Is the Propeller catching on?
Jay Kickliter
Posts: 446
Is it just me, or are there more and more Propeller-based projects popping up on the internet outside of these forums? I've been seeing a lot more on Hackaday lately. For the most part, they're one-off hobbyists' projects. But, I do know of a commercial product in development with Propeller brains, being made by the most respected company in its field.
Comments
I still only see AVRs arround me.
Most companies won't advertise which MCU they are using in their embedded designs for fear of losing a competitive edge. I'm currently designing a product that has the Propeller included in the BOM, I feel it offers our company huge advantages (parallel processing, flexible counters, low power consumption...) and so information regarding its use in our product probably will not be discussed externally.
Its likely that most engineers and designers start out as hobbyists of one sort or another. If there are folks experimenting with the Propeller now you can bet a percentage of them will use it in a product in the future.
Get projects on Hackaday that can beat the pants off Arduino and other micros and you WILL win customers. Of course getting all kinds of projects on Hackaday will help greatly.
OBC
Tried twice but I guess my personal robotic storyteller (prop base) is too childish for Hackaday ...
@Mac - I've gotten 3 or 4 things up on HAD, but I've probably sent 20 things in. You just have to keep pluggin' away.
There are several reasons why the Propeller is not being used much in commercial development:
1. Single sourced by a small company. Other MCUs, such as various ARM and 8051 variants, are sourced by dozens of companies. This is one of the biggest advantages ARM has and it's also why you don't see much use of the Pic32 and the AVR32 in commercial products. The "Propeller" name and logo don't help much either -- they convey a nerdy image.
2. Lack of support for hardware debugging and boundary scan (J-TAG). Almost all other MCUs designed in the last decade have this capability.
3. Proprietary language (Spin). Sure, C is available, but it's somewhat of a kludge on the Propeller (that's how it's perceived). The fact that Spin is interpreted rather than compiled, hence slow, is also a factor.
4. Memory limitations (32KB hub RAM/2KB cog RAM). Many newer 32-bit MCUs have up to 512KB of FLASH and 128KB of RAM integrated on the part.
5. Lack of peripheral support. Sure, you can implement almost anything using basic I/O ports and a dedicated cog on the Propeller, but design engineers looking at data sheets don't see long lists of supported peripherals (SPI, I2C, I2S, CAN, USB, Ethernet, PWM, ADC, quadrature decoder, etc.) that they see on the data sheets of other MCUs.
6. Floating point support is limited (function calls in Spin rather than native support by the language); no integer multiply/divide instructions.
I love using the Propeller in my hobby projects, because it's easy and fun to use, but when I talk to friends in industry, I hear a different story. I was a professional embedded developer for 20 years (now in management), and have a lot of friends still doing design work professionally. When I've mentioned the Propeller to them, they almost always say, "yeah, I looked at it. Interesting novelty, but I wouldn't use it in a real design." The reasons they give are what I outlined above.
This is what Propellerpowered.com was created for... equal time...
Submit it! I'll post it.
OBC
I don't think the single-source aspect is all that relevant. Microchip is the largest supplier of 8-bit devices, and no one else makes PICs. Converting an application for an ARM chip from one supplier to another isn't all that easy - the cores might be the same but the peripherals will be quite different, necessitating major software changes. A new PCB will be required, also.
Your other points are valid, though. I can see it being successful in niche market products which capitalise on its strengths, but it'll never be a popular device with professional designers.
But, I am happy to see more people using it in projects.
It's there.. It's simply in the software...
Single source? Doesn't Digikey and other large sources count?
OBC
Also, I think I've noticed fewer Arduino projects. Seems like people are getting tired of Arduino and moving straight to PIC's and AVR's.
Yes, but it's not in the data sheet, which is where most designers look when choosing a part. Not all peripherals can be implemented on a Propeller, either. I doubt that the Propeller can support 100Mb Ethernet...
No, they don't The real issue is perception of the company. Parallax is small and relatively unknown. All design engineers have heard of TI, NXP, and ST - I doubt if 1 in 100 have heard of Parallax. The concern going through their heads will be "how long is that company likely to be around and where will I get parts if they go kaput?"
Sal understands industry very well as far as I can tell (my experiences are the same).
OBC reflects the hobbyist point of view.
Sure. First, I send them the English version:
That didn't work, so I send them the Chinese version:
Didn't work either. Next will be Japanese version....
From each company website:
NXP- Established: 2006 (formerly a division of Philips)
STMicroelectronics - created in 1987
TI - Established in 1947
Parallax - Incorporated in 1987
Although I do have to agree that the Propeller hasn't really reached the level of the other uC companies. Really all it would take is one amazing product that uses a Prop.
More data:
NXP: Revenue $5.44B, employees 28,000
STMicro: Revenue $8.47B, employees 51,000
TI: Revenue $14B, employees 28,000
Parallax: Revenue $??, employees ??
Thanks! Currently, this is only a proto-type model so I'm using the standard wCK servo. I designed the uC board & its casing. The plastic chest, legs & hand were slightly re-designed & tooled. There are 7 colors all together ....
Parallax is definitely stable, but doesn't have thousands of employees...
OBC
I'm not trying to "win" anything, but just pointing out the types of things pointy haired bosses look at.
Hi OBC,
OK, I've submitted. Thanks a lot!
Nick,
Yeah. you're right. I'll try the next item ... using Android app on aPad to control the robot....
Graham
I guess you're right but I do come across products on their web-site too ... anyway. It doesn't matter.
As far as I am concerned, and I have been bitten before (I have been designing micro hardware and software since 1976), I would rather have one single sourced chip in lots of my designs, than lots of various families of chips(and may I add, still single sourced) that can be (and are) discontinued at the drop of a hat. That way, I can afford to hold sufficient stock of 1 chip to buffer any shortages. You just cannot do that with the other competitors such as PIC, AVR, etc.
In a commercial design I used 3 propellers, each for completely different purposes. Yes, it could be said that a PIC may have been better for this one, and an AVR for another, and yet something else for the third. However, for me the choice was a no-brainer (and it had been predecided anyway). Needless to say one is a RamBlade with 512KB SRAM and microSD running Catalina "C" which is the main processor, and the other two interface to various peripherals using a mix of spin and pasm. Being able to soft configure the peripherals means I can use the same chip for all 3 jobs. This is real flexibility.