Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

neutis.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 123 posts

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#111

Post by [deleted] »

hdra wrote: post #83
bunderbunder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison. The pi zero has no wireless, a single-core ARM11 CPU, no on-board flash storage, less than half as many GPIO pins, requires a higher supply voltage, etc etc. The pi 3 is much more comparable, and at a much more comparable price, especially after you add in the price of the SD card, which is necessary. Pi 3 is also much bigger, and, I'm guessing, draws more power.

Pi Zero W includes wlan and bluetooth, and the kit that includes PSU and SD card cost around ~$35. Stil I agree, its not really comparable. The Pis is mostly learning/teaching tool. I can see using this in a product directly. Something I would grab when I needed something more than an ESP.

[deleted]

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#112

Post by SlowBro »

tmuir wrote: post #52
SlowBro wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an example? SparkFun even has a blog entry about certification that's a useful read, although not entirely accurate. https://www.sparkfun.com/tutorials/398

thanks, thats an interesting link.

That said, a manufacturer could still use an Orange or Nano Pi to integrate. Simply disable the onboard Wi-Fi and include a certified USB Wi-Fi adapter.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#113

Post by normaldotcom »

Some background--emlid, the company that is producing this module, relied on Intel Edison modules for the compute power behind their RTK GPS products. The Edison modules were recently EOL'ed.

I would guess that this module is primarily being developed as a replacement for the Edison emlid's RTK products, and they are pitching it as a separate product as well to recoup some of the development costs.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#114

Post by nsb1 »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #107
nsb1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on what you want to do with this product. What you're getting for $49 is hopefully a stable, tested, and well-supported platform which can really help when all you want to do (or can afford to do) is concentrate on the other aspects of your product. Built-in OTA upgrades and pre-built manufacturing tools are very helpful as well. The $49 price point however, assuming a retail product, probably puts…

> When I'm designing products, I sweat over every dollar, and big ticket items like this really need to be justified. If you can spend (just) a month or two designing, debugging, and procuring a cost-optimized variant of this that costs $25 instead, your time spent on that is equivalent to just buying a thousand of these. One of the big things in the "it depends" question is how many of these things you plan to sell.…

It's a fair point. I deal in consumer electronics, and my company needs to make money, so I tend to think in terms of hundreds of thousands of units. I'm not sure how a company can even be profitable selling thousands of units unless they each cost thousands of dollars. When you get up into those prices, though, it feels (at least to me) like you're beyond embedded-class SOM devices like this. I guess if I could make a $100 device and sell it for $1000, I would. Maybe Apple would hire me... [ Disclaimer: I own an iPhone ]

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#115

Post by subway »

madez wrote: post #101
beagle3 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There some boards out there still running on 2.6.x series, and many running 3.0 - those would not qualify as “mainline linux״ at this time. Some boards can boot a kernel.org kernel without patches; those run “mainline Linux”, not something “based” on it.

Do you know of any board that can run mainline Linux with support for all components?

The closest you're likely gonna get is an i.MX6 based board.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#116

Post by Nexxxeh »

bunderbunder wrote: post #61
tty7 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so? $49 is way too expensive for this. i can get a x86 from ebay way more cheaper than this. who would even bother, the rpi zero is $5.

Not an apples-to-apples comparison. The pi zero has no wireless, a single-core ARM11 CPU, no on-board flash storage, less than half as many GPIO pins, requires a higher supply voltage, etc etc. The pi 3 is much more comparable, and at a much more comparable price, especially after you add in the price of the SD card, which is necessary. Pi 3 is also much bigger, and, I'm guessing, draws more power.

The closer comparison is with the Raspberry Pi Compute Modules. Notably the 3 and 3 Lite, with eMMC and without respectively, $30 and $25. No wireless though.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#117

Post by emh68 »

I like how they threw “makers” (or “pro makers”, whatever that means, on the actual page) into the title. Uhhh... Yeah I’m going to spend $50 and then probably at least another $50-$100 for the breakout board, which I’ll need as a (pro|) maker because they use high-density FMC connectors on the actual module itself... At this price point and level of integration difficulty why not just use a (much more standard and better-documented) Pi Compute Module?

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#118

Post by ksrm »

ivereninov wrote: post #27
quadrature wrote: post #26

what would the current draw on this be for average use ?. Would it be suitable for a handheld mobile device ?

Sure, we use it in a battery powered device ourselves. Consumption really depends on how you use it, but roughly it will be around 1W for average use. You can limit frequency if you need to.

For mobile devices the standby current is very important. Is any kind of sleep mode implemented? The low cost SoCs always seem to omit this.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#119

Post by oneplane »

thom_nic wrote: post #57
oneplane wrote: post #35

Unless it gets the ecosystem the Pi and the Beagle have, this gets old rather quickly.

I think "ecosystem" doesn't actually matter much (if "ecosystem" means maker/ tinkerer mindshare) for commercial applications. All you need is (1) kernel support for the chip including drivers e.g. for video/ peripherals, and (2) good userland support for aarch64. You can debootstrap a Debian rootfs that will work on any aarch64 chip. As mentioned elsewhere, it sounds like the H5 chip has good kernel support which co…

Ecosystem does not mean maker/thinkerer mindshare in this case. It means hardware, I/O, software, firmware and available knowledge from the board perspective, and active distro integration from a software perspective. There are enough people and there is enough momentum to build and maintain multiple software distributions for the Pi (and it's BCM SoC), as well as upstream patches and maintain those. Even in the commercial space you will not find such well supported boards.

This does not mean that other boards won't work or won't have a place, but are highly unlikely to cover the same global space the Pi does.

Re: Tiny quad-core system-on-module for makers and hardware startups

#120

Post by garmaine »

nsb1 wrote: post #102
fernly wrote: post #55

My flabber is gasted at people complaining about paying a meaty $49 for a quad-core, 64bit, cpu with 8gb of local storage. Twenty years ago I was writing docs for the SGI Challenge[1] with its four MIPS R4000s in a tidy cabinet the size of a two-drawer file (disk drives mounted externally) weighing about 250lbs. This thing far exceeds the capacity of that machine, costs several orders of magnitude less, and FITS IN A…

It really depends on what you want to do with this product. What you're getting for $49 is hopefully a stable, tested, and well-supported platform which can really help when all you want to do (or can afford to do) is concentrate on the other aspects of your product. Built-in OTA upgrades and pre-built manufacturing tools are very helpful as well. The $49 price point however, assuming a retail product, probably puts…

> If you're trying to stay below the magic $99 retail price point though

What are you imagining using this for? That seems like a really low price.

Post reply on HN