Featured Articles
Announcing Pi
Technical Specifications
Raspberry Pi FAQs
Win a Pi
Raspberry Pi Wishlist
Actions
Forum Thread Details
  • Replies 358 replies
  • Subscribers 674 subscribers
  • Views 39705 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Related

Pi vs BeagleBone-Black

Former Member

So, just over a year on from the initial availability of the R-Pi and the new BeagleBone Black is upon us.  They've obviously taken a leaf out of the RPF's playbook and produced a cost reduced version at a price only marginally above the Pi.

 

I find it interesting that the compromises are very different, for example there's a proper PMIC and the ethernet is not troubled by being connected to USB, however the on-board HDMI seems less capable.

 

Other differences are in the documentation, I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later. There's even an up to date devicetree capable kernel too.

 

Technology has also moved on somewhat, we get a 1GHz Cortex A8 which is better than the Pi, along with various other stuff and lots more GPIO's too.

 

Ok, so it's clear that I like the look of the new beaglebone, and given the price I'm likely to put any further R-Pi plans on hold until I have a chance to play with this. It's also making things like the Olinuxino-maxi I bought recently look very slow/expensive while still being cheaper than the similarly specced Olinuxino-A13

 

Some details of the beaglebone-black here http://circuitco.com/support/index.php?title=BeagleBoneBlack

 

What do the rest of you think ?   I don't expect this to displace the Pi anytime soon, but I expect it to be very attractive to those people who don't simply want to put XBMC on it and duct tape it to the back of the TV..

Parents

  • "I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later."

     

    The stated goal for Pi was to make it so it couldn't be copied. The goal for this board is a reference to copy. Of course you could use the BB as a PI was intended if you can stand the extra $10.

Reply

  • "I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later."

     

    The stated goal for Pi was to make it so it couldn't be copied. The goal for this board is a reference to copy. Of course you could use the BB as a PI was intended if you can stand the extra $10.

Children
  • in reply to pmoyle111

    Peter Moyle wrote:

     

    "I'm currently viewing the pcb gerbers for the beaglebone..  Have yet to see any sign of those for the R-Pi a year later."

     

    The stated goal for Pi was to make it so it couldn't be copied. The goal for this board is a reference to copy. Of course you could use the BB as a PI was intended if you can stand the extra $10.

    I don't remember ever seeing that as a "stated goal" -- do you have a link?  I think non-copyability is simply a consequence of selecting a Broadcom SoC.  The stated goal of the RasPi Foundation is to provide a really cheap computer so that children can learn to program without fearing the consequences of breaking something expensive.  RPF has always stated that they don't mind competition that furthers the same goal, although one can get a different impression from some of the comments made by RasPi admins and moderators at raspberrypi.org.

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    It has been a  numvber of months ago and I read so many publications and belong to so many groups that I have no idea where I read it. But it was an article that was either an interview or a feature by/of a few of the architects. In it they talked about how it came to be, a number of their goals, and other aspects such as funding. One of these goals mentioned was that they specifically didn't want it to be copied (and I am loosely paraphrasing this) and as I remember that was one of that reasons for choosing the BCOM chip.

     

    You might google to try to find the article.

  • in reply to pmoyle111

    hmmm... I just had a thought that it might have been on the Register.uk. I don't often read this anymore, but I go there sometimes to reads the rumors about layoffs. When I worked for one of the big chip companies that was the place to find out things and I still have a lot of friends there.

  • in reply to johnbeetem

    They've actually said many times that they do plan to release the designs:

    https://www.element14.com/community/thread/17870

     

    http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1090#comment-20586

     

    http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/1090#comment-20591

     

    and the sticking point always seems to be that the Broadcom SoC isn't easily available. but that can only be repeated so many times before people stop believing it - and the world catches up, then overtakes.

  • in reply to pmoyle111

    It is totally incorrect to suggest that a goal of RPi was to prevent it being copied.  In fact, pretty much the opposite is true, officially at least.  Here is an excerpt from the Raspberry Pi Foundation "About" page (my bolding for emphasis):

     

    Raspberry Pi Foundation wrote:

     

    We don’t claim to have all the answers. We don’t think that the Raspberry Pi is a fix to all of the world’s computing issues; we do believe that we can be a catalyst. We want to see cheap, accessible, programmable computers everywhere; we actively encourage other companies to clone what we’re doing. We want to break the paradigm where without spending hundreds of pounds on a PC, families can’t use the internet. We want owning a truly personal computer to be normal for children. We think that 2012 is going to be a very exciting year.

     

    The BeagleBone Black is therefore exactly what the RPi Foundation is encouraging and happy to see emerge.

     

    And BBB is cheaper too (you don't need to buy an extra SD card), which RPF are undoubtedly happy to see since it reduces the barrier for youngsters even further.

     

    Morgaine.

  • in reply to morgaine
    It is totally incorrect to suggest that a goal of RPi was to prevent it being copied. 

     

     

    Here's the article that Peter Moyle was remembering, from Pete Lomas's piece in Wired.

     

    "But it meant we were faced with a dilemma. How could we enable hacking while preventing cloning?"

    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/09/raspberry-pi-insider-exclusive-sellout-to-sell-out/

  • in reply to Former Member

    and...

     

    "So we decided to publish the schematics, but hold back the detailed Bill of Materials (BOM) and physical PCB design or “Gerbers“ for a limited amount of time. After all, hardware is just one part of our overall plans."

  • in reply to Former Member

    coder27 wrote:

     

    Here's the article that Peter Moyle was remembering, from Pete Lomas's piece in Wired.

     

    "But it meant we were faced with a dilemma. How could we enable hacking while preventing cloning?"

    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/09/raspberry-pi-insider-exclusive-sellout-to-sell-out/

     

    Oh dear, I'd forgotten about that little gem of Pete's.  Yes, it directly contradicts the "we actively encourage other companies to clone what we're doing" claim on RPF's About page that I quoted in RPF's defense earlier in the thread.

     

    RPF's creative liberties with the truth are just jaw-dropping.  If this story were submitted as fiction, it would be rejected as not believable.