For the ordinary Joe, the Propeller will get out the the everday Joe when some company develops a product for the mass market and it is successful. I don't know what that product is. If I did, I wouldn't tell and would be working hard to develop it. Everyday Joe using the Prop himself is a tiny market. For example, the Kansas City area has 2,000,000 people. The robotics club has about 10 active members. That is a whopping 0.0005 percent. For little kids: sound and light. For bigger kids, especially boys, mechanical movement, sound, light. I remember building a lego robot with bumpers and code for obstacle advoidance. My gradson hate it because he wanted the robot to knock things down.
The Arduino is a competor. Visually the Arduino Duemilanove and the Prop Demo Board are comparable. I know the Demo Board is at least an order of magnitude more capable! But they look similar in web photos. The Demo Board costs more than twice as much. I think the Prop needs a $30-40 board with no soldering required with say 4 servo headers, 4 channels of ADC, sound output, I2C headers,and other pins brought out to female or male heades. To go with this board we need a Prop "What's a Microcontroller" book. The PE Kit labs are good as lessons on programming the Prop. But What's A Microcontroller was great for me in that it taught both programming and basic electronics. One thing I have noticed about many of the Arduino books is an emphasis on physical world -> Arduino -> PC or other direction. The Propeller can do this easily, but I don't see the guide books for the Prop.
I don't know how to break into the education market. I always hear that there is not enough money. But any thing from Pitsco (Lego education in U.S.) costs an arm and a leg. 12Blocks and something (robot or board with lights, buzzers, couple of servos, switches, etc.) would be great for lower levels. K-12 education products need books like those for the Basic Stamp. I think that the IODreamKit and ViewPort would be perfect for higher level. If a student uses microcontroller x in college, he will be likely to use it on the job.
I haven't entirely read this thread, but I did notice that you guys consistently compare marketing electronics to everyone today as it was in the 80s. Times have changed, and the irreversible switch into computers that "anyone" can use from those that required you to think has already been made. There is no turning back. You will simply not be able to interest the same people that you did 20 years ago in the same stuff that you could have then.
Everyone just wants to work something without knowing HOW it works, as I previously noted.
I can't even figure out these iPhone people (a.k.a "average Joe's") that always go around showing off these "killer apps". Yet, when I mention that not only is it fun but there is also a big market in making mobile applications, they look away and mutter some excuse for not. It seriously mystifies me. I don't understand how someone could use tech SO MUCH and yet be not at all curious about how it works, nor to have the desire to modify, program, design for, etc.
I can't even figure out these iPhone people (a.k.a "average Joe's") that always go around showing off these "killer apps". Yet, when I mention that not only is it fun but there is also a big market in making mobile applications, they look away and mutter some excuse for not. It seriously mystifies me. I don't understand how someone could use tech SO MUCH and yet be not at all curious about how it works, nor to have the desire to modify, program, design for, etc.
This is where everyday JOE lives... Ken showed me his iPAD at UPEC. (No, Ken isn't an everyday JOE) He had a flght
simulator loaded where you simply tip the pad to control the plane. Pretty cool modern technology. Easy to understand
interface. (No BASIC or C programming required) The only problem is that there is no incentive for everyday JOE to
do something more engaging on the device. The hook on that level is entertainment only, and the hood is welded shut.
I saw Ken showing you his iPad. I wonder when someone will interface a Propeller with that?
It is awesome technology, but everything for it is shut to the public. It is not interface friendly (which answers my above question: never), it has no way to modify, no ports, hacker-friendly parts, etc. There needs to be more things made easy to modify, not closed boxes with no visible seam.
Microcontrolled: "You will simply not be able to interest the same people that you did 20 years ago in the same stuff that you could have then."
I have the same feeling. BUT somewhere someone is inventing, designing, making all this high tech stuff that everyone else "just uses". Somebody somewhere was curious about how things worked, found out something, and moved the technology on a step.
Who are those people? Where do they come from? How did they get hooked and enthused to investigate? What fired their imaginations?
With the right gadgets in the right place it could be almost any kid on the planet.
"I don't understand how someone could use tech SO MUCH and yet be not at all curious about how it works..."
Yeah, it's not just high tech computer gadgets though, it's cars, it's TVs, the works. I have often wondered how people can use the humble light switch with out being curious about what makes the light come on when you press it.
There is an annoying habit among a certain strata of people that if they mention, for example some great work of literature, and subsequently find you have not read it they will be shocked and amazed at how badly read and ignorant you are. Try to turn that around and pick them up on the fact that they know nothing of the most basic maths, physics, chemistry, electronics, biology etc and they will find a way to shrug that off and change the subject very quickly.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
All that goes to show that the Joe-average isn't where its gonna be. it is gonna be techno-Joe that may want to do things around the ranch, for example control his rainbirds without having to deal with their crummy timer interface. That kind of joe wants a gadget to water his yard, and probably appreciate something more sizzly than what is offered. So, in this case, the propeller would be doing all the 'hard work' of executing the watering schedule, but would have a low cost 'plug in terminal' (also maybe based on the propeller) that could be used to graphically design the schedule but then taken away and used for something else once the schedule is set.
I'm late coming to this discussion. Like an idiot I went to bed last night. Alas, the OEM discussion has already concluded. But I wanted to say this:
Back in the days of mainframes, it was said that "No one was ever fired for buying IBM."
I work for an OEM. A couple weeks ago, in a meeting with the big boss and my immediate boss, I broached the idea of using the Propeller in place of the more mainstream processors we were considering. The big boss was intrigued. But the intermediate boss wouldn't budge.
I got the distinct impression that this fellow simply had to have the "warm fuzzy" that a mainstream processor provides. He didn't want to be the fool that made the decision that led to the demise of the company, or the product.
It was clear to me that the only way the Prop would ever fly here would be if this veteran engineer were "evangelicized" to the Prop. He'd have to have some reason to take one home and fiddle with it. If he did, and if he had sufficient motivation to persist with it until he saw how unique and amazing it was, the battle would be won. (Because I'm 100% certain we could throw out the other chips and have a better product that was more fun to develop and more robust in the customers' hands.)
What sort of EVAL package, I wondered, would tickle his fancy and get him involved? Where would such adverts or mentions be placed?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
TI, for example, seems to think that selling eval kits as loss leaders (e.g. their $4.some '430 kits) is the way to sneak into the hearts and minds of decision makers. But it takes more than cheap hardware to motivate someone to open the box and try it. (I still have not done anything with my TI wireless watch kit.) And for Parallax to do this might be a disaster: all their current customers would snap up the kits as ends in themselves, without a thought towards product development!
The Demo Board, IMO, is the best introductory eval kit that Parallax offers. It's full-featured, but small and non-intimidating. And it's priced high enough not to be a buy-it-and-forget-about-it item. The PDB is very nice, too, but some may find its vast array of features a bit intimidating as a starter board.
I think the best way to get the average Joe to use a prop
is to turn it into a very easy to use black-box that does
video/audio. If the prop had the eeprom inside then it would
be absolutely perfect right now but very cheap dil boards
containing a sm prop, eeprom and xtal might serve.
(perhaps encapsulate them to look exactly like a dip40)
Just let users have access to the prop already set up to
easily deliver VGA, kbrd, mouse and audio...at a sensible
price and they will snap them right up. How else can those
functions be easily added to something like arduino...the
prop seems best suited for the task IMO.
I see no way to get the masses to learn SPIN and PASM,
this is unfortunate but I think it's true.
If there is any way under the sun to get the Prop II's eeprom
inside the package then for goodness sake DO IT. Could the wafer
be integrated alongside an eeprom wafer and intergrated inside
a single sm package somehow? The Prop II delivered in easy
to use packages would be killer add-on chips to add video and
more to other uC's.
Usually companies with evaluation boards have a design that illustrates their market advantage.
The Propeller's market advantage is flexibility and a bread-board makes sense for hobbyists.
But has anyone ever seen an industry professional evaluation board with a bread-board on it?
@jazzed: yes, I'm seeing more of the small breadboards on "eval kits" [noparse][[/noparse]all after we started using them, but I'm not claiming anything by making that statement]. I'm pretty sure you asked the question knowing the answer but I've seen breadboards in several places.
@jazzed, yes, Jeopardy! But without the audition and cash prizes!
If flexibility is the Propeller's advantage then I believe the Propeller Demo Board properly serves as an evaluation board. As for price, we can lower it without getting in trouble. In keeping with our future plans, however, you'll see more Propeller applications (board designs, hardware, etc.) from us that serve the following purpose:
- are also a product on their own, such as the S2 or Spinneret
- are fully open-sourced, properly and professional as a useful reference design
We will be driving some Propeller usage with our own products that cross over into hobby, education and consumer markets (provided we have the right distribution channels in place). Don't expect us to make a Propeller-based toaster oven.
Embedded systems don't need keyboards, video, mice, etc. and the Propeller can't compete with the typical MCU used in such applications. It needs to find a market where its unique features can be exploited, and the price isn't a disadvantage.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
I have wondered about the same thing Holly mentioned: Is it possible to incorporate more than one die into one packaging?
It's certainly safe to say that most people aren't interested in the real nitty gritty of electronics (the exception in the form of major specs: how much memory, clock speed, etc.). But that's also true when it comes to driving, music, painting etc. However, I also believe it's safe to say that there are more programmers now than ever before, which is obvious because there are more computerized electronics than ever before. Several years ago, there was an article in Nuts & Volts talking about the decline in the electronics hobbyist. The article expressed that the reality of the matter was that it more along the lines of a shift from electronic devices made from discrete components, to the field of programmable devices - such as computers. Most people whom are interested in programming that I know are more interested in software that resides on some sort of host with an OS, and I think the reason for this is fairly obvious. Only a small fraction of those people are interested in software development for microcontroller environments.
sure, the electronics hobbyist might love a gadget with a touch screen, and a whole bunch of customizable IOs, but I don't think it will help attract the Joes, and Brians of the world. I think the fact that expectations for electronics are so high now a days, that if the device only had capabilities along the lines of a 15 year old palm pilot, interest would be severely limited. It also doesn't help that writing a useful application on such a device would be significantly more difficult than writing a similar app on something like an Android device.
Looking back at this thread, I can't really tell whether this was more about getting Joe behind the driver's seat of the Prop, or just getting Joe to be a passenger.
I figure I might as well chime in here (my opinion is as good as anyone else's right?)
Getting "the public" into programming is a fool's errand - computer history is littered with languages designed to "look like English so anyone can program!" but as others in this thread have already said, most people are consumers and have no interest in 'how' it works.
Taking that off the table, this thread basically has two tangents 1) get props into the hands of OEMs, 2) get props into the hands of budding hobbyists.
1 is good for parallax as a company, 2 is good for the prop community (not to say the two are mutually exclusive).
I think it's important to remember that some of the props advantages are geared towards the hobbyists:
Faster development cycle - developing is a one-off cost, if a manufacture has to choose between 2 years of work to get a $4 chip programmed and 1-year of work to get a $8 chip programmed, which do you think they would choose when talking about thousands of units per year?
"Everything in software" - great for hobbyists (you only need one chip in the drawer), little effect on manufacturers as they'll just buy a new chip that is suited to their needs when required.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the prop and it does still have advantages that apply to manufacturing but do keep in mind that 'advantages' to a hobbyist are not necessarily the same as 'advantages' to OEMs.
As for #2, personally I think the 'Show, don't tell' approach is best - you can talk all about the architecture and how easy the chip is to program until you are blue in the face, but if you really want to get people interested show them what it can do! Things like the propscope, upcoming spinneret and the various robots are great advertisements for the prop - I personally stumbled across the prop via the YBox2 (I don't own one, but read how they use the propeller chip).
Maybe this is just how I am, but I'm sure the story is similar for many of us - if there is a big enough 'block of cheese' at the end, we will make our way through the maze to get to it - that is, if we see a goal we are passionate about, we will do what it takes to get there - including learning a new programming language (though it's before my time, I can't count how many times someone on the forum has said they got their start playing with some form of assembler - user friendly? no way, but the cheese at the end was big enough).
Post Edited (Kal_Zakkath) : 7/15/2010 12:12:23 AM GMT
Kal_Zakkath said...
Taking that off the table, this thread basically has two tangents 1) get props into the hands of OEMs, 2) get props into the hands of budding hobbyists. 1 is good for parallax as a company, 2 is good for the prop community (not to say the two are mutual exclusive).
#1 is also very good for the Prop community: it's the tide that will float all our boats. If Parallax is able to sell millions of Props to OEMs, their unit costs for the chip fab and, hence, their pricing can come down. We all benefit from that.
@OBC and gang, this is a nice thread.· I've enjoyed ALL of the comments.·
Regarding evaluation boards, the Demo board is quite nice, but, in my opinion, in order to be "perfect," it should integrate an SD Card reader, much like Gadget Gangster's Propeller System SD.· I think that Parallax ought to be selling something similar (or perhaps identical with a deal worked out with Nick).· That is, when the Propeller first came out, SD connectivity did not exist (and appears to be one of the few crucial drivers that Chip didn't exclusively·write, though the current ones may depend on his underlying work, I'm not sure).· But now, things have changed, and there's just too much that is possible with an SD card that's not possible otherwise for such not to be included among Parallax's offerings.· Such will not be the case with the Prop II (as SD capability will probably be native or near-native), and such shouldn't be the case with the current Propeller.· Oh, I think there's also a board out there by a third party·similar to Parallax's PropStick USB (which I have)·that has a micro SD card socket on it.· That would also be a nice product to include in Parallax's store.· Okay, well, one can "argue" this in·other ways, such as by saying that an evaluation system shouldn't try to include everything including the kitchen sink·and that Parallax already offers an SD card adapter.· All true enough.· Anyway, whether you call it an evaluation board or whatever, an SD-capable system (ready-to-go) would be attractive to a lot of beginners, regardless of the name.
As far as this thread's topic, the thing that brought·me to the Propeller was the ease-of-use, nothing else, really.· Pure-and-simple.· It wasn't really the 8-core thing, sorry to disappoint (although I did first learn of the Propeller because·its 8 cores were·being touted·in a Circuit Cellar article that I just happened to peruse even though·I was·not a "hobbiest" at the time).· See, as has been said before (and also partly but not completely rebutted), if·one has·to dedicate a core to a display, another to keyboard input, another to SD and so on and so forth,·a general purpose microcontroller with built-in interfaces for those comes fairly close to providing what the current Prop does, connectivity-wise.· No, I chose the Prop due to its programming simplicity (yeah...I know...which includes a lack of interrupts) and its electrical simplicity.· I'm referring to the relative simplicity of SPIN/PASM, as well as how easy it is to connect up some kind of video.· And, of course,·another big factor was the existance of this forum (and the Obex).· If·Parallax is not striving to make·microcontrollers easy-to-use, then why are they in the game?· They can't reasonably be expected to compete with the engineering resources of the dedicated chip-design houses.· They are not even focused on that.· Well, perhaps they are fairly focused on the creation of the next chip, but it can't displace the gazillions of other chips that are out there.· But who else makes microcontrollers easy to use?· Well, Microchip/Atmel with their PICS and Arduino (however that horrible word is pronounced), perhaps, but I'd (ignorantly) argue that such are not as easy as the Prop, at least not in terms of the assembly languange, anyway, nor as powerful.· And you can't get any friendlier than the forum,·here,·or·than the service that Parallax provides and the spirit that·they encourage.· So THAT'S their niche:· simplicity-of-use!· Nothing else, pure and simple.· Okay, I'm·over-simplifying.· Still, I believe that that's·the situation, not so much the·8-core, parallel-processing·so-called philosophy.· We spend so much time on that.· What matters is completed projects.· Gee, as another said in this thread, the small incremental changes that other companies make can more than offset whatever technological beauty the Prop has.·· So, there's got to be something else that differentiates Parallax,·unless they're planning to dive head-first into the chip-design industry.· Well, I'm not saying that·they shouldn't, but if they do so, I think it should be focused on ease-of-use products.· Otherwise, they will just be joining a "rat-race" and time will pass and all these chips will be forgotten, as OBC wondered about.
There's·is no·doubt in my mind that,·if/when the Prop II emerges, it·will be applicable to a wide array of products and, as such, will catch the attention of industry.· And that will create new market opportunities·for Parallax.· But the reason for its success will be again, simplicity-of-use = that so much can be accomplished with a single chip (with perhaps some supporting chips).· Parallax/Chip already realize this, I think.··That's why they've positioned the Prop II to be a general-purpose video-capable IC.· Think about it: that kind of goes against the roots of robotics and microcontrollers·from which the Prop sprang (composite video excepted), but Parallax now realizes that there's a tremendous market opportunity (likely much more than a niche) that exists for a one-chip solution that can handle video (video signal generation, not necessarily motion video, though, surprisingly to me, that also appears to be in the works).·· The next Prop might be suitable as replacement for dedicated video controllers, for example, well at lower color depths (assuming not using external RAM).· Anyway, I digress, but Parallax must, it seems to me,·focus on ease-of-use solutions, not just for hobbiests, but for product designers, whether experienced professionals or, potentially, beginners.· That's their market!· If Parallax intends to continue to be involved in, at least partially, the chip-design business, then I hope it's with the goal of making chips easier-and-easier to use.· We always complain about the lack of pins.· Maybe they (with different process technology and some admittedly new technology) can include optical interconnects on their chips, potentially making it easy to connect a video display (or whatever) by a single, simple cable, no PCB required for video signals, per se·(if the could get the LCD makers to follow suit).· Of course, that's the stuff of Prop III/IV dreams.· But I'm just saying that their focus should be on simplicity-of-use.· That means, for example, that their focus would not be on the educational market, per se, but on making easy-to-use chips·that the educational market would turn to BECAUSE such products were so dang easy to use/integrate.· The same would be·true·for industry. ·They don't have to go after industry; industry will come after them if they make truly ease-to-use products.· And new products could be created with them that otherwise would not be possible without·significant engineering resources.· That's the only·way the chip (or chips) can be remembered 20 years on and be particularly relevant:· that they made a range·of products possible (or opened the doors of creativity) due to their ease-of-use that would have otherwise not been possible.· Who·else is trying to do that?· The·Arduino comes close for simple tasks, I suppose, but lacks the·power for sophisticated·"inventions." · The BeagleBoards and clones currently cost more than a simple China-sourced netbook, and have a long way to go in terms of ease-of-use (Linux will likely never be "easy" for beginners...with those verbose listings (which admittedly can be turned off) and long boot times and all the related complexity required to develop drivers and put a package together, which·are [noparse][[/noparse]1] already being done, and, [noparse][[/noparse]2] not appropriate for many otherwise creative types.· And, due to the cost of such offerings, you can't integrate them into a product at a decent selling point.· Perhaps something like the Plug PC (server, really) will get us there, but it's not there yet (and if it were, perhaps Parallax could license it and make it even more accessible, such as by combining it with a Prop).·
There have been so many good comments by all, but Microcontrolled is right:· most people don't care "how" it works, just that it does work and that they know how to use it.· So, those people can't be the target.· As others have said, the target has to be the logical-and-creative types that have an interest in creating physical products, whether they be beginners or experienced professionals.· But ease-of-use is still paramount, otherwise we'd all be using 500-pin (package-on-package (POP)) BGA chips like the cell phone designers.· By the way, I have nothing against POP designs, as that's a step in the right direction of simplifying connectivity.· As Holley said, the more that things can be encapsulated into at least what appears as·a single-chip (black box) solution, the more attractive and usable such solutions are/will be.· If it were feasible to offer the Prop II with a memory chip and/or EEPROM piggybacked on top, why not??????· At least it could be an option!· The point is, you have to make it simple to use!· Why default to everything being done on a PC board?· That's how every other chip company's products are utilized (with the exception, perhaps, of those chips targeted at cell phones where space is at a premium, but they have many-layered boards and flex connectors and what not).· No, I don't mean that you can eliminate the PC board completely, but that you can greatly simplify its design.·
Hmm...what else?· I don't know.· If we keep talking, good ideas will come, as another poster rightly said.· Of course, Parallax didn't create this thread.· They·have their hands too full to really pay a lot of attention to this thread.· Nevertheless, they will still take notice of our musings.· They enjoy doing so.· They live this stuff, though in a balanced way, I think. ·Maybe Parallax could create a product-design-assistance arm/house aimed at helping·individuals and small companies launch new products (based on their chip(s), of course).· Or, Parallax could create/market an easy-to-use LCD (or similar) display module, perhaps similar to those controller chips that allow one to not only drive a display but also create the interface in HTML.· I think they're kind of headed that way as it is.· Anyway, again, the focus being EASE-OF-USE!· That, in my·unsolucited opinion should be the focus of Parallax.· It seems like·the only thing that makes sense for them.· They don't seemingly want to go public.· They don't want to be bought out, but they intend·to be around·for the long-run.· They are happy doing what they are doing because they have creative freedom, intellectual challenge and help to make the world a more creative place.··· But selling huge quantities of Prop II's to industry, in and of itself, probably doesn't accomplish that kind of self-actualization, but making chips that are·so easy to use that everyone and her sister can design a product with (yes, including the engineers) does.· Of course, it's only natural for the engineers at Parallax to·get·a bit "distracted" by the technical sophistication of what they are designing, particularly with respect to the Prop II, but the guiding principle of the company, at least in terms of chip design, should be EASE-OF-USE.· Well, sure, reliability and functionality, too, but ease-of-use should be king. ·Did I mention that before?· Oh, guess I did.· Well...it bears repeating.··Also, it should come as·no surprise if they did not·FULLY realize this from the beginning, as one generally only fully appreciates/recognizes their position in the cosmos as a result of trial-and-error, but this is where they·have ended up (or are in the process of ending·up, I hope).· It's so hard to see the forrest for (due to) all of the trees.· But·it's·certainly·time for them to sit down and realize that they are not--nor do they want to be--just another chip house; the competition is just too intense, and, not only that, but where's the "fun" in that?.··I'd guess even the resources of a·small company like XMOS·drawfs what Parallax can reasonably be expected to bring to the table, at least for the next few years, anyway.· But I wouldn't mind them becoming something like a Micochip, which, aside from their microcontroller offerings, offers·UNIQUE products like their serial SRAM devices·(which might be·useful for current and future Props).· But, again, the focus for Parallax·should be on unique ease-of-use products/ICs that allow people to create. ·By doing so, they will·create a legacy for·themselves as a company that, like Apple during its early days, makes/made a difference in the world--the difference being that they·made it easy for people·to create (though the recent cell phone·thinkg seemingly "only" or mostly makes it easy to share/consume).·
BTW, I like the talk about positioning the Prop as an I/O processor interface to an established cell phone system (such as a reasonably open-souced Android system).·· Let the Cortex A9's and so on do what they are good at, and let the Prop interface them to the world in robots and home-control centers and what not.· For that to happen, it would be helpful if Parallax would sponsor such a system and/or partner with a cell phone maker (HTC?) to get better access to the internals.· Sure, such a system would cost a small bundle,·but it could become a kind of standard for demanding applications.··Well, Parallax has its·hands full already, that's true, but·perhaps it could keep its·eyes open to such possibilities·for the future and/or encourage such development here on the forum.·
Lastly, I believe someone mentioned that the window-of-opportunity for the Prop II·might be open wider and longer than people might assume.· That caught me by surprise...because I often fear that it is closing fast as technology keeps marching on so quickly.· But on thinking about the comment,·it makes sense, logically.· If the window-of-opp was really closing so fast on the Prop II, it probably wouldn't even make sense designing the chip·and planning for it.· After a couple of years, technology would have marched on and the Prop II would no longer be able to satisfy the needs.· Of course, that reasoning doesn't prove that the Prop II "does" make sense, but it does say that, if there is a reason-for-being for the Prop II, it must·exist within the context of·a wide window.· But·if the Prop II can hit the ease-of-use sweet·spot that I think should be Parallax's focus, then it seems likely that·there will be applications (I like to call them inventions) a plenty--and hence a wide window--just waiting for·the Prop II's·appearance and availability.· Okay, seems logical, but my fear is that the longer the Prop II takes to come out, the more that can go wrong to distract Parallax from this focus.· That is, it's not that the window will close so quickly (and if it did, another of a somewhat related kind would likely·open, wouldn't it?), but that Parallax could easily fail to execute when it has the momentum.· I sure hope that THAT·doesn't happen.· And the farther/further we move out time-wise, the less certain the chip becomes (for example, various economic realities threaten it, both internal and external to Parallax).· I hope that Parallax doesn't get comfortable thinking that "time is on their side" because, while the window-of-opportunity may be open for a long time, their ability to take advantage of it is not perpetually guaranteed.· I think that there should be a "sense-of-urgency" about the new chip/chips, not to dump even more pressure on them, but they are entrusted with a·precious opportunity to make a difference in the world and they are equipped with the right mix of resources to do so now, but who knows about the situation in the future.· Also, we·obviously need ease-of-use chips now more than ever, as chips are becoming more-and-more difficult to work with.· All kinds of creative inventions·are stalled for lack thereof.· As such, Parallax, it seems to me, needs to process as many things as possible in "parallel," rather than in the sequential and leisurely manner that we'd often like to do if given a non-competitive environment.· Otherwise, I fear that they run the risk of losing their momentum and getting caught up in the complexity of it all, meaning that the more time one gives themselves to accomplish things, the more that can go wrong to trip things up (not necessarily, but it's often the case).· As such, it would seem that all reasonable resources should be brought to bear to·advance the project.· But wait a second!· Why?· Who says so???· Why must things be designed and done·according to my or anyone else's impatient timeframe?· Parallax not only excels at making good products but also at enjoying the process (design, management, marketing, etc.) along the way.· They are not compelled to do things according to other people's timeframes and lose the enjoyment from the work they·do·and expose themselves to unneeded risks in so doing.· All true!· But if they don't have a sense of urgency, what will compel them to advance the project and avoid losing their momentum?· For better or worse, Parallax has created certain expectations.· Rather than backing off on those and continually redefining the timeframe, use·the pressure of a timeframe·to their advantage to be even more committed to getting the chip out timely.· And rather than shying away from communicating with their faithful community about the details of the progress and the expected timeframe (as they've so obviously and,·yes,·understandably done), embrace·the pressure that comes from being open and use it to motivate everyone within Parallax (and perhaps even some on the outside) to do whatever they can to accomplish the goal.· The goal being what?· Well, ease-of-use products (and, sure,·occassionally stopping to smell the roses along the way).· No doubt, creating ease-of-use products is a career and company mission all by itself that will take years to accomplish (they're already well down the road), but the Prop II is kind of a cornerstone and revolutionary·product that will facilitate lots of other ease-of-use products by Parallax and/or by others with them in the future, and, as such, it is mission-critical to the goal of being the ease-of-use-chip/product company that probably should be their destiny/mission.· Good grief!··I got carried away.· Again!
Edit:· What???· No Propeller-based toaster ovens, not even for QFN-based Propeller·SMT projects?· Hmm, then count me out.· [noparse]:([/noparse]
Post Edited (JRetSapDoog) : 7/15/2010 12:55:10 AM GMT
Phil Pilgrim said...
#1 is also very good for the Prop community: it's the tide that will float all our boats. If Parallax is able to sell millions of Props to OEMs, their unit costs for the chip fab and, hence, their pricing can come down. We all benefit from that.
Quite true, and I did not mean to imply otherwise. #1 can easily lead to #2, but it will be harder to go the other way (which is what has been happening so far I suppose). Also, as hobbyists ourselves, it is probably easier for most people to focus on #2.
Kal_Zakkath has summed up the situation very well. There are (at least!) two main ways of "getting Propellers into the hands of Joe". But the requirements for each method are very different.
An enthusiast will learn a new language because it costs him a couple of hours of his time. An OEM manufacturer will not, because it will costs him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost productivity, re-writes, re-training and re-tooling - perhaps even their business if (as a result) they don't get their product to market before the competition does. Also, no OEM of substantial size is going to stake their future on a language supported only by one chip sold by one company - especially one that has no track record in the market.
And Phil has hit the nail on the head about which one Parallax should be pursuing - getting Propellers into the hands of OEM's benefits Parallax, the OEMs and us enthusiasts. Gettng the propeller into the hands of more enthusiasts benefits - well, just us people here in the forums really.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
Gadzooks! That must be a candidate for being the longest post in any thread on this forum!. However, I read it, and while I agree with a lot of what you say, I have to say that if things actually worked the way in the manufacturing industry, then the Prop I would already have been a smash success and we'd already have at least one of them in every electronic gizmo manufactured in recent history.
But I don't think things do work that way. There is no "killer app" that will make the Prop I (or the Prop II) a smash success and cause manufacturers (or people) to flock to it. You have to claw your way into most OEMs, stick it under their noses and point out how it can do everything they already do using other chips - only cheaper. Only then will you get the chance to point out what it can alsodo that no other chip can do.
Oh, and what makes you think we won't spend most of our time bemoaning the Prop II when it emerges? If only it had 16 cogs! If only it had 256 I/O pins! If only it had hdmi video! If only it could do 1Ghz per cog! If only it had 16Mb RAM!
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
The real question is how do we get the average Joe to want the xxxx that has a prop inside. The average Joe will never care! How many of you know what micro (or micros) are in your mobile phone? How many of you care?
I·had a mobile phone that ran Windows·Mobile. Did I use any of it - well yes, I tried. I tried to buy an app that made my phone work like a phone, not a PC. And I couldn't even do that! So my next phone is a less empowered Nokia that actually works like a phone. It does have other apps which I never use. Heck, I cannot even be bothered with working out how some of the basic extras work. Here, I am an "average Joe". He buys millions and doesn't care what's inside.
So, how do we get the prop into the "average Joe's designers hands" ? This is REALLY the question. I am sorry I do not know the answer. Parallax do not have the resources/backup to fund putting out lost leader kits to the design engineers. As has been raised before, how many of you have cheap/free kits from suppliers. I have a TI DSP kit that I won in a TI seminar - still in box and sometimes I get the docs out to think about and then put it back on the shelf. You see, the "killer app" will come from someone using the prop, not someone thinking about designing a product and then searching for a chip.
As was said before, anyone who has a killer app will not be saying so. They will be working on it.
I have a (potential) volume app (not a killer app)·that could use many different micros, but it will use a prop. Why? Because I like the prop, it's easy to use (I know because I used it, not because someone told me so), it's not expensive (although I could use a competitive chip for 1/2 price, but I·may have to learn it - that's easy as I have learnt a lot of micros, just not recently), and it is VERY easy to update code. The product will be potted and I am not too concerned about security (I have a few tricks to make it harder - and I will not publish them on a forum as they become less secure that way). My design problem is that it is not yet doing what it it supposed to do. Each itteration of code takes 4-6 weeks to get an indication that it is doing it's job. Unfortunately I will never be able to disclose the product details. I just want to give you the reasons why I chose the prop.
So back to "How do we interest the design engineers?" Not sure!
It would be difficult to include HDMI, for licensing reasons. HDMI capable devices have some limits on what is exposed to the end user that are mandated by the content creators. Something as open as a Propeller would not jive with HDMI.
From what I understand, component video will be available in some different formats, potentially VGA, RGB, and I'm hoping for Y, Cb, Cr (analog). Those formats run to a full 1080p on some displays, 1080i on those that won't do 1080p.
Honestly, a good Y, Cb, Cr analog display is very robust, and the color space is great too. Luma runs on one channel, which will probably equate to one pin on the Prop II. Color, if desired runs on two others, and that encoding allows color to run at one resolution, with luma at another. Great for things like video, where compression is used. Also means doing things like a tint change with relative ease, compared to RGB.
On modern displays, you probably can't really tell the difference between the two. And it's probably all just software on the Prop II, with just different driver code for the various formats and timings. HDMI would require a dedicated encryption system on the chip, a license, and restrictions on what functionality is exposed, and probably disclosure limitations on said functionality.
[noparse]:([/noparse]
Go google "that analog hole" for why, and probably get pissed just like a lot of other people are, over just how much technology hobbling is going on in conjunction with HDMI!
In the last 3 months I've given 9 presentations about my various Propeller projects all over the world to audiences ranging from disadvantaged youths, robot clubs, vocational technical schools, and industry giants like Nokia, Siemens, Google and Microsoft.
I loved reading all the comments on this thread- many jibe nicely with what I saw. People all over the world are excited about our electronics and robots- as long as they do something interesting! All the amazing gadgets have made it more and more difficult to wow someone. Years ago you could build a transistor radio and impress your friends- that won't cut it anymore... However, very few devices or gadgets have reached their final form- witness how Apple is always able to reinvent something that people had considered finished.
Chip had many great insights on developing the Propeller- it is a different beast than the typical processor.
So, now the question- how do we get gadgets built with the Propeller to the everyday Joe?
The challenge consists of two parts: building a compelling product and then selling it. Tossing some features together- or even assembling them so they beat a competitor's won't get you very far. To create a winning product you have to be fanatical about the end user's experience- starting from when they buy it, to getting started with it, becoming an expert at it, and maybe even graduating from it.
Engineers typically don't like selling what they create. Personally, I think that's why open source is so attractive to them- they can simply ignore that part of the process. However, the everyday Joe is accustomed to paying for quality products- and by charging money for a product you can improve it and pay others to help you. The internet has dramatically lowered the barriers to selling things to people all over the world, however you still need to get out and market your wares. Again, for that you need to understand your potential customers- how will they find out about your product?
I think the Propeller is just fine the way it is for many "Everyday Joe" products. My ViewPort customers are using the Propeller in all sorts of projects- and I've used it in both the PropScope (used by everyday hobbyists/students/engineers) and the upcoming TBot which is being tested by kindergarten through university students.
Don't wait for Prop2- get started today!
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here), 12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
I think one thing that would really help the Propeller chip become mainstream, would be a standardized set
of assembly level drivers for Fat 32 SD Cards, Memory and other devices.
Comments
The Arduino is a competor. Visually the Arduino Duemilanove and the Prop Demo Board are comparable. I know the Demo Board is at least an order of magnitude more capable! But they look similar in web photos. The Demo Board costs more than twice as much. I think the Prop needs a $30-40 board with no soldering required with say 4 servo headers, 4 channels of ADC, sound output, I2C headers,and other pins brought out to female or male heades. To go with this board we need a Prop "What's a Microcontroller" book. The PE Kit labs are good as lessons on programming the Prop. But What's A Microcontroller was great for me in that it taught both programming and basic electronics. One thing I have noticed about many of the Arduino books is an emphasis on physical world -> Arduino -> PC or other direction. The Propeller can do this easily, but I don't see the guide books for the Prop.
I don't know how to break into the education market. I always hear that there is not enough money. But any thing from Pitsco (Lego education in U.S.) costs an arm and a leg. 12Blocks and something (robot or board with lights, buzzers, couple of servos, switches, etc.) would be great for lower levels. K-12 education products need books like those for the Basic Stamp. I think that the IODreamKit and ViewPort would be perfect for higher level. If a student uses microcontroller x in college, he will be likely to use it on the job.
John Abshier
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?m=453564&f=25&p=1
Jim
Everyone just wants to work something without knowing HOW it works, as I previously noted.
I can't even figure out these iPhone people (a.k.a "average Joe's") that always go around showing off these "killer apps". Yet, when I mention that not only is it fun but there is also a big market in making mobile applications, they look away and mutter some excuse for not. It seriously mystifies me. I don't understand how someone could use tech SO MUCH and yet be not at all curious about how it works, nor to have the desire to modify, program, design for, etc.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out my new website!!
Use the Propeller icon!!
Follow me on Twitter! Search "Microcontrolled"
This is where everyday JOE lives... Ken showed me his iPAD at UPEC. (No, Ken isn't an everyday JOE) He had a flght
simulator loaded where you simply tip the pad to control the plane. Pretty cool modern technology. Easy to understand
interface. (No BASIC or C programming required) The only problem is that there is no incentive for everyday JOE to
do something more engaging on the device. The hook on that level is entertainment only, and the hood is welded shut.
OBC
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Feature Projects: PropellerPowered.com
Visit the: PROPELLERPOWERED SIG forum kindly hosted by Savage Circuits.
It is awesome technology, but everything for it is shut to the public. It is not interface friendly (which answers my above question: never), it has no way to modify, no ports, hacker-friendly parts, etc. There needs to be more things made easy to modify, not closed boxes with no visible seam.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Check out my new website!!
Use the Propeller icon!!
Follow me on Twitter! Search "Microcontrolled"
I have the same feeling. BUT somewhere someone is inventing, designing, making all this high tech stuff that everyone else "just uses". Somebody somewhere was curious about how things worked, found out something, and moved the technology on a step.
Who are those people? Where do they come from? How did they get hooked and enthused to investigate? What fired their imaginations?
With the right gadgets in the right place it could be almost any kid on the planet.
"I don't understand how someone could use tech SO MUCH and yet be not at all curious about how it works..."
Yeah, it's not just high tech computer gadgets though, it's cars, it's TVs, the works. I have often wondered how people can use the humble light switch with out being curious about what makes the light come on when you press it.
There is an annoying habit among a certain strata of people that if they mention, for example some great work of literature, and subsequently find you have not read it they will be shocked and amazed at how badly read and ignorant you are. Try to turn that around and pick them up on the fact that they know nothing of the most basic maths, physics, chemistry, electronics, biology etc and they will find a way to shrug that off and change the subject very quickly.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
For me, the past is not over yet.
Back in the days of mainframes, it was said that "No one was ever fired for buying IBM."
I work for an OEM. A couple weeks ago, in a meeting with the big boss and my immediate boss, I broached the idea of using the Propeller in place of the more mainstream processors we were considering. The big boss was intrigued. But the intermediate boss wouldn't budge.
I got the distinct impression that this fellow simply had to have the "warm fuzzy" that a mainstream processor provides. He didn't want to be the fool that made the decision that led to the demise of the company, or the product.
It was clear to me that the only way the Prop would ever fly here would be if this veteran engineer were "evangelicized" to the Prop. He'd have to have some reason to take one home and fiddle with it. If he did, and if he had sufficient motivation to persist with it until he saw how unique and amazing it was, the battle would be won. (Because I'm 100% certain we could throw out the other chips and have a better product that was more fun to develop and more robust in the customers' hands.)
What sort of EVAL package, I wondered, would tickle his fancy and get him involved? Where would such adverts or mentions be placed?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
Jim
The Demo Board, IMO, is the best introductory eval kit that Parallax offers. It's full-featured, but small and non-intimidating. And it's priced high enough not to be a buy-it-and-forget-about-it item. The PDB is very nice, too, but some may find its vast array of features a bit intimidating as a starter board.
-Phil
is to turn it into a very easy to use black-box that does
video/audio. If the prop had the eeprom inside then it would
be absolutely perfect right now but very cheap dil boards
containing a sm prop, eeprom and xtal might serve.
(perhaps encapsulate them to look exactly like a dip40)
Just let users have access to the prop already set up to
easily deliver VGA, kbrd, mouse and audio...at a sensible
price and they will snap them right up. How else can those
functions be easily added to something like arduino...the
prop seems best suited for the task IMO.
I see no way to get the masses to learn SPIN and PASM,
this is unfortunate but I think it's true.
If there is any way under the sun to get the Prop II's eeprom
inside the package then for goodness sake DO IT. Could the wafer
be integrated alongside an eeprom wafer and intergrated inside
a single sm package somehow? The Prop II delivered in easy
to use packages would be killer add-on chips to add video and
more to other uC's.
The Propeller's market advantage is flexibility and a bread-board makes sense for hobbyists.
But has anyone ever seen an industry professional evaluation board with a bread-board on it?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
Even TI boasts breadboard development with their MSP430 LaunchPad http://focus.ti.com/lit/wp/slay017/slay017.pdf as a means to develop a product.
And I've seen eval kits with breadboards mounted right next to the processor, too.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
Follow me at http://twitter.com/ParallaxKen for some insider news.
Jeopardy ?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
If flexibility is the Propeller's advantage then I believe the Propeller Demo Board properly serves as an evaluation board. As for price, we can lower it without getting in trouble. In keeping with our future plans, however, you'll see more Propeller applications (board designs, hardware, etc.) from us that serve the following purpose:
- are also a product on their own, such as the S2 or Spinneret
- are fully open-sourced, properly and professional as a useful reference design
We will be driving some Propeller usage with our own products that cross over into hobby, education and consumer markets (provided we have the right distribution channels in place). Don't expect us to make a Propeller-based toaster oven.
Sound reasonable?
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Ken Gracey
Parallax Inc.
Follow me at http://twitter.com/ParallaxKen for some insider news.
Embedded systems don't need keyboards, video, mice, etc. and the Propeller can't compete with the typical MCU used in such applications. It needs to find a market where its unique features can be exploited, and the price isn't a disadvantage.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Leon Heller
Amateur radio callsign: G1HSM
Post Edited (Leon) : 7/14/2010 9:08:55 PM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
It's certainly safe to say that most people aren't interested in the real nitty gritty of electronics (the exception in the form of major specs: how much memory, clock speed, etc.). But that's also true when it comes to driving, music, painting etc. However, I also believe it's safe to say that there are more programmers now than ever before, which is obvious because there are more computerized electronics than ever before. Several years ago, there was an article in Nuts & Volts talking about the decline in the electronics hobbyist. The article expressed that the reality of the matter was that it more along the lines of a shift from electronic devices made from discrete components, to the field of programmable devices - such as computers. Most people whom are interested in programming that I know are more interested in software that resides on some sort of host with an OS, and I think the reason for this is fairly obvious. Only a small fraction of those people are interested in software development for microcontroller environments.
sure, the electronics hobbyist might love a gadget with a touch screen, and a whole bunch of customizable IOs, but I don't think it will help attract the Joes, and Brians of the world. I think the fact that expectations for electronics are so high now a days, that if the device only had capabilities along the lines of a 15 year old palm pilot, interest would be severely limited. It also doesn't help that writing a useful application on such a device would be significantly more difficult than writing a similar app on something like an Android device.
Looking back at this thread, I can't really tell whether this was more about getting Joe behind the driver's seat of the Prop, or just getting Joe to be a passenger.
Getting "the public" into programming is a fool's errand - computer history is littered with languages designed to "look like English so anyone can program!" but as others in this thread have already said, most people are consumers and have no interest in 'how' it works.
Taking that off the table, this thread basically has two tangents 1) get props into the hands of OEMs, 2) get props into the hands of budding hobbyists.
1 is good for parallax as a company, 2 is good for the prop community (not to say the two are mutually exclusive).
I think it's important to remember that some of the props advantages are geared towards the hobbyists:
Faster development cycle - developing is a one-off cost, if a manufacture has to choose between 2 years of work to get a $4 chip programmed and 1-year of work to get a $8 chip programmed, which do you think they would choose when talking about thousands of units per year?
"Everything in software" - great for hobbyists (you only need one chip in the drawer), little effect on manufacturers as they'll just buy a new chip that is suited to their needs when required.
Don't get me wrong here, I love the prop and it does still have advantages that apply to manufacturing but do keep in mind that 'advantages' to a hobbyist are not necessarily the same as 'advantages' to OEMs.
As for #2, personally I think the 'Show, don't tell' approach is best - you can talk all about the architecture and how easy the chip is to program until you are blue in the face, but if you really want to get people interested show them what it can do! Things like the propscope, upcoming spinneret and the various robots are great advertisements for the prop - I personally stumbled across the prop via the YBox2 (I don't own one, but read how they use the propeller chip).
Maybe this is just how I am, but I'm sure the story is similar for many of us - if there is a big enough 'block of cheese' at the end, we will make our way through the maze to get to it - that is, if we see a goal we are passionate about, we will do what it takes to get there - including learning a new programming language (though it's before my time, I can't count how many times someone on the forum has said they got their start playing with some form of assembler - user friendly? no way, but the cheese at the end was big enough).
Post Edited (Kal_Zakkath) : 7/15/2010 12:12:23 AM GMT
-Phil
Regarding evaluation boards, the Demo board is quite nice, but, in my opinion, in order to be "perfect," it should integrate an SD Card reader, much like Gadget Gangster's Propeller System SD.· I think that Parallax ought to be selling something similar (or perhaps identical with a deal worked out with Nick).· That is, when the Propeller first came out, SD connectivity did not exist (and appears to be one of the few crucial drivers that Chip didn't exclusively·write, though the current ones may depend on his underlying work, I'm not sure).· But now, things have changed, and there's just too much that is possible with an SD card that's not possible otherwise for such not to be included among Parallax's offerings.· Such will not be the case with the Prop II (as SD capability will probably be native or near-native), and such shouldn't be the case with the current Propeller.· Oh, I think there's also a board out there by a third party·similar to Parallax's PropStick USB (which I have)·that has a micro SD card socket on it.· That would also be a nice product to include in Parallax's store.· Okay, well, one can "argue" this in·other ways, such as by saying that an evaluation system shouldn't try to include everything including the kitchen sink·and that Parallax already offers an SD card adapter.· All true enough.· Anyway, whether you call it an evaluation board or whatever, an SD-capable system (ready-to-go) would be attractive to a lot of beginners, regardless of the name.
As far as this thread's topic, the thing that brought·me to the Propeller was the ease-of-use, nothing else, really.· Pure-and-simple.· It wasn't really the 8-core thing, sorry to disappoint (although I did first learn of the Propeller because·its 8 cores were·being touted·in a Circuit Cellar article that I just happened to peruse even though·I was·not a "hobbiest" at the time).· See, as has been said before (and also partly but not completely rebutted), if·one has·to dedicate a core to a display, another to keyboard input, another to SD and so on and so forth,·a general purpose microcontroller with built-in interfaces for those comes fairly close to providing what the current Prop does, connectivity-wise.· No, I chose the Prop due to its programming simplicity (yeah...I know...which includes a lack of interrupts) and its electrical simplicity.· I'm referring to the relative simplicity of SPIN/PASM, as well as how easy it is to connect up some kind of video.· And, of course,·another big factor was the existance of this forum (and the Obex).· If·Parallax is not striving to make·microcontrollers easy-to-use, then why are they in the game?· They can't reasonably be expected to compete with the engineering resources of the dedicated chip-design houses.· They are not even focused on that.· Well, perhaps they are fairly focused on the creation of the next chip, but it can't displace the gazillions of other chips that are out there.· But who else makes microcontrollers easy to use?· Well, Microchip/Atmel with their PICS and Arduino (however that horrible word is pronounced), perhaps, but I'd (ignorantly) argue that such are not as easy as the Prop, at least not in terms of the assembly languange, anyway, nor as powerful.· And you can't get any friendlier than the forum,·here,·or·than the service that Parallax provides and the spirit that·they encourage.· So THAT'S their niche:· simplicity-of-use!· Nothing else, pure and simple.· Okay, I'm·over-simplifying.· Still, I believe that that's·the situation, not so much the·8-core, parallel-processing·so-called philosophy.· We spend so much time on that.· What matters is completed projects.· Gee, as another said in this thread, the small incremental changes that other companies make can more than offset whatever technological beauty the Prop has.·· So, there's got to be something else that differentiates Parallax,·unless they're planning to dive head-first into the chip-design industry.· Well, I'm not saying that·they shouldn't, but if they do so, I think it should be focused on ease-of-use products.· Otherwise, they will just be joining a "rat-race" and time will pass and all these chips will be forgotten, as OBC wondered about.
There's·is no·doubt in my mind that,·if/when the Prop II emerges, it·will be applicable to a wide array of products and, as such, will catch the attention of industry.· And that will create new market opportunities·for Parallax.· But the reason for its success will be again, simplicity-of-use = that so much can be accomplished with a single chip (with perhaps some supporting chips).· Parallax/Chip already realize this, I think.··That's why they've positioned the Prop II to be a general-purpose video-capable IC.· Think about it: that kind of goes against the roots of robotics and microcontrollers·from which the Prop sprang (composite video excepted), but Parallax now realizes that there's a tremendous market opportunity (likely much more than a niche) that exists for a one-chip solution that can handle video (video signal generation, not necessarily motion video, though, surprisingly to me, that also appears to be in the works).·· The next Prop might be suitable as replacement for dedicated video controllers, for example, well at lower color depths (assuming not using external RAM).· Anyway, I digress, but Parallax must, it seems to me,·focus on ease-of-use solutions, not just for hobbiests, but for product designers, whether experienced professionals or, potentially, beginners.· That's their market!· If Parallax intends to continue to be involved in, at least partially, the chip-design business, then I hope it's with the goal of making chips easier-and-easier to use.· We always complain about the lack of pins.· Maybe they (with different process technology and some admittedly new technology) can include optical interconnects on their chips, potentially making it easy to connect a video display (or whatever) by a single, simple cable, no PCB required for video signals, per se·(if the could get the LCD makers to follow suit).· Of course, that's the stuff of Prop III/IV dreams.· But I'm just saying that their focus should be on simplicity-of-use.· That means, for example, that their focus would not be on the educational market, per se, but on making easy-to-use chips·that the educational market would turn to BECAUSE such products were so dang easy to use/integrate.· The same would be·true·for industry. ·They don't have to go after industry; industry will come after them if they make truly ease-to-use products.· And new products could be created with them that otherwise would not be possible without·significant engineering resources.· That's the only·way the chip (or chips) can be remembered 20 years on and be particularly relevant:· that they made a range·of products possible (or opened the doors of creativity) due to their ease-of-use that would have otherwise not been possible.· Who·else is trying to do that?· The·Arduino comes close for simple tasks, I suppose, but lacks the·power for sophisticated·"inventions." · The BeagleBoards and clones currently cost more than a simple China-sourced netbook, and have a long way to go in terms of ease-of-use (Linux will likely never be "easy" for beginners...with those verbose listings (which admittedly can be turned off) and long boot times and all the related complexity required to develop drivers and put a package together, which·are [noparse][[/noparse]1] already being done, and, [noparse][[/noparse]2] not appropriate for many otherwise creative types.· And, due to the cost of such offerings, you can't integrate them into a product at a decent selling point.· Perhaps something like the Plug PC (server, really) will get us there, but it's not there yet (and if it were, perhaps Parallax could license it and make it even more accessible, such as by combining it with a Prop).·
There have been so many good comments by all, but Microcontrolled is right:· most people don't care "how" it works, just that it does work and that they know how to use it.· So, those people can't be the target.· As others have said, the target has to be the logical-and-creative types that have an interest in creating physical products, whether they be beginners or experienced professionals.· But ease-of-use is still paramount, otherwise we'd all be using 500-pin (package-on-package (POP)) BGA chips like the cell phone designers.· By the way, I have nothing against POP designs, as that's a step in the right direction of simplifying connectivity.· As Holley said, the more that things can be encapsulated into at least what appears as·a single-chip (black box) solution, the more attractive and usable such solutions are/will be.· If it were feasible to offer the Prop II with a memory chip and/or EEPROM piggybacked on top, why not??????· At least it could be an option!· The point is, you have to make it simple to use!· Why default to everything being done on a PC board?· That's how every other chip company's products are utilized (with the exception, perhaps, of those chips targeted at cell phones where space is at a premium, but they have many-layered boards and flex connectors and what not).· No, I don't mean that you can eliminate the PC board completely, but that you can greatly simplify its design.·
Hmm...what else?· I don't know.· If we keep talking, good ideas will come, as another poster rightly said.· Of course, Parallax didn't create this thread.· They·have their hands too full to really pay a lot of attention to this thread.· Nevertheless, they will still take notice of our musings.· They enjoy doing so.· They live this stuff, though in a balanced way, I think. ·Maybe Parallax could create a product-design-assistance arm/house aimed at helping·individuals and small companies launch new products (based on their chip(s), of course).· Or, Parallax could create/market an easy-to-use LCD (or similar) display module, perhaps similar to those controller chips that allow one to not only drive a display but also create the interface in HTML.· I think they're kind of headed that way as it is.· Anyway, again, the focus being EASE-OF-USE!· That, in my·unsolucited opinion should be the focus of Parallax.· It seems like·the only thing that makes sense for them.· They don't seemingly want to go public.· They don't want to be bought out, but they intend·to be around·for the long-run.· They are happy doing what they are doing because they have creative freedom, intellectual challenge and help to make the world a more creative place.··· But selling huge quantities of Prop II's to industry, in and of itself, probably doesn't accomplish that kind of self-actualization, but making chips that are·so easy to use that everyone and her sister can design a product with (yes, including the engineers) does.· Of course, it's only natural for the engineers at Parallax to·get·a bit "distracted" by the technical sophistication of what they are designing, particularly with respect to the Prop II, but the guiding principle of the company, at least in terms of chip design, should be EASE-OF-USE.· Well, sure, reliability and functionality, too, but ease-of-use should be king. ·Did I mention that before?· Oh, guess I did.· Well...it bears repeating.··Also, it should come as·no surprise if they did not·FULLY realize this from the beginning, as one generally only fully appreciates/recognizes their position in the cosmos as a result of trial-and-error, but this is where they·have ended up (or are in the process of ending·up, I hope).· It's so hard to see the forrest for (due to) all of the trees.· But·it's·certainly·time for them to sit down and realize that they are not--nor do they want to be--just another chip house; the competition is just too intense, and, not only that, but where's the "fun" in that?.··I'd guess even the resources of a·small company like XMOS·drawfs what Parallax can reasonably be expected to bring to the table, at least for the next few years, anyway.· But I wouldn't mind them becoming something like a Micochip, which, aside from their microcontroller offerings, offers·UNIQUE products like their serial SRAM devices·(which might be·useful for current and future Props).· But, again, the focus for Parallax·should be on unique ease-of-use products/ICs that allow people to create. ·By doing so, they will·create a legacy for·themselves as a company that, like Apple during its early days, makes/made a difference in the world--the difference being that they·made it easy for people·to create (though the recent cell phone·thinkg seemingly "only" or mostly makes it easy to share/consume).·
BTW, I like the talk about positioning the Prop as an I/O processor interface to an established cell phone system (such as a reasonably open-souced Android system).·· Let the Cortex A9's and so on do what they are good at, and let the Prop interface them to the world in robots and home-control centers and what not.· For that to happen, it would be helpful if Parallax would sponsor such a system and/or partner with a cell phone maker (HTC?) to get better access to the internals.· Sure, such a system would cost a small bundle,·but it could become a kind of standard for demanding applications.··Well, Parallax has its·hands full already, that's true, but·perhaps it could keep its·eyes open to such possibilities·for the future and/or encourage such development here on the forum.·
Lastly, I believe someone mentioned that the window-of-opportunity for the Prop II·might be open wider and longer than people might assume.· That caught me by surprise...because I often fear that it is closing fast as technology keeps marching on so quickly.· But on thinking about the comment,·it makes sense, logically.· If the window-of-opp was really closing so fast on the Prop II, it probably wouldn't even make sense designing the chip·and planning for it.· After a couple of years, technology would have marched on and the Prop II would no longer be able to satisfy the needs.· Of course, that reasoning doesn't prove that the Prop II "does" make sense, but it does say that, if there is a reason-for-being for the Prop II, it must·exist within the context of·a wide window.· But·if the Prop II can hit the ease-of-use sweet·spot that I think should be Parallax's focus, then it seems likely that·there will be applications (I like to call them inventions) a plenty--and hence a wide window--just waiting for·the Prop II's·appearance and availability.· Okay, seems logical, but my fear is that the longer the Prop II takes to come out, the more that can go wrong to distract Parallax from this focus.· That is, it's not that the window will close so quickly (and if it did, another of a somewhat related kind would likely·open, wouldn't it?), but that Parallax could easily fail to execute when it has the momentum.· I sure hope that THAT·doesn't happen.· And the farther/further we move out time-wise, the less certain the chip becomes (for example, various economic realities threaten it, both internal and external to Parallax).· I hope that Parallax doesn't get comfortable thinking that "time is on their side" because, while the window-of-opportunity may be open for a long time, their ability to take advantage of it is not perpetually guaranteed.· I think that there should be a "sense-of-urgency" about the new chip/chips, not to dump even more pressure on them, but they are entrusted with a·precious opportunity to make a difference in the world and they are equipped with the right mix of resources to do so now, but who knows about the situation in the future.· Also, we·obviously need ease-of-use chips now more than ever, as chips are becoming more-and-more difficult to work with.· All kinds of creative inventions·are stalled for lack thereof.· As such, Parallax, it seems to me, needs to process as many things as possible in "parallel," rather than in the sequential and leisurely manner that we'd often like to do if given a non-competitive environment.· Otherwise, I fear that they run the risk of losing their momentum and getting caught up in the complexity of it all, meaning that the more time one gives themselves to accomplish things, the more that can go wrong to trip things up (not necessarily, but it's often the case).· As such, it would seem that all reasonable resources should be brought to bear to·advance the project.· But wait a second!· Why?· Who says so???· Why must things be designed and done·according to my or anyone else's impatient timeframe?· Parallax not only excels at making good products but also at enjoying the process (design, management, marketing, etc.) along the way.· They are not compelled to do things according to other people's timeframes and lose the enjoyment from the work they·do·and expose themselves to unneeded risks in so doing.· All true!· But if they don't have a sense of urgency, what will compel them to advance the project and avoid losing their momentum?· For better or worse, Parallax has created certain expectations.· Rather than backing off on those and continually redefining the timeframe, use·the pressure of a timeframe·to their advantage to be even more committed to getting the chip out timely.· And rather than shying away from communicating with their faithful community about the details of the progress and the expected timeframe (as they've so obviously and,·yes,·understandably done), embrace·the pressure that comes from being open and use it to motivate everyone within Parallax (and perhaps even some on the outside) to do whatever they can to accomplish the goal.· The goal being what?· Well, ease-of-use products (and, sure,·occassionally stopping to smell the roses along the way).· No doubt, creating ease-of-use products is a career and company mission all by itself that will take years to accomplish (they're already well down the road), but the Prop II is kind of a cornerstone and revolutionary·product that will facilitate lots of other ease-of-use products by Parallax and/or by others with them in the future, and, as such, it is mission-critical to the goal of being the ease-of-use-chip/product company that probably should be their destiny/mission.· Good grief!··I got carried away.· Again!
Edit:· What???· No Propeller-based toaster ovens, not even for QFN-based Propeller·SMT projects?· Hmm, then count me out.· [noparse]:([/noparse]
Post Edited (JRetSapDoog) : 7/15/2010 12:55:10 AM GMT
An enthusiast will learn a new language because it costs him a couple of hours of his time. An OEM manufacturer will not, because it will costs him hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost productivity, re-writes, re-training and re-tooling - perhaps even their business if (as a result) they don't get their product to market before the competition does. Also, no OEM of substantial size is going to stake their future on a language supported only by one chip sold by one company - especially one that has no track record in the market.
And Phil has hit the nail on the head about which one Parallax should be pursuing - getting Propellers into the hands of OEM's benefits Parallax, the OEMs and us enthusiasts. Gettng the propeller into the hands of more enthusiasts benefits - well, just us people here in the forums really.
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
Gadzooks! That must be a candidate for being the longest post in any thread on this forum!. However, I read it, and while I agree with a lot of what you say, I have to say that if things actually worked the way in the manufacturing industry, then the Prop I would already have been a smash success and we'd already have at least one of them in every electronic gizmo manufactured in recent history.
But I don't think things do work that way. There is no "killer app" that will make the Prop I (or the Prop II) a smash success and cause manufacturers (or people) to flock to it. You have to claw your way into most OEMs, stick it under their noses and point out how it can do everything they already do using other chips - only cheaper. Only then will you get the chance to point out what it can alsodo that no other chip can do.
Oh, and what makes you think we won't spend most of our time bemoaning the Prop II when it emerges? If only it had 16 cogs! If only it had 256 I/O pins! If only it had hdmi video! If only it could do 1Ghz per cog! If only it had 16Mb RAM!
Ross.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
The real question is how do we get the average Joe to want the xxxx that has a prop inside. The average Joe will never care! How many of you know what micro (or micros) are in your mobile phone? How many of you care?
I·had a mobile phone that ran Windows·Mobile. Did I use any of it - well yes, I tried. I tried to buy an app that made my phone work like a phone, not a PC. And I couldn't even do that! So my next phone is a less empowered Nokia that actually works like a phone. It does have other apps which I never use. Heck, I cannot even be bothered with working out how some of the basic extras work. Here, I am an "average Joe". He buys millions and doesn't care what's inside.
So, how do we get the prop into the "average Joe's designers hands" ? This is REALLY the question. I am sorry I do not know the answer. Parallax do not have the resources/backup to fund putting out lost leader kits to the design engineers. As has been raised before, how many of you have cheap/free kits from suppliers. I have a TI DSP kit that I won in a TI seminar - still in box and sometimes I get the docs out to think about and then put it back on the shelf. You see, the "killer app" will come from someone using the prop, not someone thinking about designing a product and then searching for a chip.
As was said before, anyone who has a killer app will not be saying so. They will be working on it.
I have a (potential) volume app (not a killer app)·that could use many different micros, but it will use a prop. Why? Because I like the prop, it's easy to use (I know because I used it, not because someone told me so), it's not expensive (although I could use a competitive chip for 1/2 price, but I·may have to learn it - that's easy as I have learnt a lot of micros, just not recently), and it is VERY easy to update code. The product will be potted and I am not too concerned about security (I have a few tricks to make it harder - and I will not publish them on a forum as they become less secure that way). My design problem is that it is not yet doing what it it supposed to do. Each itteration of code takes 4-6 weeks to get an indication that it is doing it's job. Unfortunately I will never be able to disclose the product details. I just want to give you the reasons why I chose the prop.
So back to "How do we interest the design engineers?" Not sure!
I have started a new thread "What specs will entice design engineers to investigate the prop?" and have posted some suggestions to kick it off. http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?p=922576
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
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
Post Edited (Cluso99) : 7/15/2010 2:54:57 AM GMT
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller Pages: Propeller JVM
Must have missed that. Ok - If only it could do <<insert favorite option not planned to be supported by Prop II here>>!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Catalina - a FREE C compiler for the Propeller - see Catalina
It would be difficult to include HDMI, for licensing reasons. HDMI capable devices have some limits on what is exposed to the end user that are mandated by the content creators. Something as open as a Propeller would not jive with HDMI.
From what I understand, component video will be available in some different formats, potentially VGA, RGB, and I'm hoping for Y, Cb, Cr (analog). Those formats run to a full 1080p on some displays, 1080i on those that won't do 1080p.
Honestly, a good Y, Cb, Cr analog display is very robust, and the color space is great too. Luma runs on one channel, which will probably equate to one pin on the Prop II. Color, if desired runs on two others, and that encoding allows color to run at one resolution, with luma at another. Great for things like video, where compression is used. Also means doing things like a tint change with relative ease, compared to RGB.
On modern displays, you probably can't really tell the difference between the two. And it's probably all just software on the Prop II, with just different driver code for the various formats and timings. HDMI would require a dedicated encryption system on the chip, a license, and restrictions on what functionality is exposed, and probably disclosure limitations on said functionality.
[noparse]:([/noparse]
Go google "that analog hole" for why, and probably get pissed just like a lot of other people are, over just how much technology hobbling is going on in conjunction with HDMI!
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
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!
In the last 3 months I've given 9 presentations about my various Propeller projects all over the world to audiences ranging from disadvantaged youths, robot clubs, vocational technical schools, and industry giants like Nokia, Siemens, Google and Microsoft.
I loved reading all the comments on this thread- many jibe nicely with what I saw. People all over the world are excited about our electronics and robots- as long as they do something interesting! All the amazing gadgets have made it more and more difficult to wow someone. Years ago you could build a transistor radio and impress your friends- that won't cut it anymore... However, very few devices or gadgets have reached their final form- witness how Apple is always able to reinvent something that people had considered finished.
Chip had many great insights on developing the Propeller- it is a different beast than the typical processor.
So, now the question- how do we get gadgets built with the Propeller to the everyday Joe?
The challenge consists of two parts: building a compelling product and then selling it. Tossing some features together- or even assembling them so they beat a competitor's won't get you very far. To create a winning product you have to be fanatical about the end user's experience- starting from when they buy it, to getting started with it, becoming an expert at it, and maybe even graduating from it.
Engineers typically don't like selling what they create. Personally, I think that's why open source is so attractive to them- they can simply ignore that part of the process. However, the everyday Joe is accustomed to paying for quality products- and by charging money for a product you can improve it and pay others to help you. The internet has dramatically lowered the barriers to selling things to people all over the world, however you still need to get out and market your wares. Again, for that you need to understand your potential customers- how will they find out about your product?
I think the Propeller is just fine the way it is for many "Everyday Joe" products. My ViewPort customers are using the Propeller in all sorts of projects- and I've used it in both the PropScope (used by everyday hobbyists/students/engineers) and the upcoming TBot which is being tested by kindergarten through university students.
Don't wait for Prop2- get started today!
Hanno
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Co-author of the official Propeller Guide- available at Amazon
Developer of ViewPort, the premier visual debugger for the Propeller (read the review here, thread here),
12Blocks, the block-based programming environment (thread here)
and PropScope, the multi-function USB oscilloscope/function generator/logic analyzer
of assembly level drivers for Fat 32 SD Cards, Memory and other devices.
Russ