Home     Contact     Projects     Experiments     Circuits     Theory     BLOG     PIC Tutorials     Time for Science     RSS     Terms of services     Privacy policy  
   
 Home      Projects     Experiments     Circuits     Theory     BLOG     PIC Tutorials     Time for Science   


<< Back to INDEX

Microchip PIC chips could have been the Power Behind Arduino [Article]
posted February 17 2014 3:55.02 by spic0m




An article by Gerry Sweeney about his personal preferences in PIC microcontrollers, written with passion but with no intentions to start a microcontroller flaming war.

"So before I get underway, this article is about Microchip PIC micro-controllers. Please understand - I don 't want to get into a flamewars with Atmel, MPS430 or other fanboys, my personal preference has been PIC's for many years, thats a statement of personal preference, I am not saying that PIC's are better than anything else I am just saying I like them better - please don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise, I have evaluated most other platforms numerous times already - so before you suggest I should look at your XYZ platform of choice, please save your time - the odds are good I have already done so and I am still using PIC's

OK, full RANT mode enabled...

As I understand it Microchip are in the silicon chip business selling micro-controllers - actually Microchip make some really awesome parts and I am guessing here but I suspect they probably want to sell lots and lots of those awesome parts right? So why do they suppress their developer community with crippled compiler tool software unless you pay large $$$, after all, as a silicon maker they *NEED* to provide tools to make it viable for a developer community to use their parts? It is ridiculous charging for the tools - its not like you can buy Microchip tools and then use them for developing on other platforms so the value of these tools is entirely intrinsic to Microchip's own value proposition. It might work if you have the whole market wrapped up but the micro-controller market is awash with other great parts and free un-crippled tools.

A real positive step forward for Microchip was with the introduction of MPLAB-X IDE - while not perfect its infinitely superior to the now discontinued MPLAB8 and older IDE's which were, err, laughable by other comparable tools. The MPLAB-X IDE has a lot going for it, it runs on multiple platforms (Windows, Mac and Linux) and it mostly works very well. I have been a user of MPLAB-X from day one and while the migration was a bit of a pain and the earlier versions had a few odd quirks, every update of the IDE has just gotten better and better - I make software products in my day job so I know what it takes, and to the product manager(s) and team that developed the MPLAB-X IDE I salute you for a job well done.

Now of course the IDE alone is not enough, you also need a good compiler too - and for the Microchip parts there are now basically three compilers, XC8, XC16 and XC32. These compilers as I understand it are based on the HI-TECH PRO compilers that Microchip acquired when they bought HI-TECH in 2009. Since that acquisition they have been slowly consolidating the compilers and obsoleting the old MPLAB C compilers. Microchip getting these tools is a very good thing because they needed something better than they had - but they had to buy the Australian company HI-TECH Software to get them, it would appear they could not develop these themselves so acquiring them would be the logical thing to do. I can only speculate that the purchase of HI-TECH was most likely justified both internally and/or to investors, on the promise of generating incremental revenues from the tools, otherwise why bother buying them right? any sound investment would be made on the basis of being backed by a revenue plan and the easiest way to do that would be to say, in the next X years we can sell Y number of compilers for Z dollars and show a return on investment. Can you imagine an investor saying yes to "Lets by HI-TECH for $20M (I just made that number up) so we can refocus their efforts on Microchip parts only and then give these really great compilers and libraries away!", any sensible investor or finance person would probably ask the question "why would we do that?" or "where is the return that justifies the investment". But, was expanding revenue the *real* reason for Microchip buying HI-TECH or was there an undercurrent of need to have the quality the HI-TECH compilers offered over the Microchip Compilers, it was pretty clear that Microchip themselves were way behind - but that storyline would not go down too well with investors, imagine suggesting "we need to buy HI-TECH because they are way ahead of us and we cannot compete", and anyone looking at that from a financial point of view would probably not understand why having the tools was important without some financial rationale that shows on paper that an investment would yield a return."



Read the whole article here.

[Link: Gerry Sweeney]
 
Share



You might also like...


This Crazy Site Streams from 73K Private Security Cams [Security]

10 facts about black holes [Space]

"Full scale" Cockpit Ground Station [Project]

Europe's Planck telescope retires [Space]

Simple and cool experiments - The tornado vortex effect [Video]

World's Smallest FM Radio Transmitter [Technology]

Building a Constant Current/Constant Power Electronic Load [Project]

Doorbell Phone [Project]


<< Back to INDEX



Comments

  Name

  Email (shall not be published)

  Website

Notify me of new posts via email


Write your comments below:
BEFORE you post a comment:You are welcome to comment for corrections and suggestions on this page. But if you have questions please use the forum instead to post it. Thank you.


      

No comment yet...

Be the first to comment on this page!












 Contact     Forum     Projects     Experiments     Circuits     Theory     BLOG     PIC Tutorials     Time for Science     RSS   

Site design: Giorgos Lazaridis
© Copyright 2008
Please read the Terms of services and the Privacy policy