Intel is leading by example. They want OEMs to be more creative and innovative, and they are using marketing muscle to create demand for new compute categories.

The NUC/stick are the same, and the Surfaces are Microsoft's way of pushing their OEMs forward. Nexus/Pixel is Google's same realization that they cant just provide one component and pray for third parties to deliver consistent top tier products. These companies create a specific component (processors, Windows, Android) and then release a reference to prevent a race to the bottom. If an OEM cant beat the reference, consumers will buy it instead.

Intel is not leading by example. They are trying to make up new markets and push OEMS to it. The core of Intel is used to the "WinTel" generation where they could strong arm vendors into doing whatever they want. They are having a hard time moving away from that and getting stronger pushback from vendors.

And their reference devices are generally poor...it's not hard for OEM's to beat them.

note - I was an intel employee, but on the software side.

Well said. And, I would imagine, at Intel's scale they don't want to mess with smaller OEMs that are doing 10-100K EAU style projects.

They want wins like automotive platforms. That's really the upcoming battleground. NXP/Freescale has a very strong hold in that area though, which is why Qualcomm bought them.

I meant lead as in dragging a dog on a leash more than a regal role model.

Has any of this stuff taken off? What became of the "SD Card size IoT device" AKA edison? I know the dev kit is a terrible unsupported mess, but are vendors using it for anything?

I've played around with the Edison. It's nice to have wifi and bluetooth if you can get it working, but the platform doesn't seem to be very well supported by Intel. Despite being around for a couple of years, I had a lot of trouble finding needed modules that would work on it. It seems like if Intel were serious about it, they'd have software developers building the linux packages and maintaining a stocked repository.

Also, on the forums you'd see old and nagging bugs with basic operations like getting the networking up and running without having problems because by default usb0 owned the default route.

You'd think that Intel would have addressed these things. Eventually, I decided to not trust Intel. I was worried that they would stop supporting the platform and leave me hanging, having spent thousands of hours building a solution around it.

Now we can see that they're off on a new platform. I won't be spending any time with it.

Never seen an Edison or Curie in the wild.

I was never able to find an Edison, but did find a curie however it seems they have given up on it since their big marketing campaign. you can buy the dev boards but I found it impossible to find a price or supply for the soc itself. also the quark processor that powers it apparently has a segfault with the only workaround being disabling lock, which presents a lot of issues for certain scenarios, specifically multi-threading.(https://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-22478) Not sure if that is related to their abandoning of the product line, if that is indeed the case. No idea what's going on. also worth noting, the actual SOC itself is significantly larger than all of the marketing pictures show it. Not sure if they used an alternate, cheaper form factor for the dev kit or what.

Damn I hadn't heard about that problem with the Quark. What I had heard was that it was notoriously difficult to get a hold of low level docs so that you could do anything serious with it (or was that the Curie or Edison?), which put me off trying their line up because all of the ARM Cortex stuff is pretty much open compared to them (CMSIS makes a lot of peripherals trivial to deal with compared to some of the mess that used to exist for ARM).

I don't think it was widely reported, but it was kind of a dealbreaker because it meant that existing x86 code simply wouldn't run and therefore it was impossible to use standard Linux distros or toolchains on the Quark. Between that, the difficulty of getting chips, the rather poor performance and power usage, and the complexity of integrating it, I think it was basically dead on arrival. The main thing Intel seemed to get out of it was a bunch of very favourable articles about how they'd be part of the Internet of Things revolution. The whole thing seemed ill-conceived; it was a 486 going up against modern RISC designs with predictable results.

Correct I could not find docs for the Curie to provide any insight into how everything worked, technically. I found some docs which contained a block diagram and saw the bluetooth module is a Nordic NRF51822. That package is a full Bluetooth stack as well as an arm cortex processor. I could not however determine how it was connected to the rest of the system, nor figure out if there was a way to get direct access to that arm cortex.

The Defcon badge had a Quark on it. It was pretty interesting.

? Amazon and the rest have them every day. WHen did you try last?

I've seen some Edison kits on the shelf at my local Fry's. Looks like they've been untouched for a long time.

I'm not really surprised. The quark co-processor was disabled in the devkit when it first launched. It took a year or so to get that cleared up and last I looked at the edison quark documentation wasn't great. That kinda killed what differentiated the devkit from yet another linux devboard. 5V IO on the first devkit also seems like an odd choice.

As a linux system-on-module, it doesn't seem badly priced for low quantities/one offs. Although for a little more you can get an arm SOM that has display capabilities.

Well, it's also Fry's, which in Chicago combines the excitement and inventory of a nice computer store with the anhedonic staff of your local DMV.

I have! The application would have been a much better fit for a CHIP, but I've nevertheless seen one.

I have personally made two prototypes for people using the Edison plus a the amazing add-ons from sparkfun. The integrated wifi and bluetooth are great, and once you are done setting it up, you end up with a battery stacked on an Edison, so a full blown computer with wifi and bluetooth you can switch on and stick anywhere you can fit two thumbs.

Edison works fine, their support is responsive, docs range from just alright to worse though.

I had a better time as a dev with arduino Yun but it was way too limited (memory and flash) for what I wanted.

Considering I couldn't get basic kernel modules working on it due to the insane tool chain, I disagree that it's fine. Not to mention the bugs with the quark processor.

> Yeah, I get it, that's how they work. It's not going to change.

While they have been producing endless press releases about "makers" and "IoT" in the last couple of years, they still charge $4k+ for a usb vid (and prohibit sharing) as part of the usb if [0]. So yes, I wouldn't expect much change.

[0] http://www.usb.org/about

They kind of are... http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/wearables/wearable-so...

Honestly that's not how computing works anymore. It's more cost effective and progressive for everyone if Intel does things this way.