"A Flipper Zero clone, but cheapest, DIY and simply Open Source, made with Arduino IDE"
Why not?
"A hobby partial Flipper Zero clone, cheaper, DIY and Open Source, made with Arduino IDE"
So it doesn't have to be clarified further down. I get that it's not that down, but the title is what will be shared and seen in web previews everywhere.
That being said, it looks very cool, and the name is fun.
It’s easier to do pcb-layout wise. Allows you to re-use most components between board revisions, or when you’re done with the project. Probably less ewaste overall because of that.
I would expect this to be the same for the Flipper Zero.
Not only would designing a fully custom board require a lot of error-prone effort, getting a lot of components in tiny quantities can be prohibitively expensive.
Good engineering includes optimizing for cost (monetary and non-monetary), and I'd argue that for many hobbyist one-off projects that won't be manufactured at scale, dev-boards-on-PCB is good engineering.
This is also a hobby project. To custom build a PCB with all of the components brings this into the Kickstarter world of something. So the person can buy <5 PCBs to play with as hobby or attempt to fund say minimum 500-1000 pieces. From TFA: "Important Notice: This is just a fun project, it was started to pass the time, it is not at all professional and is not intended to be. Is not an alternative for professional device."
Even with the method chosen, if you think the person did not become better after making the simple PCB or any of the other coding required, you're off your rocker. Every build like this comes with mistakes and learning how to correct them.
But on the other, I think this is overstated, I lose count of how many "How to X on Raspberry Pi" pages I've seen that were really "How to X on linux" or at best "How to X on embedded Linux". Often they were worse than existing "How to X on linux" resources but picked up traction because of the association with a popular board.
But then I'm just an old curmudgeon who's been messing with embedded linux since long before there was a RPi...
I assume it checks that you actually have the licensing requirements to be transmitting on whatever frequency?
Perhaps I missed something when I owned mine? So many people I encountered in said community really just wanted a wifi deauther, which could have been built or purchased in a variety of cheaper ways. I got bored with it quickly, and returned to doing interesting things with Arduino and ESP32, but YMMV.
- Certain things need good layouts - I think I can see a DC-DC Converter, you need to minimize certain loop areas, etc. You also need to ensure that you use the correct footprints for the chips. Way easier to just use a bunch of modules with a simple pcb.
- It reduces the components you need to aquire - you need to select a inductor with the correct specs for the dc-dc converter, a bunch of different resistors and capacitors for all sorts of uses or you just purchase a cheap module from china.
- It's easier to solder. Fancy chips with packages with no leads are not trivial to solder. LED's might be a bit sensitive to temperature and can get destroyed by a not-so-great solderer. Small pitches on IC make it easy to create solder bridges or bad connections.
That article you shared seems to say the problem is bigger than the used hardware even:
> Soon after, developer Simon Dankelmann ported the attack to an Android app, allowing people to launch Bluetooth spam attacks without needing a Flipper Zero.
How do you solve that without outlawing Android devices?
> People using Bluetooth-enabled hearing aids and heart rate monitoring tools also reported disruption, which could put their well-being at risk.
This is probably the most bananas part of that article, and it's great that they managed to find these issues in relatively trivial conditions, since the company's own testing apparently doesn't include very basic security checks. If those devices are failing when they aren't connected to the main device, what makes these companies even remotely suitable for building critical devices like that?
Who knows how long time it would take to discover these security issues with medical devices if people weren't able to prototype these sort of attacks at home?
Everyone does start somewhere, and as much as the breathlessness over Raspberry Pi in the early days irritated me (many people seemed to think there had been no Linux on ARM before then), you absolutely can’t fault them for building a community and getting people interested in the whole area, and lowering the informational barriers to entry.
And that happens in lots of other cases too, when it's too far away, out of battery, damaged, does that mean their vital health devices stop working if that's happening? Sounds like they need to work on reliability if that was true.