That's where the concept of business risk comes in... Personally, I think if we want it, we should figure out what we are willing to pay... then pick one of the regulars and ask him to make it... and then let it be his business and not be too jealous when he makes a bundle[noparse]:)[/noparse]
rjo_ said...
Many people want a DIP style product... it will be there, someone will do it.
Many people want it, some people might try to offer their own solutions, but ultimately Parallax is the one who can achieve the lowest cost simply by providing a DIP package already. Off the top of my head I could see two different ways of doing this. Providing an actual DIP chip or providing something very similar to their prototype board only shaped so that it will fit into a breadboard when header pins are soldered in (this last one is enough for me - header pins are probably much easier to solder than SMD chips).
Edit: Also I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a DIP chip over an SMD chip if the problem is not enough profit for Parallax. Because ultimately a DIP chip is going to be cheaper than a Propstick.
If Parallax is going to do it... I agree. But many times, with options such as this, they leave it to the market to produce... and sometimes they actively support the efforts and sometimes they don't. What I like is that frequently, if you ask them, they will tell you. So, I guess we need to hear from Parallax then?
For what it is worth, my guess is that they won't bother with a product like this... the problems for them are diffusion, evaporation and intensity. I think this kind of product will miss their selection criteria... by a hair.
@ Frobozz : I think it has become clear there won't be a DIP version of a Prop II no matter how much anyone would be willing to pay for it or how convenient it might be to us. That leaves the alternative solutions; a DIP-Module from Parallax or a third party, or something equally easily usable for breadboard, stripboard and general hobby use.
We have no idea what that product will be yet, but I believe a DIP-Module would be just as usable and useful as a DIP chip, and something like SpinStamp more useful than a DIP chip by itself, especially outside the US. Parallax have said something will almost certainly be available for hobbyists.
The market is there for the taking but if the product wanted by the market at the price the market will accept doesn't materialise it's Parallax's loss. A regrettable loss from our perspectives also, but it's up to Parallax to decide what markets they want and don't, third parties to fill the gaps if they can. We can only hope to give perspectives, steer but not control. I'm sure Parallax does listen to feedback even if the outcome is not how we may personally like, so I'm not going to bang my drum further here.
.......I'm not going to bang my drum further here.
True. I think we've beat the horse to death at this point. Paul has made it clear that it's a bit too early to take this much further, and they just can't get DIP packages any larger than 40 pins anymore.
It sounds to me like the best solution offered so far is something that is basically just a second (and smaller) version of the protoboard, with a place for the user to solder on headers that would come with it. Yes, it would be large compared to the existing Prop Sticks and Spin Stamps, but from a manufacturing cost standpoint, it's just another protoboard, so it need not cost much. It's size can be minimized by omitting the space now allotted to connections for the VGA accessory kit, the servo connectors, the on-off switch and the power connector, since this device can get power like a DIP through it's user-installed pins. Of course there would also be no space to solder other chips onto it either. For Parallax, it's the same as making another protoboard, and it's simple enough that if they don't want to do it, then one of us or somebody else probably will.
I think I'm convinced at this point that one way or another, such a product WILL exist, it WILL be priced low, and I'll be surprised if it isn't Parallax that does it.
And on a related subject:
I'm also still thinking about making my own carrier boards to allow the VGA/mouse/PS2 accessory kit to be stuck into a breadboard with all the resisters on the carrier. I'm not sure if jumper wires would screw up the signals to the carrier just like jumpers screw up the use of Sigma-Delta conversion, so I was planning to make it so that by plugging it in on the right side of the Prop, the breadboard itself establishes the connections to Prop pins 16 through 27. Very quick, and no screwing around with wires. The carrier then straddles the next power bus to the right of the Prop, and plugs a set of legs (for stable mounting purposes only) into the DIP area to the right of that. Am I the only one who would want to use this, or does it sound stupid to you guys? I'm wondering if it's worth having a lot of them made or just a few for me. Everybody would still have to buy the accessory kit and solder it together themselves because I'm not proposing to do that.
The mouse / keyboard connections are relatively slow, so it wouldn't matter how short the connections are. There's no feedback involved in the VGA outputs, so it's somewhat insensitive to length of wiring, but, because of the speed, you'd still want to keep these leads short to keep the image quality high at high resolutions.
Your basic idea sounds nice. How useful it would be will have to wait on seeing the implementation.
Other than packing it into a 40-DIP package nothing is ruled out (the fact that it would be the same cost as the uncrippled version puts too big of a thumb on the scales to consider). Everything else (besides a protoboard) is a big question mark. They are decisions which cannot be made until costs are known, and we are very far away from that point. Lets take a purely hypothetical situation, say we find that to carry a PropStick version of the next chip we would have to charge $150 for each one? (this is a hyperbole) You may be still interested, but how many others would be? So until we know where things lie, we cannot commit ourselves.
In my experience having released several products that were second (third and forth) generations. Each time we did it we agonized and spent alot of effort to respect the legacy of the previous generation. Each time, upon reflection, it turned out to be unnecessary and in it caused compromises that really made the newer product less effective.
In my opinion, the Prop II could be a completely different animal: different code, different footprint etc. On the otherhand, I would be VERY excited it there were a Prop 1a with a second memory bank that could be used for as a video frame buffer (he said as he rubbed his magic lamp )
Don't fret; when PropII arrives, if Parallax don't do a DIP / breadboard friendly option, I'm sure someone will - I'll even consider doing it myself!
(I must admit - waiting for the PropII is as agonising as waiting for the PropCAM :LOL[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-) BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
@Rich: The ability for any DIP module to 'plop into an existing design' will depend on how much bigger the LQFP version is. The current one is already 10mm square, and the DIP40 is 12.3mm wide, so it depends how close components are on the existing design.
That said, I'm hoping to be able to do a module that has its DIL pins at the same width as the PropStick. Again, it depends on the size of PropII.
I can think of other possibilities, but until the PropII packaging is announced it'll all be speculation. I can't wait until 2009 gets here :LOL:
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-) BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
The voltages are a little different. Ordinarily, I just ignore voltages, but in this case, aren't we going to need some kind of a bridge...? Might that be a bridge too far?
Next, we need to make sure that simoni isn't re-inventing the wheel... So, we need to ask Parallax if they have made a decision about producing such a product and whether they can talk about it yet.
If they haven't made a decision... we should all wait. If they have and they can't discuss it, we should stop talking about it until they do.
That's the thing rjo. Paul keeps insisting it's way to early for a decision from Parallax, and I can understand that, so I'm not pushing him any further on it. I'm not really looking for a commitment from them just yet, and my last post was more of a declaration of faith that if Parallax didn't want to do it, then somebody else would probably take up the opportunity. I'm content that we've given Paul and Chip something to think about, and pleased that others besides just me want to see some breadboard products available for Prop 2.
I've been putting some thought into this over the last few days and I just don't see how we will be able to put out a DIP style format, we're looking at something in the area of 70 pins. A 70 pin DIP would be at least 3.6" long! It would be excruciatingly difficult to insert the module into a breadboard with equal force so that none of the pins get bent, and the rework cost on the pins makes it not worth repairing a pin, so boards returned for having damaged pins would get tossed.
Last night I was looking at SIMM-Sticks, and I think our solution for the hobbyist with the 64 pin chips is to make availible a 72 pin SIMM (72 pin Single Inline Microcontroller Module). The connection is card edge so there wont be any bent pins, the socket is readily availible in through hole packages and the pins are two rows of 0.1" pins at half offset to each other (like the VGA connector). If we went this way we would have various boards which would have a companion socket, so someone that wants breadboard area would buy the breadboard board and plug thier module into the 72 pin socket on the board, the person that wants the through hole board can get that, there could possibly be a simple breakout board, and there are a host of other boards either we or our customers could design. Heck someone could easily make a SIMM to DIP adapter for the person who absolutely has to have a DIP format.
This is me thinking out loud, we haven't discussed this in the company yet, but what do you guys (and the occasional gal) think?
Interesting idea. That means you can have a demo board and a proto board and use the same P-II for both. Whether or not this is a serious advantage depends on the selling price of the P-II.
I wonder if this would cause problems for components that need to be really close to the Prop - components for sigma delta ADC for example.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.· Is this what they call Wisdom?
Paul,
This has been done with several other embedded processors and at least one video display board and appear to work well. I've used the video display board in the past. The biggest problem might be the height if mounted vertically. I'm pretty sure there are both horizontal and vertical sockets available.
The video display vendor includes the socket when you buy their module.
Yeah I got the idea from the 30 pin SIMM form factor alot of hobbyists have used. The only potential problem I can see with this approach is that the sockets are so old, I'm not sure if a RoHS compliant version can be found.
A DIP-Module doesn't necessarily have to have the full 64 pins brought out ( as per SpinStamp ), and it would be possible to have dual rows of legs on each size; back to 1.8" or so.
I don't mind the SIMM idea, it's not a unique concept. If designed right, people could solder a row of 0.1" header pins direct to one row of contacts if the needed to and still have a useful/usable unit. I wouldn't say SIMM sockets were "readily available" for all hobbyists in all parts of the world.
Alternatively, why not just make a ProtoBoard but make it convenient to put stripboard underneath or above using 0.1" mating plug and sockets ( a bit like Spin Studio ). That would work well for the current ProtoBoard also, IMO. Effectively using the ProtoBoard as a kind of Carrier Module.
It really depends on what problem you are trying to solve. For me that would be cheapest cost of chip, eeprom, regulators on something I can easily connect to something else which has my project specific electronics on, so I can move the 'Expensive Chip & Co' around between projects. For final project/product where the chip stays with the electronics it's a different matter.
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
I've been putting some thought into this over the last few days and I just don't see how we will be able to put out a DIP style format, we're looking at something in the area of 70 pins. A 70 pin DIP would be at least 3.6" long! It would be excruciatingly difficult to insert the module into a breadboard with equal force so that none of the pins get bent, and the rework cost on the pins makes it not worth repairing a pin, so boards returned for having damaged pins would get tossed.
The problem you're facing is because you seem to think you have to provide all the IO pins for the user. While that's a nice idea I just don't see why you need to do it. Microchip makes a good range of different PICs for each family and not all of them provide the same number of IO pins. So why force 70+ pins on someone? I'm sure they aren't all used or else Microchip's smaller ICs simply wouldn't be offered.
Frankly I've dropped the idea of a DIP-40 package. But it would be nice to see a protoboard that is shaped so that we can solder pins into it if we want a breadboard. Or not if we want it for something else. All that takes is a little change to the PCB. Surely that can't be too much of a hassle. But if it is - well there are others out there willing to provide what I described and make the money that you don't seem to want.
Even without PORT B being brought out to pins, I can see use of those 32 I/O for direct inter-cog communications. A free parallel bus between all the cogs, plus all the goodies of extra memory and speed!
I'm not saying we wont offer a reduced pin format (not package), it's just the demand for such things isn't as high as you might think, that's because alot of people don't like the idea of paying for functionality they can't use. We will likely have to look at the SpinStamp sales before making the decision (SpinStamp has the additional benefit of being the same form factor as the Stamp, which the new product wouldn't have). This isn't a case of obstinance, bringing a product to market costs somewhere on the order of high·four figures to low·five figures, we need to gauge what the expected demand for a product is. If we calculate it would take 10 years of sales for the ledgers to enter the black on the product, and if we factor in natural die off due to obsolescence there are situations where a product doesn't break even. I can't say which side of the line this falls on, I'm not in marketing so I don't make these decisions or even fully understand how he determination is made.
said...
I'm not saying we wont offer a reduced pin format (not package), it's just the demand for such things isn't as high as you might think, that's because alot of people don't like the idea of paying for functionality they can't use.
I agree that hobbyist sales aren't as high now as they might have been at one point. But at the same time there are some advantages to a drop in replacement for the Propeller. I know I'd find it much nicer if I could just replace the chip rather than have to go through the hoops of redesigning a product to handle the more capable chip. Like you said it isn't cheap to bring a product to market.
How about a bare DIP-carrier PCB and let people solder their bits to it ? Got to be a lot less then a five figure dollar sum to develop I'd have thought. You could also sell a bag of bits and let people assemble their own complete kit.
If provision of a DIP solution rests on SpinStamp sales then I guess we could be screwed, simply because a SpinStamp is three times the cost of a ProtoBoard. I expect sales of SpinStamp are actually higher than I'd think, because I don't see it as a price-competitive product and therefore has a very limited market.
Paul Baker (Parallax) said...
..that's because alot of people don't like the idea of paying for functionality they can't use
But Martin exactly gave the argument that there IS functionality!
said...
We will likely have to look at the SpinStamp sales before making the decision
Nevertheless this can be aples and oranges... The SpimStamp - I own one! - is crippled by its price tag. And its pincount is just below some - granted: unclear - lower limit! It is a nice device for a feasibility study and for "show and tell"
Ok, your expectations are a little clearer now, yes we will look into whether it is possible to provide a compatible version with the current chip. At this point it's uncertain if it is possible, take a look at the PropStick USB. You'll notice that the QFN package is used and there is little room to spare, if we can't get the next chip into an equivalent sized package it would be too large to fit into the space allowed. Something also to consider is that a 1.8V regulator will also need to be included to supply the chip's core, so even if we can fit the next chip into the space the on board USB may need to be sacrificed to make room for an additional regulator (or require a regulated 3.3V supply be provided on Vin).
hippy said...
How about a bare DIP-carrier PCB and let people solder their bits to it ? Got to be a lot less then a five figure dollar sum to develop I'd have thought. You could also sell a bag of bits and let people assemble their own complete kit.
If provision of a DIP solution rests on SpinStamp sales then I guess we could be screwed, simply because a SpinStamp is three times the cost of a ProtoBoard. I expect sales of SpinStamp are actually higher than I'd think, because I don't see it as a price-competitive product and therefore has a very limited market.
There is alot of fixed hidden costs with products regardless of what form it takes, a kit requires development time and costs, there is the cost of materials, the cost of kitting (someone has to assemble all the pieces),·the cost of inventory (physical storage and associated record keeping) and for every component which is not already·in inventory has·a secondary inventory costs, yearly taxes on inventory, possible marketing costs, etc etc.
As I have stated previously, determinations cannot be made until all factors are known. But we understand the needs of our hobbyist customers and will make all attempts to provide products they will find useful.
Comments
Rich
Edit: Also I wouldn't mind paying a little more for a DIP chip over an SMD chip if the problem is not enough profit for Parallax. Because ultimately a DIP chip is going to be cheaper than a Propstick.
Post Edited (Frobozz) : 1/5/2008 3:06:38 PM GMT
For what it is worth, my guess is that they won't bother with a product like this... the problems for them are diffusion, evaporation and intensity. I think this kind of product will miss their selection criteria... by a hair.
Rich
We have no idea what that product will be yet, but I believe a DIP-Module would be just as usable and useful as a DIP chip, and something like SpinStamp more useful than a DIP chip by itself, especially outside the US. Parallax have said something will almost certainly be available for hobbyists.
The market is there for the taking but if the product wanted by the market at the price the market will accept doesn't materialise it's Parallax's loss. A regrettable loss from our perspectives also, but it's up to Parallax to decide what markets they want and don't, third parties to fill the gaps if they can. We can only hope to give perspectives, steer but not control. I'm sure Parallax does listen to feedback even if the outcome is not how we may personally like, so I'm not going to bang my drum further here.
True. I think we've beat the horse to death at this point. Paul has made it clear that it's a bit too early to take this much further, and they just can't get DIP packages any larger than 40 pins anymore.
It sounds to me like the best solution offered so far is something that is basically just a second (and smaller) version of the protoboard, with a place for the user to solder on headers that would come with it. Yes, it would be large compared to the existing Prop Sticks and Spin Stamps, but from a manufacturing cost standpoint, it's just another protoboard, so it need not cost much. It's size can be minimized by omitting the space now allotted to connections for the VGA accessory kit, the servo connectors, the on-off switch and the power connector, since this device can get power like a DIP through it's user-installed pins. Of course there would also be no space to solder other chips onto it either. For Parallax, it's the same as making another protoboard, and it's simple enough that if they don't want to do it, then one of us or somebody else probably will.
I think I'm convinced at this point that one way or another, such a product WILL exist, it WILL be priced low, and I'll be surprised if it isn't Parallax that does it.
And on a related subject:
I'm also still thinking about making my own carrier boards to allow the VGA/mouse/PS2 accessory kit to be stuck into a breadboard with all the resisters on the carrier. I'm not sure if jumper wires would screw up the signals to the carrier just like jumpers screw up the use of Sigma-Delta conversion, so I was planning to make it so that by plugging it in on the right side of the Prop, the breadboard itself establishes the connections to Prop pins 16 through 27. Very quick, and no screwing around with wires. The carrier then straddles the next power bus to the right of the Prop, and plugs a set of legs (for stable mounting purposes only) into the DIP area to the right of that. Am I the only one who would want to use this, or does it sound stupid to you guys? I'm wondering if it's worth having a lot of them made or just a few for me. Everybody would still have to buy the accessory kit and solder it together themselves because I'm not proposing to do that.
Your basic idea sounds nice. How useful it would be will have to wait on seeing the implementation.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
In my experience having released several products that were second (third and forth) generations. Each time we did it we agonized and spent alot of effort to respect the legacy of the previous generation. Each time, upon reflection, it turned out to be unnecessary and in it caused compromises that really made the newer product less effective.
In my opinion, the Prop II could be a completely different animal: different code, different footprint etc. On the otherhand, I would be VERY excited it there were a Prop 1a with a second memory bank that could be used for as a video frame buffer (he said as he rubbed his magic lamp )
(I must admit - waiting for the PropII is as agonising as waiting for the PropCAM :LOL[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
See how simple that was?
Rich
I think what everyone would like to do is plop it into an existing design, change the clock settings and take the rest of the day off.
I don't think it is going to be that simple.
Rich
That said, I'm hoping to be able to do a module that has its DIL pins at the same width as the PropStick. Again, it depends on the size of PropII.
I can think of other possibilities, but until the PropII packaging is announced it'll all be speculation. I can't wait until 2009 gets here :LOL:
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Cheers,
Simon
www.norfolkhelicopterclub.co.uk
You'll always have as many take-offs as landings, the trick is to be sure you can take-off again ;-)
BTW: I type as I'm thinking, so please don't take any offense at my writing style
I thought the logic levels needed shifting too... that's great news[noparse]:)[/noparse]
Rich
If they haven't made a decision... we should all wait. If they have and they can't discuss it, we should stop talking about it until they do.
Rich
Last night I was looking at SIMM-Sticks, and I think our solution for the hobbyist with the 64 pin chips is to make availible a 72 pin SIMM (72 pin Single Inline Microcontroller Module). The connection is card edge so there wont be any bent pins, the socket is readily availible in through hole packages and the pins are two rows of 0.1" pins at half offset to each other (like the VGA connector). If we went this way we would have various boards which would have a companion socket, so someone that wants breadboard area would buy the breadboard board and plug thier module into the 72 pin socket on the board, the person that wants the through hole board can get that, there could possibly be a simple breakout board, and there are a host of other boards either we or our customers could design. Heck someone could easily make a SIMM to DIP adapter for the person who absolutely has to have a DIP format.
This is me thinking out loud, we haven't discussed this in the company yet, but what do you guys (and the occasional gal) think?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 1/11/2008 6:45:03 PM GMT
I wonder if this would cause problems for components that need to be really close to the Prop - components for sigma delta ADC for example.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
The more I know, the more I know I don't know.· Is this what they call Wisdom?
This has been done with several other embedded processors and at least one video display board and appear to work well. I've used the video display board in the past. The biggest problem might be the height if mounted vertically. I'm pretty sure there are both horizontal and vertical sockets available.
The video display vendor includes the socket when you buy their module.
Nevermind, there are some lead free availible: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?name=5822134-3-ND·(this is a 22 degree mounting angle part so it should minimize the vertical height)
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 1/11/2008 8:12:17 PM GMT
I don't mind the SIMM idea, it's not a unique concept. If designed right, people could solder a row of 0.1" header pins direct to one row of contacts if the needed to and still have a useful/usable unit. I wouldn't say SIMM sockets were "readily available" for all hobbyists in all parts of the world.
Alternatively, why not just make a ProtoBoard but make it convenient to put stripboard underneath or above using 0.1" mating plug and sockets ( a bit like Spin Studio ). That would work well for the current ProtoBoard also, IMO. Effectively using the ProtoBoard as a kind of Carrier Module.
It really depends on what problem you are trying to solve. For me that would be cheapest cost of chip, eeprom, regulators on something I can easily connect to something else which has my project specific electronics on, so I can move the 'Expensive Chip & Co' around between projects. For final project/product where the chip stays with the electronics it's a different matter.
Frankly I've dropped the idea of a DIP-40 package. But it would be nice to see a protoboard that is shaped so that we can solder pins into it if we want a breadboard. Or not if we want it for something else. All that takes is a little change to the PCB. Surely that can't be too much of a hassle. But if it is - well there are others out there willing to provide what I described and make the money that you don't seem to want.
-Martin
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
SelmaWare Solutions - StampPlot GUI for controllers, XBee and Propeller Application Boards
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Electronic Systems Technologies
American Technical Educator's Assoc. Conference·- April, Biloxi, MS. -- PROPELLER WORKSHOP!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
Post Edited (Paul Baker (Parallax)) : 1/12/2008 11:43:58 PM GMT
Post Edited (Frobozz) : 1/13/2008 12:07:54 AM GMT
If provision of a DIP solution rests on SpinStamp sales then I guess we could be screwed, simply because a SpinStamp is three times the cost of a ProtoBoard. I expect sales of SpinStamp are actually higher than I'd think, because I don't see it as a price-competitive product and therefore has a very limited market.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.
As I have stated previously, determinations cannot be made until all factors are known. But we understand the needs of our hobbyist customers and will make all attempts to provide products they will find useful.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Paul Baker
Propeller Applications Engineer
Parallax, Inc.