My thread removed

Go To Last Post
23 posts / 0 new
Author
Message
#1
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I was NOT advertising

Your thread: "Atmel misses the boat yet again ?" has been removed because promoting competitors products on this website is not permitted here.

This website is dedicated to the AVR product line of Atmel. If you have a valid complaint about Atmel's products, that is of course allowed to be discussed. But advertising competitors products is not.

Eric Weddington
Administrator

_________________
Eric Weddington
Open Source Community Manager
Atmel

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I agree with above. It was not advertising. Atmel has to step up thier kits. I tried the touch kit from Atmel. And taking the kit out of the box and getting it running takes more than two hours. That is how much time I spent this far, and havent got anything out of i yet.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I also agree with the sentiment that jabram's post was not advertising, but a reasonable discussion of why Atmel needs to increase their support for AVR32 by producing a more varied set of development boards (that don't have dumb design decisions, like 0.05" headers).

I challenge Atmel to restore jabram's original thread and to refrain from using heavy-handed tactics to squelch discussion of valid issues with their line of development hardware and tools.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I totally agree with those before me.

My EVK1100 has a 1mm x 1mm header for its pins.
I have searched every corner of the internet, turns out the only pin header you can get is 1mm x 1.27mm as I remember.
Using this header size makes me wonder what the idea was for its use. Oh and btw, the board has like a 20x20 100mil matrix for soldering your stuff on it. Like someone is realy gonna do that... That area could have gone for a decent pin breakout.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I definetly was NOT advertising, this year alone I have spent $1,353.75 at the Atmel Store.

what do I have to show for it, 2 x AT32UC3C-EK kits that I have wasted hours on finding replacement LCDs, because the original LCD is incorrectly mounted and fails after a short time.

I thought I found another 32UC3C EK from Atmel, 32UC3C2-XPLD so I emailed Atmel Store who replied it will be available in 7 days, well that was 4 weeks ago, emailed Atmel Store asking for any news, no reply.

When the second AT32UC3C-EK LCD died I emailed Atmel Store, no reply.

I thought AT32UC3C-EK was an evaluation kit for AVR32 it is in fact a dedicated motor controller application meant to mate up with another board leaving very few useable signals to evaluate.

EVK1100 with ridiculous 0.05" headers for evaluating 60 signals!

AVR ONE, trace only works with AVR32 Studio, no trace that I can find in Studio 5 or Studio 5.1 or Studio 6

AVR ONE the RUN LED does NOT turn on with latest firmware, works with old firmware.

JTAGICE 3 run light does not turn on, must be the same firmware bug that stops it from turning on in AVR One.

I could go on, have lots more issues.

My thread that was deleted did have links to other manufacturers 32 bit eval kits by way of illustrating what I think are better eval kits simply based on PHYSICAL LAYOUT and half decent documentation.

I posted the links to ILLUSTRATE what a decent EVAL kit should look like with access to all the pins and not using silly 0.05" headers.

How else could I do that without links to the boards I am talking about. Should I use baby talk or write 200 vague sentences to describe them.

I also mentioned Atmel marketing was failing and was being left behind as in missing the boat.

I do NOT OWN ANY PRODUCTS from that other MCU manufacturer whose name starts with the letter M [this is really childish to have to write it this way]

I have no affiliation nor do I get any financial advantage by listing the links to the companies who DO MAKE DECENT EVAL KITS to which I linked.

Finally I did write that the Atmel AT32UC3C was superior to the competition's product.

And I was advertising!

If you want to check the deleted thread search for the cached version. It is there in full, I have saved it.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I agree completly with previous posts, the UC3C-EK board is not suitable as an eval kit, its an application board. For me to evaluate and prototype I need access to all/most pins preferably from a bread board.

The board is also very expensive, compared to competitions offerings no names mentioned and no advertising but $29 can give me a JTAG debugger, a MCU eval board and a WORKING IDE.
I have read in the ASF code about the 32UC3C2-XPLD and asked customer support about availabillity and I am always given vauge ansvers "check the online shop". I am not even sure if this board will provide what I need, from the code however it looks to be closer to my application compared to UC3C-EK.

I am also very dissatisfied with the new development tools, its impossible to do simple things like browsing code following includes, not even text is displayed properly in the editor.

However I did actrually find one source for an alternative uc3c board http://www.metodo2.it/ which I will order for now.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

tridentsx wrote:
but $29 can give me a JTAG debugger, a MCU eval board and a WORKING IDE.

I have that $29 board and can attest that it works very well, the IDE is solid, and the board brings out all signals on 0.1" headers.

Why can't Atmel do something similar?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

jabram wrote:
I definetly was NOT advertising,

Indeed you were not. But you can argue your case until the cows come home. Why not just move on? Get more pleasant toys from alternative sources and forget about Atmel.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Quote:
Your thread: "Atmel misses the boat yet again ?" has been removed because promoting competitors products on this website is not permitted here.

I have no problem with administrators editing / removing bad language or plain dishonesty.

I read the original posts. They were clearly and honestly presented.

Yes, they gave links to comparable products to illustrate the points.

Perhaps Atmel could spend more time on the quality of their app notes, tools, boards and documentation than in censorship.

Let's face it, their Silicon competes very well in the market place. Their 'product support' is in a different league.

David.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

asf-test wrote:
jabram wrote:
I definetly was NOT advertising,

Indeed you were not. But you can argue your case until the cows come home. Why not just move on? Get more pleasant toys from alternative sources and forget about Atmel.

Thats a bad comment. I like Atmel, I want to use Atmels products. But I want them to be top of the line, and if they are not, I want to give Atmel feedback on how to get there.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

AgwanII wrote:
Thats a bad comment. I like Atmel, I want to use Atmels products. But I want them to be top of the line, and if they are not, I want to give Atmel feedback on how to get there.

I was merely suggesting that jabram shouldn't waste his time. It didn't sound his feedback was welcome. At some point you have to give up if your love is not returned.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

asf-test wrote:
AgwanII wrote:
Thats a bad comment. I like Atmel, I want to use Atmels products. But I want them to be top of the line, and if they are not, I want to give Atmel feedback on how to get there.

I was merely suggesting that jabram shouldn't waste his time. It didn't sound his feedback was welcome. At some point you have to give up if your love is not returned.

AgwanII put it into words much better than I could.

How do we know my feedback was not welcome by Atmel, does the administrator really represent Atmel, did he consult with anyone else, he certainly did not read nor understand that which he deleted ?

It is apparent by now that he was simply wrong period.

I like ATmel products, I have a LOT invested in Atmel, and yes I do want to see them get out of the rut they are stuck in when it comes to decent evaluation kits, UC3C is very attractive, has unique features and only one way overpriced evaluation kit that is badly designed [can't say enough bad things about it].

It seems to me something has to change wherever the evaluation kit design, software and hardware tool design and marketing decisions are made at Atmel.

I dont believe the people currently making those decisions have ever had to evaluate an MCU, they dont seem to have a clue they keep repeating the same bad decisions which make the product difficult to evaluate and use.

Time to break that mould.

Why is Microchip so succesful, why do their parts [which in my opinion are inferior] find their way into so many designs, because they bend over backwards to make it easy to EVALUATE and use their product and once you become accustomed to it you are a customer for life.

Atmel do not seem to understand that simple concept.

How many evaluation kits for AVR32 specifically UC3C can you find on the net.

How many eval kits for PIC32 can you find on the net.

What does that tell you ?

I have been in this game for a very long time, I started with the Intel 8008 [no I am not selling one, hate to get anyone nervous] so I believe I do know a badly designed Eval Kit when I see one, my idea of a decent Eval Kit appears to coincide with many others on this forum.

Maybe we need to start a thread to help Atmel design a real good evaluation kit FAMILY.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I say this with the intentions of providing the most constructive criticism possible, so forgive me if it's a bit flippant.

If you don't think Atmel has good evaluation kits, and feel that there is a need for good Atmel evaluation kits, then why don't you design your own? Atmel's documentation isn't great, but it's good enough for you to produce something. Use their existing kits as a reference, they do a lot of good stuff, but as you say, they do leave big gaps. Take what Atmel has given us, and improve it.

Of course, the end result is, if you care enough, you can sell your Atmel evaluation kits. You might make a ton of money! Or you might find that no one cares to buy an evaluation kit, at least not in high enough quantities to be worthwhile.

I can only assume that Atmel doesn't feel their evaluation kits are enough of a profit driver to be worthwhile spending too much time on them. This, of course, is built on the assumption that there isn't a "totally awesome" evaluation kit from Atmel. If you feel otherwise, prove them wrong. Design your kit, show us your design, convince developers to buy it.

This is actually an interesting project. I personally don't think I would want to spend my own time on it, but at the same time, it sure would be a great project to reinforce a lot of different skills (primarily PCB layout).

By the way, before you go out and design anything, check with Atmel. I assume putting together your own kit and selling it as a "UC3C Eval Kit" is probably fine, but it never hurts to check in with Atmel first.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Traditionally evaluation kits or demonstration boards are sold at less than cost price. Or simply given away to prospective customers.

You will struggle to compete with this.

Atmel has both a commercial and a hobbyist market. They will never make money from hobbyists, but some hobbyists/students will go on to take jobs with commercial companies.

Recently all the Silicon Vendors have been trying to woo new customers e.g. ARM Cortex etc. Some companies take more care with the quality of their offerings.

From a commercial point of view, silicon with similar features and price will only sell if it has good quality of support. It is not worth the extra development time demanded by poor tools.

Of course hobbyists may like the product regardless of commercial considerations. But that will not sell silicon.

David.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

david.prentice wrote:

Recently all the Silicon Vendors have been trying to woo new customers e.g. ARM Cortex etc. Some companies take more care with the quality of their offerings.

From a commercial point of view, silicon with similar features and price will only sell if it has good quality of support. It is not worth the extra development time demanded by poor tools.


My opinion (and it's just that: an opinion) is that Atmel doesn't care enough about the AVR32 to bother with good documentation or eval/development boards.

I wouldn't be surprised to see them let the AVR32 die a lingering death while they concentrate on their SAM line of ARM-based MCUs.

In the 32-bit MCU world, the ARM Cortex series is a juggernaut right now and I see little incentive for anyone, hobbyist or professional, to consider something like the AVR32, which is available from a single vendor and has (as we've seen) less than stellar support from Atmel.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I do not think that Atmel have deliberately neglected the AVR32. They just followed their normal half-hearted support policy.

They appear to be making some effort now, a little late with the ASF.

The ARM-Cortex world depends on price and good peripherals. They all have to pay licensing fees.

If the AVR32 offered substantial advantages over the ARM chips then it could be lucrative to Atmel. It is still risky for a manufacturer to be tied to a single-sourced chip.

David.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

jabram wrote:
How do we know my feedback was not welcome by Atmel,

It is just my own experience with Atmel. You are certainly entitled to make your own experience.

Quote:
does the administrator really represent Atmel

As something like an Atmel community manager (forgot the official title), I think so.

Quote:
I have a LOT invested in Atmel, and yes I do want to see them get out of the rut they are stuck in when it comes to decent evaluation kits,

But just like you can't force someone to love you, you can't force a company to listen to and act on feedback. And you can't help a company not wanting your help.

Quote:
I dont believe the people currently making those decisions have ever had to evaluate an MCU, they dont seem to have a clue they keep repeating the same bad decisions which make the product difficult to evaluate and use.

Exactly, the same bad decisions repeated. You are certainly not the first one telling them what is wrong but they repeat the same mistakes.

Quote:

Time to break that mould.

Why is Microchip so succesful,

From Atmel's point of view everything is fine. Atmel became the third largest MCU manufacturer in 2011, from being fifth. R. number one, F. number two, and M. number four.

Why should they listen and change anything? OK, I am sure they won't even listen if they were number 134. It is an attitude thing, they are right, everyone else is wrong.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

asf-test

thanks for sharing the secret codes with me R. F. M.

No wonder I got into trouble writing in plain English on this forum.

I think you are indeed correct A. is deaf not so smart and blind.

Even if A. was 200 out of 100 they would still prefer to be deaf not so smart and blind.

I must accept reality, for now stick with Studio 4.19 and 5, closely examine everything before spending another cent and start seriously looking at R. F. M.

No, I am not joking nor being sarcastic.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I also have the dreaded feeling that the AVR32 devices are being overlooked. Just look at the development of the AVR studio 5, whose main selling point was support for AVR32. It's been around for, what, one year, and never actually left the beta stage, before AS6 was introduced with ARM support. It still lacks simulator support for almost every AVR32 device. Now that AS6 supports ARM, I'm afraid that most of Atmel's attention is being diverted to those devices, leaving AVR32 chocking in the dust.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

And what happend to the USB DFU bootloader with Studio 5?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

I guess it is on the roadmap somewhere in the far future.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

And what about trace for the people who paid the big bucks for the AVR ONE! ?

Last Edited: Sat. Mar 24, 2012 - 02:51 AM
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0

Regarding the trace function, the atmel rep at the seminar in Budapest said, that a bug free ASF is on the list first, and if that is finished then comes the trace support.
Should be ready in Q3 2012 as far as I remember.