[OpenTRV-dev] V0.2-Arduino: getting started

[Stuart Poulton]

Ok, it's mu opinion that we're approaching this the wrong way.

You start with the 'hacker' community, so make it as simple as possible to develop for, then take the lessons learned, and optimise to reduce size and cost. 

Whilst in an ideal world we are aiming at an 'off the shelf' product we're some way off that. 

Stuart

On 1 Apr 2013, at 17:07, Damon Hart-Davis wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Mike is right IMHO in that at least one version should be optimised for minimal build cost to ship to end users with a CE stamp under a well-known brand name where the end user is *never* going to reprogram anything.  Every £1 added to factory gate costs is probably £5+VAT extra for the end user.  If we want manufacturers to be able to ship a simple (non-scheduler) unit for (say) £20 per rad including RF components then everything that we can do without should come off, and the easier we make that as a design tweak to our developer-friendly boards and code, the better.
> 
> Maybe we should run a V0.2-min-cost-AVR design branch from or alongside the V0.2 PICAXE and Arduino-friendly ones?
> 
> Rgds
> 
> Damon
> 
> 
> 
> And we should keep that in mind for our design process
> 
> On 1 Apr 2013, at 16:47, Stuart Poulton wrote:
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> One thing not being considered here is value to OEMs.  I thought one of the key reasons for choosing a permissive license rather than something like GPL was to encourage manufacturers to use the project in their own products, encouraging interoperability.  If this is the case then there has to be a reference hardware design that is absolute lowest cost.
>>> 
>>> Using a hobbyist platform is likely to be off-putting as well, I therefore think that vanilla AVR is a good compromise, especially since the three of us here with AVR experience all prefer to work bare-metal anyway.  There is then nothing stopping us from doing a super-set reference platform with a more capacious AVR and the Arduino bootloader pre-loaded.
>> 
>> Not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. why NOT develop around the AVR (Arduino) platform. 
>> 
>> It instantly opens up a larger hobbyist audience. Again personal choice, but I'll be going down the arduino IDE route. 
>> 
>> Stu
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenTRV-dev mailing list
>> EMAIL ADDRESS HIDDEN
>> http://lists.opentrv.org.uk/listinfo/opentrv-dev
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenTRV-dev mailing list
> EMAIL ADDRESS HIDDEN
> http://lists.opentrv.org.uk/listinfo/opentrv-dev