BBC Reveals Its New Microcomputer Design

The BBC has revealed the final design for its Micro Bit computer, a programmable board the size of a credit card they hope will inspire the same love of technology that the BBC Micro did in 1981. The Micro Bit includes an array of LEDs, buttons, and a motion sensor. It can be powered via USB, or by an addon pack with AA batteries. It's not intended as a competitor to devices like the Raspberry Pi or the Arduino — it is intended to complement them while remaining simple for educational purposes. In October, the BBC will begin distributing the Micro Bit to students in grade 7. They expect to give away about a million of them. Afterward, the device will go on sale, and its specs will be open sourced.

Comments

Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism!

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody socialists, getting into a deal with a small capitalist computer firm in the 1980s that became the firm that invented and licensed the chip design in basically every single device smaller than a desktop PC. Including the BBC Micro Bit and the Raspberry Pi...

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is publicly owned. It's the British propaganda arm since the war.

Re: Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

He means ARM.

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not exactly Pravda mate. Publically owned but independently operated.

Re:Oh no,

[Bearhouse]

Your mean what was then, and still is now, one of the most respected public service broadcasters, worldwide?
With a long history of attacking the British Government in power?
(but especially if they're right wing, it must be said).

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is exactly Pravda. The U.K population have been propagandised for so long that they just can't see it.

The BBC tells us that Wikileaks taught us nothing new and was just a slight embarrassment to the US government. When dealing with Snowden they say nothing about the actual leaked information outside of, "bulk collection of email and telephone metadata". The story is always, "Is he a spy for the Chinese, or Russia?", "What's his motive?" etc. Try to have a conversation with an educated, even academic, Brit about some of the Snowden revelations you read on Slashdot and you will soon find yourself alone and utterly out of step with the groupthink.

Listen to radio 4. It feels like a creepy recreation of the empire circa 1954 right up until the world service kicks in whereupon a few of the opinions that were verboten during the day can now be expressed. Of course everyone has gone to bed by then, lulled by "Sailing by", the most creepy fucking Brazil-like experience I've ever heard. It gives me chills.

You have to listen to the domestic output while comparing to foreign or independent sources to see the incredible, Orwellian nature of their deception.

Re:Oh no,

[philip456]

I hope that you are not pretending that USA TV stations are in any way independent and are anything but the spokespersons for their billionaire, right-wing owners and shareholders.

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I agree that is also true. Although Democracy Now! is pretty good most of the time for global issues.

Re:Oh no,

[Mant]

The BBC tells us that Wikileaks taught us nothing new and was just a slight embarrassment to the US government.

When dealing with Snowden they say nothing about the actual leaked information outside of, "bulk collection of email and telephone metadata". The story is always, "Is he a spy for the Chinese, or Russia?", "What's his motive?" etc.

I just went to the BBC website and searched for Wikileaks (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=Wikileaks)

Top 4 results:

• Wikileaks: US 'routinely spied' on Brazil
• US 'spied on French presidents' - Wikileaks
• NSA spying: France summons US envoy after Wikileaks revelation
• Wikileaks: Bin Laden's son 'asked for father's death certificate'

Nope, nothing there about actual leaked content.

Listen to radio 4. It feels like a creepy recreation of the empire circa 1954 right up until the world service kicks in whereupon a few of the opinions that were verboten during the day can now be expressed.

Radio 4? Really? The station with the rep of being for the middle aged (and older), middle class liberals? I mean cutting edge it isn't but what are these verboten opinions? I only listen to the the comedy/science on it, News Quiz, Now Show, Infinite Monkey Cage. I'd love to know the propaganda in them.

You have to listen to the domestic output while comparing to foreign or independent sources to see the incredible, Orwellian nature of their deception.

Clearly I've been duped, open my eyes than what is the great deception? What lies are they feeding me? I don't pretend they are impartial, but Pravda?

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't feel bad for being duped. There is no single "Great Deception". The BBC is very clever at taking a story apart and spreading all the facts across multiple programs shown at different times. You can see a documentary during the middle of the night that adds contextual detail that would have changed the tone of the reporting at the time.

But you asked for an example so I'll describe the last time I listened closely to the BBC reporting an ongoing story. It was during the hostage situation in Mali. I listened for 2 days and the BBC gave this sequence of events:

1) Islamic terrorists attack the oil and gas refinery and take hostages.
2) Algeria launches rescue operation.
3) Cameron blast Algerian government for not notifying allies of the operation in advance.
4) French/US operations are launched, as part of the war on terror.

I then turned on Democracy Now and learned:

1) French and U.S forces had launched secret operations in Mali.
2) Islamic forces fought back and took the refinery and hostages as part of that conflict.
3) The Algerian government, angry because they were not notified about the French/US action on their border, launched a rescue operation independently.
4) French/US operations continue, as part of the war on terror.

Major distortion of the facts right there. The BBC didn't even mention the Twareg people and the power struggle between them and Islamic groups in northern Mali during this ongoing reporting, although they did use the words neo-colonialism after a couple of days, but without further explanation. Later that week, radio 4 did mention the French reliance of cheap uranium from northern Africa as part on an otherwise unrelated story.. whereas Democracy Now had the whole story, fully contextualised, right from day one.

Do your own research. Take an ongoing story and follow it across independent and foreign media while comparing to the BBC coverage. It was taking the time to do this that formed my anti-BBC opinions. You may not consider this Pravda level propaganda but if the end result is an audience being massively misled about the role of western powers abroad then, to me at least, the comparison is sound.

Re:Oh no,

[FranTaylor]

no doubt you have a list of broadcasting networks that don't engage in this sort of stuff

so where is it?

Re:Oh no,

[KingMotley]

What is your definition of independent? Independent from whom? Cause the rest of your post sure sounds like they are independent -- just not representative of what you want them to be.

Re:Oh no,

[dave420]

Aaaah so you are arguing your perception, and not any actual argument based on real evidence. Gotcha. You know you are indistinguishable from a conspiracy theorist, right? You are operating in the exact same manner - make a guess about something, then argue it as fact, using your original guess and own opinion as evidence. Brilliant work.

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

So snark and ad hominem attacks is all you guys have? Brilliant work to you too then.

I provided a good, clear example of manipulation of the narrative by the BBC. If you bothered to you'd find the facts do support the DN! version but if all that is indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory, or merely a false perception on my part, then so be it. This is clearly an idealogical divide and nothing I can say, or list, is going to bridge that gap. Particularly when the BBC is *perceived* to be so factually reliable by you.

Re:Oh no,

[Anonymous Coward]

Try finding U.S. stations that are owned by people or small groups of people living within the coverage area of their signals.

Try finding physical addresses and lists of officers for the owners of LLCs holding stations.

Long gone are most protections, such as the Fairness Doctrine, and the national ownership limit of 7 AM, 7 FM, and 7 television stations.

MBC?

[ArcadeMan]

Too bad they couldn't come up with a name which would have been "BBC" for the acronym.

Re:MBC?

[cb88]

Bit Byte Computer, Bloody Bit Computer, Bloody Byte, Blundering Bit computer.... Beastly Bit Computer, Banggin' Brittish Computer.

I'm sure I could go on :D

Re:MBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

They called it the Micro Bit, though. So it's the BBC Micro Bit. Considering their famous 1980s microcomputer, the BBC Micro... I think it's kind of an affectionate name.

It has a sort of poetry to it, too. The beeb made Acorn's BBC Model B (and later the Archimedes, which did well with compatibility) sell very well into schools. For the Archimedes, Acorn branched out into RISC chip design -- they literally designed their own chip for their computer. That little chip was the ARM -- Acorn RISC Machine... they used the second version of it in the Archimedes.

Unfortunately, they then made the foolish mistake of getting out of the thriving British-made home computer business, spinning off their chip design into a firm called Advanced RISC Machines, and they were never heard of again. Or something like that anyway.

CAPTCHA: yawner. RUDE!

Re:MBC?

[Dutch Gun]

For a moment there I thought you were channeling Captain Haddock.

Re:MBC?

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have gone for New BBC Computer, yes, the BBC NBC, that wouldn't be confusing at all. Of course I'm an American who happens to watch too much BBC America, and probably find it funnier than anybody in the UK would.

Who's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Baba O'Reilly?

Sign of the Beast

[turkeydance]

c'mon. you knew that.

NIH?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to recall that the Raspberry Pi Foundation originally attempted to get the BBC's blessing for naming and branding the foundation's yet-to-be-released, credit-card-sized computer. I can't recall what the reason was that the BBC shot them down but it seems bizarre that they are now duplicating efforts. The primary goal of the Raspberry Pi foundation has always been to manufacture and distribute an inexpensive, tiny computer for educational purposes.

Funny enough my challenge response for this comment is "reinvent".

Re:NIH?

[Narcocide]

TFS says: "It's not intended as a competitor to devices like the Raspberry Pi or the Arduino — it is intended to complement them while remaining simple for educational purposes" so it appears that is NOT in fact what they say they have done.

Re:NIH?

[julian67]

....that's right...despite it being extraordinarily similar to those devices, and targeted at an extraordinarily similar market and for actually identical reasons....it's in no way competing! *cough*

*cough*

*cough*

Excuse me. I seem to have developed a *cough*. But each *cough* is entirely unique and unrealted to the previous *cough*.

There is only one real *cough* in this comment. Any fool can tell the difference.

Re:NIH?

[Forever Wondering]

And, once again, they've come up with an oddball, just for the sake of doing it.

The 1980's attempt was like an anemic version of an Apple II or Commodore Amiga. The BBC museum has been begging for volunteers to fix/maintain their 1980's computer systems. 30 years from now, they'll have the same problem with this new system.

The current [proposed] system is so watered down that any student will be bored within 1-2 years. A Raspberry Pi would delight well into adulthood. Also, a young adult will have a better time getting a job if they can claim Raspberry Pi experience [Pi's are starting to be used in real world applications like industrial controllers] as opposed to a "toy" system.

Given that the BBC is part of the UK gov't, perhaps they rejected the Pi because they couldn't convince the foundation that adding the anti-terrorist/surveillance tech [that Cameron has been yakking about] was a good idea. Or, that the Pi was "too powerful" for school children and could be used by terrorists ... Just sayin' ...

Re:NIH?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Agreed, it would have been nice if they would have just developed an "education shield" for the Pi or the Arduino. For classrooms, an Arduino might have been better as they are very easy to program even for complete beginners: an Arduino and an IDE or CodeBender come close to the pgrogramming ease of the old computers with a BASIC command line. And for advanced students, there's already a whole range of other projects, sensors and shields out there they can sink their teeth into.

Re:NIH?

[RDW]

The 1980's attempt was like an anemic version of an Apple II or Commodore Amiga.

The BBC Micro was 1/4 of the price of the Apple II and pre-dated the Amiga by several years, so that's hardly a fair comparison.

The current [proposed] system is so watered down that any student will be bored within 1-2 years.

You really don't think that something that can engage a school kid for a year or two isn't worthwhile?

Given that the BBC is part of the UK gov't, perhaps they rejected the Pi because they couldn't convince the foundation that adding the anti-terrorist/surveillance tech [that Cameron has been yakking about] was a good idea. Or, that the Pi was "too powerful" for school children and could be used by terrorists ... Just sayin' ...

I heard it was because the Pi generates a signal that blocks the Reptilian mind control devices implanted in every Freeview tuner...

Re:NIH?

[AmiMoJo]

By "extraordinarily similar" I presume you mean "not very similar".

The Arduino does almost nothing by itself, you need to add a shield just to blink an LED, or wire one up yourself. The only programming language it supports is a simplified C++, which isn't exactly ideal for teaching 11 year olds.

The Raspberry Pi is a full computer with video and sound output, operating system etc.

The MicroBit has an LED display and a number of peripherals built in. There is a custom software environment. These two factors are designed to support lessons given by teachers. They could have supplied an Arduino, custom software, shields etc. but it would have cost more and been more prone to failure, as well as needing assembly before it could be used. It could also have caused some confusion, because kids googling "arduino" would get lots of pages that were way out of their depth and suggesting that they nag their parents to buy more hardware.

The MicroBit is designed for a specific purpose. It's not really generic enough to compete with things like the Arduino, but it does have enough built-in to provide a number of interesting introductory lessons for children.

Re:NIH?

[Mant]

The BBC isn't part of the government, just publicly funded, in fact it fairly regularly annoys the government,

Re:NIH?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the article again. These are to be -given- to schoolchildren. Are you really expecting that all those schoolchildren already have -a- Pi/Arduino/whatever board (let alone the -same- Pi/Arduino/whatever) to design a shield around?
And if not, then what's the point of giving a schoolkid a Pi/Arduino/whatever shield if they dont have the Pi/Arduino/whatever in the first place? Or were you expecting their parents to rush out and get one?

Perhaps you're suggesting that the BBC should have designed a Pi/Arduino/whatever shield, then manufactured the Pi/Arduino/whatever shield, then bought as many Pi/Arduino/whatever boards as there are schoolkids, and provided each of those kids with the appropriate Pi/Arduino/whatever board -and- the shield?

That would be sensible, wouldnt it?

Maybe they could even get the 'whatever' on the same board as the shield and save themselves some money and complexity, but that sounds a bit farfetched to me.

Re:NIH?

[Blaskowicz]

Raspberry Pi is some kind of Unix workstation with USB peripherals and a big firmware blob you have to cater to. Seems more complex than even a PC that runs DOS. A microcontroller that only runs your program, not an OS is simpler still.

Re:NIH?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Yes. Give the kids an Arduino and shield, or come up with their own design but make it compatible with the Arduino.

Re:NIH?

[dave420]

So you don't understand. Gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:NIH?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The Arduino does almost nothing by itself
Agreed, until you connect it to power, then it's pretty useful.

> you need to add a shield just to blink an LED
Arduino has an LED on board, or you can just stick one end into one of the sockets and the other in V+ tho you really should put a resistor in there too.

>The only programming language it supports is a simplified C++,
Nope. https://learn.sparkfun.com/tutorials/alternative-arduino-interfaces

Re:NIH?

[hughbar]

Yes, I agree. I've worked on/off as contractor for the BBC in the last few years. However, since I spend my time dissing them [without anonymity] I doubt that's still an option. The BBC seems to have whole departments labeled Wheel-Reinvention [Squarish Lab]. The last thing that went south was the Digital Media Initiative, after a multi-million pound failure this was renamed Don't Mention It.

That said, this thing is a brain-dead toylet [as opposed to toilet, a different, bigger, quite useful thing] born of Not-Invented-Here. I volunteer teach Code Club: https://www.codeclub.org.uk/ and this just complicates matters as a distraction. It won't run Scratch [Raspberry Pi will] or the sort-of of processing [as I understand it] that the Arduino will. It's not a progression in any sense, can't take expansions [as can Pi, as can Arduino].

My 'hope' was that it would make a good wearable, but as I currently understand, it's not really good for that either. Lilypad is probably better. Like most Brits, I really value the BBC, but it has lost its way somewhat at the moment.

Re:NIH?

[Forever Wondering]

I had forgotten about the Commodore C64, which is a fairer comparison, given that it competed head on against the BBC micro in sales in the UK [per wiki on C64]. It came out one year later, but also consider the predecessor VIC-20 which came out at the same time as the BBC micro.

I was being kind about the 1-2 years. More like 1-2 months. Remember, this is going to 7th graders (~12 years old--they play video games and use cell phones). The Pi has enough in it to accommodate all of the curriculum from 7th-12th grade, but the BBC board does not.

Re:NIH?

[Forever Wondering]

I value the BBC [and I'm an American]. Particularly, I'm a fan of the kinder/gentler/subtler comedies: As Time Goes By, Waiting for God, Joking Apart, The Good Life, To The Manor Born [or anything Penelope Keith does :-)].

But, they should [should have] stuck to broadcasting [what they do best]. It seems strange that they would delve into a microcomputer board for school children. This would be more the province of a department of education [or some such]. Perhaps, they have more spare cash to subsidize this.

But, they'd be far better off negotiating a bulk discount for the Pi [or equiv], rather than trying to design something that is as terrible as what they came up with. AFAIK, Pi's aren't discounted [because they're so inexpensive to begin with], but even at full price they're still a bargain.

Re:NIH?

[CrazyBusError]

The Commodore is definitely a fairer comparison, and doesn't fare well against the BBC, either.

The BBC may have only had half the memory in its most common form, but it had expansion ports the C64 could only dream of, a far superior BASIC implementation (with a built-in assembler), networking, disk drives that couldn't also be used as space heaters (and before you go on about the extra 6502 inside the 1541 disk drive - how many people actually made use of it?), co-processors, multiple ROM slots, and full documentation. Oh and a power supply that didn't randomly melt.

It lost out to the C64 on price and the number of games available; and as everyone knows, the key factor in what computer you bought in the 80s was how many of your friends you could swap games with.

I had (and still have to this day) a C64, but always found the beeb significantly easier to program.

Re:NIH?

[Narcocide]

Right, except that you're forgetting that the MicroBit can be plugged into and programmed from a Raspberry Pi. You can't do that in the other direction, so the devices don't actually even fit the same use cases.

Want!

[Joce640k]

Subject says it all...

Compromised by not being wearable

[johnjones]

I don't know the reason but this became a lot less interesting as soon as the battery was altered, would have been a useful wearable...

Pity

John Jones

Re:Compromised by not being wearable

[QuasiSteve]

The battery is just a battery. Those who are into wearables likely find no practical issue with grabbing an existing coin cell holder with leads and JST connector (or just solder one on themselves) and plugging that in - or with using a small lipo pouch (presuming the circuitry is tolerant to the voltage).

It is a shame that the slot (itself a holder) was removed mainly because of the fear that little children will eat absolutely anything, but I can understand the decision given that it is targeted to (slightly older) children in the first place and engineering e.g. a screw-fastened lid on top of it would be rather expensive.

Re:Compromised by not being wearable

[hawguy]

I don't know the reason but this became a lot less interesting as soon as the battery was altered, would have been a useful wearable...

Pity

John Jones

What would you use it for as a wearable? The LED matrix is too spread out to be very readable, so what would you do with it clipped to your shirt that you couldn't also do with it in your pocket?

Re:Compromised by not being wearable

[Anonymous Coward]

They also mentioned "other reasons" for removing the proposed coin cell. I suspect it's current draw.

The original prototype used an Atmel chip, which is fine on a CR2032 coin cell. But upgrading to the Arm and adding Bluetooth means more current, and lithium coin cells are not great above 20mA. Hence the need for some external AAs.

Re:Compromised by not being wearable

[FranTaylor]

The LED matrix is too spread out to be very readable

because alphanumeric text is the ONLY thing you can do with an LED matrix?

Re:Compromised by not being wearable

[hawguy]

The LED matrix is too spread out to be very readable

because alphanumeric text is the ONLY thing you can do with an LED matrix?

That's not an answer, that's a question -- what would you do with this thing if you could wear it? It's relatively big and bulky compared to some other purpose made wearables, so what would you really want to do with it if it were wearable?

Byte Pushers

[AndyKron]

Sure, give them away until people are hooked on them, then charge them through the nose. Where have I seen that before?

Re:Byte Pushers

[FranTaylor]

because these devices get more expensive over time? is that how it works?

The difference...

[julian67]

The real difference between the BBC Micro of 1981 and the BBC Micro Bit of 2015 is 34 years of changes in society and technology.

I was at school when the first BBC Micro appeared. My school built a special computer laboratory to accommodate two of these mystical devices! (they forgot to add burglar alarms and decent locks so it all got stolen). A year later the school acquired a ZX Spectrum which was housed with the science block. It was all very exciting, such that it occasionally and temporarily displaced burning interests in alcohol, cigarettes and certain photo journalism features of traditionally attired ladies in National Geographic magazine.

The BBC has a remit (to educate, entertain, inform). But this is not 1981. Which UK home that contains a person stimulated by maths, technology or computers science does not also already have a PC or and Android device?

This looks a lot like the BBC puffing itself up, and trying to needlessly and damagingly compete with people who are already informing, educating and entertaining, in much the same way that they are destroying the independent local press in the UK and crushing small production companies. George Osborne was not kidding when he described the BBC's ambitions and actions as having an imperial taint. If there is one thing an empire cannot tolerate it is an entity which offers an alterantive, however good, bad, big or small.

Re:The difference...

[phriot]

But this is not 1981. Which UK home that contains a person stimulated by maths, technology or computers science does not also already have a PC or and Android device?

Right, but in 1981, I presume that in order to get the computer to do anything fun, you had to learn how to program it. Today's computers and phones are basically complete as far as anything a kid would want to do with them. Even in the mid-1990s when I got my first computer, it would have become an "AOL box" if I hadn't had a family friend who was a programmer. Sure, by high school they might have some ideas that might require going a little deeper than ready-made software, but microcontrollers do from the get-go.

Re:The difference...

[Bing Tsher E]

It isn't just that modern computers are 'completed.' They are essentially closed off. The old machines some of us grew up with powered up to a programming interface. A prompt at which you could start typing in a BASIC program for the most part.

Modern software systems have abstracted things completely away from this sort of interface, for better in the case of usability but for worse in terms of prodding a young new user to actually learn to program it. There are huge abstract toolchains that have to be installed and a budding programmer can only write code at the topmost layer of the abstraction. No kid is going to write an 'Android app' straight out of the box after reading a few chapters in the introductory manual that comes with an Android device.

Re:The difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh get over yourself.

What it looks like to me is that the BBC have done something interesting: they've made a tiny, simple, deliberately friendly little computer that is designed to be really programmed (unlike Android phones and countless other things), has sensors and inputs that are easy to use, has LEDs that make it cute and fun, could be used as a tiny little computer, in technology lessons, connected up to real things, with none of the distraction power of a tablet device, none of the 'just use it like a PC with a monitor and keyboard' aspects that are collecting around the Raspberry Pi, and WAY more of the imagination. Plus it can connect to all the devices you are talking about.

The Beeb will make next to no money out of this -- if anything. They've already committed that they will not make money out of it on the world market, which is thriving and competitive. This is a perfectly Reithian thing; it's too small to threaten any competitor, and can indeed work with them.

And do you know what is ruining the local press? It sure isn't the BBC. What killed the local press was the Daily Mail General Trust, which turned every single newspaper it earned into a small local paramilitary offshoot of their tawdry bullshit. Local papers were shit before the BBC went heavily local.

Re:The difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1981 the scarcity was in access to the hardware. It was truly expensive, in the same way that cars are expensive, or the deposit for the mortgage on your home is expensive. Once you had the hardware you could, if preferred, just copy stuff from magazines by hand or buy cassette tapes. The BBC did something laudable in removing that financial barrier and opening up computing to every interested pupil in every UK school that had a headmaster with several brain cells and a maths/physics teacher with an interest in technology (I can assure you that not all of them had such an interest and that there were definitely headmasters who displayed only the most minimal signs of intelligence).

These days access to hardware in a developed society is a given. It is genuinely universal. If there is a problem or scarcity it is not hardware or openness. Today there is an abundance of free (as in Stallman/GNU/EFF) software and even free(dom) hardware. The BBC really has no business using the obligatory licence fee to essentially compete with commercial or charitable organisations who do not have the benefit of being able to compel people to fund them.

Here in the UK we have had about 35 years of very broad or even effectively universal access to computers and software at the educational level, what to speak of domestic and business use. If the BBC is still behaving like this is some mystical knowledge of which they are a gatekeeper then there is something badly wrong with their assumptions about their own importance and status, and especially about what they are doing with other people's money.

Re:The difference...

[jgriffith325]

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. The idea that the machines we could get as kids 35 years ago (I was one of those kids) were more 'interesting' doesn't make any sense to me. The level of effort required back then to get the machine to do anything interesting was astronomically higher. Today, it's literally 30 minutes from deciding to do it, to having code you built yourself running on your (Android) phone (assuming you've already got a PC and an internet connection, of course, but that's a pretty low bar today). Download Android Studio and an example, push to your phone. Then, the internet alone provides all the resources a kid would need to learn to write their own functionality. A whole universe of possibility at their fingertips. It isn't the machine that makes them want to do it. It's curiosity and drive and wonder. More machines, and different types equals more ways to tweak that curiosity. More chances to light that fire.

Re:The difference...

[aaaaaaargh!]

I think this device is a great step in the right direction. Hopefully, there will be a version with LED character display some day. I'm still looking for a device with the following features:

- small
- LED display
- battery powered and long battery life (like older calculators)
- "instant" on (no long booting)
- a little buzzer and built-in clock with wake up function for alarms
- easy to program with a simple API (preferably in Ada, Scheme, Lisp or Basic, but on-board assembler would also be fine)
- mini keyboard with control key
- preassembled with case
- cheap

Bonus points for being ruggedized. You'd think that since those devices existed in the 80s and 90s it should be possible to find new ones 30 years later, but apparently that's not the case. When I mourn about it people always suggest Android devices, even though they do not even remotely have those specs. They are expensive, have extremely low battery life, unnecessary color touch screens (drawing all the power), no instant on (but good sleep functions), and unnecessarily bloated programming APIs.

I hope that this BBC board will inspire people to develop such a device.

Re:The difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, this was a good post until you went all "paranoid nutjob" on us. Crushing small production companies? How many small production companies do you think there are in the US? The BBC and C4 are what allow small production companies to exist in this country. What you mean is they're not finding it possible to put so much money into small production companies any more. Partly because your mates in the Tory government want the BBC to start paying for licenses for the over 75s, so they can destroy it via attrition so their mates at Sky can own the UK airwaves. Osborne's insane rants about the BBC are of no relevance whatsoever, and neither are yours. Go suck Murdoch's dick you fucking moron.

Re:The difference...

[JaredOfEuropa]

GP is right: the old machines were usually programmed in BASIC, with a simple command line interface. It really all starts with "Hello world", and the ease with which one can create that program is a decent measure of how friendly the language is for absolute beginners. On a modern computer, you'll have to find and install the right tools first: a simple interpreter or an IDE. On a phone, you'll probably have to learn about compiling and using libraries, a huge learning curve for beginners. Back then, the computer came with a book designed to teach a bit of rudimentary programming. Today, you can find all you need online... if you know what to look for.

Kids who are interested will make the leap, but kids who might be interested probably won't. They need a little push to convince them "I can actually do this!", and that push is unlikely to come from the Internet. In that sense, I daresay that the old BBC micro met its goals.

Re:The difference...

[jcupitt65]

This isn't a PC, it's a device, you can use it to make things. This is about the pleasure of soldering, gluing, painting and programming a little Python to make something cool.

Tiny, very cheap, very powerful (relatively) things like this make all kinds of projects trivial. For example, with my kids I put a motion sensor and a loudspeaker on an old r-pi, put it in a chinese takeaway box, painted it like a robot head, and installed it in the downstairs toilet. Now bogbot says disrespectful things to visitors in a Stephen Hawking voice when they are on the job. Very childish, but great fun, and my kids have (mostly) written the code for it.

Re:The difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC has a remit (to educate, entertain, inform). But this is not 1981. Which UK home that contains a person stimulated by maths, technology or computers science does not also already have a PC or and Android device?

I think you are missing the point entirely. The problem isn't that people don't have computers in their hands but that the media is entirely geared towards singing, dancing and cooking now, so all the kids are inspired to become is a 'media personality'. You have to stimulate an interest in STEM by showing kids how much fun science and tinkering can be. The programmes to go with this is what matters; the devices are just a way of creating commonality.

Just saw Richard Noble give a good talk about exactly this problem (that kids don't get the stimulus to explore engineering as something exciting in the media any more) but he seems to have some good plans or 'open sourcing' data from the Bloodhound SSC (first car being built for >1000MPH) and getting the data into into hands of school kids.

Re:The difference...

[IamTheRealMike]

Yes, how did the BBC ever dare to compete with Commodore, Apple, etc back in the 1980's. What imperialists!

Signed /A guy who learned programming on a BBC Micro

Re:The difference...

[gsslay]

This looks a lot like the BBC puffing itself up, and trying to needlessly and damagingly compete with people who are already informing, educating and entertaining

You're going to have to explain how giving an educational computer device to schools for free is "puffing up" and "needlessly damaging" to anything.

Otherwise I may reach the conclusion you're an idiot grinding entirely unrelated gears.

This is the BBC doing what we pay them to do. I have my doubts about how successful it may be, but I see absolutely no problem with its intentions.

Re:The difference...

[Megane]

This new thing is based on mbed, which uses an online web-based cloud IDE and compiler, nothing to install. I've seen indications that they may want to run their own back-end on a different domain than the usual mbed compiler, but it should be the same principle. Once you hit compile, all your code (stored remotely, but you can get it exported as a zip file) is compiled, and it creates the .bin file as a Save As, which you save to the (usually fake) file system presented by the USB interface, which then programs the target CPU.

Re:The difference...

[gbjbaanb]

Which UK home that contains a person stimulated by maths, technology or computers science does not also already have a PC or and Android device?

and how many of those homes use the device for anything other that games, email, web browsing?

The point of this thing is not to be a computer, but to be the bare bones of an educational device. It has no tv-out for example. It'll be used to teach the "how computers work" course in the curriculum and that's it. There'll be no taking it home to use as a media centre, no playing games on it, nothing but its intended use - its basically an interactive textbook, an educational device.

Re:The difference...

[FranTaylor]

the old machines were usually programmed in BASIC, with a simple command line interface.

100 % non-standard, un-documented, buggy, programs from the 1980s?

Back then, the computer came with a book designed to teach a bit of rudimentary programming.

Except in order to actually get anything done on those "old computers" you needed hardware manuals that didn't come with the computer.

On a modern computer, you'll have to find and install the right tools first

yeah those tools DO NOT EVEN EXIST on the older systems.

if you know what to look for.

Holy Fucking Christ, there is a URL ON THE BOX that directs you to the documentation. OMFG, it works for cereal boxes!

Re:The difference...

[FranTaylor]

I'm still looking for a device with the following features

classic example of a solution in search of a problem

keep looking...

Re:The difference...

[kenh]

Are you off your meds?

the old machines were usually programmed in BASIC, with a simple command line interface.

100 % non-standard, un-documented, buggy, programs from the 1980s?

Uhm, the programs were as "un-documented, buggy" as YOU made them because YOU PROGRAMMED them. And Computers from the early 80s came with well-documented user manuals that explained the interface and the programming language in the system ROMs. There was a lot of quality software available, all one needed was to go down the the local ComputerLand and pull out your credit card.

Back then, the computer came with a book designed to teach a bit of rudimentary programming.

Except in order to actually get anything done on those "old computers" you needed hardware manuals that didn't come with the computer.

Radio Shack sold the hardware reference manual for their TRS-80 in their stores, right next to their "Learning TRS-80 Level I BASIC" books.

(Very few inventory, accounting, or word processing applications, let alone even fewer games required any hardware modifications to your computer.)

On a modern computer, you'll have to find and install the right tools first

yeah those tools DO NOT EVEN EXIST on the older systems.

You mean compliers, linkers, debuggers, disassemblers, etc? They absolutely existed - there were multiple mail order software houses that made small fortunes selling developer tools for early computers - especially popular were FORTRAN, CBASIC, and some folks liked COBOL, while others ran C COMPILERS.

if you know what to look for.

Holy Fucking Christ, there is a URL ON THE BOX that directs you to the documentation. OMFG, it works for cereal boxes!

URL requires ANOTHER device to access the documentation - how is that superior to, say, a spiral-bound book you could sit down and read at your leisure, under a tree or on your sofa, away from your computer?

Re:The difference...

[rsclient]

I've recently been pawing through my old Basic manuals (I'm implementing a Basic environment for run). And what stands out is how incomplete and limited most of the old environments were (although I did love them at the time).

The Basics were grossly limited. Examples includes the Sinclair AND and OR statements, the very limited FN statements and severe limitations on FOR loops. Given the high expense of disks in those days, it's no surprise that disk handling was uneven at best.

Networking capabilities were trivial to non-existent, and mostly non-existent.

The connection to their environment was deeply weird. From a modern perspective, the first thing we normally do when we see a bit of hardware is to wrap it in a little bit of code to make it simpler to control. The common pattern in the old days was to revel in the POKE and PEEK statements, directly setting hardware registers.

The difference between then and now is that then my plan was to write an program to play lunar lander. My plan today is to write a program that will listen to my mailboxes and change the color of my lights accordingly ("Make it pink!", "Make it blue!")

Re:The difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

When I moved from the Apple II world, where the machine booted to a BASIC prompt, to the Mac, where you had to buy a compiler and learn a mountain of stuff about windowing (info which I didn't have access to) to do anything, my interest in programming in the Apple world died. For good, as it turned out.

Re:The difference...

[aaaaaaargh!]

Why, I want to have such a device. It's not for problem solving but for fun.

Elite

[Neo-Rio-101]

It might be smaller and faster, but can it play Elite?

Re:Elite

[Alwin Henseler]

Well... a couple of weeks ago I played Pong on an 8x8 pixel display. The 'paddles' were simple potentiometers dangling from a few wires. But you know what: it was actually playable. And fun, too. Well okay... mostly for the 'novelty' factor.

So Elite on a 5x5 pixel display? Hell why not!

Re:Elite

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind gaming, I'll be using that LED display to surf the net

Re:Elite

[gbjbaanb]

Apparently its 18 times faster than the original BBC B, so yes it should....

but as there's no monitor output, controlling your ship is going to be tricky.

Raspberry Pi

[Bing Tsher E]

This is the same mission that the Raspberry Pi was designed to fulfill. Even to the point of the Pi serving as the modern-day BBC Micro that it's designers has grown up with.

There's always room for more than one pedagogical computer intended for schoolkids, I guess.

So when are all the adult hackers gonna climb on this one and gripe about it, as many have with the Pi? (clue: it wasn't designed for you.)

Re: Raspberry Pi

[Anonymous Coward]

Never. Because in today's world you don't dare to call yourself a "hacker". A police office may hear.

If Jet Set Willy or Horace can't run on the thing

[Anonymous Coward]

then there is no bloody point.

Volume control

[SeriousTube]

I like that when I hover over the volume control on the video demoing this that it goes to 11.

Can't be bothered to fucking fact-check

[Khyber]

"An add-on power pack, fitted with AA batteries, will be needed to use it as a standalone product."

"Each BBC Micro Bit will now use a discrete battery pack, which can be removed from the device."

I guess the /. editors can't even be fucking bothered to do any fact-checking, now days. Pretty much Soulskill, Timothy, and everyone else posting stories (advertisements) without exercising any proper journalism skills, you're all guilty of this shit.

NOWHERE in the article is USB-powered mentioned.

Oh, this computer is also touted as some latest-and-greatest thing...

"The Micro Bit is 18 times faster than its predecessor at running code"

18 times faster than the BBC Micro - which was fucking 2MHz. So... this is equivalent, maybe, to an overclocked 286/low-end 386?

My god, even CHIP is more entertaining than this.

Re:Can't be bothered to fucking fact-check

[Megane]

I've read a few things about it today, and it's going to be mbed based, which has me chuffed because I'm a big mbed fan, and that means that the USB port will obviously be for programming and power. And once it's programmed, the battery means it won't have to stay plugged into a computer to flash its blinkenlights.

The CPU they're using not only has a Bluetooth module, it even supports programming over Bluetooth. At that point you'll probably want a battery to make up for the lack of a USB connection.

What I don't know is if the USB can be used as a regular USB device port, to make little HID devices and such. But in my experience, a USB port used for programming usually can't be used that way, and boards will have a second USB port just for this.

Re:Can't be bothered to fucking fact-check

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the /. editors can't even be fucking bothered to do any fact-checking, now days. Pretty much Soulskill, Timothy, and everyone else posting stories (advertisements) without exercising any proper journalism skills, you're all guilty of this shit.

NOWHERE in the article is USB-powered mentioned.

The BBC article states: "The Micro Bit can be powered via a USB cable, but will otherwise require a battery-pack accessory".

Re:Can't be bothered to fucking fact-check

[Anonymous Coward]

When you're trying to run a board from AA batteries, 36MHz is a pretty high clock rate. Most similar SBCs run at 8MHz or 16MHz. And guess what, very few applications for them are clock-rate limited. This is not a PC, so comparing it to a desktop processor is stupid, but at least get your facts straight. The 8MHz ARM2 could shit all over the 386 because of its then-novel RISC architecture. It took YEARS for Intel to catch up. This is about as good as a mid-range 486, which is way overkill for an SBC with no video output or operating system.

Re:Can't be bothered to fucking fact-check

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a 16 MHz 386SX back in the day.

It was very fast for the kind of beginning programming I was doing.

Different ages

[Alwin Henseler]

In 1981 the scarcity was in access to the hardware. It was truly expensive, in the same way that cars are expensive, or the deposit for the mortgage on your home is expensive.

More important: in those days, a computer (any computing device) for your personal use, was the big new thing. PC's were in their early days, extremely costly for the average person, and mostly used in businesses for accounting tasks, text processing etc. In their own home, people had perhaps the odd electronic game (a la Pong), but that was it. Nothing more interesting, programmable or versatile. So when early home computers hit the market, it was a truly new, interesting and exciting thing.

These days, babies sleep in their cribs with their older siblings playing their Xbox or PS in the background. Chances are they'll get their hands on a game controller before they hit 3 years old or so. They grow up in a world where computing devices (big and small) are everywhere. Some of those available to use, tinker with etc for any budget. So when they hit an age where coding may become interesting, how to spark that interest? That's a big barrier right there for any educational project, regardless of what's possible hardware- or software-wise. That even the smallest devices today are much more complex than far bigger machines back then, sure doesn't help.

Back in the day, a computer for yourself was interesting to almost everyone. If nothing else, to get a feel for what it is. These days: meh... would-be-coders only. Regardless of age.

Arduino should have done this

[Attila the Bun]

I don't think this will compete so much with the RaspberryPi, but it's clearly muscling in on Arduino territory. What a pity Arduino has stood still for so long. I know they've had some internal problems, but well before then the Arduino Uno was looking over-priced and long in the tooth. There are more powerful Arduinos but they are even more expensive, and lacking the focus which made the Uno such a success.

Compact, low-cost, low-power, modern processor, and built-in sensors and LEDs - the Micro Bit appears to have everything going for it as a successor to the ATmega328 based Arduinos. If the software support is as good as they promise, this will be a big hit.

"WTF"?

[Anonymous Coward]

With the help of a Microsoft assistant (presumably every school will have one), a sea of “function main () – show string”-type WTF commands on a .hex drive are “flashed” to the micro:bit. Its LED display lights up with a dice display. Shake the micro:bit and a new number appears on the surface. Neat.

WTF commands?

I... uh... what?

They all make the same mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

These boards that require a lot of accessories are for people who already have the tech know how to set up one, and use a PC to program it.
The main feature of the old 8 bit computers was that you could plug them in and start programming in a simple environment - you didn't need anything else.
Yes, you can get a PC and start programming, but it's 1000x more complicated than back in the 8 bit era.
You want to stimulate interest in software development? Put BASIC again on all new PCs...

Re:They all make the same mistake

[FranTaylor]

The main feature of the old 8 bit computers was that you could plug them in and start programming in a simple environment - you didn't need anything else.

For most of those older computers the "development environment" was not built-in, it was an "extra cost" add on that was significantly expensive.

Sure you could program the Commodore 64 out of the box, but you didn't get far unless you also paid the extra big $$$ for the hardware manuals.

So limited...

[kenh]

Let's see it has a couple buttons and a what, 8x8 grid of LEDs for output? No keyboard input, no video display, no ability to program the device without a much more powerful computer on which to prepare executable code to be downloaded onto the device.

Uhm, how exactly does this bring computer programming to the masses? Why couldn't the kids be taught to use the same programming language natively on the much more powerful computer that is needed to program this circuit board?

Aside from the processing speed of the CPU, this board has specs very similar to the popular battery-powered 'electronic games' of the late 70s... But without the case or the internal battery.

Re:So limited...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to nit-pick, sir, but it's only 5x5 LEDs on it.

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/07/bbc-microbit-e1436343377298.jpeg

I can just see the average kids plodding through a list of "experiments" with this, bored to tears.

And the kids with more advanced skills are already making games in one of the dozens of free game engines. For them this would be a gigantic step backwards, and for what?

Re:So limited...

[coofercat]

oh let me see now... because programming a 'real' computer is quite an abstract experience, or else a pointless one. Programming something with lights and buttons is far more immediate, and has a smaller learning curve. Kids up and down the UK will soon be writing scrolling messages to each other with this, where none of them did any sort of programming before.

This isn't a game-changer by any means, but it's a nice toy that will (hopefully) help a few kids realise that programming isn't all that hard, so long as you think about things in the right way. Maybe those same kids will want to go into tech jobs, or maybe they won't, but this little gadget looks like they'll have some fun at the very least.

Re:So limited...

[kenh]

I stand corrected - I only glanced at the device briefly.

This "platform" requires even more "bits" to setup than a Raspberry Pi, which is really saying something because the Raspberry Pi includes almost nothing by design:
- no case
- no power supply
- no input device (keyboard/mouse)
- no output device (monitor)

This Micro Bit has no case and trivial input/output (a 5x5 grid of LEDs and two (2!) momentary switches. No provision for a keyboard, no provision for a display, and to program it requires a complete Windows (I assume) system to develop downloadable programs.

What games will children program on a 5x5 LED display? Word games are out, as are anything but the most trivial logic puzzle. Someone that is very, very interested could find a way to have some fun with this I'm certain, but as you said, this will be a huge step backwards for them, the average student, raised on iPhones and cheap Android tablets will look at this and yawn. Their teacher will march them through step-by-step instructions designed to teach the kids some abstract concept, but will instead only convince them that studying computers in school is a waste of time.

Re:So limited...

[kenh]

When I was growing up there were thousands of games that had horrible displays and were fun because we didn't have access to anything better - I'm thinking of the battery-operated "football" and "baseball" games that had a few buttons, a handful of LEDs, a generic playing field on the case, and some obnoxious sound effects.

How will this "toy" engage a child that was raised on today's video consoles and smart phones?

Ok, I admit it.

[volpe]

I had absolutely no clue that the British Broadcasting Corp designs computers.

Why?

[thisisauniqueid]

I love the BBC micro, Archimedes and RISC PC -- I grew up on them. But why is the BBC doing this now? Every kid in the UK has a supercomputer in their pocket already, by 1981 standards. What is needed is a simpler and more compelling way for kids to get into programming their phones, and a simpler way to interface their phones to external hardware.