These pretty much already exist as a module.... check out gumstix which ave been around for quite some time.
Eric On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, John Syn <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: CEinTX <[email protected]> > Reply-To: <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 5, 2014 at 7:22 AM > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [beagleboard] Do as Raspberry - Make a Beaglebone Black - > Compute Module !? - Why not > > John, > > You definitely make some good points, however... > I don't really feel I missed the mark completely. > So when you say 'developer', do you mean hobbyist or product developer. > If you mean hobbyist, I understand your comments completely. > If not, that's a totally different situation entirely. If you are > developing a product for sale, > then I have little sympathy / empathy / whatever for not wanting to deal > with the > technology required to build a product. It's not cheap, easy, simple, > _________ fill in > any of a long list of adjectives to describe the difficultly of designing > a product much less > building a business around it to market and sell it. > > One is not entirely constrained by the BBB design > in doing your own - see what comes below.... > > (When I say 'you' in my comments - it's not pointed at you John but a > general you from > the community standpoint) > > I personally don't see these as problems as I've been doing this my whole > professional career. > So, yes I'm probably trivializing some of this as I don't see any of these > items as potential > stumbling blocks. > > By the BBB statements of use - this is not for commercial use. Although I > know from speaking > with Gerald, that many are using this for commercial apps. That's also one > of the reasons that > the supply is being gobbled up. So for those of you out there that are > complaining about not being > able to get BBBs, blame those that are not following the licensing and > terms of use and eating > up the supply for their commercial needs versus developing their own board. > > Here's a thought for you Gerald, require your distributors/resellers to > have a reverse discount > model. So as the volume goes up, so does the price - this should > discourage volume buys > without the organization's consent, which you are suppose to have if using > this product > commercially, and would make the distributors happy by increasing their > margins. > Or would require a custom 'factory' price to get a volume purchase at a > discount to get > around this. This is done the other way around - via product/design > registrations all the > time in the electronics distribution model. Just a thought. > > Gerald & Co need to keep their costs as low as possible and this doesn't > only refer to the cost of materials and labor, but also the cost of money. > Therefor they need a consistent supply model with minimal supply > interruptions because the last thing they need is to sit with large > inventory when the demand dries up. Don't mess with pricing because there > could be all kinds of unintended consequences. While the inventory > shortfall is really irritating to most, it is because of the demand that is > helping to keep the pricing down. Gerald has to manage a find balance > between delayed delivery and maintaining demand volumes. Gerald & Co are > continuing to add resources to increase monthly volume and I think that is > the best approach. > > > So really it's suppose to be either for small non-commercial projects or > using as a shortcut > to figuring out what you need and don't to roll your own. It's not a one > size fits all or trying > to be everything to everybody - like a lot seem to think it is or should > be. So really the capes > and position of connectors, to me, are really a moot point as one is not > suppose to be relying > on this as a product platform. If it's not where you want or need for your > product - roll your own. > > Embedded system design is not for the faint of heart. You need tools and a > lot of patience to get > it done - education, experience, and skill doesn't hurt either. If you > don't have the tools or skills > needed to leverage what Gerald and Co have done here, maybe as part of > your business model, > you should have some budget for tools and an engineer or hire a design > house, um maybe like > CircuitCo or another, to help fill the void. Just a thought. If you're > just a hobbyist, then most of > this discussion is moot, because you should just try to make what's > available work or develop > a much simpler cape to do what else you need. And if that doesn't work - > you're back to roll your > own - or find a different development platform that will support your > needs. I even did a cape to > vet out what I wanted to do before starting my design. So, use the > resources available to you. > > Either using a SOM or not with this is probably not a project for a > beginner. But this is also very far > from the most complicated or demanding designs I've ever done. Even doing > an I/O board is not trivial > and that's the point I'm making. You still have a controlled impedance and > probably controlled dielectric > PCB to design and have fab'd. The I/O board will need to be a min of 4 > layers to be able to control the > impedances adequately and reliably. The diff pairs for the USB and > Ethernet as well as the MII interface do > require some work to get right - then there's the memory if you're not > using the SOM. As far as the 3 mil > min trace/space - the only part on their that needs this is the stupid > eMMC. What a poor package > design for this - following the JEDEC standard for the complete module was > a poor choice - but I digress. > I found a different package for my design so I didn't have to push the > limits of reasonable board fabrication. > My design is 5 mill trace / 4 mill space - could be 5 space if I wanted to > spend a bunch more time working > around the processor's BGA. But 5/4+ is good enough for me - some of that > is legacy from leveraging the > layout design / info from the BBB. My previous design was based on the > BeagleBoard. That was a lot more > complicated design the the BBB. But I rolled my own and went away from the > POP and did a design that > was 5/5 in 4 layers - so it is possible - just requires some effort. > > > *Thanks Gerald **for **at least **making my life easier.* > > So, to reiterate, the SOM has it's place - they exist and some do buy > them. I just don't think it's the really > the market segment the BeagleBoard/Bone/Black is trying to play in and > support - so I'm not at all surprised > that Gerald and the developers don't want to pursue that path. Again > leverage what Gerald has provided - he's > done a good portion of the heavy lifting - you have even been given > gerbers to be able to get it right or even just > use what he's done in many cases. If you think the SOM is really a good > idea, build one yourself and sell it - > again, Gerald has provided you with what you need to even do that. Hell, > if you want to throw some money at > me, I'd probably do the design for you - but I don't have much time for > such endeavors - so the money would > have to be larger for me to even consider it - I'm rather busy designing > and building and marketing my own > products to industry. > > As a community, do your homework/research - do your own due diligence - > then go down the path that will work > for your needs. There are a lot of people around here who are willing to > help solve problems - show what they've > done and help you get down the your path - whatever that might be. Just > don't be surprised when Gerald gets > tired / fed-up / or worse when he's kept on being asked to fit square pegs > into round holes so this organization can > become everything to everyone. > > I wish everyone in the community the best of luck in their endeavors. > > > On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:47:50 PM UTC-5, john3909 wrote: >> >> I think you missed the most important part. Most developers here are not >> able or do not want to deal with 6 layer boards with 3 mil trace and >> spacing (high tech boards). Working with 2 or 4 layer boards with 5 or 6 >> mil trace and space (standard tech boards) is low cost (< $40 in small >> prototype qty). As you pointed out, the cost to prototype and manufacture 6 >> layer high tech boards is expensive and requires a high level of expertise >> to make any modifications. As you know the cape concept doesn't always work >> because of the I/O conflict between capes but it would be easier to develop >> a standard tech board with all the I/O designed to work together. Also, the >> position of the connectors on the BBB may not be suitable for a specified >> enclosure so a module would provide that flexibility as well. >> >> Just my two cents worth to add a little balance to your comments. >> >> Regards, >> John >> >> From: CEinTX <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: <[email protected]> >> Date: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at 6:41 AM >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [beagleboard] Do as Raspberry - Make a Beaglebone Black - >> Compute Module !? - Why not >> >> Being a design engineer for close to 30 years now - doing mostly embedded >> systems - I don't really see the appeal to this approach. >> So - they (R-Pi) are saying the module is $30 in qty 100. A Pi is $35 - a >> little more if you want an SD card. The BBB is $45. >> So a compute module based on the BBB might be $35-40 based on the price >> difference, I don't know. >> >> Let me get this straight, your paying just about as much just for the >> processor and memory as you can get a complete system. >> But you say, I want to develop my own. OK - you've just paid someone else >> to do the processor side - you still have to have a >> connector to make that connection to your processor. Then you get to >> design and build your specific I/O card. >> That, I'm sure, will be easier but at what cost. What's going to be more >> reliable in the long run, a system with or without that connector? >> If you've got to do the design anyway, why not save the money and keep it >> in your pocket. >> >> From my experience, the people who benefit the most from the compute >> module/ SOM approach are for those who know they need a long >> time system life and also know that they will need to upgrade the >> processor and memory capabilities down the road. Of course you also >> need to be willing to accept what processor and memory choices they've >> made - who knows maybe they will have different options for >> different memory sizes and speeds. >> >> The most common place I've seen this approach in the past was with VME >> and Multibus systems. These are expensive systems to begin with. >> So it makes sense to be able to upgrade a portion of the system at a >> lower cost. The only other option for this being a benefit is if someone >> already >> has an I/O card that meets your requirements. Then it's off to the races. >> How much is that I/O module? I didn't see a price, hum. Bet the two >> combined are more than $35-$45. Also, is the compute module / SOM done to >> a standard so that you can replace it with another down the road - even >> a different architecture? >> >> I have done the cost analysis many times and most embedded systems do not >> need the ability to upgrade the processor and memory down the road. >> They usually have a specific purpose and once designed to that will >> function that way for the life of the product. >> >> I understand that doing the processor and memory design on an embedded >> system can be tough, challenging even, but Gerald and Co have already done >> the lion's share of the work - leverage that effort. >> >> I do small runs on my projects all the time. In fact my current project >> is an industrial temp spin on the BBB. Not 100% compatible, but that's the >> point. >> I'm priced out, for components and pcb, at less than $80 - I couldn't >> justify spending $30-$40 for the processor and memory and still have to do >> the rest. >> Additional costs - NRE for stencils and production programming is >> estimated at $500. Not sure what assembly/test costs will be yet, but I >> expect ~$20-30 >> hopefully less. Yes, I'm just about to do my prototype on the board - so >> I'll soon get to see what the actual costs are. >> >> So cost each for the 1st batch of 100 will be ~$110. Not too shabby for >> an I-temp board in that quantity. Future runs will be less without the NRE >> costs >> and hopefully larger build quantities. Of course there are engineering >> costs to be absorbed too, but that's an exercise for the accounting people >> to >> figure out what budget that belongs to. >> >> So, yes the compute modules / SOMs are cool ideas and have their place - >> but they are not that cost effective for most. So do your homework and see >> if that approach will work for you and what you need. I suspect that the >> PI community will not see the compute module as widely bought / accepted as >> the >> base R-PI. I do suspect the the R-PI and the BBB will see strong sales as >> a base platform at those price points. >> >> Good luck in all your endeavors. >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 7:17:20 AM UTC-5, Gerald wrote: >>> >>> We are not interested in getting into the module business as a >>> BeagleBoard branded device. Feel free to do it yourself however. All the >>> information is there. Some people have already made these modules and >>> are out there in the market in various forms.. >>> >>> Gerald >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:00 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think the Raspberry idea of a compute module is a brilliant one. Now >>>> they will be able to sell, not just to individuals but also to industry. >>>> They will probably reach 5 mill. boards produced before the end of the >>>> year. >>>> >>>> Why not do the same with Beaglebone. The profit margins could probably >>>> be higher then on the Beaglebone Black and each extra $ could help get rid >>>> of the terrible shortage of Beaglebone Black boards - that never seams to >>>> go away. >>>> >>>> Accept that the Beaglebone Black is a huge success and that you >>>> probably have to produce at last 50.000 boards a month to cope with the >>>> huge demand. In the long run we'll all probably get tired of waiting for >>>> boards, and eventually be forced to turn our attention to something else. >>>> >>>> /Bo >>>> >>>> -- >>>> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "BeagleBoard" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "BeagleBoard" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "BeagleBoard" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
