2 ms·

Think scales of magnitude. For a one-/few- off project, okay, you might not notice the difference of a hundred bucks. But if you do things at scale, every sin

Think scales of magnitude. For a one-/few- off project, okay, you might not notice the difference of a hundred bucks. But if you do things at scale, every single penny counts. Yes, penny. And one thing about the embedded Linux aspect - yes, this is a path for Linux hackers to get into embedded, and perfectly valid. BUT. ESP32 also has many things going for it. Other operating systems, for example, equally fun and friendly to code for, as Linux. FreeRTOS is fun. So many other things, too .. endless great bits of community software components that can be picked and placed into your project, which will absolutely allow you to build a great product. The point is, if you can do Linux, you can do the ESP32 ecosystem too. They are approximately relevant to each other. Disclaimer: I have done multiple projects in both realms, for many, many years (minix-list) and am quite comfortable with the cyclomatic complexity of writing code for either Linux or ESP32. They are, to me, flat. YMMV.

dragontamer 3y ago
Hobbyists and even professionals are looking at 1000 SKUs to maybe 10,000 SKU projects. Knowing how to code and design at the 10,000 unit level is important. At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. Because the bulk of the costs are development, and because you are likely building a reputation as an elite artisan selling highly custom goods for a niche audience. The $20,000 difference of a $2.50 module with slightly better reliability is absolutely the right choice to make.
- helpfulContrib 3y ago
  Higher reliability? Sorry, that is a fallacy .. you're not paying for reliability at scale in either the ESP32 or Embedded Linux scales. You're paying for what functionality you can attain.. in the ESP32 case, its mighty limited - but as all embedded devs know, challenge accepted - and in the Linux case its mighty complex/hefty and you have to pay to play, in the BOM costs anyway .. Either way, the 'reliability' factor is misguided, in my opinion. This is not at all why you choose either path. Both platforms are functionally equivalent. The only difference is capacity.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. I'm talking about oscillators and XTALs in this sentence. Not about Linux. Anyone making relatively small run items (10,000 or less SKUs) knows what I'm talking about. Saving every penny is counterproductive at this level of production. The main goal is to cut development costs actually. $2 more on the BOM? Whatever, did that save $10,000 on tooling and software? Definitely worth it. I'm bringing up oscillators and XTALs because XTAL is notoriously difficult to debug with standard lab tools. Its a physical device that changes with just 2pf and might only be running a few microwatts, so you need very low capacitance test equipment to directly debug XTAL issues. Different tools and methodologies exist at different levels of production. That's all I'm saying. You do _NOT_ pinch every penny at this level, you just buy the more reliable Oscillator-module and avoid XTAL testing all together (saving a ton of money on development tools and development time).

dragontamer 3y ago

Hobbyists and even professionals are looking at 1000 SKUs to maybe 10,000 SKU projects. Knowing how to code and design at the 10,000 unit level is important. At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. Because the bulk of the costs are development, and because you are likely building a reputation as an elite artisan selling highly custom goods for a niche audience. The $20,000 difference of a $2.50 module with slightly better reliability is absolutely the right choice to make.

helpfulContrib 3y ago
Higher reliability? Sorry, that is a fallacy .. you're not paying for reliability at scale in either the ESP32 or Embedded Linux scales. You're paying for what functionality you can attain.. in the ESP32 case, its mighty limited - but as all embedded devs know, challenge accepted - and in the Linux case its mighty complex/hefty and you have to pay to play, in the BOM costs anyway .. Either way, the 'reliability' factor is misguided, in my opinion. This is not at all why you choose either path. Both platforms are functionally equivalent. The only difference is capacity.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > At this level, paying $3 per oscillator module for 2% higher reliability is more important than paying for a $0.50 XTAL and trying to save $2.50 per SKU. I'm talking about oscillators and XTALs in this sentence. Not about Linux. Anyone making relatively small run items (10,000 or less SKUs) knows what I'm talking about. Saving every penny is counterproductive at this level of production. The main goal is to cut development costs actually. $2 more on the BOM? Whatever, did that save $10,000 on tooling and software? Definitely worth it. I'm bringing up oscillators and XTALs because XTAL is notoriously difficult to debug with standard lab tools. Its a physical device that changes with just 2pf and might only be running a few microwatts, so you need very low capacitance test equipment to directly debug XTAL issues. Different tools and methodologies exist at different levels of production. That's all I'm saying. You do _NOT_ pinch every penny at this level, you just buy the more reliable Oscillator-module and avoid XTAL testing all together (saving a ton of money on development tools and development time).