open-source teensy-compatible - what features do you want?

Status
Not open for further replies.
As IMHO Paul (msg#150) made the right final statement, I strongly suggest to close this thread. Let AF continue on their own Forum on Freensy development.
 
WMXZ said:
I strongly suggest to close this thread. Let AF continue on their own Forum on Freensy development.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, this conversation needs to migrate to Adafruit's forum. We've allowed it to go on long enough here. We're far past unproductive and now a few solid days into disrupting this community.

@ptorrone - Please create a thread on your own forum and post a final message here with the link. Anyone who wishes to continue this conversation can do so on the Adafruit forum.
 
theboot900 said:
make 1000 of them and sell them
Click to expand...
Discussed over the years ... IIRC ... Given the PJRC bootloader it may be compatible, or work with TeensyDuino ... but naming and such cannot violate the PJRC naming rights of the Teensy branding, or suggest it is a PJRC sanctioned item.

Thanks Paul! - that most threads have never gone like this one.
 
jmole said:
Basically the same thing Teensy did, but with a newer high spec microcontroller. But building a core is a lot of work, even with AI, and it’s not clear that you’d really recoup that investment in today’s market. That’s why Arduino for example shifted into value-add services before being bought by Qualcomm. Selling dev boards isn’t sustainable.
Click to expand...
.... Or i.mx rt 1170 + MIPI + more / other pins broken out.
 
Sad story.

I fear that this gives less sellers in the EU and thus more difficult to get a teensy with some other stuff. A Teensy alone and thus with shipping, will be a lot more expensive.
 
Exactly. Getting Teensy in Europe was expensive already (shipping). It is quite absurd that two good companies can't just talk. Adafruit has done a lot of good stuff and Sparkfun too. There is a place in the market for both. Really people maybe you should meet in person and drink a beer or two and just shake hands say sorry to each other and be done with this nonsense.
 
ptorrone said:
instead of being sad about it, we’re doing the obvious thing. we’re making an open-source, teensy-compatible board.
Click to expand...

I think the Teensy community should use this opportunity to define Teensy-Compatible before it gets misused.

I would define Teensy Compatible as meeting all of the following:
1. Code written for the Teensy works without requiring changes.
2. Memory (flash, RAM, EEPROM) are all equivalent or higher.
3. Processing power is equivalent or higher.
4. Hardware access to the same number (or more) of input pins, ADCs, output pins, serial channels, PWM pins, etc.

Thoughts from other Teensy users?
 
gatheround said:
I think the Teensy community should use this opportunity to define Teensy-Compatible before it gets misused.

I would define Teensy Compatible as meeting all of the following:
1. Code written for the Teensy works without requiring changes.
2. Memory (flash, RAM, EEPROM) are all equivalent or higher.
3. Processing power is equivalent or higher.
4. Hardware access to the same number (or more) of input pins, ADCs, output pins, serial channels, PWM pins, etc.

Thoughts from other Teensy users?
Click to expand...
So the 2.0,LC,3.2,3.5 and 3.6 are not Teensy-Compatible...
 
Surely this is very simple: "selectable as an option in unmodified Teensyduino".
  • This leaves Paul in control of the brand and ecosystem that puts food on his table
  • He could if so minded directly support one or other of the variants developed by others and discussed here; that would probably depend to some extent on how much it would affect SparkFun's market
  • If an obsolete Teensy ever lost Teensyduino support, they obviously remain Teensy - just "legacy Teensy", requiring a prior Teensyduino, and possibly old Arduino and OS as well
 
Mcu32 said:
I'd reduce this to #1 - but keep in mind, that even a new "Teensy 5" would require code changes :)
Click to expand...
:) PJRC Jumped to 32 bit then newer improved versions of the same chip family - all working from a single TeensyDuino install and as similar as possible - adhering to Arduino standard - even when pins had to move. Chips fell out of production - added speed/usb_host/RAM+/FLASH+/multi usb device/CAN

Where does the ESP8266 then esp32 in a dozen+ variations fit into the definition of 'Compatible' if held to an ideal standard allowing for innovation?
 
I've been reluctant to write on this thread, because it really is about drama between Adafruit and SparkFun, or perhaps between Phil/Adafruit and a number people may or may not actually be connected to SparkFun. I have some strong feelings. Believe me, withholding those opinions to avoid stirring up even more drama isn't easy, which is the reason I'm resisted the urge to say much here.

But what "Teensy compatible" means is important, so here goes. Before I start, if you're expecting a precise definition along the lines of technical specifications like analog circuitry noise floor or mechanical tolerance of a piston, please take a moment to lower your expectations.

Teensy is a registered trademark. If you're expecting trademark law to give a precise answer, you'll really need to lower your expectations! If you're a cynical type who views trademark law as nothing more than a weapon to be wielded by corporations, while there probably are cases like that, the fundamental concept of trademark is about protecting the public from misleading and deceptive marketing.

This lengthy article is among the best layperson-accessible explanation I've seen.

Beyond Brand X - Using Another’s Trademark in Your Own Advertising | Gordon Feinblatt LLC

www.gfrlaw.com www.gfrlaw.com

I believe these paragraphs are the relevant portion:

1768734529724.png


What exacting performance means may be up for debate, but I'm pretty sure repackaging Raspberry Pi Pico into the form factor of Teensy falls far short.

My thinking on claiming a product to be "Teensy compatible" really comes down to the likelihood of misleading customers. It's not about any set of rigid specs, nor an abstract concept, but rather the impact a particular claim is likely to have on real people.

In this case, we've all heard plenty of clear feedback about people's impression of calling Adafruit's proposed new product "Teensy compatible".

jmarsh msg #5: "You can't just sell a pi pico 2 under the name "freensy" and declare it to be Teensy compatible"

joepasquariello msg #25: "Unless I misunderstand, it's simply a 2350 Arduino that kinda looks like a T4.0. Is that right? Why do you say it's like Teensy?"

Angelo msg #42: "For me, beeing Teensy-compatible means: Teensyduino and tools compatible, 600MHz or faster, at least same amount of RAM/flash, 8 serial, 2 USB, 3 SPI, 3 I2C, SPDIF, 3 CAN, and FlexIO. I would not advertize my own product "Teensy-compatible" if it could not compete with this."

trash80 msg #47: "I would argue the reason Teensy is popular has nothing to do with the pinout compatibility - it has more to do with computational horsepower (along side the usability and libraries of course). Without that I feel it might fall short. I think that is where some of the confusion of the initial post comes from."

Mcu32 msg #51: "Users will quickly discover that almost everything written specifically for the Teensy doesn't work."

KurtE msg #56: "What I see here feels absolutely nothing like being a Teensy other than form factor of T4 with exterior pins having similar names."

mjs513 msg #57: "But how does that board in post 1 even come close to a Teensy 4 to be honest."

WMXZ msg #60: "a board without this MKL chip can hardly be called Teensy compatible."
Click to expand...

Similar sentiment was expressed in the EEVBlog thread mentioned in msg #13.

SiliconWizard: "You picked a RP2350 which is no match for a Teensy 4.x."

aeg: "RP2350 is not form fit and function compatible with RT1062. What you've dreamed up is yet another Pico 2 variant."

bingo600: "Wrt: Teensy 4.1 compatble , i totally agree with the above users."

newbrain: "As for the original proposal, I agree that would be YAP2C, yet another Pico2 clone and not a Teensy"

westfw: "Proposing an rp2350-based board as "teensy-compatible" is ridiculous"

ebastler: "When did "has the same form factor" and "rhymes" become an acceptable definition of "compatible" for embedded computers?"

ejeffrey: "But the point is that if you depended on a teensy, a product that rhymes but can't do the same job isn't a substitute."
Click to expand...

These opinons matter because beyond "precise ability to work just as the original works", the fundamental purpose of trademark is protecting the public from misleading and deceptive marketing, so they can trust advertising and promotions that use brand names they know.

For anyone who was hoping for an engineering specification style definition of "Teensy compatible", well, I did start by asking for lower expectations. This simply isn't a matter of engineering. It's a matter of honest (or at least not misleading) communication with real people.
 
gatheround said:
I think the Teensy community should use this opportunity to define Teensy-Compatible before it gets misused.
...
Thoughts from other Teensy users?
Click to expand...
With all due respect to the Teensy community, if the meaning of the term "Teensy compatible" ever does become an issue, it would be up to a court to decide what it means and when it's allowed to be used, not the community. And PJRC, the owner of the mark, would be the one to bring it to court.

For people interested in the subject, the article Paul S posted is interesting, and it has a section specifically about the use of "compatible" for computers: "Hardware and software 'compatibility' have been interpreted by courts to mean the precise ability to work just as the original works."

The Wikipedia article on IBM PC Compatible gives some interesting definitions and history.

Paul - your behavior has been exemplary here, and I hope that someday you will be able to induce cooler heads to prevail and allow AF to sell Teensy again. That's likely to be the best outcome for everyone.
 
Paul has shown a lot of restraint, I expected this thread to be locked now.

But it is an interesting point. If one was to make a diy teensy (with Paul's bootloader of course), expose more pins, add an imu or whatever and call it something completely different. (Eg "The Mega"

Could then this be marketed as teensy compatible? Or is using the Teensy name in marketing also off limits with patents?

Obviously one would be relying on a generous supply of bootloader chips from Paul.
 
For me the "teensy" specific thing is the quality software eco-system. A RP2350A (or RP2354A + extra flash) Teensy (read here designed by Paul), would do most things that I need.
 
To me, "Teensy-compatible" brings up the question: Which Teensy? There have been a bunch. And even then, it doesn't seem like Adafruit is making something compatible with any of them. And this probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: They should market the device on its own merits, not Teensy's merits. They can compare to the Teensy, among other microcontroller boards, but they shouldn't claim equivalence. Since it's an RP2350-based board, I for one, would want to see how it improves on Pico 2.
 
AlainD said:
So the 2.0,LC,3.2,3.5 and 3.6 are not Teensy-Compatible...
Click to expand...

You would just need to specify "Teensy 3.2 Compatible" for example. Sorry, I thought this was implied since each version has it's own specs.

Paul> I agree with what you posted from the law firm's definition.

When the Teensy LC was discontinued, I purchased 1000 bootloaders from PJRC,designed a pin-for-pin compatible PCB in KiCad and had a fab manufacture them using the same microcontroller. In my mind this is "Teensy LC Compatible".

markb> I agree as well, if this adafruit board can be marketed as "teensy compatible" then so can dozens of other microcontroller boards already in existence. This comes off as just using the Teensy name to take advantage of years of hard work that PJRC has put into this product, it's libraries, it's community and support.
 
gatheround said:
This comes off as just using the Teensy name to take advantage of years of hard work that PJRC has put into this product, it's libraries, it's community and support.
Click to expand...
how to ya'll feel about calling things arduino compatible or calling things that sound like arduino? we got the OK from arduino to call our board... boarduino.

any hoo, nothing is shipping at all, so when it's "marketed", that's a good time to punish (me). we do have a new code name, will be on the next board.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top