Sparkfun Splits with Adafruit

[SiliconWizard]

Yes, Teensy boards are not actually "open hardware", so while they provide the schematics, you can't sell a product based on these without the author's consent, and it's probably not going to happen here.

How big is the Teensy business anyways? Would it be practical for some open source friendly business to buy them and release everything under proper open source licenses?

I don't know, but is this any of our business, no pun intended?

The Teensy boards are products of PJRC: https://www.pjrc.com/ and as far as I can see on their website, Sparkfun is just listed a distributor.

If the owners of PJRC decided to make their products "closed hardware", that's their decision and their right. Who are we to discuss that? Are we discussing if your company's products are open hardware or not?

These days, many people just assume that "development boards" should be "open hardware", and that's their belief, not a fact or necessity.

What I don't know is how PJRC has dealt with Sparkfun, what Sparkfun actually does (is PJRC offloading not just distribution, but also manufacturing to them?) and why Adafruit used to buy from Sparkfun while PJRC has a whole list of other distributors. So it kind of looks like PJRC has dealt some exclusivity with Sparkfun, but I don't know to what extent and what exactly it entails. Without knowing that, we're just guessing.

[asmi]

I don't think you can park any dev board straight into the hobbyist corner. IMHO that is too simplistic. These boards are also used a lot for doing commercial rapid prototyping & proofs of concept. And you might find such boards in products as well. Think of cheap GPSDOs run by DIP form-factor microcontroller boards. More specifically to Teensy: there is a reason you can buy the accompaning license chips in order to use the platform in a product. There is a demand to do that. Now I don't know how much sales this generates, but the availability says that there is a demand for the Teensy platform for use in commercial products. All in all it would not surprise me if it turns out most sales come from commercial parties, not hobbyists.

For commercial product made in any volume it's much cheaper to spin a custom board. This is not a complex SoC with fast tricky memories and other complex high-speed stuff - it's just an MCU even if a fast one, so a few decoupling caps and a crystal is all you need to get it up and running.

[nctnico]

I don't think you can park any dev board straight into the hobbyist corner. IMHO that is too simplistic. These boards are also used a lot for doing commercial rapid prototyping & proofs of concept. And you might find such boards in products as well. Think of cheap GPSDOs run by DIP form-factor microcontroller boards. More specifically to Teensy: there is a reason you can buy the accompaning license chips in order to use the platform in a product. There is a demand to do that. Now I don't know how much sales this generates, but the availability says that there is a demand for the Teensy platform for use in commercial products. All in all it would not surprise me if it turns out most sales come from commercial parties, not hobbyists.

For commercial product made in any volume it's much cheaper to spin a custom board. This is not a complex SoC with fast tricky memories and other complex high-speed stuff - it's just an MCU even if a fast one, so a few decoupling caps and a crystal is all you need to get it up and running.

For you and me that would be the way to go but I've come across quite a few electronics engineers for whom that is too much to ask. They rather design a double layer carrier board and be done with it. Keep in mind that the processor on the Teensy is a BGA and for many dealing with QFN and 0402 parts is scary as hell already. For example: I've had long winded discussions with an electronics engineer not wanting to do a board respin because he had specialists do the layout for the DC-DC converters (simple step-down converter chips which need a diode, inductor and some capacitors).

[ebastler]

What I don't know is how PJRC has dealt with Sparkfun, what Sparkfun actually does (is PJRC offloading not just distribution, but also manufacturing to them?) and why Adafruit used to buy from Sparkfun while PJRC has a whole list of other distributors. So it kind of looks like PJRC has dealt some exclusivity with Sparkfun, but I don't know to what extent and what exactly it entails. Without knowing that, we're just guessing.

That has all been explained in the mutual accusation and justification letters which Sparkfun and Adafruit have published. PJRC has given exclusive manufacturing rights to SparkFun, apparently since they no longer wanted to bother with the hassle of sourcing and manufacturing. So it seems that PJRC's website is outdated regarding distributors.

[asmi]

For you and me that would be the way to go but I've come across quite a few electronics engineers for whom that is too much to ask. They rather design a double layer carrier board and be done with it. Keep in mind that the processor on the Teensy is a BGA and for many dealing with QFN and 0402 parts is scary as hell already. For example: I've had long winded discussions with an electronics engineer not wanting to do a board respin because he had specialists do the layout for the DC-DC converters (simple step-down converter chips which need a diode, inductor and some capacitors).

In this case it would still be cheaper to contract out such development to external consultant, and get it assembled at CM. I recently tried JLCPCB's assembly service of a board which contained 0.4 and 0.5 mm pitch BGAs, 0.4 mm pitch DFN and QFN, and they came out perfect - they even sent me xray photos of each assembled board, and it wasn't very expensive (even though it was a "full service", not their "economic" one).

[SiliconWizard]

What I don't know is how PJRC has dealt with Sparkfun, what Sparkfun actually does (is PJRC offloading not just distribution, but also manufacturing to them?) and why Adafruit used to buy from Sparkfun while PJRC has a whole list of other distributors. So it kind of looks like PJRC has dealt some exclusivity with Sparkfun, but I don't know to what extent and what exactly it entails. Without knowing that, we're just guessing.

That has all been explained in the mutual accusation and justification letters which Sparkfun and Adafruit have published. PJRC has given exclusive manufacturing rights to SparkFun, apparently since they no longer wanted to bother with the hassle of sourcing and manufacturing. So it seems that PJRC's website is outdated regarding distributors.

Ok, they should definitely update their website as that's bound to mislead not only customers, but potential distributors as well.

I don't get why Adafruit had bothered reselling boards bought from Sparkfun since customers can buy directly from Sparkfun? That was a silly move anyway.

But anyway, that doesn't change anything to the fact that the design is not open hardware, so no one can "legally" just copy it and make an identical clone.
Now of course, one could easily make a board based off the RT1062 with relatively similar features while not being an exact copy.
As I was mentioning in another post, we don't know for sure why Adafruit didn't decide to do just that. As I pointed out, the RT1062 is currently impossible? to source via Digikey and I believe Adafruit have a long-time partnership with them, so I don't know if they actually source components via any other distributor.

[ebastler]

I don't get why Adafruit had bothered reselling boards bought from Sparkfun since customers can buy directly from Sparkfun? That was a silly move anyway.

I am sure Sparkfun sold the boards to Adafruit (and to various other distributors) at wholesale prices, similar to what PJRC charged before. It's very common in all kinds of industries that you can buy stuff directly from the manufacturer as well as via various distributors. It's a win-win for both parties normally: The manufacturer gets lower margins on the distributor sales, but a much larger volume of sales overall. Not every customer can or wants to buy from Sparkfun, or even knows them.

Between professional companies this tends to work smoothly. But looking at the history and the current airing of dirty laundry, it seems that both, Sparkfun and Adafruit, are run by people with attitudes... 

[EEVblog]

I have not read it, but someone posted this on X. No idea if accurate.

https://chaos.social/@North/115602095481198750

[negativ3]

The drama seems real to they them.

[SiliconWizard]

I don't get why Adafruit had bothered reselling boards bought from Sparkfun since customers can buy directly from Sparkfun? That was a silly move anyway.

I am sure Sparkfun sold the boards to Adafruit (and to various other distributors) at wholesale prices, similar to what PJRC charged before. It's very common in all kinds of industries that you can buy stuff directly from the manufacturer as well as via various distributors. It's a win-win for both parties normally: The manufacturer gets lower margins on the distributor sales, but a much larger volume of sales overall. Not every customer can or wants to buy from Sparkfun, or even knows them.

Between professional companies this tends to work smoothly. But looking at the history and the current airing of dirty laundry, it seems that both, Sparkfun and Adafruit, are run by people with attitudes...

Of course, it was wholesale prices, the resale price was close enough and their margin was also probably similar. But between companies that target essentially the same market? There was a big problem there waiting to happen. I am absolutely not surprised it ends like this, and it may not even be the end of the story. And yes, both companies are not only targetting the same market, but at least one of them has a clear ideological line which is likely the source of the divide. But even ideology aside, I don't think you can have a long-term, functional partnership between near-competitors. Just my 2 cents.

[thm_w]

I don't get why Adafruit had bothered reselling boards bought from Sparkfun since customers can buy directly from Sparkfun? That was a silly move anyway.

Digikey and mouser sell sparkfun/adafruit products, half of it just being imported generic parts (jumpers, etc.), I don't quite understand how it works, how many people can take a cut on a $1 item and any decent level of profit is still possible? But its common these days.

As I pointed out, the RT1062 is currently impossible? to source via Digikey and I believe Adafruit have a long-time partnership with them, so I don't know if they actually source components via any other distributor.

Its not hard to source, but it probably won't be around forever and the price/performance is not the best: https://octopart.com/part/nxp-semiconductors/MIMXRT1062DVJ6B

I hate them both. Typical US based robbers. The intention both companies had from the start looked fake. When the battle is about supply chain exclusivity and trademarks, they both failed their own narrative.

Fookin maker bullshit.

No their intentions were never "fake", and not sure how a bit of harmless drama reflects that.
They've contributed more to the electronics hobbyist community than almost any other company, produce many products locally, seem to treat their staff fairly, and post amazing documentation: https://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-bmp388-bmp390-bmp3xx/downloads 

IMO Teensy will keep selling and being one of the best MCU until someone do something equals or better than it, Teensy is already expensive, people who buys it doesn't look that hard at the price, so doing it cheaper and worse won't move the needle

I agree its a high end product, thats the whole point of it, I would never buy one (micro USB), but I get why people do.

[John B]

High school level drama to me. 

The community seems split, with a about half saying they'll never buy from Sparkfun again, and the other half saying they'll never buy from Adafruit again 

Sun Tzu says it's time to swoop in and release the EEVBleensy.

[5U4GB]

Anyone know what happened here? 

It's been covered in other forums, one of which said that the details are sufficiently obscure that you'd have to be following things with a microscope to sort out what's what.  In AITA terms, "ESH" (everyone sucks here), neither side behaved particularly well.  So it seems like an escalating minor spat that eventually ended up in divorce.

[Cyclotron]

Anyone know what happened here? 

It's been covered in other forums, one of which said that the details are sufficiently obscure that you'd have to be following things with a microscope to sort out what's what.  In AITA terms, "ESH" (everyone sucks here), neither side behaved particularly well.  So it seems like an escalating minor spat that eventually ended up in divorce.

A whole lot of failure to adult to go around is what I've seen of it all.

[EEVblog]

IMO Teensy will keep selling and being one of the best MCU until someone do something equals or better than it, Teensy is already expensive, people who buys it doesn't look that hard at the price, so doing it cheaper and worse won't move the needle

I agree its a high end product, thats the whole point of it, I would never buy one (micro USB), but I get why people do.

I have never really looked into it, what's so special about the Teensy compared to the thousand other micro-on-aboard solution?

[coromonadalix]

on duino platform you have / had some powerful ones ... with the new acquisition  well see

maybe teensy  was some niche ones ?   i have the 3.x and a 4.x   sure pricey, but does the job pretty well, and purchased when times where good  loll

and STM32  dev boards   are very capable too

[ebastler]

I have never really looked into it, what's so special about the Teensy compared to the thousand other micro-on-aboard solution?

The iMXRT1062 microcontroller is pretty powerful (600 MHz Cortex M7 core) and has some interesting peripherals. NXP positions it as a "crossover" MPU, combining a powerful CPU with direct access to microcontroller features.

[temperance]

No their intentions were never "fake", and not sure how a bit of harmless drama reflects that.

Both companies are all about open source. One company releases closed source stuff and let the community do some of the work. (Like the GDB implementation for the Teensy because the hardware lacks an JTAG/SWD header. PJRC benefits from this community effort.) And why exactly is the bootloader closed source?

Sparkfun: you take a generic, off-the-shelf component (the WS2812B), place it on a piece of FR4, and used trademarking to create a proprietary identity for a public-domain circuit. Meanwhile, you teach the children how to sodder cubes with LED's and make sure they understand they are now entitled to be part of The highly regarded open source community.

The Maker shite crew: we strongly advocate open source initiatives, but for our self the rules only apply if it fits our own busyness.

[colinza]

And why exactly is the bootloader closed source?

This is where people need to listen carefully.

Why? Because it legally has to be

Anyone who has done design engineering with electronics knows two things matter here
1) A reliable source of a specific chip to design a product lifespan around.
2) The terms and conditions attached to that source

If you want NXP, or Broadcom, TI, or most of these places to guarantee you a supply of a chip that you can make a product which you actually pay a mortgage with (*), that deal comes with an NDA around the specifications required to interface with the chip and stuff the bitstream for its configuration in complex micros (which the iMXRT line certainly is)

If you want to peal that onion further, when they spin the die they are buying bits and pieces of gate and logic IP from other people too who also can require that non disclosure, so in some cases even _they_ can't control it. Think DDR CAS state machines that people don't want to re-invent the wheel for every month.

(*) This is NOT the same thing as being able to buy 10 of them on Digikey

PS: If you want to feel sympathy for the right person in this mess, note that the same NDAs I speak of above would prevent them from being able to defend that stance in the first place as it would disclose the very language protecting it. Happily I've never drunk anyones coolaid with my signature so I want to advocate strongly for them.

[PaulStoffregen]

what's so special about the Teensy compared to the thousand other micro-on-aboard solution?

Hi, Paul here... the guy who designed Teensy.  I'd say 2 things make Teensy valuable.

1: Much like Arduino, simplified software, tutorials, support and community make it more accessible to a wide range of people.  If you're a seasoned engineer, as I'm sure most people on this forum are, maybe those features aren't so appealing?  But those features do appeal to a lot of people, as you can imagine from the success of Arduino.  Those features do enable people with little or no engineering background to achieve electronic projects.  Teensy serves a small niche within that market, which is why not nearly as many people know it so well as Arduino, but the general concept is pretty similar.

2: Teensy offers substantially higher performance than most other maker-focused boards.  We also pour a lot of work into optimized software libraries.  Again, if you're a seasoned engineer this may not appeal, as you would select the chip that meets each project's requirements and you probably craft all your own code, or you work with a firmware team that does.  But if you can try to imagine being in the shoes of an ambitious maker who discovers their project plans need a lot of CPU power or USB bandwidth or a dozen serial ports communicating simultaneously, having *any* board available which can meet those needs with software they can actually use makes the difference between achieving their goals versus having to scale back their dream due to hardware limitations.  Teensy serves a tiny niche within the market market, for people who need the accessibility you'd associate with Arduino, but they also need much more horsepower than the more common boards provide.


Teensy does have a closed source bootloader.  The reason is simple business reality of operating a tiny company serving a small niche within a large (or larger anyway) market with several large (or comparatively larger) companies, Adafruit, SparkFun, Seeed Studios, Waveshare, etc.  Had we made everything 100% open source, those companies and later no-name Asian vendors would have widely cloned the hardware as soon as it showed value.  We could have adopted a business model similar to all those other companies, but that's not who I am.  I love this tiny niche, tackling the complex hardware first, writing non-blocking DMA-based libraries, and directly helping people with their ambitious projects.

Teensy wasn't actually the first maker-focused board to offer a 32 bit MCU with Arduino API software.  That honor belongs to Leaflabs Maple.  They poured almost 2 solid years into writing a really good USB stack from scratch.  I did the same for Teensy, a few times.  Not long after their code became stable, their hardware was widely cloned, undercutting their sales.  They later moved on to a software consultancy model.  Today the hardware benefiting from those years of software engineering work is know as "Blue Pill" and "Black Pill" from no-name Asian vendors.

Much as I would love to make everything 100% open source, and we have indeed published all the code that gets built into people's firmware under MIT or MIT-like license to allow maximum freedom, the reality of the "maker market" is the sort of business we have run for Teensy over the years, where I personally develop higher performance libraries and directly answer people's questions nearly every day, simply wouldn't be possible under the 100% open source model.

I know this is controversial and many open source enthusiasts would disagree.  To those folks I would point to the story of Maple, as well as this current situation where Adafruit would very much like to make a product to compete with Teensy.  Their answer is not to invest that sort of engineering work to make a new product on-par with Teensy, but rather just repackage Raspberry Pi Pico.  From a business perspective their decision does makes sense, since this really is only for a small niche of the market.


Comments have been made about NDAs.  We did indeed sign a NDA with NXP.  The chip's security features are the main thing covered by the NDA.  Today Teensy comes in a standard version which doesn't support the security stuff, and a "lockable" version which offers encrypted firmware and secure firmware update process.  The lockable version would not have been possible without the security info NXP provided under NDA.

Most of the rest of the chip is documented like other microcontrollers.  If you find the Teensy products pages, either at PJRC or SparkFun, scroll down to the tech info where you can find the 3500 page reference manual which has over 1000 annotations added to document how it's actually used in Teensy, as well as quirks of the chip we have learned along the way.


As Teensy grew, manufacturing and selling it ourselves with a small team and 2 local contract manufacturers became just too much for us.  Starting in March 2025, we partnered with SparkFun Electronics to take over manufacturing and sales.

I had hoped to spend much more time on software and eventually get back into tutorial videos, which I had done briefly before the business started to grow in 2015.  Sadly, 2025 turned out to be a rough year.  But in recent months things were really starting to look up.  I've been getting more excited about so many software "initiatives" I've wanted to pursue over the years.

I certainly didn't have getting caught in drama between Adafruit and SparkFun on my 2026 bingo card, especially not drama so surreal.

[temperance]

Why? Because it legally has to be

Anyone who has done design engineering with electronics knows two things matter here
1) A reliable source of a specific chip to design a product lifespan around.
2) The terms and conditions attached to that source

If you want NXP, or Broadcom, TI, or most of these places to guarantee you a supply of a chip that you can make a product which you actually pay a mortgage with (*), that deal comes with an NDA around the specifications required to interface with the chip and stuff the bitstream for its configuration in complex micros (which the iMXRT line certainly is)

1. ok
2. Anyone who has done some real engineering with the RT1062 knows that the controller can run code from quad SPI flash without encryption.

The mortgage stuff:
Well well, here we are. All of a sudden when the mortgage stuff depends on it, it no longer has to be open source. But we do welcome anyone to develop code and give it to us for free. Nice busyness model I must say.

[magic]

I really wish that people representing organisations use proper punctuation, unfortunately responses like Phil’s doesn’t do much for credibility in my eyes (that’s in MY EYES 🙂)

Gotta say he has a somewhat unusual way of introducing himself to a new forum. First sentence:

limor and i can’t purchase teensys from sparkfun anymore

Who are you, bro?

Hope his breasts are OK after that fateful night

[Cyclotron]

I had hoped to spend much more time on software and eventually get back into tutorial videos, which I had done briefly before the business started to grow in 2015.  Sadly, 2025 turned out to be a rough year.  But in recent months things were really starting to look up.  I've been getting more excited about so many software "initiatives" I've wanted to pursue over the years.

I certainly didn't have getting caught in drama between Adafruit and SparkFun on my 2026 bingo card, especially not drama so surreal.

Talk about getting stuck between a rock and a hard place....
If this disappointing drama has a material impact on you, IANAL, but I would hope you have recourse with SparkFun if needed.
Good luck!

[SiliconWizard]

Gotta say he has a somewhat unusual way of introducing himself to a new forum. First sentence:

limor and i can’t purchase teensys from sparkfun anymore

Who are you, bro?

Yeah, I must say I found it pretty odd, bordering on rude and completely without any context.
The only thing that probably made most people get that it was Adafruit behind it is the "Limor" first name, which is so unusual that it's the only person I have ever heard of with it.

[magic]

Yeah, I must say I found it pretty odd, bordering on rude and completely without any context.
The only thing that probably made most people get that it was Adafruit behind it is the "Limor" first name, which is so unusual that it's the only person I have ever heard of with it.

If people even got it at all. I would recognize "Adafruit" and I would even recognize the founder's nickname, but it's first time I hear her legal name or that she is married.

Maybe it just shows I'm not their customer. Is it expected to care about those things?