Why is it using BBB in commercial products not encouraged?

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to ask about this. I have read this at more than one place, but I couldn’t understand the reason behind it.Why shouldn’t I use BBB in commercial products? Or why isn’t it encouraged?

Does it have something to do with over all system stability and other technical issues? Or is it simply because BBB production is lagging behind demand?

Regards,
Zaxter.

I have boards running nearly continuously for years. I think the thought is that if you had to make loads of devices based on this you should just clone the open source design.

I have boards running nearly continuously for years.

Do you mean “BBB” boards?

If I were to clone and get my own hardware, would the prebuilt linux images(for BBB) and other capes work out-of-the-box on my hardware? Forgive me if this is a stupid question. I’m only a newbie.

Thanks.

If your hardware is a copy of the beaglebone black, you shouldn’t have any problem !

I have some bb-xm and original beaglebone boards I have been running since I bought them years ago that only get shut down when I move them. No issues with reliability.

You can base commercial products on this board and people do so.

The discussion of this has probably been the longest thread on this board. My understanding is that it boils down to two things:

  1. The BB was designed and intended as a development board and for hobbyists, not as a commercial product. It’s reliability level is more than adequate, but BeagleBoard.org can’t stand behind, guarantee, or endorse it for a use that was not intended.

  2. If you, as an oem, order thousands of boards rather than manufacturing your own from the freely published design, you are restricting the availability of boards to hobbyists and other developers. The hope was to provide small numbers of boards to many people and organizations rather than many boards to a small number of people and organizations. High volume commercial use works against this.

Having said that, there are commercial users who require too few boards to economically manufacture themselves (dozens or hundreds), and who do purchase in those quantities and use them in commercial products. Should they? I suspect if supply were unlimited no one would care much one way or the other, but at times it has been tight. How many is too many? Your call.

Special Computing sells a version of the BBB with unrestricted use.

https://specialcomp.com/beaglebone/

The discussion of this has probably been the longest thread on this board.
My understanding is that it boils down to two things:

1) The BB was designed and intended as a development board and for
hobbyists, not as a commercial product. It's reliability level is more than
adequate, but BeagleBoard.org can't stand behind, guarantee, or endorse it
for a use that was not intended.

Along this line, it comes down to us:
* not knowing the end commercial product use ---- so we have to make
sure you take responsibility for that and don't blame us when you use
it different than we anticipated and haven't documented every aspect
of what might matter to you
* not knowing we'll won't update the design to have a newer component
or extra feature that might not work in your exact application
* can't handle getting a boat load of returns because of one of the
above because we've priced it as a development board without all the
margin required to handle these potential issues

2) If you, as an oem, order thousands of boards rather than manufacturing
your own from the freely published design, you are restricting the
availability of boards to hobbyists and other developers. The hope was to
provide small numbers of boards to many people and organizations rather than
many boards to a small number of people and organizations. High volume
commercial use works against this.

This has become the more practical issue. It wasn't that we didn't
know the demand was going to be high, but our manufacturing partners
intended to have 16 week lead times and information from people
placing volume orders. When distributors had a bit of a stock position
last year, they hit the breaks a bit and that started a very ugly
domino effect. They asked to slow down shipments and left CircuitCo
scrambling to downsize their production without losing their shirt. At
the same time, the stock position triggered more people to try out the
boards and stock them in places like Radio Shack and Microcenter and
everyone started coming out of the woodwork looking for boards.

Back in April, when I wrote
http://beagleboard.org/blog/2014-04-13-dude-wheres-my-beaglebone-black/,
I anticipated us being back in that in-stock position before the end
of summer. Well, it turns out it took a while for Element14 to start
to really get an idea of the size of the demand and they are still
scrambling to catch up with their own backlog.

We can't stop (and don't necessarily want to stop) people putting
these boards into products, but they need to:
1) take responsibility to determine its suitability themselves
2) take ownership of the supply chain by establishing sane lead-time
orders with our existing manufacturing partners or others and not
disrupting the existing supply

I believe this would have all been a lot better if we'd taken all the
risk (of building too many) in one place, but we've instead spread it
out across many distributors and multiple manufacturing partners
(CircuitCo being the official one, Element14 being an alternative and
now I've seen that folks like Special Computing are shipping "no logo"
boards). Still, the comments on the thread speak for themselves
regarding the quality and clearly the demand is there.

Pretty much boils down to “you’re making all the money off the product, so suck it up, and take responsibility yourself” Which IMHO is truly warranted, based on all the crazy posts on the subject I’ve seen over the last year and a half or so.

Last post form memory being some irate person demanding support for something( software ) that was clearly of commercial use, and his / her own problem. Sometimes, I wonder what type of drugs “engineers” are on now days . . .