5 ms·

Why did Edison fail: - it was too expensive compared to other BLE and WiFi capable SoCs or combinations of chips. - x86 compatibility doesn't matter. -

Why did Edison fail: - it was too expensive compared to other BLE and WiFi capable SoCs or combinations of chips. - x86 compatibility doesn't matter. - power draw (~1W) is too high for the places where one would want to use this SoC. - the Yocto -based SDK was a mess. Every feature had a caveat and it was a pain to build. - there was never a clear commitment from Intel that they would make these in bulk for manufacturing. The new hotness are the Espressif (ESP32) and MediaTek (mt7697) SoCs. - low power draw (~300mW), even lower at sleep (50mA - nA depending on what kind of sleep), - SDK is FreeRTOS based, - the "MCU features" like GPIO, PWM, etc, actually work all the time.

MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
Agreed. I suppose you mean the MediaTek LinkIt 7697? Opinions on the RTL8711AM Ameba?
patrickg_zill 9y ago
Do you mean this series of MediaTek SoC? https://www.pine64.org/?page_id=917 https://www.pine64.org/?page_id=917
- edmundhuber 9y ago
  No sorry, I was referring to https://www.mediatek.com/products/smartHome/mt7697 https://www.mediatek.com/products/smartHome/mt7697 , here's an article: https://blog.hackster.io/first-look-at-the-linkit-7697-218f3b5ac55c https://blog.hackster.io/first-look-at-the-linkit-7697-218f3... .
userbinator 9y ago
- x86 compatibility doesn't matter. On the contrary, I'll say that it does matter --- and that's why Edison failed. It was x86, but not truly "IBM PC-compatible". Those who didn't care about PC-compatibility were unlikely to choose x86 over something like ARM, and for those who did, the Edison was useless. If Intel had chosen to put an entire "real" PC on the SoC with, yes, plenty of legacy peripherals and such so that it could --- with suitable I/O interfaces attached --- basically act as a lower-powered desktop or laptop, I'm almost willing to bet it could've turned out very differently. They could've found applications in things like this now-dead product, for example: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2873118/mouse-box-wants-to-stuff-a-full-pc-into-a-mouse.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2873118/mouse-box-wants-to-st... (discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8931999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8931999 ) Intel's strength is the immense backwards-compatibility of x86 and the PC architecture, but in trying to make a not-quite-PC platform, they basically threw away their competitive advantage.
- pawadu 9y ago
  > not truly "IBM PC-compatible" It's an embedded system, not a as low-power desktop. If you are using it like an ordinary PC then you are probably using it wrong.
  - vertex-four 9y ago
    Well that's the point. Nobody wants an x86 IoT device. They might want an x86 embedded device - where embedded is defined in the large, i.e. systems that control lots of integrated peripherals with user interactivity built into the device, and lots of complex built-in functionality. But at that point you're usually looking at proper Linux-based boards with lots of standard IO - even HDMI output - in the ARM space, and Edison provides absolutely nothing over those. It might've provided something if you could reasonably treat it as a bog-standard x86 computer with some extra functionality attached.
    - pawadu 9y ago
      > Nobody wants an x86 IoT device. No, you can't define other peoples use cases. For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care.
      - vertex-four 9y ago
        > For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care. In which case, you'll likely be using a significantly cheaper ARM board which does all the same stuff, uses less power, probably uses a more standard distro, etc etc. Which brings us back to - nobody wants an x86 IoT device. They don't fit in anywhere ARM doesn't fit better.
        pawadu 9y ago
        Please read my comment again.
gmiller123456 9y ago
- it was too expensive compared to other BLE and WiFi capable SoCs or combinations of chips. Actually, no, not when it came out. Other wifi devices were about the same price or even more expensive, and harder to use. The ESP8266 came out about the same time, but it was still a long time before hobbyists were able to use them, especially without another device to control it. I think they had a good market position when they started, they just didn't see the ESP coming.

MrBuddyCasino 9y ago

Agreed. I suppose you mean the MediaTek LinkIt 7697? Opinions on the RTL8711AM Ameba?

patrickg_zill 9y ago

Do you mean this series of MediaTek SoC? https://www.pine64.org/?page_id=917 https://www.pine64.org/?page_id=917

edmundhuber 9y ago
No sorry, I was referring to https://www.mediatek.com/products/smartHome/mt7697 https://www.mediatek.com/products/smartHome/mt7697 , here's an article: https://blog.hackster.io/first-look-at-the-linkit-7697-218f3b5ac55c https://blog.hackster.io/first-look-at-the-linkit-7697-218f3... .

userbinator 9y ago

- x86 compatibility doesn't matter. On the contrary, I'll say that it does matter --- and that's why Edison failed. It was x86, but not truly "IBM PC-compatible". Those who didn't care about PC-compatibility were unlikely to choose x86 over something like ARM, and for those who did, the Edison was useless. If Intel had chosen to put an entire "real" PC on the SoC with, yes, plenty of legacy peripherals and such so that it could --- with suitable I/O interfaces attached --- basically act as a lower-powered desktop or laptop, I'm almost willing to bet it could've turned out very differently. They could've found applications in things like this now-dead product, for example: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2873118/mouse-box-wants-to-stuff-a-full-pc-into-a-mouse.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2873118/mouse-box-wants-to-st... (discussed at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8931999 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8931999 ) Intel's strength is the immense backwards-compatibility of x86 and the PC architecture, but in trying to make a not-quite-PC platform, they basically threw away their competitive advantage.

pawadu 9y ago
> not truly "IBM PC-compatible" It's an embedded system, not a as low-power desktop. If you are using it like an ordinary PC then you are probably using it wrong.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Well that's the point. Nobody wants an x86 IoT device. They might want an x86 embedded device - where embedded is defined in the large, i.e. systems that control lots of integrated peripherals with user interactivity built into the device, and lots of complex built-in functionality. But at that point you're usually looking at proper Linux-based boards with lots of standard IO - even HDMI output - in the ARM space, and Edison provides absolutely nothing over those. It might've provided something if you could reasonably treat it as a bog-standard x86 computer with some extra functionality attached.
  - pawadu 9y ago
    > Nobody wants an x86 IoT device. No, you can't define other peoples use cases. For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care.
    - vertex-four 9y ago
      > For myself, as long as the device meets my requirements (peripherals, power, tools, size, price) it can use power8 or PDP/11 for all I care. In which case, you'll likely be using a significantly cheaper ARM board which does all the same stuff, uses less power, probably uses a more standard distro, etc etc. Which brings us back to - nobody wants an x86 IoT device. They don't fit in anywhere ARM doesn't fit better.
      - pawadu 9y ago
        Please read my comment again.

gmiller123456 9y ago

- it was too expensive compared to other BLE and WiFi capable SoCs or combinations of chips. Actually, no, not when it came out. Other wifi devices were about the same price or even more expensive, and harder to use. The ESP8266 came out about the same time, but it was still a long time before hobbyists were able to use them, especially without another device to control it. I think they had a good market position when they started, they just didn't see the ESP coming.