(no title)
equestria | 1 year ago
So, the original thinking was "if you need wifi, we can't price a standalone chip competitively, just buy a SoC". But the genius of ESP32 was that they approached it the other way round: they built a wifi chip, and then figured they can carve out some room for user code. No need to pay for a separate MCU. This worked for a lot of customers, and the economies of scale took care of the rest.
numpad0|1 year ago
The genius of Espressif was that they didn't issue C&D letters and DMCA takedowns when people started modifying firmware for their product using garden variety GCC without even asking and then ported hobbyist garbage called Arduino Core. They did initially panic a bit, but soon their management realized it's a golden ticket to something, and they bet the whole company on it. And they got the return they deserve.
There aren't a lot of aspects that are technically so advanced about ESP8266/ESP32. It's just the ones made by the hungriest and most aspiring Wi-Fi chip manufacturer.
ryao|1 year ago
mystified5016|1 year ago
The RAM use is also... noticeable. It takes quite a lot for this chip do WiFi.
vbezhenar|1 year ago
zazaulola|1 year ago
Other 10 pins, on which ADC2 channels are possible, can only accept pulse data if you are using Wifi.
This is probably due to firmware limitations.
ryao|1 year ago
https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware
rkagerer|1 year ago
AlotOfReading|1 year ago
ryao|1 year ago
https://github.com/qca/open-ath9k-htc-firmware
brcmthrowaway|1 year ago
mystified5016|1 year ago
A general purpose WiFi adapter can do gigabit sustained connections over PCI or some other high speed interface. Entirely different class of chip.
epcoa|1 year ago
chedabob|1 year ago
I can't think of an Apple product that needs low power Wifi and/or Bluetooth, and also operates at such a low price-point that there's not budget to put something bigger on the BoM.
bschwindHN|1 year ago
Apple products would absolutely suck if they used ESP32 for their wifi and Bluetooth functionality.