>So, in a way, this "charity" is really just a marketing subsidiary of Broadcom.
You could look at it that way if you like. But if you compare the rPi to the comparable low-priced educational development boards available when the project started (none). You might conclude that their marketing effort had a good and very real effect on the availability of low-cost edu dev-kits for both Broadcom SoC products and others' as well (like the BBB). So, as both an educator and Open Source advocate, I am fairly pleased with the rPi project, and even if it isn't exactly what I would have wished for I can't imagine how it could have been more successful or had a better result.
rPi is probably the most aggressively priced, but you talk about it like that market didn't exist. The BeagleBoard is probably the closest, though that was designed more as a dev-board for ARM processors and not a mini-computer like the Pi.
>but you talk about it like that market didn't exist.
For most practical purposes, it didn't. What existed were either inferior to rPi and more expensive (>4x) or approximately equivalent and much more expensive (>8x). It has had a significant positive impact on the way instruction is given.
You could look at it that way if you like. But if you compare the rPi to the comparable low-priced educational development boards available when the project started (none). You might conclude that their marketing effort had a good and very real effect on the availability of low-cost edu dev-kits for both Broadcom SoC products and others' as well (like the BBB). So, as both an educator and Open Source advocate, I am fairly pleased with the rPi project, and even if it isn't exactly what I would have wished for I can't imagine how it could have been more successful or had a better result.