Science and Technology news... :: View topic - 32-bit Microcontroller for $1.00

John Devereux · Guest

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> writes:

[quote]John Devereux wrote:

I suspect some devious google-ranking scheme :)

I prefer openly admitting to google-ranking schemes...

Plus, I always like to see who has a newsreader that changes
the Subject line (collapsing multiple spaces to one space,
inserting a CR/LF word wrap...) instead of folowing the
de-facto standard and leaving that line unchanged. :)
[/quote]
Aha... so each and every newsreader does it a bit differently,
creating new thread titles for you. Sounds pretty devious to me :)

--

John Devereux

Wilco Dijkstra · Guest

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

[quote]Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.
[/quote]
"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Of course just about all of the MCU manufacturers have licensed the
M3 since then as expected, including Atmel...

Wilco

Jim Granville · Guest

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
[quote]"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)
[/quote]
Don>t get too excited ;)

I would also call the Coldfire, SuperH, MIPS, PowerPCB, Numerous DSPs
(and even the AVR32) also significant, but do NOT confuse 'being on the
radar', with dominating a sector.

This recent news item, shows how much more power matters, than cores,
these days....

"Texas Instruments (TI) is overhauling nearly all of its DSP lines with
15 new chips that slash power by up to 20X. In addition to cutting
power, the new chips represent a number of firsts for TI, including the
first chip to combine an ARM core with a floating-point DSP. As part of
the rollout, TI is also re-uniting its fixed-point and floating-point
C6000 families—two families that parted ways years ago."

http://www.eeproductcenter.com/dsp/brief/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0KQUA1SNGVHKEQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=209400505

[quote]
Of course just about all of the MCU manufacturers have licensed the
M3 since then as expected, including Atmel...
[/quote]
True, and NONE are yet offeringn pin-compatible second sources, but
Freescale and ST ARE now offering PowerPC second sourcing, for
their demanding Automotive customers.

-jg

Nico Coesel · Guest

Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

[quote]Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Don>t get too excited ;)

I would also call the Coldfire, SuperH, MIPS, PowerPCB, Numerous DSPs
(and even the AVR32) also significant, but do NOT confuse 'being on the
radar', with dominating a sector.

This recent news item, shows how much more power matters, than cores,
these days....

"Texas Instruments (TI) is overhauling nearly all of its DSP lines with
15 new chips that slash power by up to 20X. In addition to cutting
power, the new chips represent a number of firsts for TI, including the
first chip to combine an ARM core with a floating-point DSP. As part of
the rollout, TI is also re-uniting its fixed-point and floating-point
C6000 families—two families that parted ways years ago."

http://www.eeproductcenter.com/dsp/brief/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=0KQUA1SNGVHKEQSNDLPSKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=209400505
[/quote]
This shows power matters to TI. Like someone already mentioned in this
thread: TI>s MSP430 series is as low power as you can get in todays
microcontroller market. With all the competition moving to ARM, TI
(and their competitors too) need to add something unique to their
products which stands out in the crowd.

--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)

Guy Macon · Guest

John Devereux wrote:
[quote]
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> writes:

John Devereux wrote:

I suspect some devious google-ranking scheme :)

I prefer openly admitting to google-ranking schemes...

Plus, I always like to see who has a newsreader that changes
the Subject line (collapsing multiple spaces to one space,
inserting a CR/LF word wrap...) instead of folowing the
de-facto standard and leaving that line unchanged. :)

Aha... so each and every newsreader does it a bit differently,
creating new thread titles for you. Sounds pretty devious to me :)
[/quote]
Why would you think that new subject lines are some sort of
advantage? NUsenet newsreaders and Google Groups both thread
by references, not subject lines.

And doesn>t the word "devious" imply that someone is harmed
or at least slightly inconvenienced?

--
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>
Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>

Wilco Dijkstra · Guest

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:488668ad$1@clear.net.nz...
[quote]Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Don>t get too excited ;)

I would also call the Coldfire, SuperH, MIPS, PowerPCB, Numerous DSPs
(and even the AVR32) also significant, but do NOT confuse 'being on the radar', with dominating a sector.
[/quote]
Some are more significant than others though... MIPS for example joined
the MCU game only recently, and they have (like PPC) major codesize
issues, so you need a bigger and more expensive device.

[quote]This recent news item, shows how much more power matters, than cores, these days....
[/quote]
Sure power consumption matters. But it>s nothing new though - ARM wouldn>t
be where it is today if it hadn>t been low power from the start. The core matters
a lot of course as it uses much of the power. Intel have recently found out
again how bad CISC is for power with their Atom core (one can run an ARM
at full speed on the power it wastes when it is in its deepest sleep!).
Having good process technology helps, but it doesn>t "fix" a bad core.

[quote]Of course just about all of the MCU manufacturers have licensed the
M3 since then as expected, including Atmel...

True, and NONE are yet offeringn pin-compatible second sources, but
Freescale and ST ARE now offering PowerPC second sourcing, for
their demanding Automotive customers.
[/quote]
Well that>s their claim anyway... Could you point me to just one device that
is actually pin compatible? A look at the ST/FS websites doesn>t prove there
exist any identical devices. The only thing they have in common is the e200
core, that>s about it. As I>ve said before, making identical devices in every
aspect doesn>t make any commercial sense.

Wilco

rickman · Guest

On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote]Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Don>t get too excited ;)
[/quote]
I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
the year (not sure which year though.. ;^). I got a big argument from
you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
be changing over from the lack of demand.

Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
players have all licensed the M3 core. With all of the new chip
products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
fade away by necessity.

The question of how the ARM CM3 will fare in comparison to the
alternative CPUs is a different matter. I don>t think the various
chip makers will make the ARM products vanish and I don>t think the
ARM chips will make the other products vanish. If a company is using
multi-millions per year of a given MCU, then their choice will be
based on things other than what most of us use to pick a chip.
Automotive makers will use what ever chip gives them a $0.01
advantage. That is one of the reasons that the Asian companies can
still push totally proprietary MCUs to the automotive makers.

I have to say, I don>t really see the advantage to the auto makers to
have multiple sources for their MCUs. If you are buying even just 1
million a year of a given chip, do you think the maker is going to
phase out that chip??? Are they going to jack up the price on a chip
and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
multi-billion dollar customer??? Is the price competition for your
socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
different parts?

If you are that large of a customer, you can nearly buy a company like
Atmel. The chip maker is not likely to do anything that will make the
600 pound gorilla buy even just one product from a different maker.

Rick

Jim Granville · Guest

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

[quote]"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:488668ad$1@clear.net.nz...
True, and NONE are yet offeringn pin-compatible second sources, but
Freescale and ST ARE now offering PowerPC second sourcing, for
their demanding Automotive customers.

Well that>s their claim anyway... Could you point me to just one device that
is actually pin compatible? A look at the ST/FS websites doesn>t prove there
exist any identical devices. The only thing they have in common is the e200
core, that>s about it. As I>ve said before, making identical devices in every
aspect doesn>t make any commercial sense.
[/quote]
It does make very sound sense, when a customer demands it!
Automotive customers DO have clout :)

Try this:
[starting with their first jointly developed automotive microcontroller,
which they announced Monday (May 19) at the China International
Automotive Electronics Products & Technologies Show (Shanghai). As an
extension to its Power Architecture for the control of small automotive
engines and transmissions—one to four cylinders—the MPC563x will become
the Power Architecture>s low-end entry into 32-bit microcontrollers.]
[Both Freescale and ST expect the MPC563x to be qualifying at automotive
suppliers throughout most of 2009, with volume shipments commencing in 2010]

and this
[Real dual-source environment for critical, leading-edge components that
includes a healthy, secure and competitive supply chain with a focus on
cost competitiveness]

It can make very good commercial sense - after all, they are not
duplicating R&D, all they are doing is an extension of Dual_Fab,
which some companies offer now, as a Psudeo Second Source.

Others may be forced to follow them.

I can see that this approach would have real appeal to Industrial
Designers too. Disposable Consmer products are a different sector,
were second sourcing & lifetimes is less an issue.

-jg

John Devereux · Guest

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> writes:

[quote]John Devereux wrote:

Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/> writes:

John Devereux wrote:

I suspect some devious google-ranking scheme :)

I prefer openly admitting to google-ranking schemes...

Plus, I always like to see who has a newsreader that changes
the Subject line (collapsing multiple spaces to one space,
inserting a CR/LF word wrap...) instead of folowing the
de-facto standard and leaving that line unchanged. :)

Aha... so each and every newsreader does it a bit differently,
creating new thread titles for you. Sounds pretty devious to me :)

Why would you think that new subject lines are some sort of
advantage? NUsenet newsreaders and Google Groups both thread
by references, not subject lines.
[/quote]
It is true - I don>t know much about the workings of google groups.

[quote]And doesn>t the word "devious" imply that someone is harmed
or at least slightly inconvenienced?
[/quote]
Not at all. At least I did not mean it that way, more in the sense of
tricky and non-obvious.

--

John Devereux

rickman · Guest

On Jul 23, 5:13 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
[quote]
IMHO second source is only a requirement when doing small volume
products that need to be maintained for a long time. Unfortunately
this market is very uninteresting for most chip makers. If you are a
car maker, you can buy so many devices it will be profitable to
produce another batch.
[/quote]
I>m not sure I see the connection between a requirement for long time
availability and second sources. Unless the connection is through the
fact that this is mostly to support the auto industry, why would a
second source make the life time of the product any longer? If
anything it would reduce the volumes of each maker and push the part
to be canceled earlier.

Rick

rickman · Guest

On Jul 23, 7:31 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote]Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:48871863@clear.net.nz...

It can make very good commercial sense - after all, they are not duplicating R&D, all they are doing is an extension
of Dual_Fab,
which some companies offer now, as a Psudeo Second Source.

Well maybe you explain why it is a good idea to make X devices in one fab
and Y in another when you could make X+Y in just one fab and get the
advantage of higher volumes? It only becomes necessary to use another
fab if one is maxed out (highly unlikely given the volumes for automotive
are small compared to other market segments).

Talk to the big players that do this already.

Xilinx is one good example.

Some large corporates (and military too) see the bigger picture, and
have quite strict risk management policies, that dictate an earthquake
or other single point event, cannot be allowed to disrupt their total
business.
[/quote]
Yeah, now there is a huge market, Military! Let>s see, a few dozen
processors in a missile that is made maybe 1000 per year, which gives
you a volume of... well, let>s be generous and say 100,000 a year.
Yes, if it is specially qualified, the pricing is up there and I am
sure the profits are too. But unless there is a specific promise to
make that device for a long time, it gets the axe when the commercial
version goes by the wayside. Didn>t that just happen a few months ago
that a Power PC processor was being dropped that the Military is using
big time? When was the last time an earthquake took out fabs for more
than a couple of weeks??? Obsolescence is the enemy of the long life
part, not earthquakes.

[quote]Given the high costs involved to align two processes and qualify identical
designs on them and the resulting lower volumes I>d say it>s a good way to
ensure the devices will cost more than they really need to. Also we>re not
talking about true second source with price and performance competition
(like when you could replace an Intel 286 or 386 with an AMD clone that
was faster) but a joint venture by two companies.

Spanning two continents, and with multiple fabs.

I>d say that has some appeal to the risk-managers in the large
corperations.
[/quote]
Which large corporations? Do you really think that anyone other than
automotive and Military care about multiple sourcing? In my career of
about 30 years, the only time I have been asked about second sourcing
is in DOD type jobs. Even those have mostly given up on the idea of
second source and are trying to go the route of using more
commercially oriented designs where possible. Some 15 or 20 years ago
I worked on a design for a graphics terminal that was still going to
be "old school", but they looked hard to going COTS. The only thing
that stopped them was inertia. Now they buy all sorts of commercial
products and only ask for a 5 year life... like what I am working on
now... or not working on because I am typing this...

[quote]You see, there is a LOT more to chip selection decisions, than just
"which core"?
[/quote]
Yes, but not to the mass markets. I can>t remember the last time that
even my manager got involved in the decision of which CPU chip to
use. I decide, I justify and I do the design. That>s the way it
should be unless there is some overriding factor... and that seldom
happens.

Rick

rickman · Guest

On Jul 23, 3:47 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote]rickman wrote:

I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
the year (not sure which year though.. ;^). I got a big argument from
you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
be changing over from the lack of demand.

Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
players have all licensed the M3 core. With all of the new chip
products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
fade away by necessity.

That>s a natural industry progression, but it is a double edge sword.

As volumes drop on the ARM7 production, devices will be pruned,
and that will have a NEGATIVE impact on those users.
(and the same thing will likely happen further along the time-line, on M3)

They will need to (mostly) respin PCBS/recode/recompile/requalify
(remember, M3 is not binary compatible) - those are all $$$ steps.
- assuming they have a NEW device that actually meets their feature set.
(Right about here, they will likely re-check their core choice too)

That>s a lot of costs, over a lot of users, waiting in the pipeline...

A number of ARM7 users are migrating up to the ARM9, rather than
sideways to the M3. (or moving to DSP, or other cores...)
[/quote]
I don>t even know what you are trying to say at this point. The ARM7
is being driven out by the CM3. The ARM7 will still be made for some
years and very few products will "respin" to use a new part. Most of
those products will be out of production by the time the ARM7 CPUs are
no longer made.

Are you trying to create a straw-man?

Yes, users migrate from the ARM7 to nearly every other processor.
They also migrate *to* the CM3 *from* every processor. I think there
is little doubt that the CM3 is here to stay and will be a huge
success. Even if it is just marketing hype as some have said, it was
successful marketing hype.

[quote]The question of how the ARM CM3 will fare in comparison to the
alternative CPUs is a different matter. I don>t think the various
chip makers will make the ARM products vanish and I don>t think the
ARM chips will make the other products vanish. If a company is using
multi-millions per year of a given MCU, then their choice will be
based on things other than what most of us use to pick a chip.
Automotive makers will use what ever chip gives them a $0.01
advantage. That is one of the reasons that the Asian companies can
still push totally proprietary MCUs to the automotive makers.

I have to say, I don>t really see the advantage to the auto makers to
have multiple sources for their MCUs. If you are buying even just 1
million a year of a given chip, do you think the maker is going to
phase out that chip??? Are they going to jack up the price on a chip
and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
multi-billion dollar customer??? Is the price competition for your
socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
different parts?

That>s correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
like commitment. Two of the largest players, offering a second source
IS going to get attention from designers & managers.
[/quote]
I guess we will see. Like I told Nico companies may care about a
product life time, but few feel the need to have second sources. The
reason for second sources has always been product availability and
price. Availability can be an issue, but having multiple sources
doesn>t fix that. If the demand peaks, a dozen companies can be
caught with their pants down. Just ask the memory vendors. Every
four years or so DRAM/Flash prices jump and then after a bit they
continue dropping.

Likewise, price gets no advantage from multiple sourcing. Everyone
competes on price now with sole sourcing. You design in based on the
price they will give you and in a year to work the next design and
start again with the newer parts and new pricing.

Don>t make this more complex than it is.

Rick

rickman · Guest

On Jul 23, 7:07 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote]
The Logic and SRAM memory markets give some examples of how this works.
A second-source seeds more design wins (in theory), and so ensures
earlier critical mass. Logic suppliers are well used to this
from their customers.

Then, a decade or two or three later, as the volumes tail off, all
suppliers do NOT pull the plug concurrently.

Some jockeying occurs, and one supplier decides to 'take the tail
business' - Tail-end SRAM has examples of this right now, not many
suppliers, but the market size is still enough
to keep at least one company interested.
Same with 4000 series CMOS - we still have that in active designs
and it is even on new design radar too.
[/quote]
Don>t kid yourself. A company is not going to go the second source
route knowing that the product lifetime will be shorter than normal
for them and longer for their competition. Like you say, they will do
the second source because there is a customer (or class of customer)
who is asking for that. But that does not translate into a market
wide demand for second sourcing. Considering that you are the only
person here who is saying it makes a difference (and I haven>t heard
you say it makes a difference to *you*), I expect this is a NOOP to
most applications.

[quote]You can be sure ST and Freescale are only doing this uC second sourcing,
(which is extra effort) because it will result in higher total revenue.
Design-ins will already be underway.
[/quote]
It will result in additional revenue just as any product introduction
will result in additional revenue over not introducing a product.
Again, that does not translate into any sort of demand by the general
market. Even you have only come up with the automotive sector as the
potential customers for this.

In general, markets tend to focus on "favorite" CPUs. Comms market
likes the Motorola (who are they these days??? Freescale? ON? I just
can>t keep up) CPUs, automotive likes the ARM (just ask TI). I don>t
really know the rest, but the bias tends to come from familiarity. An
engineer from company A uses processor X, moves to company B and
continues to use processor X instead of switching to processor Y.
More engineers from company B use processor X and move to other
companies in the same sector. It is not an absolute, but it does make
a trend since frequently there is no *best* processor for a given
app.

Second sourcing was big in the 70>s. It went away in the 80>s or so
as product lifetimes got shorter. I don>t see it coming back until
product lifetimes get longer or the learning curves for devices get a
lot steeper.

Rick

Jim Granville · Guest

rickman wrote:
[quote]On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz
wrote:

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Don>t get too excited ;)

I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
the year (not sure which year though.. ;^). I got a big argument from
you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
be changing over from the lack of demand.

Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
players have all licensed the M3 core. With all of the new chip
products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
fade away by necessity.
[/quote]
That>s a natural industry progression, but it is a double edge sword.

As volumes drop on the ARM7 production, devices will be pruned,
and that will have a NEGATIVE impact on those users.
(and the same thing will likely happen further along the time-line, on M3)

They will need to (mostly) respin PCBS/recode/recompile/requalify
(remember, M3 is not binary compatible) - those are all $$$ steps.
- assuming they have a NEW device that actually meets their feature set.
(Right about here, they will likely re-check their core choice too)

That>s a lot of costs, over a lot of users, waiting in the pipeline...

A number of ARM7 users are migrating up to the ARM9, rather than
sideways to the M3. (or moving to DSP, or other cores...)

[quote]
The question of how the ARM CM3 will fare in comparison to the
alternative CPUs is a different matter. I don>t think the various
chip makers will make the ARM products vanish and I don>t think the
ARM chips will make the other products vanish. If a company is using
multi-millions per year of a given MCU, then their choice will be
based on things other than what most of us use to pick a chip.
Automotive makers will use what ever chip gives them a $0.01
advantage. That is one of the reasons that the Asian companies can
still push totally proprietary MCUs to the automotive makers.

I have to say, I don>t really see the advantage to the auto makers to
have multiple sources for their MCUs. If you are buying even just 1
million a year of a given chip, do you think the maker is going to
phase out that chip??? Are they going to jack up the price on a chip
and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
multi-billion dollar customer??? Is the price competition for your
socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
different parts?
[/quote]
That>s correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
like commitment. Two of the largest players, offering a second source
IS going to get attention from designers & managers.

-jg

Nico Coesel · Guest

Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

[quote]rickman wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz
wrote:

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in messagenews:4884e753$1@clear.net.nz...

Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.

"M3 is significant" - wow, that>s quite a change from what you said a
few years ago :-)

Don>t get too excited ;)

I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
the year (not sure which year though.. ;^). I got a big argument from
you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
be changing over from the lack of demand.

Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
players have all licensed the M3 core. With all of the new chip
products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
fade away by necessity.

That>s a natural industry progression, but it is a double edge sword.

As volumes drop on the ARM7 production, devices will be pruned,
and that will have a NEGATIVE impact on those users.
(and the same thing will likely happen further along the time-line, on M3)

They will need to (mostly) respin PCBS/recode/recompile/requalify
(remember, M3 is not binary compatible) - those are all $$$ steps.
[/quote]
That depends on how the software is written. I share a lot of code
between different platforms and therefore I write everything as
portable as possible. Ofcourse the low level stuff needs to be
rewritten for a new target, but it is very much possible to write
portable code in C without giving up speed or code size. It is just a
matter of knowing what you>re doing.

[quote]and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
multi-billion dollar customer??? Is the price competition for your
socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
different parts?

That>s correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
like commitment. Two of the largest players, offering a second source
IS going to get attention from designers & managers.
[/quote]
IMHO second source is only a requirement when doing small volume
products that need to be maintained for a long time. Unfortunately
this market is very uninteresting for most chip makers. If you are a
car maker, you can buy so many devices it will be profitable to
produce another batch.

--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Electronics - design Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 2 of 4