5 ms·

The interesting perspective i took away was how something like the raspberry pi shapes the market as a whole whether intended or not. See comment in the origina

The interesting perspective i took away was how something like the raspberry pi shapes the market as a whole whether intended or not. See comment in the original discussion if you are interested. In short, even if not through tax advantages, it is very hard to compete with a charity (or even the "free" open source developers it attracts as a results). As such it is difficult to imagine how a competing open source hardware would emerge. I found it interesting since there is no clear cut solution to this. Or even the consensus that the state is somehow bad, after all, having a raspberry is absolutely amazing. It just has consequences.

klelatti 5y ago
Why is it hard to compete with a charity - which by definition doesn't have access to capital in the way that a commercial firm has? Maybe RPi just knew what their market needed and delivered it very effectively?
- blippage 5y ago
  I noted in a previous post that the Beaglebone was was what the Pi should have been. It is open hardware, they are targetting the educational market, and has some interesting real-time coprocessors. But it is too pricey, so neither I, nor many others, bought one. It's a shame really.
madeofpalk 5y ago
> it is very hard to compete with a charity Ignoring the split between the Raspberry Pi Charity and the Raspberry Pi For-Profit company, charities have more regulation and restrictions than for-profit companies, no? Wouldn't it be easier to compete if you didn't have to at least pretend to operate a public-good charity?
blippage 5y ago
My own view why the Pi succeeded: they understood the market. They were prepared to innovate. Everyone else seemed to be a "me-too". Sure, others came out with products that were more powerful, but then they cost more, and some of the hardware wasn't properly supported. Competitors never really offered a compelling reason why we should buy their offerings. Take the Pi 0. Before that came out, the field was open for a competitor to see a gap in the market and capitalise on it. But none did. So then the Pi 0 came out and took a slice of the pie whilst everyone was asleep. Roll on a few years, when the tech progressed, the competition had the opportunity to produce something like a Pi 0 but cheaper or better. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. This allowed the Foundation to once again create another product: the Pi 0 2. The power of a Pi 3, at the price of a Pi 0W (near enough). The competition is clueless, which has allowed the Foundation to knock the ball out of the pack time after time after time. Upton is Britain's answer to Jobs.
- klelatti 5y ago
  My guess is that RPi got the trade-offs broadly right (price / capabilities / software support / availability) and were serious about their education mission which gave them a strong focus. Others seem to have dabbled but not much more. Plus Upton seems quite driven!

klelatti 5y ago

Why is it hard to compete with a charity - which by definition doesn't have access to capital in the way that a commercial firm has? Maybe RPi just knew what their market needed and delivered it very effectively?

blippage 5y ago
I noted in a previous post that the Beaglebone was was what the Pi should have been. It is open hardware, they are targetting the educational market, and has some interesting real-time coprocessors. But it is too pricey, so neither I, nor many others, bought one. It's a shame really.

madeofpalk 5y ago

> it is very hard to compete with a charity Ignoring the split between the Raspberry Pi Charity and the Raspberry Pi For-Profit company, charities have more regulation and restrictions than for-profit companies, no? Wouldn't it be easier to compete if you didn't have to at least pretend to operate a public-good charity?

blippage 5y ago

My own view why the Pi succeeded: they understood the market. They were prepared to innovate. Everyone else seemed to be a "me-too". Sure, others came out with products that were more powerful, but then they cost more, and some of the hardware wasn't properly supported. Competitors never really offered a compelling reason why we should buy their offerings. Take the Pi 0. Before that came out, the field was open for a competitor to see a gap in the market and capitalise on it. But none did. So then the Pi 0 came out and took a slice of the pie whilst everyone was asleep. Roll on a few years, when the tech progressed, the competition had the opportunity to produce something like a Pi 0 but cheaper or better. What did they do? Absolutely nothing. This allowed the Foundation to once again create another product: the Pi 0 2. The power of a Pi 3, at the price of a Pi 0W (near enough). The competition is clueless, which has allowed the Foundation to knock the ball out of the pack time after time after time. Upton is Britain's answer to Jobs.

klelatti 5y ago
My guess is that RPi got the trade-offs broadly right (price / capabilities / software support / availability) and were serious about their education mission which gave them a strong focus. Others seem to have dabbled but not much more. Plus Upton seems quite driven!