Hacker News Reader

Comment by shakermakr | Hacker News Reader

Wow. Surprised at the negativity here :( The BBC is giving every kid in the UK a free hackable computer. And we're moaning about the unit production cost or its comparison to Raspberry Pi? Perhaps the backstory of the BBC and its previous role in computing isn't captured here...

Like many other now 30 year olds in the UK, I grew up hacking games on a BBC Micro my school had, my family couldn't afford a decent machine at home so it was my only introduction to computers. And before the BBC Micro, most schools couldn't afford a set of computers either. It allowed us to learn to code in the lunch breaks, after school. It seriously drove many UK kids to code and now having a happy career in computing.

Now kids will get a similar, even more personal introduction to computing in an age of tap-and-swipe computing.

I for one applaud the decision!

View on HN

I remember in the 80's there was a strong appeal to "learn computing" - computers were the future and soon you wouldn't be able to find a job if you didn't know how to use one. That was a major driver behind the purchase of personal computers. It was how I convinced my mom and aunt to get me an Apple II clone for my 15th birthday.

At that time, the emotional ROI was higher - in a couple days you could write a game almost as good as Namco's Pac Man port (audio on the II was a bitch, however). Today, a commercial game consumes usually multiple millions of dollars and teams of dozens of multi-disciplinary professionals. All but casual games are mostly beyond the grasp of a kid learning to program.

Not only we need cheap, simple, computers, but we need something that entices kids to program. What will they want to build?

I doubt it will have the same effect and it is because this is not comparable to the BBC Micro.

With the BBC Micro and other computers of that era (I got started in computing with a ZX Spectrum), you could start using the machine _almost_ straight away (you still needed some accessories, like a TV). I think you're referring to that simplicity and how easy it was to get started. Switch it on and start typing BASIC!

This prototype (at least) looks like is a microcontroller board, like the Arduino (uses the same MCU as the Leonardo; although Michael Sparks from BBC R&D has mentioned on Twitter that the final model probably won't be based on that MCU and they have designs based on ATmega, ARM and MSP430).

That means you're going to need a computer to program it and there are few concepts you need to understand to get started. Not as easy as "switch on and program" :(

This is interesting indeed, but I honestly think it isn't comparable to the BBC Micro (or even the Raspberry Pi).

I said this in another comment, but I think the interesting aspect here is that this will be a gateway-to-computing device, just like the BBC Micro was of its time.

Sure, its not comparable in terms of richness or depth of a machine to the Micro, but then all schools have PCs now. Its just they're used for Office and learning how to be safe online. Not for coding.

Let's hope kids then start asking their teachers how to do more than blink some lights, and ask their teachers to learn how to build websites, apps etc. Then it'll be a success.

This is why the Pi is not a good computer for school coding.

It's just too damn hard to use for most kids. By the time they've worked their way around the Linux command line and file permissions, a big percentage have lost interest. (Yes, this is based on experience, from friends who are trying to use it in classrooms.)

It's good that the Pi Foundation is making an effort to produce educational materials. But IMO they should have worked much harder on initial usability, with a simple task-driven desktop that pointed kids straight at coding and web design.

With the old 8-bit micros you could start coding immediately. The Pi is nothing like that. The effort/reward function is off for all but the very brightest kids.

As for the Micro Bit - as you say, it looks a bit like the BBC's take on Arduino. I guess success is going to depend on the software environment, which is something that no one seems to have much information about yet.

I'm concerned that C++ is included, because that wouldn't be my first choice as a teaching language. But Python is too, and there's a custom language for beginners, so it may all work out.

The Pi foundation missed the boat on usability. I think it's problem is its made be people who love linux. People need to love what linux CAN DO.

They got it wrong write from step 1. The default raspian makes you pick a distro, then you have to log in (hope you're in front of the manual) then boot your own desktop environment with `startx`.

The Pi should be plug in -> boot to desktop with an icon for the manual, examples, scratch and the python repl. From that you get doing something and there's the carrot to have a reason to find out what other things it can do.

The choices are important but they've got no context until the pi is doing something in front of you.

This board is going to be great for the Pi. It fixes that first step. You make this board do a thing for you and ask "How can I connect two of them up" or "I want the to work while I'm away". Enter the pi to replace your laptop your developing on. Now you have a reason to learn how to leave it unattended.

Noobs has included a 'boot to scratch' option for a few years now. My lad of 12 years was given a Pi, and assembled it and was up and running with scratch pretty quickly.

Option though, There just seems to be some maddening aversion to making the defaults do one useful thing. The decision seems so paralyzed by being all things to all people.

The BBC was involved in an early moment of computer hacking (cracking) history in the programme "Micro Live" in 1983.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Live#Hacking_incident

> The first one-off special was the subject of a memorable hacking incident. Ian McNaught-Davis and John Coll logged into the programme's BT Gold email account to demonstrate the features of the then relatively new idea of email, only to find that the account had been hacked. Shortly before air, the floor manager had informed Ian McNaught-Davis the password for the account, unfortunately while his microphone was live. Visiting computer guests, who were in the Green Room, overheard this information and immediately telephoned a friendly hacker, who proceeded to use the information to get into the account.

I'm not sure history can be repeated so easily. Back in the eighties you were impressed when a program managed to change the screen from blue to green. With today's kids playing Counter Strike on high end computers, it's not likely they're gonne be very impressed with what they see, much less motivated.

that is a concern... tho I'm hoping the 'Look! I made it do that!' effect will win over and lead to the next Elite & Counter Strike in the decades to come.

But kids also play minecraft. In fact, it seems to be broadly popular

For my kids, Scratch from MIT was the thing that finally got them programming. It gives immediate rewards and every program can be shared on the site and modified ("remixed") by other users. So all the kids are building on each other's code and learning from what they see. The language features are limited, but it's more than just the language, since you can see what everyone else is creating and directly play with code you find neat.

The games they create are not slick but they're sophisticated enough that the kids are learning how to work through real programming problems on their own resources. And the kids evidently find this very rewarding and addictive.

Compared to that they find even Lego Mindstorms kind of dull. The social aspect of Scratch is a brilliant touch.

Yes, the BBC Micro was great, thirty years ago. The world has changed somewhat. You can't build a technology programme on nostalgia.

The comparison to existing platforms is being made because platforms matter. 30 years ago there were no deemed adequate platforms so the BBC had to build their own. Today there is at least the Pi and the Arduino, as well as the Lilypad wearables series. Creating a new platform for the sake of it dilutes effort rather than strengthening it.

I'm concerned that this is the domestic equivalent of a fly-by-night aid initiative, that drops in a whole bunch of resources and expensive personnel for a year or two then vanishes.

grew up with ZX80, daily user of RPi. The RPi original requirement specs [0] though toy-like, hit the mark. The bit I don't get is will this be as good or better than say the RPi (A+ at AUD20)?

Hard to compete against pre-packaged products if it's less usable than the Rpi even if it's free.

[0] http://www.raspberrypi.org/help/what-is-a-raspberry-pi/ and http://www.raspberrypi.org/about/

I'd imagine this is a lot cheaper. Wouldn't be surprised if they can make it for under $5. This isn't trying to be a full computer like the RPi, this is a microcontroller board like Arduino.

I don't think the intention is to "compete" at all. I mean, this is why only an institution like the BBC (love it or loathe it) is in a position to do this. It's not to make money or a platform. It's to educate.

Let's hope this initiative interests kids not exposed to this level of computing to then go on to buy Rpi's, learn how to use a command line, install an IDE, make a web site, or whatever else.

It's the gateway to computing aspect that's important here, not the longevity of the platform.

See I think they've got it ass-backwards.

Rather than throw electronics at all kids and see which ones it sticks to they could make the Microbit freely available to that particular year group - all you need do is reach out your hand and take it. Then the 1 in 10, or whatever, that bother to try it can be bought a RPi with the savings. If you can't even be bothered to pick one up at your school library or send an email saying "yes please" and have it handed to you in class then the chances of you watching TV programs to learn how to use it are probably about nil.

Say this was sport, would you buy every kid a rugby ball? If you just buy enough so that everyone who wants one can get it then those that want to play rugby can have kit paid for too.

"Let's hope this initiative interests kids not exposed to this level of computing to then go on to buy Rpi's,"

Good point, didn't see this as a gateway to further computing.

I like the fractal nature of this. RPi was an Cambridge undergrad intro to computing. Now the Micro Bits a primary/secondary audience who might use it as a stepping stone to an RPi.

Not every kid wants or needs a free hackable computer. It just seems wasteful to me. I would be very interested to hear estimates on the utility rate of these devices. I suspect that on a per-unit basis they will be used next to zero percent of the available time. The future of technology is about maximising utilisation, not production.

This is typical BBC though…

When the original BBC Micro came out they could have easily based their programming around the Spectrum or other computer than was in the market.

Now when there are already credible alternatives in the micro market - Arduino, Pi etc. - they choose to have their own 'designed'.

I suppose I should be happy that they're spending the license money I'm forced to pay on this rather than crap like Eastenders.

Fundementally it show the BBC with it's soft funding is out of control and looking for a purpose.

That's not exactly what happened - the BBC Micro project called for bids from UK companies and Acorn's bid won. It wasn't something that was done in-house.

(and the Beeb was released before the Speccy anyhow)

The Speccy had been announced by that point though hadn't it?

Got to do something to win public appeal I guess (as for those reading outside the UK the BBC is publicly funded and it is a criminal not civil offence not to pay TV license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_Uni...), this isn't an area the BBC should be spending.

How about we skip the BBC, let schools purchase Raspberry Pi's as they desire and claim directly from a government fund (this I would certainly support)

If its anything like their contract IT spending they probably paid more than market rate too...

"How about we skip the BBC"

But that would imply the funds come from the Treasury from general taxation/borrowing - which seems unlikely in this age of austerity.

The BBC arguably has a lot more freedom to do this kind of thing given its main revenue source is its own hypothecated tax in the form of the license fee.

Good on them I say - at least they are doing something interesting rather than the usual nonsense we hear about education directly from politicians.

While I generally support the BBC, the TV license is the most regressive of UK taxes^ and people are jailed for non-payment of comparatively very small amounts.

^(The "bedroom tax" is much worse in impact but not technically a tax)

I agree that the collection of the license fee is often heavy handed - but wasn't that outsourced a while back?

It's outsourced to Capita, yes. If anything that makes it slightly more objectionable. Outsourcing is not a way of avoiding your moral responsibilities.

Reith summarised the BBC's purpose in three words: educate, inform, entertain

In the UK you can own a television and legally decline to pay the TV license provided you don't watch or record live to air broadcasts.

You don't have to pay for a license to watch catchup/previously broadcast programmes on iPlayer, DVD's, Netflix etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com