5 ms·

I couldn't trust it. Not that I know that product specifically, but given previous working with Intel products outside of their X86 line, it will likely be EoL'

I couldn't trust it. Not that I know that product specifically, but given previous working with Intel products outside of their X86 line, it will likely be EoL'ed in a year or so. Ive been bitten by a few of their "Maker things". Faulty firmware, no support, no documentation, faulty I2C.. All sorts of things. And unless I have a timeframe how long they plan to support it and sell it, I just can't justify using it in any product I have or plan to build.

mv4 9y ago
I was just going to comment on that. Just recently, Intel quietly killed Edison, Joule, Galileo.
- 40acres 9y ago
  I definitely get the sentiment that Intel may pull the rug under this product like they have in the maker space. But Intel spent billions to acquire Movidius and this is a space where they believe the business needs to pivot to if Intel is going to grow. It's hard to see Intel dropping VPUs or Altera FPGAs soon without acknowledgement that the future of the company is in deep peril.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  These aren't the same crowd though. NN/ML is new, hot, technical .. SBC and embedded on the other hand ..
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    Yet it is the same management board.
dbcurtis 9y ago
Yup. Burned here also. Intel has a very short attention span. And they don't seem to understand the concept of "EOL Warning" and "Final buy opportunity". Until they rid themselves of the habit of jerking their customer around, they should be treated as unreliable vendor. Which makes me sad, because I was Intel blue-badge for 11 years back in the day. But the current management seems to be sprinting aimlessly after mirages.
- cptskippy 9y ago
  > But the current management seems to be sprinting aimlessly after mirages. I wouldn't say they're sprinting for mirages. They're hastily entering solid markets but relying solely on their name and prestige. They're not making any investments, beyond marketing, and when the customers don't materialize overnight they're exiting hastily rather than figuring out what they're doing wrong.
  - 40acres 9y ago
    Intel spent billions on Altera, MobileEye and Movidus, it's hard to say they aren't making any investments.
    - dmix 9y ago
      I believe the OP means time and dedication in their investments, not simply money. The type of things that startups grind through to become successful. Appropriate amounts of money do need to be injected - but at the right times, not necessarily from the beginning. Bigger companies have a bad habit of comparing the early results of experimental internal businesses with the ROI of their mainline business and cut the cord before the product/market was actually ready to be flooded with cash to scale up. It's funny how the business classic "Innovator's Dilemma" was written largely about companies like Intel who exist in traditional technology markets with predictable evolutionary modes... yet they still suffer from the same lack of 'intrapreneurship' mentality by treating internal startups with immature markets as if they were mature product lines. They should probably stick to acquisitions of real startups in the growth stage or actually stick-it-out for the long run with the markets they invest in, rather than looking for high growth opportunities within a short-timeframe or nothing. Burning early adopters is never a wise choice if that market turns out to have legs.
      - dbcurtis 9y ago
        Very interesting that you should mention "Innovator's Delimma". I remember when Andy Grove made that required reading for all of executive staff, and divisions had to incorporate the thought process in their plans. You are right that this is showing classic signs of not giving innovative business units enough runway to find their product-market fit. That's really hard to do given Intel's culture. Craig Barrett did a lot of damage. One Intel mid-level manager described him as a pinata. "Who ever hits him the hardest gets the most candy." So managers reported synthetic disasters in order to get more funding. Paul Otellini was great, I have huge respect for him, but his tenure was too short lived. Otellini understood how to build a market.

mv4 9y ago

I was just going to comment on that. Just recently, Intel quietly killed Edison, Joule, Galileo.

40acres 9y ago
I definitely get the sentiment that Intel may pull the rug under this product like they have in the maker space. But Intel spent billions to acquire Movidius and this is a space where they believe the business needs to pivot to if Intel is going to grow. It's hard to see Intel dropping VPUs or Altera FPGAs soon without acknowledgement that the future of the company is in deep peril.
agumonkey 9y ago
These aren't the same crowd though. NN/ML is new, hot, technical .. SBC and embedded on the other hand ..
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Yet it is the same management board.

dbcurtis 9y ago

Yup. Burned here also. Intel has a very short attention span. And they don't seem to understand the concept of "EOL Warning" and "Final buy opportunity". Until they rid themselves of the habit of jerking their customer around, they should be treated as unreliable vendor. Which makes me sad, because I was Intel blue-badge for 11 years back in the day. But the current management seems to be sprinting aimlessly after mirages.

cptskippy 9y ago
> But the current management seems to be sprinting aimlessly after mirages. I wouldn't say they're sprinting for mirages. They're hastily entering solid markets but relying solely on their name and prestige. They're not making any investments, beyond marketing, and when the customers don't materialize overnight they're exiting hastily rather than figuring out what they're doing wrong.
- 40acres 9y ago
  Intel spent billions on Altera, MobileEye and Movidus, it's hard to say they aren't making any investments.
  - dmix 9y ago
    I believe the OP means time and dedication in their investments, not simply money. The type of things that startups grind through to become successful. Appropriate amounts of money do need to be injected - but at the right times, not necessarily from the beginning. Bigger companies have a bad habit of comparing the early results of experimental internal businesses with the ROI of their mainline business and cut the cord before the product/market was actually ready to be flooded with cash to scale up. It's funny how the business classic "Innovator's Dilemma" was written largely about companies like Intel who exist in traditional technology markets with predictable evolutionary modes... yet they still suffer from the same lack of 'intrapreneurship' mentality by treating internal startups with immature markets as if they were mature product lines. They should probably stick to acquisitions of real startups in the growth stage or actually stick-it-out for the long run with the markets they invest in, rather than looking for high growth opportunities within a short-timeframe or nothing. Burning early adopters is never a wise choice if that market turns out to have legs.
    - dbcurtis 9y ago
      Very interesting that you should mention "Innovator's Delimma". I remember when Andy Grove made that required reading for all of executive staff, and divisions had to incorporate the thought process in their plans. You are right that this is showing classic signs of not giving innovative business units enough runway to find their product-market fit. That's really hard to do given Intel's culture. Craig Barrett did a lot of damage. One Intel mid-level manager described him as a pinata. "Who ever hits him the hardest gets the most candy." So managers reported synthetic disasters in order to get more funding. Paul Otellini was great, I have huge respect for him, but his tenure was too short lived. Otellini understood how to build a market.