About Tiziano

This author has not yet filled in any details.
So far Tiziano has created 66 blog entries.
13 08, 2019

How to easily incorporate a colour display and touch interface into an existing design

2023-09-29T20:04:10+10:00Categories: Display Technologies|Tags: |

The proliferation of Full Colour Graphics Displays with Touch

There are very few embedded designs on the market today that do not have a display. Even many consumer white goods and kitchen appliances incorporate some form of display. Buttons, rotary selectors, switches and other input devices are being replaced by more colourful and easier-to-use touch screen displays in industrial machines, thermostats, drink dispensers, 3D printers, commercial applications – virtually any electronic application.

Undoubtedly, this trend has greatly been accelerated over the past decade by the adoption of the smartphone and the emergence of tablet computers. Users of electronic devices have come to expect an intuitive graphical user interface (GUI) with touch control to interact with the device. Touch displays add a more aesthetically pleasing look and intuitive interaction to a wide variety of commercial and industrial products. This explosive adoption is reflected in recent forecasts for touch screen modules, which is expected to exceed $110bn by 2027.

As a result, an increasing number of designers and manufacturers are feeling the pressure to design a display into their new devices or to upgrade their existing devices by replacing physical buttons with graphic displays with touch. Often, this task is easier said than done. Particularly for smaller organisations that are specialised in single core applications, like coffee machines, but lack the resources and know-how in the display department.

Learn more about how 4D Systems helped CEiiA quickly develop a ventilator with a full color graphics interface with touch in the fight against COVID-19 using a 7.0″ gen4-HMI Display Module with Touch and 4D Workshop4 IDE.

Furthermore, as product development lifecycles are getting shorter and there is increased pressure on time-to-market, even larger organisations with seemingly unlimited resources are looking for easier, more flexible, and scalable display solutions for their applications.

Below an example of a drink dispenser where mechanical buttons have been replaced with a full colour touch screen display.

Image 1: Stiegl / Drink Modul – drink dispenser with mechanical buttons.

Image 2: Stiegl / Drink Modul – drink dispenser with mechanical buttons replaced with full-colour touch screen displays.

In this upgrade implementation Stiegl used a 4.3″ Intelligent Display Module with Capacitive Touch and Integrated Bezel from 4D Systems’ gen4-HMI Series of Smart Display Modules in combination with 4D Workshop4 IDE enabling fast development times and swift time to market.

Module used: gen4-uLCD-43DCT-CLB

Software: 4D Workshop4 IDE

Two Approaches: Modular Solution vs. Discrete Design

Committing to the right LCD display solution for a product can be a difficult task. For the embedded designer, incorporating an LCD can be as demanding as the rest of the design. There are many things to consider when making the initial decisions on what kind of display to use.

Essentially, there are two routes to adding a display to a design – either by designing in a discrete LCM and developing all required libraries and software to drive the display (Discrete Design) or using an off-the-shelf Intelligent Display Module that is virtually ready to run out of box (Modular Solution).

Either of these two options have their benefits and drawbacks in terms of cost, flexibility, scalability, control of components, development time, and ease of development etc. Both options should be considered in detail in the initial planning phase.

For example, when looking purely at the cost of the bill of materials, discrete design may seem like the more attractive option when comparing it to the cost of a ready-made module. However, factoring in the development time and resources required of a discrete design vs. a ready-to-run module solution, the short and long-term cost benefit may be offset by the ease of use and speed at which development can be completed using a module.

Discrete Design Implementation

Consider an example where an existing application or device is upgraded to include a Graphical User Interface (GUI) with touch functionality. Essentially replacing physical buttons or other input devices with a touch panel.

Let’s imagine this existing application device is running on an 8-bit microcontroller (MCU) and is to be upgraded to have a full colour graphics display with a touch interface. While most MCU’s are capable of interfacing to an LCD through a driver that is either integrated into the MCU or the display, or using a discrete driver, the size and resolution of the display would be limited by the MCU’s resources. For instance, it may be possible for an 8-bit MCU to drive a two-line dot-matrix display, but it may not have the processing resources to drive anything larger.

To create an engaging, graphically-rich experience it will be necessary for the designer to add a significant amount of embedded software into the application, such as libraries and image files. Alone the development effort of simply having the LCD as an output device is already significant, but it gets even more complex when touch functionality is added, and the LCD is used as an input device.

A considerable amount of research and effort needs to be put into both, the hardware and software development when using this approach. Once the application development is complete and production is initiated, it is imperative to follow strict incoming quality control on displays. There is always the possibility that something has changed with the display without prior notification, which can cause line-down problems and require redevelopment or tweaking of the display drivers and a dedicated team of engineers may be required to fulfil this task.

Although developing a custom discrete design gives more complete control over the bill of materials, and cost, this comes with the added expense of increased engineering and development cost. It is also important to consider the development time required for the steps outlined above. It can take up to 6 months or longer to get to the point when the actual GUI can be developed once the lower-level design has been completed.

The added level of complexity in terms of the bill of materials can influence the long-term availability of the selected components. If one of the key components is discontinued, redevelopment of the GUI may be necessary and can cause extended and costly line-down delays. This in turn can result in extended delivery lead times of the end-user application and customer dissatisfaction.

Modular Design Implementation

The alternative approach to designing-in a display is to use an off-the-shelf Intelligent Display Module. Typically, modules of this type feature an industry standard interface such as I2C, SPI or UART for communications to the host. Some modules also include an embedded microcontroller that not only takes care of all the graphics elements but may also include a variety of I/O and other peripherals to potentially allow the module to run the entire target application.

Many modules are supported by a library of functions allowing relatively easy control from the host MCU. Some come with a fully-fledged Integrated Development Environment that integrates the design and construction of the GUI as part of the overall embedded design process. Some of these

IDE’s feature drag-and-drop ‘WYSIWYG’ style development workflows, enabling extremely fast prototyping and application development without the need to write any code.

Using the module approach has the benefit that all of the drivers, primitives and GUI functions have already been developed and tested. Also, the host MCU can offload all the display tasks to the module so that the host can dedicate all its resources to the main application.

This way engineers can focus on the actual GUI design without having to worry about the low-level development. Essentially, getting a jump start on the overall development and eliminating months of time spent on getting basic things setup.

There are various Intelligent Module Solutions available today. One such solution is available from 4D Systems in a variety of display modules of several sizes and touch options that are programmed using 4D Workshop4 Integrated Development Environment.

The gen4 Series HMI modules have been designed to work with almost any form of host MCU or processor. Even small low-pin-count devices. This is possible as all the interaction between the display module and the host takes place over a simple serial link which is supported by most MCU’s.

As can be seen from the above description, the process of integrating an Intelligent Display Module into an application is far simpler and straight forward when comparing it to the process of a discrete design. The display module removes all the lower level design requirements and developer can focus on developing the actual GUI and the core application. This allows prototypes to be ready within a couple of days, and the final application to be ready within a couple of weeks, thus radically reducing the time to market.

Additionally, the risks of having to re-develop the display solution in the medium run due to discontinued components is far lower with the modular solution as the module supplier takes on this task. In fact, with display modules that integrate a dedicated graphics processor this risk is eliminated altogether as the developed GUI will ‘travel’ with the processor and will not be affected by the display technology.

As an added bonus, modular solutions, like the one from 4D Systems, allow for scalability in the future as the newly developed GUI can easily be ported to various resolutions and display sizes with a few clicks of a button.

Cost Analysis – Discrete Design vs. Modular Design

Ultimately the decision of which design approach to take often boils down to simple cost analysis. While the decision-making process should be a managerial as well an engineering decision, oftentimes what seems attractive on paper, and bottom line, is what drives the decisions. In this regard, it is worth having a closer look at a possible cost analysis scenario to look at what the numbers say as well.

As an example, let’s examine a scenario where a 4.3” LCD Display with Capacitive Touch and Cover Glass is being designed into an existing application using each of the two approaches. We will use some hypothetical estimations for this exercise and this is meant for illustrative purposes only.

Design Specifications

  • Annual requirement: 3000 pieces of end user application.
  • Project lifetime: 2 years.
  • Total volume required 6000 pieces.
  • Delivery volume: 250 pieces per month.

Discrete Design

  • Two Development Engineers required to make the development and design.
  • Estimated Annual Salary Cost per engineer: 140,000 USD / year
  • Development time required 6 month
  • Development cost for 6 months: 140,000 USD
  • Estimated unit cost of 4.3” LCD Display and peripherals: 39.00 USD

Modular Design:

  • One Development Engineer required to make the design.
  • Estimated Annual Salary cost for the engineer: 140,000 USD / year.
  • Development time required 1 month
  • Development cost for 1 month: 11,666 USD
  • Estimated unit cost of 4.3” Intelligent Display Module: 59.50 USD

From this, we see that the Development Cost for Modules is significantly lower compared to the Development Cost of the Discrete Design. The total cost per unit for the first batch of 250 pieces is also significantly lower with the modular approach with 152.84 USD vs. 599.00 USD.

As the development cost of the discrete design is amortized over time the total cost per unit drops rapidly. However, in this example it takes up to 23 months, or total volume of 5,750 delivered units, until the two total cost lines meet at the top right-hand side of the chart.

From this we can conclude that choosing the modular solution at volumes below 6000 units is more cost effective than the discrete design. If all variables except the volume remained the same in this example, and the volume requirement was 10K units, the discrete design would be more cost effective. However, at higher volumes the module supplier would also be able to provide a more cost-effective price, which can potentially significantly reduce the cost advantage of a discrete design at higher volumes.

In the above example we are making some generalisations and looking at only the cost aspect of the two approaches. While it is very important to look at the cost, it is worth noting all the other benefits and drawbacks involved in either of the approaches.

Conclusion

From this, we see that the Development Cost for Modules is significantly lower compared to the Development Cost of the Discrete Design. The total cost per unit for the first batch of 250 pieces is also significantly lower with the modular approach with 152.84 USD vs. 599.00 USD.

As the development cost of the discrete design is amortized over time the total cost per unit drops rapidly. However, in this example it takes up to 23 months, or total volume of 5,750 delivered units, until the two total cost lines meet at the top right-hand side of the chart.

From this we can conclude that choosing the modular solution at volumes below 6000 units is more cost effective than the discrete design. If all variables except the volume remained the same in this example, and the volume requirement was 10K units, the discrete design would be more cost effective. However, at higher volumes the module supplier would also be able to provide a more cost-effective price, which can potentially significantly reduce the cost advantage of a discrete design at higher volumes.

In the above example we are making some generalisations and looking at only the cost aspect of the two approaches. While it is very important to look at the cost, it is worth noting all the other benefits and drawbacks involved in either of the approaches.

8 08, 2019

Introducing the new uLCD-90DT/DCT series

2023-09-29T23:30:06+10:00Categories: Product News|Tags: |

Going large – 4D Systems introduces the new uLCD-90DT/DCT series with 9.0” Diablo16 Integrated Display Modules designed specifically to cater for the growing demand of physically large displays.

Sydney, Australia – The 9.0” Diablo16 Integrated Display Module is part of the microLCD range of modules designed and manufactured by 4D Systems. The 9.0” model has been created with users front of mind, providing intuitive integration and ease of use.

Visually, the 9.0” provides a pleasing aesthetic experience, with 800 x 480 Resolution, RGB 65K true to life colours ensuring its application ranges flexibly across a broad range of projects and integrations which require increased space for greater functionality.

This specific module features a 9.0” colour TFT LCD display, with Resistive Touch (DT), or Capacitive Touch (DCT). It is powered by the feature-rich 4D Systems Diablo16 Graphics Processor, which offers an array of functionality and options for a range of customers whether they be designers, engineers or makers.

The 9.0” Diablo16 Integrated Display Module features a TFT LCD Display that is capable of a range of functions including Touch Detection, microSD memory Storage, GPIO and Communications, along with multiple millisecond resolution timers, and Audio Generation. Together the extensive storage capabilities, and numerous functions come together as a fine package helpful for any application.

“Ultimately our purpose will be to shape the way humanity interprets the world through intelligent display solutions. This endeavour marks the latest development from our engineering team who have crafted a cost-effect solution that is visually excellent and built with seamless integration capabilities.” – Sinan Aknar, Managing Director, 4D Systems.

Key to this approach has been ensuring the 9.0” module is 100% compatible with the Workshop4 IDE and its 4 different development environments, providing the User with a wealth of options for programming and controlling their system. Very fast, drag and drop style programming drastically cuts down development time allowing for faster prototyping and time to market.

Anything designed to run on other 4D Systems display modules featuring Picaso or Diablo16 Graphic Processors can be run seamlessly, with little or no required modifications.

Ultimately, the series has been designed with rapid and easy application development as a focus point to create an end-product that provides the next generation of crisp, clear and full colour graphics at an unprecedented size.

The uLCD-90DT and uLCD-90DCT will be available from the 4D Systems online store and global distribution partners immediately. Starter Kits for first time users of 4D Systems display solutions are also available.

1 08, 2019

Leading the way in solar powered vessels

2023-07-27T19:17:58+10:00Categories: Nautic|Tags: |

Idea

Ever wanted to build and race a manned competition vessel powered exclusively by solar energy?

If so, you’ll find yourself in good company, racing against Técnico Solar Boat.

They are a competitive team of 33 university students from a range of engineering disciplines based at Instituto Superior Técnico from Lisbon, Portugal.

With a mission to promote the use of renewable energy and electric mobility, they develop vessels from scratch, compete internationally at competitions held in Netherlands & Monaco each year and contribute to the broader industry’s knowledge by sharing their work as an open-source project.

With two prototypes & 2 years of competing under their belt, the team wanted to build a new boat – the São Rafael 02. The objective was to be lighter, faster & more efficient than its predecessor, the São Rafael 01.

Being a manned vessel, they knew they needed a custom display in the cockpit for the pilot to use to drive the boat in a safe manner.

The challenge for the team was to display every piece of relevant information while keeping power usage to a minimum so that the power could be used by the motors to outrun competitors.

Solution Design

The cockpit display needed to display the vessel’s velocity, the various temperatures of its power electronics, the power of the motors, the power of the solar panels, the RPMs of the motor, the state of the battery, safety information and much more.

The team chose to use 4D System’s SK-gen4-70DCT-CLB-SB with Capacitive Touch as their display unit as it met the requirements of being easily customisable, reliable and power efficient. The ease of use of Workshop4 IDE meant that the team could learn to program the display quickly.

Communicating directly with the 4D Systems technical support team, Técnico Solar Boat were able to use the guidance provided and confirm that the SK-gen4-70DCT-CLB-SB could deliver all of their display requirements.

Outcome

Attention to detail pays off.

Due to the team’s focus on optimising for the power efficiency, Técnico Solar Boat took out 1st place in the Endurance Stage in Monaco in July 2019. The Endurance Stage is a 0.5 nautical mile course and requires competitors to complete the maximum number of laps within a 3 hours period. This Stage tests the power efficiency and energy management of each competitor’s boat.

Overall, the team took out the of title of Vice-Champions in Monaco – a fantastic result.

Técnico Solar Boat believe that having low power electronics such as the 4D Systems SK-gen4-70DCT-CLB-SB display, contributed to achieving this result by preserving battery power for the motor.

As a non-profit organisation and proponents of the power of open-source projects, all ideas, designs and component lists are made available for download on their website.

Image: Técnico Solar Boat pilot reads the vessel’s cockpit display

Image: Técnico Solar Boat’s new boat, São Rafael 02 in Monaco

Image: The São Rafael 02 powering through the Endurance Stage, Monaco

Image: The São Rafael 02 in preparation for the Endurance Stage

16 07, 2019

His Very Own Space Odyssey

2023-07-27T19:18:05+10:00Categories: Visual Art|Tags: |

Idea

One of our customers decided to take model-making to the next level.

Based in New York, USA, Carl Darby set out to create a scale model of the EVA Pod from the Movie 2001: A Space Odyssey – a 1968 epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. Not content with simply backlighting the panels, he wanted the panels to be animated just as they did in the film.

Using the 1:8 scale model kit from Moebius, Darby needed to find small enough LCD screens that he could program and add into his model to replicate exactly the video screens seen in the movie.

He’s documented his progress on his social media pages and hopes to share the process with others so that they can do the same.

Image: Inside 2001: A Space Odessy EVA Pod

– Solution Design –

The EVA Pod has 6 screens in total, 2 screens in the centre and 2 on each side.

Ideally wanting to use the 0.96″ micro OLED Display for all 6 screens, Darby was restricted by the model’s panel area and was only able to use the UOLED-96-G2 for the 2 centre screens. The 4 side screens required a slightly larger display area than the 1.7 inch, for which he used 1/8 inch generic tfts.

“It was a shame about the model’s side screen size restriction as I would have liked to use the UOLED-96-G2 for all 6 screens. Having the onboard video processor and microSD card included on the screen’s board means they are very compact. The programming software is very intuitive and easy to use – especially compared to the Arduino programming I had to use for the side screens. The side screens need a circuit board and a separate Arduino Uno to control them. It’s not ideal when trying to create a kit & instructions for others to use” Darby explains.

For the 2 front screens, Darby programmed the animations using the 4DGL graphics function and saved them onto his micro-SD card, which was then read directly by the unit’s on-board micro-SD memory card adaptor.

“As I was coming across programming and technical questions, I’d reach out to 4D Systems team via the support forum and was always able to get an answer to move forward with the project. For example, the 2 front screens play a 2-minute clip on a loop. One of the 4D Systems forum moderators made a program for me so each time you power on the screens they play one of 3 videos” Darby continues.

Image: Keir Dullea as David Bowman

– Outcome –

Recording the model development’s progress on his social media pages, the 6 video panels display in colour and refresh for new charts and text displays.

But not everything was smooth sailing.

Darby had to design a power supply that could be completely enclosed within the model as well as design & 3D-print parts that would match each of the 6 screens to the EVA Pod kit.

“This project showed me how easy 4D Systems products are to use. Unlike the front screens, the generic tft’s I used for the side screens needed a circuit board and a separate Arduino Uno to control them. The SD card on the genetic tfts had resistors in, which slowed the data transfer so I modified them and had to make a custom circuit board to allow a fast enough frame rate to play videos. You can see why I would have preferred to use UOLED-96-G2 for all screens” jokes Darby.

Image: Carl Darby’s model EVA Pod

Image: The original EVAPod

11 07, 2019

5 Things To Consider When Incorporating A Display Into Your Embedded Design

2023-09-29T20:03:57+10:00Categories: Display Technologies|Tags: |

Nowadays most embedded designs on the market, from consumer white goods to industrial machinery, incorporate some form of display. The current sophistication of touch displays, enabling commands to be given through swipes and gestures, owes much to the early smartphone designers. Touch-enabled LCD displays can reduce system cost by removing the need for switches and push buttons. Product reliability can also be improved by using capacitive touch screens to avoid dust and moisture ingress through switch enclosures. Additionally, a well-presented, visually pleasing and intuitive display contributes significantly to the aesthetics of a product, strengthening product brand value and user confidence.

Designers must make a choice when building a display into their embedded systems – design from scratch or use an off-the-shelf module. Whilst both have their merits, and the specifics of some designs may dictate the former approach, display design has become a speciality and there is a comprehensive range of off-the-shelf devices on the market.

We discuss 5 factors to consider when choosing between discrete design or off-the-shelf modules and look at a specific module, the gen4-uLCD-43DCT-CLB from 4D Systems.

The impact on the MCU resources

The choice of MCU is driven primarily by the computing and interfacing needs of the embedded application, and integration of a display into the design can increase the required MCU specification. Additional memory must be allocated for the display frame buffer and the MCU must compose the image to be displayed in the buffer, incorporating images and icons in addition to processing the data to be displayed. Some displays incorporate a video controller which reads the data in the display buffer and writes it to the display itself, whereas others don’t, leading to additional overhead on the MCU. In summary, the MCU must be capable of running the display and frame buffer tasks in addition to managing the core application

On the other hand, separate display controllers have most of the above resources integrated on chip, including frame buffer memory and microcontrollers. They also feature industry standard interfaces, enabling easy interface to the host MCU which can therefore offload the display tasks and dedicate all its resources to the application.

Using a module such as the 4.3-inch gen4-uLCD-43DCT-CLB from 4D Systems (figure 1) in a design can enable a lower specification – and hence lower cost – to be used.

Figure 1: gen4-uLCD-43DCT-CLB from 4D Systems

The length and complexity of the design cycle

Designing discrete display systems very often ends up being more complicated and costly than initially expected, with many unforeseen challenges. Drivers must be written for the display controller, and also primitives have to be developed to allow icons, fonts and stored images to be written to the display. The primitives also need to include basic graphic functions such as drawing lines, circles and boxes, after which a GUI for the application must be implemented. The display hardware needs to be laid out around the main application and everything debugged and tested and a design cycle of between 4 and 6 months isn’t unreasonable.

Display modules, such as the gen4-uLCD-43DCT-CLB, usually come with all of the drivers, primitives and GUI functions already developed and tested. The off-the-shelf approach can therefore significantly reduce the overall design time of the embedded system.

A quality display module will be supported by development tools

Many families of display modules, such as those produced by 4D Systems, are supported by integrated software development environments, (IDE). 4D’s Workshop4 IDE, (figure 2), provides three main ways to support the development of display application code. Professional developers can use the IDE, writing their own code in the 4DGL graphical programming language. The ViSi method enables a drag-and-drop approach together with the ability to add application-specific 4DGL code, whereas the third method – ViSi Genie – offers a completely codeless approach to designing a graphic application interface.

Furthermore, a 4DGL library is provided to simplify communication between the host MCU and the display module, reducing the amount of data needing to be transferred between the two.

Figure2: Workshop 4 IDE from 4D Systems

Product time to market

As discussed above, use of an off-the-shelf module can significantly reduce time-to-market by reducing the 4 to 6-month design cycle often required for discrete implementations. In today’s fast-paced consumer environment, this reduction in time to market may be the difference between product success or failure.

Total product cost

A straightforward consideration of the bill-of-materials for a planned embedded system may lead to the conclusion that a discrete design is more cost effective. However, careful consideration of the total costs of production may well give a different perspective. Designing with an off-the shelf module can enable use of a cheaper, lower-spec MCU as the display-related tasks can be off-loaded. Design and production costs can be significantly reduced, both by avoiding the need to develop dedicated hardware and software to manage the display, and also by taking advantage of the support offered by an IDE.

Finally, reduced time to market means earlier access to revenue and the increased market share that comes with early market entry.

When faced with adding a graphical LCD display to a design, engineers should carefully consider whether a discrete approach can be accommodated within the project timescales and cost budget. Intelligent display modules, together with their graphical design tools, can significantly reduce the length of the design process, enabling working prototypes to be delivered in shorter timeframes.

Adopting a total-cost approach, including the savings from the reduced design time as well as the benefits of faster time to market may fundamentally favour use of off-the-shelf modules over discrete design.

10 07, 2019

When is a Maker a Maker?

2023-09-29T20:03:34+10:00Categories: Display Technologies|Tags: |

Creativity is fundamental to being human; it sets our species apart from most others and yet it isn’t easily assigned to any specific area of the brain. There is something about how the human brain functions that allow creative and abstract thought. It is so fundamental that, without this ability, we may not have evolved beyond simple bipeds.

Given that creativity is an innate ability within all people, it isn’t surprising that with the right tools we can make wondrous things. Access to those tools improves with every generation, a compound effect that results in exponential leaps.

Consider YouTube, for example. It is a community of Makers whose chosen medium is video. How many YouTubers went to university to study media? How many have spent years working in the broadcast industry? And how many have completed hours of drama schooling? The answer is probably very few, on all accounts, yet the results of their labours are clearly good enough to in one way or another to attract millions of views.

Human ingenuity has created the technology that enables both the platform and the content, but it is human creativity that provides that little something extra. Nobody really knows how creativity works at a cellular level, researchers have tried and failed to detect the part of the brain most likely responsible for creativity, but it is clearly a tangible quality we all possess. The Makers of this world successfully mix creativity with the knowledge to produce something that simply didn’t exist before, and every time it happens it is just as amazing as the first.

The rise of open source hardware and software has helped accelerate this process, while online communities supporting the Maker movement have added the commercial synergy needed. This gives Makers access to the technology they use to realise their vision and goes far beyond what we may normally call an ecosystem. It has reached a level of activity that rivals many fully commercial enterprises and is beginning to be recognised as something more significant than hobbyists working in their shed at the weekend.

The next big thing is in you!

There is every expectation that the next big scientific breakthrough could come from a Maker, but just as creativity remains an elusive but tangible property, Makers are also difficult to define. Does it exclude anyone with a professional interest in science and technology? Should it be restricted to those who have had no formal training in either, or can we apply it as liberally as, say, an artist? Art is subjective and has very few boundaries, those that do exist will be challenged as soon as they are recognised, the same could be said about Makers. Tell someone it can’t be done and they will try twice as hard to prove you wrong, and often those who succeed are the ones that don’t know they are likely to fail.

Perhaps that is the discernible difference between a Maker and a professional engineer; the former learns through failure while the latter is afraid to fail. This is extremely liberating for engineers who would like nothing more than to try, try and try again.

We have arguably reached a stage now where Makers are really R&D engineers working in a new field, without the commercial pressures of deadline, budgets and customers. Of course, many Maker projects now successfully transition to commercial products thanks in part to online crowdsourcing platforms, which typically charge a commission on funds raised but provide a valuable route to market for Makers. Companies that practice ‘intrepreneurship’, allowing employees to pursue Maker-style ideas that may become viable products for the company, stand to benefit greatly from the freedom that extends to their in-house talent.

The Maker movement is now so important to commercial companies that they are willing to put significant resources into enabling it. This includes 4D Systems, which now has a site dedicated to Makers (www.4dmakers.net) where people can meet, create, share and discuss their ideas, and make them a reality.

The secret source

It is unlikely that the Maker movement in electronics would thrive if it wasn’t for open source hardware and software. With community-led projects such as Raspberry Pi and Arduino, industry-led platforms like BeagleBoard, and software communities such as Linux, the building blocks are all there. As the level of abstraction from the ‘nuts and bolts’ of technology increases, it not only opens them up to more Makers with fewer skills, but it gives those that do have the skills a solid platform from which to start. This is where they add their own secret source that makes an off-the-shelf board into a bespoke solution.

It is becoming more relevant and more important to consider what happens next; open source platforms provide a trampoline for ideas but they can also be used for mainstream production volumes, at least up to a point. More commercial companies are willing to engage with Makers in low-volume projects at an early stage, providing valuable support and expertise in order to help individuals achieve their goals. This can be seen as ‘paying it forward’ by some or simply as good community spirit by others.

One thing is certain, it’s never been easier to take a ‘back of an envelope’ idea and turn it into something real.

Go to Top