6 ms·
Rather than releasing this, I wish they had instead ramped up production (or something) of the Pi Zero. It was supposed to be the "5 dollar Raspberry Pi" - but
by cr0sh 10y ago
Rather than releasing this, I wish they had instead ramped up production (or something) of the Pi Zero.
It was supposed to be the "5 dollar Raspberry Pi" - but instead, due to some reason, you can't get an Pi Zero for $5 - or if you can, you are limited to "one per customer".
It feels similar to what happened a while back with the ATMega328P uC chip - they were being bought up in droves to such an extent that you couldn't get the IC thru Digikey and others (well, the DIP version - the SMT versions were almost totally unaffected).
It seems like something akin to ticket scalpers and the like buying all the tickets in a venue to sell them on to purchasers at a higher price; which is what I have seen on the Pi Zero - lots available on Ebay and other retailers, but for a much higher price than "5 dollars".
So people (apparently) are paying this extra cost, and that is what the "market" sets the price for the board. Even though it was marketed to be the "5 dollar Raspberry Pi" - it's true market cost is much greater (in some cases, you could only get the board with an extended "kit" of materials - driving the cost up and beyond that of a single bare Raspberry Pi 3).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- ChuckMcM 10y agoI agree it certainly confuses the mission. I think the Pi-zero was a mistake for them and as a result they lose money on every one they sell (hence they really try to limit selling them individually, and "package" them with things they can raise the price of to maintain a net positive margin). The compute modules are yet again another poke at the "hey we're a education charity, oh wait we're selling to industry." It is always amusing to me how companies discover markets that they didn't believe existed actually do exist, kind of.
- revelation 10y agoSystem on Module is a very old hat, chances are if you weren't aware of it, you are not the market.
- khedoros1 10y agoMy interpretation: The Raspberry Pi Foundation wanted to be able to point to a product, technically available for $5, as a point of comparison against some of the super-cheap Allwinner boards. I think the margins are probably thinner than the larger Pi hardware, and I don't think they've ever intended to make enough that they'd be available in arbitrary quantities.
- noonespecial 10y agoThat's my take exactly. They needed an answer to CHiP and Orange Pi stat. When everything is tabulated, I expect they actually lose a tiny bit on each one. I even suspect they called it the "Zero" because it was going to be sold for BOM+Assembly (thus netting zero). Its an advertisement. Not a product. Giving them away in a magazine was brilliant.