On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 01:50:40PM +0100, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > >but it's likely that the difference between completely > >empty and completely populated will be only $15 to $20 USD. > > I appreciate that, but my thinking is along the lines that by the time you > translate that small increment in price to somewhere like the UK, or > elsewhere in Europe where taxes are pretty phenomenal, then this may be the > make or break in the decision for a secondary school student to be able to > afford the base unit. > > When I suggested that the add-on bits be supplied as a kit to be assembled > onto the board by the end user, I did envisage that this kit may be packed > by Sean if he was amenable to another hit on his resources. I would think > that the add-on kit could be priced in a manner that ensured a small profit > on it for the bother of this. Perhaps a "discount coupon" in with the > original development board to make them aware of this. > > > >Finally whatever we do is going to be an open design. So if > >someone wants to hand wire a subset, or if someone wants to > >deliver blank PCBs, then it's no problem. But if we get the > >price point for the full package so that it's not much more > >than the cost of the parts, then we should encourage folks to > >sign up for the full package if possible because fracturing > >the base will compound the support issue. > > I can understand where you are coming from. However I still feel that there > is a problem with pricing in the European region. There are a significant > number of tax havens around here where the well heeled go to live for a > reason :) > > I do get the feeling that while it would be great to provide a complete unit > ready assembled, with software that allows the purchaser to leap straight in > and start experimenting, the thing is having a tendency to get away from the > original concept which was fired off by the messages from Kieran asking for > help in getting his programmer going. > > The concept was something that allowed a PIC to be reliably programmed, to > get away from the vagaries of the various serial and parallel ports which > don't meet true specification. I know I have added messages suggesting > possible features for it as well, but each 5c here, 10c there does help to > push it out of reach of the secondary school student having to pay for it > out of his paper round. > I am just trying to step back and take a second look, as others have done, > and figure if we are not getting wound up with enthusiasm for our "beginners > killer development system" and forgetting that the reason people do go and > attempt these real cheap programmers is a lack of financial resources in the > first place. I'll have to take this part of the post post holistically instead of point by point. In all honesty if our target audience is as you describe, poor students looking for cheap reliable entry, then truly our best course of action is to do nothing. With the plethora of programmer schematics, kits, and tutorials that already exist, there is absolutely nothing that we can contribute to this market segment. The same can be said for programmer only solutions. The market is simply flush with them and our best bet is to simply recommend one of the existing ones. The only place to make a significant impact is in the demo board market. A cursory glance shows that the existing products out there are weak in features and very fat in price. There is a tangible benefit for all involved to have a reasonably priced full featured demo board style product that the list collectively sells and supports. > > > I like the concept of a PCB with defined hardware areas on it, all > completely assembled, so there is a standard set of hardware that we know > they have when they have a problem, and start asking questions. However I do > also feel that there is a point where the hardware provided can be > excessive, and a significant portion of what leaves the factory is not used. I really have no problem with defining boundaries for the base product. In the lists I have enumerated up until now I've thrown out 2 to 3 human I/O interfaces along with serial and a single analog interface for input and output. I'm not married to any specific set, but I feel that any base set should have wide coverage of typical interfaces that projects will use for having a base set we can standardize on will simplify the collective developement, publishing, and supporting of projects for years to come. > I can envisage the development board being used for MIDI interfacing, this > may include use of the LCD display, but what other peripherals? As soon as > there is a breadboard area to make the board more versatile, then you have a > whole heap of unknowns being introduced, as every board produced could have > a totally different set of additional hardware built on here without the > full tutorial ever being worked through on any board :) Of course. However they would all have the same base set. Just as simple example say that someone is doing a DS1620 based thermostat using the 7-segment LED display. Of course the DS1620 isn't in the base set. However if the 7 segment is optional, then that means that anyone who wants to contribute or support that particular project would have to obtain the 7 segment addon. I posit that the 7 segment display (not sure how many digits BTW) should be a part of the base set. Will it be used for all projects developed on the Designer. Of course not. But will it be used on a subset large enough to merit being on the base board. Probably. And even if a particular user never uses that particular peripheral for a project ever, do you think that the 43 cents or whatever is costs to add that display to the board is a waste?... Well now that's the 64 million dollar question... I'd really like to hear folks thoughts on this particular subject... BAJ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.