In SX Microcontrollers, SX/B Compiler and SX-Key Tool, dkemppai wrote:

[quote="Guenther Daubach"]
Dan,

I must admit that I used the wrong wording in my recent post. Instead of writing "in time", I should have written "as soon as it became aware to Parallax".

I'm not on the Parallax payroll, so I can not, and will not make any statements on the behalf of Parallax. Due to his post in the "Sandbox" we know that Ken recently visited China, and I assume one reason for this trip was finding a packaging house for the SXes (he also mentioned this in his initial post here). It must have hit him to learn that placing the SX48/52 die into a 10 by 10 mil PQFP package is that problematic.

So I'm pretty sure that Ken published this news as soon as he finally noticed that there was no acceptable solution available for this problem, so it - maybe - was not in time but as soon as possible.

I further assume that Ubicom "forgot" to make Parallax aware of this problem when they made the recent "die-deal" with Parallax. Besides this, Ken has made the offer to put the SX52 in a larger 14 by 14 mil package but I can understand that this would require reliable customer commitments to put Parallax into a position investing in such a venture. As an alternative, I'm thinking of an SX52 placed into a PLCC, or similar, package. This would allow to put the device into a socket which would be great for non-SMT designs, small series and hobby use.

Besides such "start-up" problems that might be hard to some of us SX users, I'm really happy that Parallax has taken over control. IMO, this makes sure that the SX will be viable for a long period of time in the future.

[/quote]
[2]
Guenther, 

My point is that Parallax announced several months ago that they would be making the SX-52 themselves (or actually contracting that out, as it really works). The fact of the matter is that they guaranteed parts would be available, when they didn't actually have the deal set in stone. They should NOT have made the announcement until they actually had a deal. It doesn't matter why it happened. What matters is that many of us were traveling down a path driven by a promise from Parallax that they couldn't keep. Letting us know then that the 52 may have been going away would have prevented a lot of rework. 

This is a really poor situation that would have been avoided if parallax had been up front about the whole situation. I believe that the blame lies completely with Parallax on this one. Announcing the end of life of a part with only [b]4,050 units[/b] in stock is a really crummy way to do it. 

This is going to cost me time, money, and customer relations. Thanks!

-Dan
[/2]

---------- End of Message ----------


You can view the post on-line at:
http://forums.parallax.com/forums/default.aspx?f=7&p=2&m=94091#m94442

Need assistance? Send an email to the Forum Administrator at forumadmin@parallax.com

The Parallax Forums are powered by dotNetBB Forums, copyright 2002-2005 (http://www.dotNetBB.com)