3 ms·

Did you hear of the Edison board? Sank like a stone. And like many things Intel lost interest. Intel is culturally incapable of doing long-attention-span produ

Did you hear of the Edison board? Sank like a stone. And like many things Intel lost interest. Intel is culturally incapable of doing long-attention-span products. They only succeed with fire-and-forget products. Sustained effort over the long haul is just not in their DNA.

rbanffy 6y ago
It was more expensive, though. Edison and Galileo were overpriced and feature-poor - you need to add your own serial console, which, compared to an RPi (and the majority of these SBCs), is a major nuisance.
- mtgx 6y ago
  > It was more expensive, though Exactly Intel's problem with these things. They are always too expensive compared to the competition. It's the #1 reason they failed in mobile, too. Their similar performance Atom chips cost 2x more than the highest-end Arm chip.
guerrilla 6y ago
They priced it like any other dev board (which is maybe how they thought about it?). It was comparatively unaffordable for hobbyists. They also didn't advertise it very well either as far as I know. I only knew about it because of DigiKey.
awalton 6y ago
It's so much this. Intel showed up with a proprietary 70 pin fine pitch SMT connector, a 1.8V power requirement and sold the Edison to high level designers, when the market they were after (the Rasp-PI folks) had extremely easy to integrate fat header pins that are 5V tolerant and beginner friendly. You needed a breakout board and hours of tinkering to get the thing to a state that you get out of the box from the ARM offering. Galileo was as close as they came to a home run though. It really was their run at a Rasp-pi-alike, but it was almost twice as expensive, wasn't compatible with the Rasp-Pi headers (though it oddly was with Arduino, which seemed like a real design impedance mismatch), and was lacking numerous peripherals like video out. They had a similar problem with that whole Maker-targeted series of chips - they couldn't seem to decide if they wanted to capture the ease of use of Arduino or the deep integrator capabilities of these target-specific MCUs and really failed to split the difference. They also failed to take into account that they were very much the minority player and any sort of entry into those markets would be a war of attrition and not just overnight success... and the billion dollar juggernaut did what billion dollar juggernauts do to side projects that aren't overnight successes - they killed it before anyone could even develop competence working with them. Both Edison and Quark really had niches they could have well serviced, if they had given it a real try... but it was very apparent that management wasn't interested and the designers didn't understand who they were targeting.
fomine3 6y ago
They don't fire-and-forget for established products (desktop, laptop, server) but they really takes care about platform's evolving and sustainability, compared to AMD. It seems that strangely they can't do that on newer field.

rbanffy 6y ago

It was more expensive, though. Edison and Galileo were overpriced and feature-poor - you need to add your own serial console, which, compared to an RPi (and the majority of these SBCs), is a major nuisance.

mtgx 6y ago
> It was more expensive, though Exactly Intel's problem with these things. They are always too expensive compared to the competition. It's the #1 reason they failed in mobile, too. Their similar performance Atom chips cost 2x more than the highest-end Arm chip.

guerrilla 6y ago

They priced it like any other dev board (which is maybe how they thought about it?). It was comparatively unaffordable for hobbyists. They also didn't advertise it very well either as far as I know. I only knew about it because of DigiKey.

awalton 6y ago

It's so much this. Intel showed up with a proprietary 70 pin fine pitch SMT connector, a 1.8V power requirement and sold the Edison to high level designers, when the market they were after (the Rasp-PI folks) had extremely easy to integrate fat header pins that are 5V tolerant and beginner friendly. You needed a breakout board and hours of tinkering to get the thing to a state that you get out of the box from the ARM offering. Galileo was as close as they came to a home run though. It really was their run at a Rasp-pi-alike, but it was almost twice as expensive, wasn't compatible with the Rasp-Pi headers (though it oddly was with Arduino, which seemed like a real design impedance mismatch), and was lacking numerous peripherals like video out. They had a similar problem with that whole Maker-targeted series of chips - they couldn't seem to decide if they wanted to capture the ease of use of Arduino or the deep integrator capabilities of these target-specific MCUs and really failed to split the difference. They also failed to take into account that they were very much the minority player and any sort of entry into those markets would be a war of attrition and not just overnight success... and the billion dollar juggernaut did what billion dollar juggernauts do to side projects that aren't overnight successes - they killed it before anyone could even develop competence working with them. Both Edison and Quark really had niches they could have well serviced, if they had given it a real try... but it was very apparent that management wasn't interested and the designers didn't understand who they were targeting.

fomine3 6y ago

They don't fire-and-forget for established products (desktop, laptop, server) but they really takes care about platform's evolving and sustainability, compared to AMD. It seems that strangely they can't do that on newer field.