The blog post explores the potential of the newly released S1 processor as a competitor to the Apple R1, particularly in the realm of ultra-low-power embedded applications. The author highlights the S1's remarkably low $6 price point and its impressive power efficiency, consuming just microwatts of power. While acknowledging the S1's limitations in terms of processing power and memory compared to the R1, the post emphasizes its suitability for specific use cases like wearables and IoT devices where cost and power consumption are paramount. The author ultimately concludes that while not a direct replacement, the S1 offers a compelling alternative for applications where the R1's capabilities are overkill and its higher cost prohibitive.
The blog post explores different virtualization approaches, contrasting Red Hat's traditional KVM-based virtualization with AWS Firecracker's microVM approach and Ubicloud's NanoVMs. KVM, while robust, is deemed resource-intensive. Firecracker, designed for serverless workloads, offers lightweight and secure isolation but lacks features like live migration and GPU access. Ubicloud positions its NanoVMs as a middle ground, leveraging a custom hypervisor and unikernel technology to provide a balance of performance, security, and features, aiming for faster boot times and lower overhead than KVM while supporting a broader range of workloads than Firecracker. The post highlights the trade-offs inherent in each approach and suggests that the "best" solution depends on the specific use case.
HN commenters discuss Ubicloud's blog post about their virtualization technology, comparing it to Firecracker. Some express skepticism about Ubicloud's performance claims, particularly regarding the overhead of their "shim" layer. Others question the need for yet another virtualization technology given existing solutions, wondering about the specific niche Ubicloud fills. There's also discussion of the trade-offs between security and performance in microVMs, and whether the added complexity of Ubicloud's approach is justified. A few commenters express interest in learning more about Ubicloud's internal workings and the technical details of their implementation. The lack of open-sourcing is noted as a barrier to wider adoption and scrutiny.
Summary of Comments ( 341 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946854
Hacker News users discussed the potential of the S1 chip as a viable competitor to the Apple R1, focusing primarily on price and functionality. Some expressed skepticism about the S1's claimed capabilities, particularly its ultra-wideband (UWB) performance, given the lower price point. Others questioned the practicality of its open-source nature for the average consumer, highlighting potential security concerns and the need for technical expertise to implement it. Several commenters were interested in the potential applications of a cheaper UWB chip, citing potential uses in precise indoor location tracking and device interaction. A few pointed out the limited information available and the need for further testing and real-world benchmarks to validate the S1's performance claims. The overall sentiment leaned towards cautious optimism, with many acknowledging the potential disruptive impact of a low-cost UWB chip but reserving judgment until more concrete evidence is available.
The Hacker News post titled "S1: A $6 R1 competitor?" with the ID 42946854 generated a moderate amount of discussion, primarily focused on the feasibility and potential market impact of the S1 chip discussed in the linked blog post.
Several commenters expressed skepticism about the S1's ability to genuinely compete with the Raspberry Pi R1, particularly at the stated price point. They questioned the inclusion of essential components like the power supply and WiFi module in the $6 cost, suggesting that the final price would likely be higher. Some pointed out the potential for hidden costs associated with manufacturing and distribution, particularly given the current global economic climate.
Others discussed the limited information provided about the S1's specifications, highlighting the need for more detailed benchmarks and comparisons to other low-cost microcontrollers. The lack of readily available documentation was also mentioned as a barrier to adoption. One commenter questioned the chip's suitability for real-world applications, suggesting that its performance might be insufficient for anything beyond basic tasks.
A few commenters were more optimistic about the S1's potential, particularly for educational purposes and simple embedded systems. They acknowledged the limitations of the chip but argued that its low price could make it an attractive option for specific use cases. The possibility of using the S1 for small, battery-powered projects was also mentioned.
One commenter raised concerns about the environmental impact of disposable electronics, arguing that the S1's low price could encourage wasteful practices. They suggested that a focus on repairability and longevity would be more sustainable in the long run.
Some users diverted from the main topic, discussing alternative low-cost microcontrollers and their experiences with similar projects. This tangential discussion touched upon the broader trends in the embedded systems market and the increasing demand for affordable computing solutions.
Overall, the comments reflect a cautious interest in the S1 chip, with many commenters waiting for more concrete information before forming a definitive opinion. The discussion highlights the importance of transparency and realistic expectations when introducing a new product to a discerning audience like the Hacker News community.