I'm not disputing that the pyboard is worth its cost, nor am I underestimating the time, effort, cost and commitment needed to not only create the first release but to continue supporting it into the future. Its a fundamental problem with the Open Source type model.
£30 (ish) is fine for a development project, or a niche application, but what I assume everyone who likes the uPython concept would like to see is wider use / recognition of its success / an even larger community that safeguards its longevity. Now obviously one way to fund that is through selling boards, but if you can do 99% of the stuff with a £3 board and the heavily supported Pi community that might start to become harder to "compete" on the board front.riklaunim wrote:If you use such chip you would want to use USB devices, a display and more.
I'm a user of a PiBoard (I dabble), but I have to be honest if I was starting a project today I'd have a very real dilemma about which way to go with Zero v PiBoard. I can also see that a Pi Zero port potentially removes one of the few sources of revenue for micropython by letting this cool stuff be used on a third party cheaper board.
The sorts of really simple projects I play with (things like temperature loggers) are crying out for a "disposable" priced board with very few features. I'd happily buy them in tens to get them "cheap".
"If you use such chip you would want to use USB devices, a display and more."
I see why you say that, but actually if all you want to do is say log a temperature every 30s and open / close a relay depending on the result and perhaps turn an LED on/off to show a status then you don't need any of that fancy stuff. But if you want to do that at 50 locations, then £3 is a lot more attractive than £30!