hey get this hobby processor it will save you the headaches of trying to configure all those 555’s for timing and gates for logic. I didn’t know what a microprocessor was. So the Prop allowed a non engineer with little experience to be up and running quickly doing a lot of tasks like PID motor control, LCD user interface etc. But the Stamp brought me here and it wasnt up to the task and it was an easy upgrade mostly due to the forum.

    So yes you can’t pin all the perception on the beanie cap but I will argue that on a new chip that needs to get wider exposure why not make every effort to limit the hobby/edu associations and attempt to target the serious engineers that need to be exposed and impressed. The hobbiests will find it.

    I use 500 p1’s a year. Hardly enough to mean anything for a companies success. But why should forum members that buy 5 propellers a year for fun be that concerned about a logo for their own concerns. Some of you use 100, 250, 500, 1000+. So what. For the P2 to succeed it must make a better impression to the outside world than the P1 did and sell lots more than that. What is the P1 count to date? 1m? As I understand the P1 has barely made a profit (if at all?) in 10 years. A company known for entry level and hobby level products should not put toys and cute names/logos on products that must be taken much more seriously to expand beyond the hobby market. Spin/C/tools are a whole other discussion that affect perception for some.
  • The beanie was just one of the impediments and used as an excuse by those that didn't know anything about the prop.
    Cog and Hub RAM are others. So is the fact that there are no peripherals as such. All types of peripherals need to be on the P2 list, with the addendum that smart pins and cores make up these highly intelligent peripherals, not just a vanilla peripheral.
    Need to get this point across this time around as many summarily dismiss the P1 due to lack of peripherals.

    BTW I noted a comment about the paultry 32KB RAM. When P1 was released, this was a major benefit of the prop!! RAM was typically 1KB or even less. Things have changed, but it was the benefit of running from RAM (not EEPROM) that enticed me.
    My Prop boards: P8XBlade2, RamBlade, CpuBlade, TriBlade
    Prop OS (also see Sphinx, PropDos, PropCmd, Spinix)
    Website: www.clusos.com
    Prop Tools (Index) , Emulators (Index) , ZiCog (Z80)
  • Cluso99 wrote: »
    The beanie was just one of the impediments and used as an excuse by those that didn't know anything about the prop.
    Cog and Hub RAM are others. So is the fact that there are no peripherals as such. All types of peripherals need to be on the P2 list, with the addendum that smart pins and cores make up these highly intelligent peripherals, not just a vanilla peripheral.
    Need to get this point across this time around as many summarily dismiss the P1 due to lack of peripherals.

    BTW I noted a comment about the paultry 32KB RAM. When P1 was released, this was a major benefit of the prop!! RAM was typically 1KB or even less. Things have changed, but it was the benefit of running from RAM (not EEPROM) that enticed me.
    Maybe this is the time to start creating a library of peripheral implementations with consistent interfaces so they are available when the chip hits the market. It's all well and good to say you can make any peripheral you want with smart pins but customers shouldn't have to do that for standard interfaces like UART, SPI, I2C, etc. There should be off-the-shelf implementations of these standard peripherals at day one.

  • It'd also be nice to have C and/or C++ when it hits market...
    Seems that instruction set is pretty much etched in stone now, right?
    Prop Info and Apps: http://www.rayslogic.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.