@Costas, Your choice συνονόματε.
Well don’t get me wrong, since you are a company too (in app purchases) you also have to pursue compatibility. Unless you created a software and expect it to create profit only while it’s being developed by others.
Don’t know how it works maybe i’m wrong.
If Blynk believes there is more money to be made from PIC users compared with other hardware then they will divert resources accordingly. They know what customers want from the enquiries they receive, you do not.
Well if you are answering on behalf of them then i understand how it works.
If you had half a brain you would know how businesses work.
Guys please don’t go personal. This is prohibited.
Currently blynk does not have enough PIC requests. But technically it does run on PIC.
chipKIT for example…
p.s. Also, you can utilize our HTTP API.
1 Like
I was looking at your response to a comment made over two years ago!! with equal amazement 
As with @Costas I also don’t see how dumping more unfinanced effort into furthered backward compatibility with non IoT based hardware is a good business forward strategy.
But @vshymanskyy’s final comment should finally answer this old topic… if one wants to voluntarily work on further porting for PIC, go for it… But if one wants effort free functionality, use a ESP 
It is already one of the best options for an IoT application like Blynk.
1 Like