Just noted the AVR Simon kit, featured on MAKE: blog.

Comments

• potatohead Posts: 10,261

  2010-04-03 16:36 edited 2010-04-03 16:36

  On a more inclusive macro note, the other major threat to these kinds of things is software patents, currently legal in the US, resulting in large companies building war chests of patents, to protect from other companies, or their peers, from exploiting them.
  
  These are not currently legal in the EU, and every year that is threatened, requiring a significant political push back to preserve that status quo.
  
  Most modern nations are also involved with a very draconian copyright treaty, essentially making the DMCA seem like a perfectly reasonable and palatable law, rather than the annoyance it's often seen as today. That's being done, largely in secret, which generally means not good for us, very good for large multi-nationals, eager to further assert dominance over potential competition.
  
  The current politics surrounding this stuff is favorable to people like us at the level of ordinary people. Most ordinary people don't really understand the long copyright term and it's implications, but they do understand that "guy in the garage" idea, and see where checking that threat makes sense. Those favorable politics are not reflected in most legislative bodies around the world, largely due to very significant levels of corporate influence on the political process of many nations.
  
  It is becoming increasingly clear the product of all this struggle is the ownership of works worldwide being used to exert control and profit from culture, and potential competition, stagnating potential innovation in much the same way the AT&T did, when it was able to regulate nearly everything about it's networks. Open is good. It's not free, as is so often thought, but necessary, if we are to see the kinds of technical innovation we enjoy today, simply continue!!
  
  Consider, had these measures actually come to be fully realized, we might not actually have a Propeller chip, for example. And one negative impact of that, happens to be Americans unable to produce a Kindle, despite contributing significantly to the development of the enabling technologies necessary to realize and render it to the masses. Other nations have similar problems brewing, and that's generally not good for any of us.
  
  Regardless of where any of us stand politically, the significance of Creative Commons like activity is this:
  
  We may well find that within the next 5 - 10 years, Creative Commons work to be the only viable and practical means of sharing, building, doing, ripping, mixing, burning there is. Infringing crimes are doing harm, but the proposed regulatory actions are very likely to do more harm, and that's the other element here. Educating our peers, and our legislators about these harms, while also demonstrating there are good solutions, and good business model alternatives is something I personally find important enough to warrant a few man days of time per yer doing. While enjoying the nice kits and do it yourself culture, consider the potential impact of it is well beyond our simple need for entertainment, service, and gratification.
  
  Soap Box Mode = 0 Thanks for hearing that, here in the sandbox.
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
  8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
  Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
  
  Post Edited (potatohead) : 4/3/2010 4:42:12 PM GMT
• Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091

  2010-04-03 17:06 edited 2010-04-03 17:06

  Interesting stuff..
  
  What I don't understand is why everyone goes "ga ga" over the AVR/Ardunio stuff because it is "Open Source"
  when the AVR chip itself is no more Open Source than the Propeller chip. From my prospective it's just a
  different chip from a different manufacture.
  
  Why does Amtel greatly benefit from this attention while Parallax doesn't? (much)
  
  OBC
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Are you Propeller Powered? PropellerPowered.com
  Visit the: PROPELLERPOWERED SIG forum kindly hosted by Savage Circuits.
• potatohead Posts: 10,261

  2010-04-03 18:48 edited 2010-04-03 18:48

  What you are seeing is the influence of O'reilly Publishing, and others. They have built their business documenting Open technologies. Their core business was seriously good, honest, potent, practical and easy and fun to read books on Open Source software technologies and culture. In the mid 90's, I picked up on that, and learned a ton about software, and came to appreciate the Open Source idea, and why it matters today. (Short story there is, anybody who picks up skill with Open Code, gets very high use value at only the cost of learning and core enabling technologies, and can share and sell services around those skills, with no special entitlements needed. That's a seriously big deal, and something I personally made a lot of money doing in the past.)
  
  They've moved into open building of things. To most people, a chip is by nature closed. There are some designs, where the hardware specification, including that needed to produce the chip is open and online, but economies of scale really don't work well enough for that to matter much. The bigger thing is having open means and methods to build using CPU's, and computing in general. On most CPU's, a person can own them, understanding exactly what the CPU does, why it does it, etc... That's open enough, because some core enabling technology is needed to empower open projects. The biggest concerns are cost, availability, and the ability to repurpose the chips over time.
  
  In that respect an AVR is just fine! There are lots of them, people can use them, they are available, development is possible on open operating systems, etc...
  
  The same can be said for many chips, from the 8 bitters on up. Most people just don't build CPU's, but they do build things around and with CPU's, and if that building is open, then it's GAME ON!
  
  The considerable buzz surrounding OSS is really at the PC / applications/ systems layer, and just isn't all that exciting to the masses. One worry I did not really give the coverage above I should have, is that ordinary people are not really invested in computing to a degree needed to seriously push back on the closing of things, and that's resulted in a slow, closing of things. For an example of how onerous this is, consider the Vista, MAC OS, and Windows 7 kernels all have DRM buried in them at low levels. Even Linux has incorporated provisions for binary blob objects that do the same thing.
  
  An awful lot of computers today are shipping with the potential to lock the user out, based on instructions given from third parties. For now, it's simple stuff, like not being able to do a print screen on a protected window, or suffering video degradation issues when combining protected media, with untrusted software, etc... But, the trend is clear. On a macro level, serious money is being invested in criminalizing the circumvention of these things, whether or not doing so is currently legal, ethical or moral to do, and that same serious money is being used to slowly pull hardware in the same direction.
  
  This threatens the whole, culture most of us grew up with! We grew up taking things apart, and just being able to self-teach, build, hack, do, rip, mix, burn, etc... and the innovation that comes with that always threatens to be disruptive, and in fact, the majors all at the top right now, all started in exactly that way, and simply want to stay there, denying the next big thing, because they can, for whatever reasons they deem appropriate, do so.
  
  OSS, MAKE: even US!! Are mixed in with that.
  
  Consider your average iPad owner, doesn't own their iPad. It's more like a rental. They get to do what Apple thinks they should do, and get to do it how Apple thinks they should do it. If you want an idea of how computing and hacking will look if that trend continues, just go and check out the cell phone carriers and game console manufacturers, both leading edge closed computing technology providers. Note, they do not produce enabling technology, but exploit it, close it, and deny it to their potential competitors. Think on that for a moment and what it means to people like us!
  
  O'Reilly, Penguin, and a few others have always served that open, build, do, hack, rip, mix, burn, etc... culture, and have expanded out with a far more populist message; namely, "Tech is fun, and YOU can build stuff, and here is how...". The idea at a macro level, is to simply empower people NOW, while it can be done, so that we may check those other movements, and keep stuff open enough to not be at issue.
  
  I know that sound onerous, and "tin foil hat", but it's absolutely true, and a consideration that we have an awful lot of distractions for.
  
  The "ga ga" is good marketing and publishing efforts, literally exploiting the idea that people like to make things, empowering them to do so, while at the same time, reinforcing just how and why this stuff matters. IMHO, Parallax is well served by jumping in here. Offering an AVR kit is no big deal, and each time somebody bites, they might find out about a Propeller, and that's a net gain across the board.
  
  Realistically, the culture needs to be vibrant for a Parallax to exist, and within that culture, a mono-culture is seen as a negative thing, and so it goes. This dynamic is why I posted what I did, because I think it's a smart move, but not an obvious one. Somebody in the building, probably a few somebodies, have been thinking along the right lines, and I just wanted to note it, and encourage it.
  
  In the end, it comes down to this: Either the current Propeller community is enough to sustain itself, and Parallax, or it isn't. I assume it is, or the investments in Prop II, etc... wouldn't make any sense. And many of us have met the right folks, they get it, and run the place well. So, no worries there.
  
  The kind of culture needed to grow that business is by nature an open one, with people just doing stuff because they can and will. Accepting that means not being threatened by these things, and that's not easy. Again, that's why I posted what I did.
  
  So then, Parallax specifically benefits from the growth of a DIY culture growth, seeing overall demand for enabling technologies and education grow in like kind.
  
  A high tide raises all the boats, not just one, and in fact the really big boats, respond slower and are less able to realize benefit from those tidal swings, compared to the smaller, nimble ones, not constrained by size, or Wall Street. This is a much better thing for Parallax than Amtel, for those reasons.
  
  Let's say the demand for devices doubles. Whatever slice is Propeller will increase, and that increase will have a much greater material impact because of size and scale for Parallax than it will Amtel, who damn near needs a paradigm shift to see the same benefits overall.
  
  To sum up then, open means open. Those that demonstrate that, further their own tech, right along with the others, for a net gain for all. Closed operates differently, generally requiring that significant gains, come at the expense of others.
  
  Many, who do not realize this dynamic, often wonder how a niche product can survive, thinking in terms of the "winner take all" miindset the closed culture typicaly leads to. One only has to go and look at Apple computer, who by the way is currently making some of the most closed stuff there is, to see that overall share isn't important. It's entirely possible to be profitable, stable, healthy, etc... without having to have a share dominance on par with the biggest players, and one can do so with a lot of money in the bank, so long as the users see ongoing value over time.
  
  That's where we play here. Growing Propeller users is good. Growing the culture that produces potential Propeller users is really good. The most likely Propeller users are those already doing stuff, and because of the size and scale issues, are highly likely to be on a PIC, AVR, etc... In order to get them to consider a Propeller, they've got to see the value, and know that value proposition exists, and there we are. That kit will cause a lot of people to ask, "Who is Parallax?", and that's a much better thing for Parallax than it is Amtel.
  
  So, that's how I see it, and we shall see, if I've called it wrong soon enough, as I'm hoping Ken, Chip, et al.. will jump in here and give us the scoop proper.
  
  [noparse]:)[/noparse]
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
  8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
  Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
  
  Post Edited (potatohead) : 4/3/2010 6:59:15 PM GMT
• Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091

  2010-04-03 19:13 edited 2010-04-03 19:13

  Wow...
  
  It's amazing how quickly we've accepted the "iPad/iPod" approach so quickly as "normal." You serve a dead-on reminder
  of what is really happening with our hand-helds and consoles. It's almost like we're tracking cool technology toys for access
  to the same. Ouch... A trend that will no doubt continue to happen.
  
  An encouraging figure is that I asked a key question this year with our Expo signups.
  "How much experience do you have with the Propeller?" --- Yes, there are a bunch of brilliant Propeller-heads coming, but
  the beginners are nearly 75% of the signups. AWESOME! This means that we ARE seeing more fresh blood getting
  into products like Propeller.
  
  I'm sure I'll have more comments to your last couple posts, but gotta digest more of it first. [noparse]:)[/noparse]
  
  OBC
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Are you Propeller Powered? PropellerPowered.com
  Visit the: PROPELLERPOWERED SIG forum kindly hosted by Savage Circuits.
• potatohead Posts: 10,261

  2010-04-03 20:16 edited 2010-04-03 20:16

  That's a great thing. Means we are going to have a lot of fun again.
  
  (and here's another one to chug through --I'm deep in thought today, it seems.)
  
  Not everything about Apple is ugly. One thing they understand very well is that people like making choices. The interesting thing is that they get gratification from having made choices they find satisfactory. What is satisfactory?
  
  That's a matter of perspective really. Truth is, if there are only a few choices, finding that "satisfactory" one, or "valuable" one, isn't all that tough! People then choose with few worries, happy about their actions.
  
  On the other hand, if there are a million choices, choosing then becomes work! It's actually quite a bit of work, and with that large array of choices comes the nagging idea that perhaps their choice isn't the best choice, and smart vendors pick up on that, exploit that, encouraging people to choose again, despite the fact that the actual, material value from their initial choice is highly likely to have no more material value than the competing choice does, both being perfectly satisfactory. (ask the guys who sell laundry soap about this, they know it cold)
  
  Some of us like selecting products to the point where that's not work, but a source of value in the actual work of selecting. Most of us like to select products, but don't like to work at it, and see "positioning" as valuable, or more valuable than the raw ability to choose and number of choices presents us. That opens the door to:
  
  Here's an interesting thought exercise (and you know I love these)
  
  Say we have a person who would would receive value from technology elements. It doesn't matter what the technology is, nor the elements. Let's just say there are some, and carry on. Elements could be presentation of options, efficiency in a process, entertainment, empowerment (enabling tech, like a Propeller), etc...
  
  Let's say we run that person through two scenarios. In each scenario, the material value supplied to them is exactly the same. The same elements, deliver the same value, and are only presented differently through set expectations of number of choices. Let's also say, we've got another person, who gets rewarded for convincing the first person that their "best" choice, is in fact, not the best choice! The reward comes from getting that first person to choose a less than optimal choice, and feel really good about it!
  
  (I know twisted, but bear with me)
  
  In scenario A, the number of choices is sharply limited. Various combinations of the tech elements are presented, along with variations in cost and presentation. Our primary person evaluates these, and because we've characterized them, we know what their best choice really is. In this scenario, it's highly likely they will, in fact, choose the "best" choice, because it's not all that hard.
  
  Now, factor in our secondary person. How hard is their job?
  
  In scenario B, the number of choices is vast! Make it an order of magnitude greater than scenario A, which might consist of a handful of choices. It's not so likely the person would choose the "best" choice, because weighing all those options is a lot of work, confusing, etc... The reality is they are not always going to choose correctly. That leaves us with two secondary scenarios for our "griefer" person, who is trying to make them feel bad about their decision.
  
  In scenario B1, the person nails it. Despite all the vast choices, they select the right solution. How hard is it for our other "griefer" person to convince them that they have not chosen optimally?
  
  In scenario B2, the person fails to make the best overall choice. They select a very good solution, but not the best one possible. Again, how difficult is it for the "griefer" to convince them that they could have chosen better
  
  ,and (the punch line here)
  
  what is the material difference in difficulty for our "griefer" given scenario B1 and B2?
  
  That's what Apple came to understand years before anyone else, and that's a good thing overall, but realizing it is actually best done with closed technology, not open.
  
  Secondly, open tech has a built in disadvantage because of this dynamic, and the way to compete is to understand how that all works, and provide good, solid enabling technology tools, education, and such, realizing both the role of being the primary choice made, or the "griefer" role (and I know that's a bad, but effective characterization, so just roll with it and know Parallax isn't a griefer), where "better" choices are available. Ideally, instead of griefing, "better" choices build on and leverage the initial choice, and that's a huge part of why offering an AVR kit is not only not a threat, but a serious value add to both Parallax, and that AVR owner, who steps up to a Propeller, feeling really good ABOUT THE WHOLE AFFAIR.
  
  Subtle, but important, and probably something I've spent way too much time being an amateur sociologist on... (the potato can't help it, it's in my blood to consider where society, technology and the law collide)
  
  Just so you know, in my current professional role, I'm applying this dynamic to a rather mature CAD market, looking for ways to encourage users of middle of the road systems, like Solidworks, to up-choose to a higher end system, like the one I work with, while feeling good about the whole deal, just like Apple regularly does with your average PC user, and Parallax often will do with a PIC, AVR, etc... user, when not selling to the new user overall.
  
  Both elements of growth are necessary, and selling to the new user overall is considerably different than what I just detailed.
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
  8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
  Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!
  
  Post Edited (potatohead) : 4/3/2010 8:34:15 PM GMT
• potatohead Posts: 10,261

  2010-04-03 20:26 edited 2010-04-03 20:26

  Oh, as a follow on, as I got distracted with tying that back to Parallax, what occurs in a limited choice scenario, is artificial value. This also occurs in the "griefer" or "second thought" scenario too.
  
  When the choices are limited, the value of a correct choice is enhanced by the solid understanding of that value, on the part of the person who has chosen! A price premium can be had for that, and that premium is linked to the dynamics of choosing, not the material value received.
  
  In the "griefer", or maybe just "reconsideration" scenario, that same dynamic comes into play, with the entity better able to solidify the value of the choice, having the potential to get the most revenue by doing so, even though the material value may actually be equal to or even LESS than that delivered from the initial, or primary choice!
  
  There, I think I'm done with that. (sorry all)
  
  ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
  Propeller Wiki: Share the coolness!
  8x8 color 80 Column NTSC Text Object
  Safety Tip: Life is as good as YOU think it is!