first mention of twins

ill try keep this nice.

i think the whole hype about Rpi being the big bad educational tool was nothing more than a pr stunt to get it selling quick, and that is just what happened. i also remember hearing somthing about this being developed by employees of broadcom, when it was first released the soc data sheet required a nondisclosure agreement, so right out of the gate there were problems calling it open source.

i'm sorry if i dont get the idea about teaching computer science with an embeded linux board. don't comp sci cources use full-blown computers already? and if you really want to learn about how computers work, it is much better to start with an 8051 or 8088 and assembly.

but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.

anyways thats my two bits on the the pi.

sheldon bailey wrote:

 

but now it seems the more i read, the more i can't suggest the pi for any use other than a media center.

Professionals who are aware of the relevant  FCC regulations shouldn't be suggesting the Pi for use in any residential application in FCC jurisdiction anyway, since the device does not have FCC certification for residential use.  That would be a Class B certification, and it doesn't have one at the present date.

I doubt that anyone would deny that media centres constitute an overwhelmingly residential or domestic use of a digital device.  It's probably as close to being a poster child for residential use as one could find anywhere.

I think that we're veering a bit off-topic - although it's understandable because as engineers and technicians we're more used to weighing up definables than discussing ethics.

The Foundation have been quite clever, they've told the story about what prompted their formation countless times and then they just let us assume that their liberal use of the word "education" and their charitable status meant that the selling of this low cost computer would be part of some kind of bigger picture. Some of us thought that maybe this was part of a coordinated effort to e.g.

1) convince the weary U.K. taxpayer that teaching proper computer engineering was a good thing.

2) Lobby government, educational establishments and the industries that the education system feeds in order to gain cooperation, fashion a plan and eventually a curriculum.

3) Form partnerships with establishments, individuals and companies in order to provide solutions for that curriculum - a bare computer is nothing without software, supplementary learning materials, peripherals, ongoing support, etc.

4) Keep charming the non-geek public. It's gonna cost a lot of money, after all. One of the main problems that requires addressing is the lack of specific expertise within the teaching profession. Fixing this would cost rather more than $25 a pop.

However, anyone who cares to start at the beginning of the RPi blog (http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/date/2011/page/5) and watch any one of the innumerable video presentations may notice that since at least 2011 (the blog begins at around the time of the creation of the alpha boards) pretty much all of the Foundation's efforts have concentrated on selling a board with a big graphics chip to as many people as possible. There are occasional references to "an educational release" and a "programming prize fund", but this is all about selling a product. That's fine - some Pi have ended up in the hands of students and teachers who have unilaterally done amazing things, but most people who want to bring a consumer product to market don't create a charitable foundation in order to do get that product "out there".

What a pitch - Alan Sugar would be proud.

That's quite insightful, Jonathan.

I suspect that clever sleight of hand won't carry much weight with the FCC though.

jamodio wrote:

 

Get a Roku, you will spend less money and time.

 

-J

the roku is nice, but I always have old desktop pc hardware thrown at me, been using one as a media centre for a few years now.

even if the Rpi makes it way to the super poor areas, it would probably be traded for a meal or two. what good is an internet connected device if there is no internet?

while the Internet can be a good tool to help learn for people who actually use it responsibly, it is also a great distraction, and it lends to the "cut and paste" type of problem solving, that has no educational value whatsoever.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

That's quite insightful, Jonathan.

 

I suspect that clever sleight of hand won't carry much weight with the FCC though.

Thanks Morgaine - the amount of evidence suggesting that it's an end-user (consumer / residential) product will hopefully carry a metric bunch of weight though. A cynic might suggest that the FCC doc. linked to in the other thread might be in need of a bit of an update (I think it was dated 1993) and that a really slick lawyer might claim that the Pi is just a populated motherboard and is thus exempt. The Foundation may have to airbrush all references to the word "computer" from the internet in order to pull this off, but they've had a lot of practice at airbrushing history on their forum... [/tongue-in-cheek mode]

coder27 wrote:

 

for the record, I have tried to locate the first professional to credit for raising

the issue of Class B testing.  Does anyone have any earlier reference than

https://twitter.com/abishurp/status/188635726030708736

Was that posted in April of this year, or 2012?

For our part here on Element14, all the credit clearly has to go to yourself for nailing this issue near the beginning of Pi time and persevering with it until today.  It was only extremely recently that I finally picked up on your FCC links in detail, and was amazed by what I read there.

If Element14 had paid attention to your postings on the subject last year, they wouldn't be in this risky situation they are in today.

Was that posted in April of this year, or 2012?

It was 7 April 2012.

perhaps the problems with certification was engineered into the Rpi to prevent it from being used as an OEM part of a finished comercial product. keeping it in the educational or maker spaces.

probably not the case.

a really slick lawyer might claim that the Pi is just a populated motherboard and is thus exempt

The UK's BIS has already ruled that it was a finished product.

The E14 FAQ says:

http://www.element14.com/community/docs/DOC-43262/l/updated-15-march-frequently-asked-questions-about-raspberry-pi

HOT OFF THE PRESS UPDATE FROM EBEN UPTON OF RASPBERRY PI EARLIER TODAY:

“We have spoken with BIS this morning, and have been told that, given the volumes involved and the demographic mix of likely users, the development board exemption is not applicable to us; as a result, even the first uncased developer units of Raspberry Pi will require a CE mark prior to distribution in the EU...... ....we are working with RS Components and element14/Premier Farnell to bring Raspberry Pi into a compliant state as soon as is humanly possible.”

and

Over the past weeks, it is clear that customers who have pre-ordered are going to use the Raspberry Pi as a finished product and not just an engineering development board.  We see it as the most responsible approach to ensure that all Pi’s meet the required standards for finished products in their respective country. We are prioritizing the compliance testing process by working closely with the Raspberry Pi foundation and RS Components to make sure there are no more delays.  We take our commitment and responsibility in this area very seriously and believe that while this is a frustrating short-term delay, it’s worth it to ensure our customers receive a fully compliant product.

It would be quite startling to see their position change to it being a finished product in the UK but not in the US.

There are plenty of published articles and interviews describing the RPi as a computer intended for children's bedrooms.

http://blog.ted.com/2013/06/14/wherefore-raspberry-pi-eben-upton-at-tedglobal-2013/

What is a Raspberry Pi?

It’s a credit-card sized computer ...

...

“Our idea was to build something cheap, powerful and available for children’s bedrooms so they could have the same experience we had.”

The prosecution rests. For now.

is there a thread or source why it failed compliance, and what standards were used to determine?

i would like to look into this a little more.

is there a thread or source why it failed compliance, and what standards were used to determine?

i would like to look into this a little more.

See Pete Lomas's blog here:

we have some definite options for ripping 10db or more off the key gremlin frequencies. Before you ask, yes, this should be enough.

http://www.element14.com/community/people/PeteL/blog/2012/03/29/spikes-in-the-ether-emc-and-compliance

and my unanswered question:

Are you trying to meet the Class A industrial standard, or Class B residential?

http://www.element14.com/community/people/PeteL/blog/2012/03/29/spikes-in-the-ether-emc-and-compliance#comment-13097

Similarly:

http://www.element14.com/community/people/PeteL/blog/2012/04/07/certification-testing--update

There are some bits here and there but nothing conclusive or detailed ...

This is one of the classic ones were we get but don't get some information ...

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/978

Pay attention that at that time they realize the even when  "at the Foundation call the computer a Raspberry Pi in conversation" "This thing’s called a Raspberry Pi, not a Raspberry Pi computer"

So we (they) call it a computer but is it not.... ohhh right now is a "linux box"

But first line on "About us" ...

"The idea behind a tiny and cheap computer for kids came in 2006"

So it is or it is not a computer ? ... perhaps Shakespeare can provide some light into this identity crisis.

On thing that they really missed big on the entire strategy and inspiration, is the context in the days of the BBC Micro and such.

-J

jamodio wrote:

 

There are some bits here and there but nothing conclusive or detailed ...

 

This is one of the classic ones were we get but don't get some information ...

 

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/978

 

Pay attention that at that time they realize the even when  "at the Foundation call the computer a Raspberry Pi in conversation" "This thing’s called a Raspberry Pi, not a Raspberry Pi computer"

 

So we (they) call it a computer but is it not.... ohhh right now is a "linux box"

 

But first line on "About us" ...

 

"The idea behind a tiny and cheap computer for kids came in 2006"

 

So it is or it is not a computer ? ... perhaps Shakespeare can provide some light into this identity crisis.

 

On thing that they really missed big on the entire strategy and inspiration, is the context in the days of the BBC Micro and such.

 

-J

Indeed - the road to a lucrative career in Law is paved with semantics.

Regarding Pete Lomas' blog - I see he's not even logged into his account here since October 2012.

Morgaine - obviously "getting the paperwork done right" is a given - especially considering the inordinate amount of time that the RPF have spent promoting their product Stateside. It all just makes no sense as there is absolutely nothing to be gained, but a lot to be lost by not getting the relevant certifications

Indeed - the road to a lucrative career in Law is paved with semantics.

So how many semantic issues do you detect in the opening line of

Eben's March 2013 pycon keynote speach:

[Eben]: Thankyou guys. So, my name is Eben Upton, I run a thing based in the UK called the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Ah, we make little computers for kids.

https://github.com/robotclass/pycon-us-2013-keynote-eben-upton/blob/master/keynote-eben-upton.textile

coder27 wrote:

 

Indeed - the road to a lucrative career in Law is paved with semantics.

 

So how many semantic issues do you detect in the opening line of

Eben's March 2013 pycon keynote speach:

[Eben]: Thankyou guys. So, my name is Eben Upton, I run a thing based in the UK called the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Ah, we make little computers for kids.

https://github.com/robotclass/pycon-us-2013-keynote-eben-upton/blob/master/keynote-eben-upton.textile

I'd say that in my opinion that opening sentence was explicit and not open to misinterpretation by any reasonable person.

#1) He's still leaning on the Foundation for promotional purposes, rather than on Raspberry Pi (Trading) Ltd - of which he is listed as a director.

#2) He's promoting his organisation's consumer product. Computers, if I'm not mistaken.

Have I missed anything?

Being a portable computer by the FCC definition  would automatically define Pi as a Class B device.

Note however that it's captured as a Class B device anyway, even without the above, because if falls foul of the FCC's three key questions that distinguish between devices of the two classes:

1. Is the marketing of the device restricted in such a manner that it is not sold to residential users?
2. Does the application for which the device is designed generally preclude operation in residential areas?
3. Is the price of the device high enough that there is little likelihood that it would be used in a residential environment, including a home business?

Since it fails to be excluded from the residential environment through restricted marketing and sales (point 1), and it cannot avail itself of the exemptions in points 2 and 3, by FCC rules it is a Class B device anyway, even if someone could retrospectively wish away the fact that it is clearly a portable computer.

A Class B device without Class B certification is uncertified for its expected use, and cannot be marketed or offered for sale to residential users.  If it has Class A certification then it can be marketed or offered for sale as a restricted commercial or industrial device, but that is not  how Pi has been marketed and offered for sale, as anyone can plainly see.

Have I missed anything?

So you would say "I run a thing based in the UK called the RPF, but not officially; we make little computers, but officially just motherboards; it's for kids, but not officially for kids in residential areas."

The 2013 Premier Farnell annual report shows the target audience as "engineers and hobbyists".

Raspberry Pi

The element14 Community played a key role in another very successful

product launch this year. The Raspberry Pi, the credit card sized computer

developed to put computer programming back at the heart of engineers,

launched to phenomenal interest from engineers and hobbyists alike. In the

first 15 minutes after launch our websites received over ½ million hits as

customers flocked to order from us and by January 2013, Premier Farnell

had sold 600,000 Raspberry Pi units.

http://www.premierfarnell.com/sites/default/files/reports/Premier-Farnell-Annual-Report-2012-13(2).pdf

The "educational focus" appears to have come at least in part, from David Braben.  Liz wrote:

David was one of the people Eben brought the original idea to, along with the other trustees and a few others who aren't trustees. He's helped us develop the educational focus behind it, ...

http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=319&start=20

coder27 quoted:

 

"not officially; we make little computers, but officially just motherboards; it's for kids, but not officially for kids in residential areas."

I'd rather not speculate what that meant, but it sounds like something that should have raised a big red flag to Element14 regulatory certification experts.

I'd rather not speculate what that meant, but it sounds like  something that should have raised a big red flag to Element14 regulatory certification experts.

That was my parsing of Eben's quote, not his original quote, just to be clear.

However, there is no doubt that E14's regulatory certification experts had plenty of

red flags.  They didn't need any more of mine.  They certainly knew it was intended

for residential use, and they certainlly acknowledged that it did not pass Class B.

They also acknowledged that BIS had determined that it was classed as a finished product.

How many more red flags does one need?

But it is also clear that there was lots of incentive not to incur any further delays

in a project that had the attention of E14's CEO.  They probably assumed, as Liz

claimed, that achieving Class B certification would be easily obtained. 

Happily, we’ve found it doesn’t need a shielded enclosure to reach Class B, although it will require a (very minimal) redesign.

http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/978#comment-19273

@coder27: It would then seem that David Braben might be an important factor - if education was indeed the motivation for his involvement. I note that he is part of the Cambridge set though.

PC mag reported in 2011 that Braben was actually the creator of the Raspberry Pi and ran a feature:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2385055,00.asp

It's this kind of shoddy tech "journalism" that is responsible for the current situation imo. As now, "education" is hinted at, but it's explicitly a hardware sales pitch.

Good work btw.