It's the boards that are for development, not the chips. They are intended for development of a product which includes the chips on them, not as general purpose glue like raspberry pis or arduinos. And for this kind of development the cost of the boards is usually negligable compared to the other costs of development, so there's little price pressure on them (especially compared to competition on the price of the chip at scale). In fact it's generally in the interests of the companies producing such boards that their limited supply does not go towards people not intending on buying at least few thousand of their chips (and if you give them an indication that you are likely to buy a decent quantity, often you will be given these boards for free).

That said, there are sometimes modules like those mentioned in the article which are intended for production use in volume, though generally these are aimed at a segment of the market where there's about the right volume that saving the development costs of putting the chip onto the custom board direct (e.g. the PCB layout connecting the SoC to the DDR memory or getting a prototype board with enough layers to bring out all the signals on the chip) is worth the extra markup.

Your critics are more applicable to the similar robotics kits of NVIDIA and Qualcomm, which range from a little overpriced to extremely overpriced, in comparison with their alternatives like single-board computers with ARM chips from Rockchip or the like, small computers with Jasper Lake or even with cheaper Tiger Lake models, NUC-like computers with Intel or AMD CPUs, or bargain laptops (all these are under $500, while the ARM or Jasper Lake/Elkhart Lake systems are under $300, with many slower ARM SBCs under $100; the NVIDIA and Qualcomm kits range from $400 to $2000).

These kits from AMD Xilinx, i.e. Kria KV260 and Kria KR260, are very cheap in comparison with the other development systems that include an FPGA so powerful.

Their main defect is that Xilinx makes extremely few of them, so if you want to buy one you might have to wait many months or even years.

For projects that would not benefit much from a FPGA, a cheaper SBC or even just a microcontroller board of $10 or $20 would be a better choice.

However, if you have a clever idea that could be implemented with an FPGA, these new development kits are better than most FPGA boards that have been available previously.

Their main alternative are various boards with Xilinx Artix-7 FPGAs. There are boards in the same price range of a few hundred $, with FPGAs of similar size to those of the Kria kits. However the older Artix-7 FPGAs are significantly slower than the UltraScale+ used in the Kria kits, and they also do not have the 64-bit ARM cores included in UltraScale+ (which has a quadruple Cortex-A53 running Linux and also two 32-bit Cortex-R5F ARM cores, for hard real-time applications).

As mentioned, this sort of board is produced to sell chips and serve as a basic reference design for customers and support engineers who have to debug issues.

As for what a typical robotics project needs, the Zynq line is far, far nicer to program and certify than the corresponding alternatives from NXP and especially TI (at least once you've automated away the pain of xilinix' toolchain), plus you get a decent FPGA on the side and ROS support. Laptops and cell phones won't do any of that and couldn't be certified, regardless.

So yes, this is very much something people will want.

This has always been the case in the past, but these boards are build around the SOM's. You can just buy these as off-the-shelf components (not counting lead-time issues..). This makes FPGAs much more accessible especially for smaller companies, or not so high-volume projects. You would still need to design something to connect the SOM to, but much simpler than the entire PCB.

Is TI's toolchain still godawful?

TI's stuff is very 'mature' at this point, so yeah. It's hard to call it a worse experience than something like Vivado (to the extent those can be compared), but TI's HW is also pretty terrible whereas you're getting decent stuff with Xilinx when they deign to fill orders.

Dev-boards like this are to show-case the core chips.

They aren't meant to be, nor would Xilinx want to be in the business of, producing these at scale.

They want to sell the core-chip, dev-boards make it easier to assess without actually exposing any business-side ips.

These are more akin to advertisements than products.

This dev board is primarily focused on showcasing an FPGA which is a different animal compared to a Pi and other small computing platforms. Selling these Xilinx FPGAs for your PCB manufacturing is the thing they’re prepared to do at scale.

These boards are a combination of a SOM (system on a module) and a baseboard. The SOM's are actually designed to be used in commercial products, so they are sort of in the middle ground. You don't have to design a complex multi-layered PCB for the FPGA BGA, you can just replace the baseboard which should reduce complexity. Mini ITX board will be relatively very large and consume tons of power. Maybe OK for large robots, but not for compact low-power designs. If you can meet your requirements with a raspberry pi, or a single ARM style processor, then most people would choose that. FPGAs, especially the SoCs (multi-processor + FPGA) are used when HW acceleration & fixed low-latency are important, and also there is a lot of flexibility for customized peripherals.

Imagine if you had to solder every chip you want to evaluate and write software for on a custom PCB first. The number of chips you can evaluate would be very small as it takes a month to just design the evaluation PCB. So instead chip vendors provide their own evaluation boards for development purposes so you can start writing software from day one and design the final production PCB at the same time.

What we call ARM SBCs are actually electronics development boards which ironically have been used in production as is.

I think there also might be some consideration of ability to move from dev hardware to a more optimized mass market product. MiniITX boards or cellphones with I/O breakouts rely on much 'wider' supply chains with providers who have their own interests that might not be as amenable to setting up mass production with a customized version of the dev hardware 2-3 years down the line.

They also probably serve as gateway products, so someone might buy this kit for a hobby project and get familiar with Xilinx's ecosystem, leading them to then have a bias towards Xilinx for when they're in the workplace having to decide on an FPGA.

for higher performance, latency sensitivity, or a tight latency distribution, or interfacing with hardware (i.e. lvds)...there is a _really_ big difference between software running on top of linux and transistors (even if they are soft-configured)

bldc motor control is a fine example. yes, you can buy a controller and program it from linux, but if you want to integrate current feedback in some novel way you should really be doing that in hardware.

I believe one of the really appealing aspects to an FPGA for robotics use is the ability to get very low latency in the loop from processing sensor input data to actuating motors / actuators in response to that data.