[HH] electronics hobby industry

[Tom Metro]

Greg London wrote:
>> The Arduino craze is just one highly visible example of that. Even big
>> manufacturers, like TI, now seem to value and embrace hobbyists
> 
> Has that changed? I remember the TI99, which was pretty hackable.
> Radio Shack had the color computer. Commodore had the 64.

Ummm...the computers you list are on a different plane from the Arduino.

(They're also products of the early 80s, hardware hacking was still
doing pretty well.)

They may have used processors that are no more powerful than a micro
controller is today (or less), but they used CPUs (minimal or no
integrated peripherals), not MCUs, and came packaged up in nice cases
meant for computer enthusiast, not hardware hackers.

They were also expensive, relatively speaking. You wouldn't dedicate an
Apple II to make a digital door lock or some other embedded project.
Arduinos are so cheap they're near disposable.

I'm not saying there weren't people building stuff to hang off of their
C64, but as we moved...

> I suppose there was a shift from the early 80's where everyone under
> the sun was building and selling personal computers, and then
> it seemed to crystalize into just the IBM PC XT and Apple II.

Exactly.

...from the early-80s generation of machines to the Apple //c, IBM PC,
and Mac, it became even more about hacking the software, rather than the
hardware.

The 80s equivalent of an Arduino wasn't a TI99 or C64, but a Motorola
68HC11, or any of the countless micro controllers derived from the Intel
8080 or Zilog Z80.

I don't recall if there were any affordable single-board-computers. I
don't think there were (not to the degree the Arduino is). Which really
means the Arduino equivalent in that time period was more likely
discrete logic chips.


> Back in the 80's, you could buy a book that was full of
> nothing but schematics for a 555 timer.

Yes, I own several of those books, as well as the National Semiconductor
data books and application notes covering the 555. :-)


> ...back then, a
> 555 might be an important piece of a larger design.
> You'd be hard pressed to find people fired up to read
> something like that now. Because a 555 by itself today is
> rather uninteresting as far as what you can *do* with it.

I still like 555s. I think they're still useful, especially if you don't
want to mess with creating firmware, but if you're honest about the
trade-offs between coding and build time, it doesn't take much to push
you over the threshold to using an 8-pin micro to end up with a simpler
hardware build.

A real world example of this was the battery voltage monitor project
discussed on this list earlier, where I was heading down the path of
using discrete ICs and you offered up the micro solution.


> The barrier to entry is a lot higher.

It's a matter of perspective. To a kid raised as a software hacker,
pushing as much functionality into software, managed through a user
friendly GUI development environment, actually makes the hardware
hacking more accessible.


> But so is the barrier to grab someone's interest.

And yet there are dozens of web sites with libraries of sample 555
circuits, and I believe even some Android apps for calculating component
values in common 555 circuits.


> I think we hit a point where the power of embedded processors
> got strong enough to run a real operating system and cheap
> enough to be a "secondary" device, which has enabled more of
> a return to an everyone under the sun is making computers again.
> ...it allowed companies to use a new
> business model: Subscription.

I don't disagree with your statement, but I'm not seeing the relevance
to the topic.


>> where they all but shunned them in past decades.
> 
> I think someone somewhere has always been selling embedded systems
> that hobbyists try to leverage.

Of course, but I was talking about big manufacturers. 20 years ago if
you wanted a part from TI that you couldn't buy from Radio Shack, your
best bet was to call up a sales office and pretend to be a business and
request a sample. The distributors wouldn't sell to you unless you
submitted a credit application.

Now several different major manufacturers are selling micro controller
evaluation boards directly to end users for what must be below cost
prices. They've apparently made the connection that most professional
engineers are also hobbyists and influenced by the hobby communities.


> Little microcontrollers like the arduino
> have been around for years. The difference is that Arduino created
> and encouraged an open source community behind it, (and there were
> enough people with computers and internet connections to feed that
> open source community) and that turned into people creating
> solutions, software, boards, add ons, FAQ's, tutorials, and such,
> that a company just doesn't have the time, energy, and budget to do.

True.


> I'd say that 3D printers deserve a HUGE amount of credit
> for the resurgence of the hacker community.

Maybe, but their market penetration is still tiny. I know there is one
person on this list that has one. I'd be surprised if there was two.
(Not counting those with access to one at AA.)


> It's got a lot of potential.

Certainly.


> And we still don't know exactly where the
> plateau is going to be: How cheap will the printers get
> and how high quality will the prints be? Will we be able
> to print metal accurately and cheaply?

Metal from a home desktop printer is still a "moon shot" away.


> People are relating to them, articles are being written about
> them, that describe them as a "santa claus" machine or a
> Star Trek replicator. It's the potential that has a lot
> of poeple interested and inspired.

I think there is a real possibility we might see 3D printers come to be
viewed as overhyped in a few years when a broader audience starts to get
exposed to them and they are faced with the reality that they aren't
replicators. They can only crank out relatively small, relatively weak
plastic parts. (They'll get better, but it'll take a while.)

That's not to say they aren't useful. Just that I think a lot of people
will end up being disappointed by the reality.

In the short term, thee are probably more practical things you can do
with subtractive technologies (table-top CNC) than with additive
technologies (3D printer).

If you can make a $500 3D printer in volume, then why not a similarly
sized CNC router/mill capable of processing plastic, wood, or aluminum?
(You can, but they aren't packaged up as a computer peripheral that sits
on your desktop.)


> And it takes a microcontroller, ardiuno or similar, to
> build a 3d printer, so interest in 3d printers has spilled
> over into getting people interested in micros.

True, but in terms of numbers, for every person using a micro to build a
3D printer, there are probably 1000 others using micros for other things.


> ...at least *some* of [the lack of retailers] is just a residual from
> teh recession.

Could be.


>> You-Do-It perhaps only survives because it caters to professional
>> technicians, and diversified into other areas of electronics retail
>> (stereo equipment, TVs, DJ gear, security cameras, etc.).
> 
> I don't think that's too different from RadioShack from the 80's.
> Back then, they sold electronic components, but htey also sold
> CB radios, stereos, TV stuff, TRS-80 personal computers,
> the CO-CO, and such. My memory could be blurring together on that,
> but I never saw them as *just* selling electronic components for
> hobbyists.

Yes, absolutely correct.

I guess from that perspective, cell phones at Radio Shack make perfect
sense. MP3 players killed home stereos, and smartphones killed MP3
players. Most Radio Shack stores are so tiny, that selling something
small like a cell phone is a good fit. Would you buy a TV at Radio
Shack? They probably have room to display only 3 or 4 models.

The difference is that while both Y-D-I and RS have long since been
diversified, Y-D-I didn't shrink its floorspace allocated to components.

 -Tom