The iTouch isn't really perfect for Everyday JOE thanks to it's price. Apple may wind up being the poor saps who introduced a working concept for JOE, but I'll bet it will be the clones which go the distance.
As for iTouch being right for Brian. It would have, but thanks to the hood being completely locked, no dice.
Heck, an application which provided an interface to Commodore 64 BASIC was even pulled from their system.
heater said...
I personally think the Prop II will deserve more than it's own web site and a cleaned up obex.
To get traction in the big league it needs a whole new brand image. A new company name. A new company.
We all love Parallax but it has that hobbyists and robotic toys image. All well and good in it's current market.
The Prop II should be launched onto the world with a much more serious looking approach.
I agree. I was weary of mentioning some of those things, as I'm sure there is sentimental value in the name, and I truly admire Parallax as a company. But to too many people Parallax is not seen as a legitimate chip manufacturer. I would love to be proved wrong, but I have seen what I've said first hand.
@ZiCog I personally am glad to have helped support Chip and crew over the years, but you are right. They deserve something big for all the hard work (not to mention what they have given the community) so I say it's up to us to help spread the word and get it into the hands of as many serious individuals as we can. Next time you are a design meeting and have the opportunity, we should all take it and mention this great product and what is coming up.
To the OP - I'm not sure if you could realistically say you can get it into the hands of the everyday "joe" or "brian" for that matter. From my experience most people in this country (and probably most parts of Europe and Japan) are consumers. They work to consume. Some work to just survive, yes, but everyone consumes because most live beyond their means (i.e. credit debt). People don't want to take time out to fiddle with some mental exercise (unless it's sudoku) and can't be bothered with learning something with even remote complexity. If it doesn't have natural motion or touch screen they don't want to have anything to do with it. I'm afraid our love of microprocessors, computers, and electronics in general will still remain the specialized field it still is.
FWIW - I also don't ever see the average "joe" or "brian" to want to code, let alone learn basic digital electronics. I can't count how many people I know have said they "code" but when asked all they've ever done is some html. I'll even take javascript as code, but when asked that they usually complain it's too hard. Case in point. Maybe that's just been my experience as an embedded systems developer for 20 years, but it usually is difficult to find someone to have a casual conversation about my hobby. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
heater said...
jazzed: Are we using the word "bigger" the same way.
Apparently not [noparse]:)[/noparse] I was talking about computing capacity.
@OBC
I agree that clones have some chance to make an impact later. Just like Zune and all the other MP3 players. You probably won't see an Atari history repeat though [noparse]:)[/noparse] History don't repeat but it does rhyme.
heater said...
The Prop II should be launched onto the world with a much more serious looking approach.
But let's not forget that the Prop I isn't exactly chopped liver and might still enjoy a viable niche in the commercial marketplace. Or does the general consensus hold that, after four years, the Prop I is irrevocably typecast in a "hobbyist" role?
I for one think there are a lot of untapped markets for the good old Prop. Having used it for 2 years now in OEM applications, I'm acutely aware of its shortcomings, yet it also has some real advantages in the industrial domain. As a result I'm in the final throes of getting a new business off the ground that will target primarily the industrial arena, but there will be plenty of spoils for forumistas
Here's a couple of photos of where the prop "console PS2" at its core is at. I'm currently talking to suppliers (including some from prop land) - cnc and laser cutting & marking for the fascias etc.
I will make the pcbs available to the forum at very reasonable costs, together with full parts lists from mouser (mouser projects).
Hopefully this gets some traction. Who will join my crusade?
IMHO, it's really different. That's good and bad. Most people, working in a professional setting, adopt technology along a fairly conservative curve. They aren't empowered to do much else, largely because risk costs money, and where risk is high enough, the job, family and such are not worth it.
The major, established players are good at a multi-layered approach to this. At the core, there are incremental changes, each offering some nudge here and there, or that address a niche that opens, but none really changing the core state of the game. They can do this because they've got volumes moving, and they can sell to both people who would select technology, those that apply it, and those that fund, or operate the business.
Each step leverages the familiar, while at the same time using extraordinary labels. Over time, people get inured to this, and a sense of industry routine sets in.
That's where all of this is at right now. There are well trodden paths to get things done, and by and large, that's how they will get done.
To get beyond that, particularly with a highly differentiated product, requires that it be sold. It almost never happens that new technology just is adopted in such a way as to disrupt the status quo, unless:
The tech is actually disruptive. A clear indicator of this is a 10x cost differential, or 10x savings differential, or some combination of both. The producer of a disruptive technology will market underneath the established players, consuming the low hanging fruit --those shops that can take advantage of the tech, while having the least baggage. In other words they are flexible, and can take some risk, because their operation doesn't involve a significant risk.
...or, they are a simple shop looking to step up to the next level of capability. The lack of initial investment typical of a disruptive technology is attractive to them, and adoption is generally rapid because of that. In many cases, that low barrier to entry gives them some incentive to "make it work", even when that carries a cost, because the perception of longer term cost savings, or product time to market, quality, or capability advantages are seen as primary.
Where a technology is not disruptive, investments must be made --strategic investments, such that adopters of it gain a significant business advantage. Like the disruptive technology, a classic return on investment scenario can be used. Risk in this scenario is high, often requiring solid proof of concept, metrics, and a clear top down sell. Nobody in the enterprise is capable of taking that kind of risk, regardless of the business advantages. Those that own the business, or who have significant authority must buy in, and support the adoption effort. These are expensive at first, because the support required to prove out the tech isn't cheap, and it's largely on the technology innovator to provide.
Why?
Because the status quo is proven, and claims to the contrary won't see validation because that process is often too expensive to entertain for all but a select few early adopter / start up types.
The Propeller is a very interesting case to me. (and I've done this kind of thing for years, being a part of some very significant technology deployments, in the high 6 figures)
The Propeller has the potential to be disruptive, in that considerable savings could be had on feature laden products, due to BOM savings, time to development, robustness, etc... However, it's barrier to entry is quite high. Now I know almost everybody here is going to say, but... and before you do, know that perception is reality here. I don't think the chip is hard. If it were, frankly some of us wouldn't be here. It's not hard.
But, the perception of it being hard, because it's different, means the reality of it is simply hard. Therefore, from a technology adoption standpoint, it must be treated as hard, and sold accordingly. That's the hard truth of things.
The good stuff in the Propeller requires somebody take a risk. Not a small one, but a full on material risk, and that's what has stalled it in the general marketplace. When one looks at features per dollar, and the scope of overall capability, the chip has a lot going for it. But, that risk looms overhead, and simple things like:
No C, lack of code protection, no interrupts, doesn't use standard libraries, etc....
All add up to barriers. Again, the key thing to remember here is that a perceived barrier is actually a barrier, until that perception is broken.
That all points to an active campaign to encourage adoption. Since there has been no campaign, there really hasn't been any adoption, but for those who fit the risk and cost profile where the chip is seen as disruptive.
Frankly, it is!! The Propeller is excellent. We are all here, because we got that 10x cost or feature function, which made the barrier to entry, or cost to adopt the chip favorable to us. None of us here have a significant risk, other than some time investment, and that's modest all things considered.
The other profile is the product startup, where some technology must be adopted, and so there must be some initial cost and risk anyway, meaning the Propeller is on a more sure footing cost and barrier wise. There are a couple of those brewing right now, likely to serve their niche with a successful product.
IMHO, the real danger here is the competetors will continue to produce incremental improvements to their products. The fundemental design won't change, but they will differentiate it enough to marginalize the technology advantages the propeller has, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE CONSIDER ADOPTION.
That's exactly what will happen. Frankly, that's one of the reasons I did not like the idea of using "multi-core" as has been the trend lately. "multi-core" is pretty easy for another vendor to put on a check list, say "yeah, we got that, and it works with your existing stuff", and we are done, cooked, out. Out, because the failure to differentiate takes the value differences off the table, making the chip look costly and inferior.
That's all going on right now.
On the other hand, "concurrent multi-processor" is harder. Not too much harder, but hard enough to warrant serious consideration of how the product is positioned. That's all IMHO, and some example of how these things can typically go.
The window for Prop II is fairly wide, given the capability I'm seeing on the table. One other advantage is the scope of possible applications is much wider, and that's going to open up a lot more opportunities. The key there, even when only a small number of opportunities convert into business, is the chance to get the initial adoption done, establish volume so the product stands on it's own, ideally paying for some sales effort, campaigns and such.
That can be built on incrementally like the other players do, and the game is on!!
Margins make or break a business, meaning it won't take a ton of share to make Parallax whole. Once that occurs, then growth, even very modest growth is good for them, good for us, and good for those who have adopted.
Prop I is a learning experience. If anything is learned, it's that a strategic, well targeted and funded sales effort will be required to make Prop II successful. The features and cost mentioned so far do not fit the profile of pure disruptive tech, so cost alone won't drive it. Return on investment will, and the crux of that is somebody getting in front of potential adopters, making that pitch, and backing it with support, etc...
Really great discussion and some very thoughtful points have been made. Here are some ideas I think are worth considering:
1. Product launch incubator. There are some great tech folks that participate here, and I think more than one of us has ideas for a product designed around the propeller but may not know 'how to reach the launch pad' because, well we're not likely to be equally skilled marketeers, salesman, accountants, venture-capital-chasers etc. So, what I'm leaning toward here is how to leverage the technical excitement into for profit enterprises. If the product launch is good, then propellers will move accordingly.
2. Step away from the model of "if you build it, they will come" approach (which seems to be a paraphrased restatement of one of the opening quesitions) and instead ask: what will they come to, and can that be built. Now, before this comes off sounding too pedantic, I'm thinking of what our society could really benefit from now. For example, home solar systems are becoming more interesting to many people now for a variety of reasons, and so I wonder if the propeller could be used as a sun-tracking system that also performed battery system management, for example.
3. Build the future approach. I think it would be interesting to see parallax educational series move toward propeller in order to win over some "young Brians" so that as they progress through their careers they already know the benefits of the device. More, I think an educational system that was built around the "prop-clair 81 laptop" that when closed also offered a means to "carry one's experiments around" would be a great way toward that end. Think of an erector- or lego-set that both Avg-Joe-dad and young Brian could use together.
On a final note, I think the following concept bring me to be excited about the propeller the most. It's true multi-processing capability. Having played with embedded mult-taskers, from my view the propeller is completely revolutionary. But, I do think that the toolset could use more work. There are some great fronts on this front, but great tools are a must for wide acceptance.
Here's a point of view that might give one pause, if I can be permitted a role as devil's advocate:
The BASIC Stamp has been around for -- what -- twenty years, plus or minus? It's yesterday's technology, but it continues to be a long-term success because Parallax has been able to build a strong product line around it, along with a hugely successful and well-regarded educational and support infrastructure. But how many individual microcontroller chips enjoy that same longevity as OEM design-ins? Shifting from a company that can leverage its products over decades to one which has to survive in an industry known for extremely brief market opportunities is a huge transition. Can market persistence in a pure IC play span Parallax's development cycle for these devices? If not, the educational and hobbyist markets may have to play the same vital role as a profit center for the Prop as they have for the BASIC Stamp. Ten years from now, even the Prop II will be obsolete, but any products and educational infrastructure Parallax has built up around it will not be and will provide longevity and a continued sales cushion for an otherwise moribund chip. When the OEMs that sneak micros into JOE's eager hands at last desert the Prop II for something cheaper and more powerful, Parallax's own products and services will have to take up the slack, unless Chip can pump out new designs at an ever-accelerating clip. But the demands of such a whipsaw market will be challenge, to say the least.
Parallax is currently a big frog in a small pond. By shifting to an emphasis on OEMs, despite whatever technical merits the Propeller chips enjoy, they will suddenly become a small frog in a big pond. I totally understand the necessity for such a move, and I have confidence in their ultimate ability to pull it off. But let's face it: life is much harder in a big pond.
Another question looms overhead: Is the Prop profitable for Parallax? If so, is it really necessary for them to try to get their foot in the door of OEMs? Of course, the primary goal of nearly all companies is to increase profits, but for a company like Parallax, at what expense will it necessitate to meet that end? A larger workforce to manage? Dealing with demanding customers that are a PITA? I fear that if Parallax wants to play with the big boys, then they'll need to play by similar rules, and the type of company we currently know them as will be no more. I have a hard time believing Chip and Ken would even want that.
It's not cheap to develop semiconductor devices and have them manufactured. I can't imagine attempting it without courting and winning big hitter customers. Without that, the Prop would have to sell for many times what it does now. So I don't think it's a matter of what Parallax wants, necessarily; it's more a matter of what they have to do to play in this game.
Of course, turning a profit, and recouping investments is a fact of business life. My point was that Parallax's current strategy might be sufficient enough to meet those two goals. If that is indeed the case, then the question is how much further are they willing to go in increase their revenue? I just hope they don't find themselves in a battle not worth fighting, especially considering Chip is creating his MCU out of passion, and not necessity.
I've just had my first run of boards made for a Propeller product I will be using in my electronic security business.
We've had the boards assembled by a companythat is owned by a friend of mine.
He is the person that introduced me to PIC's a number of years ago and why ultimately I ended up with a Propeller.
He owns a company who's entire product line is bulit around PIC's, I've tried in vain for the last few years to introduce him to Propeller, this is what he says...
Can I Program it in C?
Can I protect the code?
Has it got USB capabilities?
What other peripherals does it have?
Can I store the code on chip?
What's the debugger like?
Is there a smaller/bigger version?
Who are Parallax?
He wouldn't even consider it without some of these 'features', I would imagine it being a similar story around the world.....
I know the answers to some of these questions are now YES but for the most part it is NO.
Until most of the items are addressed the Propeller will be forever viewed as a hobbyist device even though it is capable of so muchmore.
Now, back to the original discussion...
I'm with soshimo on this one.
I think that if people wanted to program devices like a mini computer with an LCD screen, WiFi etc etc... they would be doing it already.
Ever heard of mobile phones? They have all these characteristics and in most cases far more powerful than a microcontroller.
You don't see everyday Joe or Brian for that matter programming them much do you? The demand just isn't there IMHO.
Everyday Joe doesn't care how things work, let alone make it do something different by programming it.
@OBC, nice thread BTW, Parallax needs people like you looking at what might be possible!
Regards,
Coley
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ PropGFX - The home of the Hybrid Development System and PropGFX Lite
With friends of mine getting iPads I wanted something that would fit in my pocket and offer a lot more, for less money. I got a Dell Streak. I haven't been disappointed.
It's got a 1 GHz ARM, and has the marvellous Swype text entry system (beta).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Coley said...
I think that if people wanted to program devices like a mini computer with an LCD screen, WiFi etc etc... they would be doing it already.
Ever heard of mobile phones? They have all these characteristics and in most cases far more powerful than a microcontroller.
But they do want to program a device like that. Check out the thousands of young'ns the attended Google's gathering this year code.google.com/events/io/2010/. All chomping at the bit to get on with Android programming. There are over 30000 apps for Android phones already. A lot of them free. A lot of them done just for fun, I mean who needs a Z80 emulator and CP/M operating system on their phone?
The Android proves the demand. It's the C-64 or ZX81 for today.
Only problem is, it is a mostly available on a mobile phone. How cool would it be if one could get a serial port and a bunch of general pupose I/Os out of such a mobile phone and easily attach a keyboard to program it in some simple language like BASIC?
The potential Brians under discussion here would have a dead easy start with their gadget and robot projects. An Android android anyone.
There is no such programmable device available to our mythical "Brian" who who has an itch to a) learn to program and b) Use that skill to interact with his real world creations, robots or otherwise.
Hmm.. I feel a new project coming on: Finding a means of using an Android phone and Propeller together. Phone is the compute host, Prop is the real-world interface. Don't forget phones nowadays tend to have GPS, accelerometers, compasses built in already. Sweet ha?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I'm looking into the possibility of interfacing my Streak to an XMOS chip. It could then be interfaced to a Propeller. I'm writing this on my Streak, BTW, using a 3G connection, whilst waiting to see my doctor.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Just USB, AFAIK. it's got a 30 way connector, though, so there might be some more. I'm using it outside Macdonalds, now, via their Cloud connection, in Hastings town centre. It uses Android, of course.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Well there we go. USB from Android device to Propeller. The Homespun Spin compiler is written in Java if I understand correctly. Java is the preferred language for Android app development. So, develop fro Prop on the Streak and thence use Streak and Prop combination.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
heater said...
The Android proves the demand. It's the C-64 or ZX81 for today.
I know, that's why I am on my second Android phone now it's a HTC Desire and it's the best phone I've ever owned.
What I actuall meant was that any demand that mightbe there for programming such devices is already taken care of by mobile phones, I don't think there would be any demand for a Prop based product. Much better your idea of using a mobile phone to interface to a Propeller.
Coley
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ PropGFX - The home of the Hybrid Development System and PropGFX Lite
We still need that killer app, and the users of this will probably not know what micro is under the hood.
Keep the discussion going as it may lead someone to think of that magical killer app
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ Links to other interesting threads:
heater said...
Well there we go. USB from Android device to Propeller. The Homespun Spin compiler is written in Java if I understand correctly. Java is the preferred language for Android app development. So, develop fro Prop on the Streak and thence use Streak and Prop combination.
I was thinking along the same lines. I've got the Android SDK, but haven't actually tried it yet. It is possible to run native ARM applications under Android, as well as ones written in Java, of course.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
The BASIC Stamp has been around for -- what -- twenty years, plus or minus? It's yesterday's technology, but it continues to be a long-term success because Parallax has been able to build a strong product line around it, along with a hugely successful and well-regarded educational and support infrastructure. ....Parallax is currently a big frog in a small pond. By shifting to an emphasis on OEMs, despite whatever technical merits the Propeller chips enjoy, they will suddenly become a small frog in a big pond....
I agree with Phil. From my perspective, what makes this chip so attractive has much to do with the support and educational system the company has established. If fact I'm always afraid Parallax will try to jump into the race with all those other chips out there and leave people like me behind in the dust. I confess I know next to nothing about other microprocessors, but to me Parallax feels like the Apple of them all: when I glance at other microprocessors I suddenly feel I'm back in that world of hard-core electrical engineering, where I feel cold and lonely and people speak a language I can barely decipher. In my opinion Parallax has created a very humane interface to what would otherwise be a world completely inaccessible to me. But I wouldn't consider this sort of technology to be accessible to the average Joe for any reason (OBC, man, are you kidding?). On the other hand, I can easily envision university courses being taught around this chip to non-electrical engineering students (physics majors, chemists, biologists, etc.) who want to build their own lab equipment. The ability to design and build experiments, get results quickly, and then turn around and rapidly re-design and develop a new set of experiments seems to me to be an ideal application for this chip. If you raise the bar a bit and consider "average joe" to be college students and lab techs, then I think this chip could gain wide acceptance in the general scientific community as part of any serious researcher's bag of tricks, a capability that would allow researchers to become somewhat independent of the enormous, mind-numbing time delays that are inherent in most research institutions (where you have to submit detailed designs and paperwork weeks or months in advance to get things done.)
So, OBC, if you've got the itch to evangelize this chip, I'd aim for the graduate departments of universities and come up with a sleek method of making the process modular while keeping it cheap.
Using the VGA port (I think Chip said he can not do hdmi)
and composite video·for people in developing countries as they probably don't have a 26" LCD TV (yet)
But we can not wait the·3 years that it toke before we used the prop1 to its full potential.
50 games have to be written fast within a month or two.
So someone have to step up to the plate with·cash to hire a handful of programmers.
Also making sure to access to prop-II demo boards way before it even official have started to be manufactured
And include a 2D game·engine so people can make their own games.
Or·a basic langue like Amiga AMOS.
You guys have kept this thread running through the night? [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Parallax is getting ready to launch a product which is very close to perfect for the young Brians, the Scribbler S2.
A robot based on the Propeller encased in standard, user-friendly plastic. It includes a simple starting point, a GUI
type programming system which doesn't require the commitment of learning what _clkmode = xtal1 + pll16x means,
yet it contains a "hacker port" under the hood. Products like this place an easy hook, then provide nearly unlimited
depth once set. Some key points must be observed from this for dealing with Brians.
* Everything is encased in plastic these days. Circuit boards are scary for the masses. Brian's dad, JOE is one
of those masses. I don't like this either, but we've got to face it.
* Simple, easy entry, but leave plenty of depth. Rewards for digging in must be placed. This has been done
intentionally with the S2. As long as Parallax doesn't assemble it with TORX screws, we're in business. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Keep the entry point as close as possible to what people currently understand. People understand point-and-click,
touch tone dialing, and what a steering wheel is.
* Brians need quick, satisfying returns. (At least until the hook is set.) They were born into an instant gratification world.
(And I'm not talking about swallowing 10 lines of Spin to blink and LED. It won't grab them.)
@ElectricAye,
You've hit the nail on the head.. The Propeller could become a "module" for professional everyday JOE. I think
Chip has a clear picture of this for the Propeller II. It's some of us who have gotten stuck in the retro computer stuff
with the Propeller. Honestly this is fine for us, but meaningless right now for both everyday JOE, and most Brians.
Last time I talked to Chip about demo applications for the Propeller II, IIRC he was considering some kind of molecular
visual. Yup.. definitely not C64 stuff. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Comments
To get traction in the big league it needs a whole new brand image. A new company name. A new company.
We all love Parallax but it has that hobbyists and robotic toys image. All well and good in it's current market.
The Prop II should be launched onto the world with a much more serious looking approach.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
As for iTouch being right for Brian. It would have, but thanks to the hood being completely locked, no dice.
Heck, an application which provided an interface to Commodore 64 BASIC was even pulled from their system.
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Feature Projects: PropellerPowered.com
Visit the: PROPELLERPOWERED SIG forum kindly hosted by Savage Circuits.
I agree. I was weary of mentioning some of those things, as I'm sure there is sentimental value in the name, and I truly admire Parallax as a company. But to too many people Parallax is not seen as a legitimate chip manufacturer. I would love to be proved wrong, but I have seen what I've said first hand.
To the OP - I'm not sure if you could realistically say you can get it into the hands of the everyday "joe" or "brian" for that matter. From my experience most people in this country (and probably most parts of Europe and Japan) are consumers. They work to consume. Some work to just survive, yes, but everyone consumes because most live beyond their means (i.e. credit debt). People don't want to take time out to fiddle with some mental exercise (unless it's sudoku) and can't be bothered with learning something with even remote complexity. If it doesn't have natural motion or touch screen they don't want to have anything to do with it. I'm afraid our love of microprocessors, computers, and electronics in general will still remain the specialized field it still is.
FWIW - I also don't ever see the average "joe" or "brian" to want to code, let alone learn basic digital electronics. I can't count how many people I know have said they "code" but when asked all they've ever done is some html. I'll even take javascript as code, but when asked that they usually complain it's too hard. Case in point. Maybe that's just been my experience as an embedded systems developer for 20 years, but it usually is difficult to find someone to have a casual conversation about my hobby. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
@OBC
I agree that clones have some chance to make an impact later. Just like Zune and all the other MP3 players. You probably won't see an Atari history repeat though [noparse]:)[/noparse] History don't repeat but it does rhyme.
Cheers.
--Steve
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
-Phil
Here's a couple of photos of where the prop "console PS2" at its core is at. I'm currently talking to suppliers (including some from prop land) - cnc and laser cutting & marking for the fascias etc.
I will make the pcbs available to the forum at very reasonable costs, together with full parts lists from mouser (mouser projects).
Hopefully this gets some traction. Who will join my crusade?
IMHO, it's really different. That's good and bad. Most people, working in a professional setting, adopt technology along a fairly conservative curve. They aren't empowered to do much else, largely because risk costs money, and where risk is high enough, the job, family and such are not worth it.
The major, established players are good at a multi-layered approach to this. At the core, there are incremental changes, each offering some nudge here and there, or that address a niche that opens, but none really changing the core state of the game. They can do this because they've got volumes moving, and they can sell to both people who would select technology, those that apply it, and those that fund, or operate the business.
Each step leverages the familiar, while at the same time using extraordinary labels. Over time, people get inured to this, and a sense of industry routine sets in.
That's where all of this is at right now. There are well trodden paths to get things done, and by and large, that's how they will get done.
To get beyond that, particularly with a highly differentiated product, requires that it be sold. It almost never happens that new technology just is adopted in such a way as to disrupt the status quo, unless:
The tech is actually disruptive. A clear indicator of this is a 10x cost differential, or 10x savings differential, or some combination of both. The producer of a disruptive technology will market underneath the established players, consuming the low hanging fruit --those shops that can take advantage of the tech, while having the least baggage. In other words they are flexible, and can take some risk, because their operation doesn't involve a significant risk.
...or, they are a simple shop looking to step up to the next level of capability. The lack of initial investment typical of a disruptive technology is attractive to them, and adoption is generally rapid because of that. In many cases, that low barrier to entry gives them some incentive to "make it work", even when that carries a cost, because the perception of longer term cost savings, or product time to market, quality, or capability advantages are seen as primary.
Where a technology is not disruptive, investments must be made --strategic investments, such that adopters of it gain a significant business advantage. Like the disruptive technology, a classic return on investment scenario can be used. Risk in this scenario is high, often requiring solid proof of concept, metrics, and a clear top down sell. Nobody in the enterprise is capable of taking that kind of risk, regardless of the business advantages. Those that own the business, or who have significant authority must buy in, and support the adoption effort. These are expensive at first, because the support required to prove out the tech isn't cheap, and it's largely on the technology innovator to provide.
Why?
Because the status quo is proven, and claims to the contrary won't see validation because that process is often too expensive to entertain for all but a select few early adopter / start up types.
The Propeller is a very interesting case to me. (and I've done this kind of thing for years, being a part of some very significant technology deployments, in the high 6 figures)
The Propeller has the potential to be disruptive, in that considerable savings could be had on feature laden products, due to BOM savings, time to development, robustness, etc... However, it's barrier to entry is quite high. Now I know almost everybody here is going to say, but... and before you do, know that perception is reality here. I don't think the chip is hard. If it were, frankly some of us wouldn't be here. It's not hard.
But, the perception of it being hard, because it's different, means the reality of it is simply hard. Therefore, from a technology adoption standpoint, it must be treated as hard, and sold accordingly. That's the hard truth of things.
The good stuff in the Propeller requires somebody take a risk. Not a small one, but a full on material risk, and that's what has stalled it in the general marketplace. When one looks at features per dollar, and the scope of overall capability, the chip has a lot going for it. But, that risk looms overhead, and simple things like:
No C, lack of code protection, no interrupts, doesn't use standard libraries, etc....
All add up to barriers. Again, the key thing to remember here is that a perceived barrier is actually a barrier, until that perception is broken.
That all points to an active campaign to encourage adoption. Since there has been no campaign, there really hasn't been any adoption, but for those who fit the risk and cost profile where the chip is seen as disruptive.
Frankly, it is!! The Propeller is excellent. We are all here, because we got that 10x cost or feature function, which made the barrier to entry, or cost to adopt the chip favorable to us. None of us here have a significant risk, other than some time investment, and that's modest all things considered.
The other profile is the product startup, where some technology must be adopted, and so there must be some initial cost and risk anyway, meaning the Propeller is on a more sure footing cost and barrier wise. There are a couple of those brewing right now, likely to serve their niche with a successful product.
IMHO, the real danger here is the competetors will continue to produce incremental improvements to their products. The fundemental design won't change, but they will differentiate it enough to marginalize the technology advantages the propeller has, IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE CONSIDER ADOPTION.
That's exactly what will happen. Frankly, that's one of the reasons I did not like the idea of using "multi-core" as has been the trend lately. "multi-core" is pretty easy for another vendor to put on a check list, say "yeah, we got that, and it works with your existing stuff", and we are done, cooked, out. Out, because the failure to differentiate takes the value differences off the table, making the chip look costly and inferior.
That's all going on right now.
On the other hand, "concurrent multi-processor" is harder. Not too much harder, but hard enough to warrant serious consideration of how the product is positioned. That's all IMHO, and some example of how these things can typically go.
The window for Prop II is fairly wide, given the capability I'm seeing on the table. One other advantage is the scope of possible applications is much wider, and that's going to open up a lot more opportunities. The key there, even when only a small number of opportunities convert into business, is the chance to get the initial adoption done, establish volume so the product stands on it's own, ideally paying for some sales effort, campaigns and such.
That can be built on incrementally like the other players do, and the game is on!!
Margins make or break a business, meaning it won't take a ton of share to make Parallax whole. Once that occurs, then growth, even very modest growth is good for them, good for us, and good for those who have adopted.
Prop I is a learning experience. If anything is learned, it's that a strategic, well targeted and funded sales effort will be required to make Prop II successful. The features and cost mentioned so far do not fit the profile of pure disruptive tech, so cost alone won't drive it. Return on investment will, and the crux of that is somebody getting in front of potential adopters, making that pitch, and backing it with support, etc...
[noparse]:)[/noparse]
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
Wondering how to set tile colors in the graphics_demo.spin?
Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
1. Product launch incubator. There are some great tech folks that participate here, and I think more than one of us has ideas for a product designed around the propeller but may not know 'how to reach the launch pad' because, well we're not likely to be equally skilled marketeers, salesman, accountants, venture-capital-chasers etc. So, what I'm leaning toward here is how to leverage the technical excitement into for profit enterprises. If the product launch is good, then propellers will move accordingly.
2. Step away from the model of "if you build it, they will come" approach (which seems to be a paraphrased restatement of one of the opening quesitions) and instead ask: what will they come to, and can that be built. Now, before this comes off sounding too pedantic, I'm thinking of what our society could really benefit from now. For example, home solar systems are becoming more interesting to many people now for a variety of reasons, and so I wonder if the propeller could be used as a sun-tracking system that also performed battery system management, for example.
3. Build the future approach. I think it would be interesting to see parallax educational series move toward propeller in order to win over some "young Brians" so that as they progress through their careers they already know the benefits of the device. More, I think an educational system that was built around the "prop-clair 81 laptop" that when closed also offered a means to "carry one's experiments around" would be a great way toward that end. Think of an erector- or lego-set that both Avg-Joe-dad and young Brian could use together.
On a final note, I think the following concept bring me to be excited about the propeller the most. It's true multi-processing capability. Having played with embedded mult-taskers, from my view the propeller is completely revolutionary. But, I do think that the toolset could use more work. There are some great fronts on this front, but great tools are a must for wide acceptance.
The BASIC Stamp has been around for -- what -- twenty years, plus or minus? It's yesterday's technology, but it continues to be a long-term success because Parallax has been able to build a strong product line around it, along with a hugely successful and well-regarded educational and support infrastructure. But how many individual microcontroller chips enjoy that same longevity as OEM design-ins? Shifting from a company that can leverage its products over decades to one which has to survive in an industry known for extremely brief market opportunities is a huge transition. Can market persistence in a pure IC play span Parallax's development cycle for these devices? If not, the educational and hobbyist markets may have to play the same vital role as a profit center for the Prop as they have for the BASIC Stamp. Ten years from now, even the Prop II will be obsolete, but any products and educational infrastructure Parallax has built up around it will not be and will provide longevity and a continued sales cushion for an otherwise moribund chip. When the OEMs that sneak micros into JOE's eager hands at last desert the Prop II for something cheaper and more powerful, Parallax's own products and services will have to take up the slack, unless Chip can pump out new designs at an ever-accelerating clip. But the demands of such a whipsaw market will be challenge, to say the least.
Parallax is currently a big frog in a small pond. By shifting to an emphasis on OEMs, despite whatever technical merits the Propeller chips enjoy, they will suddenly become a small frog in a big pond. I totally understand the necessity for such a move, and I have confidence in their ultimate ability to pull it off. But let's face it: life is much harder in a big pond.
-Phil
Also, agree with a lot of what Phil just said.
-Phil
We've had the boards assembled by a companythat is owned by a friend of mine.
He is the person that introduced me to PIC's a number of years ago and why ultimately I ended up with a Propeller.
He owns a company who's entire product line is bulit around PIC's, I've tried in vain for the last few years to introduce him to Propeller, this is what he says...
Can I Program it in C?
Can I protect the code?
Has it got USB capabilities?
What other peripherals does it have?
Can I store the code on chip?
What's the debugger like?
Is there a smaller/bigger version?
Who are Parallax?
He wouldn't even consider it without some of these 'features', I would imagine it being a similar story around the world.....
I know the answers to some of these questions are now YES but for the most part it is NO.
Until most of the items are addressed the Propeller will be forever viewed as a hobbyist device even though it is capable of so muchmore.
Now, back to the original discussion...
I'm with soshimo on this one.
I think that if people wanted to program devices like a mini computer with an LCD screen, WiFi etc etc... they would be doing it already.
Ever heard of mobile phones? They have all these characteristics and in most cases far more powerful than a microcontroller.
You don't see everyday Joe or Brian for that matter programming them much do you? The demand just isn't there IMHO.
Everyday Joe doesn't care how things work, let alone make it do something different by programming it.
@OBC, nice thread BTW, Parallax needs people like you looking at what might be possible!
Regards,
Coley
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PropGFX - The home of the Hybrid Development System and PropGFX Lite
It's got a 1 GHz ARM, and has the marvellous Swype text entry system (beta).
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 7/14/2010 8:33:59 AM GMT
But they do want to program a device like that. Check out the thousands of young'ns the attended Google's gathering this year code.google.com/events/io/2010/. All chomping at the bit to get on with Android programming. There are over 30000 apps for Android phones already. A lot of them free. A lot of them done just for fun, I mean who needs a Z80 emulator and CP/M operating system on their phone?
The Android proves the demand. It's the C-64 or ZX81 for today.
Only problem is, it is a mostly available on a mobile phone. How cool would it be if one could get a serial port and a bunch of general pupose I/Os out of such a mobile phone and easily attach a keyboard to program it in some simple language like BASIC?
The potential Brians under discussion here would have a dead easy start with their gadget and robot projects. An Android android anyone.
There is no such programmable device available to our mythical "Brian" who who has an itch to a) learn to program and b) Use that skill to interact with his real world creations, robots or otherwise.
Hmm.. I feel a new project coming on: Finding a means of using an Android phone and Propeller together. Phone is the compute host, Prop is the real-world interface. Don't forget phones nowadays tend to have GPS, accelerometers, compasses built in already. Sweet ha?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
What I/O possibilities does that machine have?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I know, that's why I am on my second Android phone now it's a HTC Desire and it's the best phone I've ever owned.
What I actuall meant was that any demand that mightbe there for programming such devices is already taken care of by mobile phones, I don't think there would be any demand for a Prop based product. Much better your idea of using a mobile phone to interface to a Propeller.
Coley
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
PropGFX - The home of the Hybrid Development System and PropGFX Lite
Keep the discussion going as it may lead someone to think of that magical killer app
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Links to other interesting threads:
· Home of the MultiBladeProps: TriBlade,·RamBlade,·SixBlade, website
· Single Board Computer:·3 Propeller ICs·and a·TriBladeProp board (ZiCog Z80 Emulator)
· Prop Tools under Development or Completed (Index)
· Emulators: CPUs Z80 etc; Micros Altair etc;· Terminals·VT100 etc; (Index) ZiCog (Z80) , MoCog (6809)·
· Prop OS: SphinxOS·, PropDos , PropCmd··· Search the Propeller forums·(uses advanced Google search)
My cruising website is: ·www.bluemagic.biz·· MultiBlade Props: www.cluso.bluemagic.biz
I was thinking along the same lines. I've got the Android SDK, but haven't actually tried it yet. It is possible to run native ARM applications under Android, as well as ones written in Java, of course.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
I think Homespun is a .NET application written in C#. It requires Mono to run under Linux (which it wouldn't if it was a Java app).
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
I agree with Phil. From my perspective, what makes this chip so attractive has much to do with the support and educational system the company has established. If fact I'm always afraid Parallax will try to jump into the race with all those other chips out there and leave people like me behind in the dust. I confess I know next to nothing about other microprocessors, but to me Parallax feels like the Apple of them all: when I glance at other microprocessors I suddenly feel I'm back in that world of hard-core electrical engineering, where I feel cold and lonely and people speak a language I can barely decipher. In my opinion Parallax has created a very humane interface to what would otherwise be a world completely inaccessible to me. But I wouldn't consider this sort of technology to be accessible to the average Joe for any reason (OBC, man, are you kidding?). On the other hand, I can easily envision university courses being taught around this chip to non-electrical engineering students (physics majors, chemists, biologists, etc.) who want to build their own lab equipment. The ability to design and build experiments, get results quickly, and then turn around and rapidly re-design and develop a new set of experiments seems to me to be an ideal application for this chip. If you raise the bar a bit and consider "average joe" to be college students and lab techs, then I think this chip could gain wide acceptance in the general scientific community as part of any serious researcher's bag of tricks, a capability that would allow researchers to become somewhat independent of the enormous, mind-numbing time delays that are inherent in most research institutions (where you have to submit detailed designs and paperwork weeks or months in advance to get things done.)
So, OBC, if you've got the itch to evangelize this chip, I'd aim for the graduate departments of universities and come up with a sleek method of making the process modular while keeping it cheap.
Mark
I think the killer app could be a $40 game console like the Zone 40
http://www.product-reviews.net/2009/08/09/zone-40-wireless-gaming-alternative-to-nintendo-wii/
Using the VGA port (I think Chip said he can not do hdmi)
and composite video·for people in developing countries as they probably don't have a 26" LCD TV (yet)
But we can not wait the·3 years that it toke before we used the prop1 to its full potential.
50 games have to be written fast within a month or two.
So someone have to step up to the plate with·cash to hire a handful of programmers.
Also making sure to access to prop-II demo boards way before it even official have started to be manufactured
And include a 2D game·engine so people can make their own games.
Or·a basic langue like Amiga AMOS.
Post Edited (tonyp12) : 7/14/2010 7:03:11 PM GMT
Parallax is getting ready to launch a product which is very close to perfect for the young Brians, the Scribbler S2.
A robot based on the Propeller encased in standard, user-friendly plastic. It includes a simple starting point, a GUI
type programming system which doesn't require the commitment of learning what _clkmode = xtal1 + pll16x means,
yet it contains a "hacker port" under the hood. Products like this place an easy hook, then provide nearly unlimited
depth once set. Some key points must be observed from this for dealing with Brians.
* Everything is encased in plastic these days. Circuit boards are scary for the masses. Brian's dad, JOE is one
of those masses. I don't like this either, but we've got to face it.
* Simple, easy entry, but leave plenty of depth. Rewards for digging in must be placed. This has been done
intentionally with the S2. As long as Parallax doesn't assemble it with TORX screws, we're in business. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
Keep the entry point as close as possible to what people currently understand. People understand point-and-click,
touch tone dialing, and what a steering wheel is.
* Brians need quick, satisfying returns. (At least until the hook is set.) They were born into an instant gratification world.
(And I'm not talking about swallowing 10 lines of Spin to blink and LED. It won't grab them.)
@ElectricAye,
You've hit the nail on the head.. The Propeller could become a "module" for professional everyday JOE. I think
Chip has a clear picture of this for the Propeller II. It's some of us who have gotten stuck in the retro computer stuff
with the Propeller. Honestly this is fine for us, but meaningless right now for both everyday JOE, and most Brians.
Last time I talked to Chip about demo applications for the Propeller II, IIRC he was considering some kind of molecular
visual. Yup.. definitely not C64 stuff. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Feature Projects: PropellerPowered.com
Visit the: PROPELLERPOWERED SIG forum kindly hosted by Savage Circuits.