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

Blade · Guest

Guy Macon wrote:
[quote]While researching something else, I ran into the
following rather interesting opinions:

Consolidating the MCU market around the ARM architecture
("It>s inevitable. ARM>s Cortex-M3 processor core is going
dominate the MCU market.")
http://www.embedded.com/columns/guest/207001013

Luminary Micro Announces 32-bit Microcontrollers for $1.00
[/quote]
I find much better the STM32 series.

Wilco Dijkstra · Guest

"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:48871863@clear.net.nz...
[quote]Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

"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.

It does make very sound sense, when a customer demands it!
Automotive customers DO have clout :)
[/quote]
Some may want it but it is hardly as important as you>re trying to spin
it. The fact is there are virtually no second source devices out there today,
so it is definitely not high on anyone>s requirement list.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
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).

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.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
If wasting money appeals, maybe... I>m not holding my breath.

Wilco

Jim Granville · Guest

rickman wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 5:13 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

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.

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.
[/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.

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.

-jg

Jim Granville · Guest

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
[quote]"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news: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).
[/quote]
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.

When you are making cars, that processor suddenly gets extremely
expensive if that ONE fab is taken out, halting your vehicle line!

[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.
[/quote]
Spanning two continents, and with multiple fabs.

I>d say that has some appeal to the risk-managers in the large
corperations.

You see, there is a LOT more to chip selection decisions, than just
"which core"?

-jg

Hans-Bernhard Bröker · Guest

Jim Granville wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
Speaking of "less tangible": how exactly does one "see" commitment? One
can believe in some company executive>s statement of commitment --- or
one might opt not to. But how do you see commitment other than after
the fact, when it>s no use to anybody?

CBFalconer · Guest

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
[quote]"Jim Granville" <no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

.... snip ...

It does make very sound sense, when a customer demands it!
Automotive customers DO have clout :)

Some may want it but it is hardly as important as you>re trying
to spin it. The fact is there are virtually no second source
devices out there today, so it is definitely not high on anyone>s
requirement list.
[/quote]
On the contrary, it is very important. However the inavailability
for most products forces other choices. Without second-sourceing
device production can easily be stopped by a single supplier. The
result is last minute massive redesigns, followed by loss of that
customer to that supplier.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

Joel Koltner · Guest

"rickman" <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e46d376a-7cb9-424f-829c-0a15cb464731@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]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.
[/quote]
Agree with you there... I>ve seen co-workers who spend more time writing up
documentations and holding meetings discussing the pros and cons of various
microcontrollers or FPGAs they might use (on a board they were personally
going to be pretty much 100% responsible for, everyone else only caring about
what comes out of their, e.g., serial port or whatever) -- before writing one
line of assembly/C/VHDL/Verilog/whatever -- than it would take them to just
choose one themselves and finish that part of the project.

Rick, didn>t you used to have a small company named Aquarius selling DSP
boards? Or was that another Rick?

---Joel

Jim Granville · Guest

rickman wrote:
[quote]On Jul 23, 7:07 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz
wrote:

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.

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.
[/quote]
No, but it only takes a couple of customers to cause DELIVERY of market
wide of second sourcing. It is the result that matters, not how many
customers drove it.

[quote]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]
Second Sourcing matters to every designer. (or should)

eg: Right now, a customer has asked us for an extension in operating
voltage, so we are trawling the net, looking for 'same package/same
pinout' alternatives [ie a second source!] that we can drop onto the
PCB, with no other changes.

BECAUSE suppliers choose to deliver common packages and pinouts,
we are able to that (and Looks like a few suppliers will change,
in the BOM). Had we chosen single-sourced parts across the
design, we would be in full respin mode == Delays and $$$.

It is the microcontroller sector, that is somewhat lagging here,
second sourcing [common packages and pinouts across vendors]
is very much alive and well in many other sectors.

[With uC, you might get a few code-size options, and some
peripherals-missing options, (really just die-option-switches)]

Some uC vendors ARE waking up to this wider across-family Pin-Compatible
second/alternate source idea. Freescale do this now, NXP are
going to do this, I believe.
Large chunks of the 80C51 market operate this way.

Why ? It speeds their design ramp, and
helps the customer. Can>t see any losers in that ?

Another example, is Voltage-Sourcing - a feature subset of
second sourcing. Half a decade ago, uC vendors were delivering
an ever-multiplying range of Vcc>s, and design of products
was an exercise in 'moving goal posts'.

Now, we see more devices offered with 5V Vcc (sometimes 3.3V),
and on chip regulators, that 'hide' the core Vcc.

Why ? Because customer demand MADE that happen - they want
to MINIMISE the supplier dictates/gotchas in their systems.

Again, I see the Automotive Customers leading this trend.
Others benefit from it.

I am quite happy to take advantage of it :)

Vendors that ignore these important trends are going to wake up
one day, and wonder where their market share went....

-jg

Nico Coesel · Guest

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

[quote]rickman wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:13 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

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.

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.

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.
[/quote]
That might have been true in the past when each manufacturer had a
distinctive distributor. Now every distributor carries (almost) all
manufacturers. So getting design wins is not a matter 'if the customer
doesn>t like distrib. A, then he might buy through distrib. B'
anymore.

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

Nico Coesel · Guest

rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 23, 5:13 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

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.

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
[/quote]
Well, a second source usually takes over when the original
manufacturer quits or is about to quit. I deal with low volume long
running products every now and then. After a couple of years a second
source is required because the original manufacturer quits making
certain parts.

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

Guest

nico@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:

[quote]Well, a second source usually takes over when the original
manufacturer quits or is about to quit. I deal with low volume long
running products every now and then. After a couple of years a second
source is required because the original manufacturer quits making
certain parts.
[/quote]
That is not a second source. That is a new primary source.
A second source gives you redundancy -- you can buy part B
if part A is unavaulable, buggy, etc.

Walter Banks · Guest

rickman wrote:

[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.
[/quote]
The automotive need for second sourcing seems to have faded. I have
had quite bit of automotive work and since 2000 I don>t recall a single
requirement that second sourcing was a factor.

A lot of the second sourcing I am seeing now is about developing markets
that a second vendor has expertise in and distributing silicon development
costs.

Regards,

--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com
walter@bytecraft.com

JosephKK · Guest

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:47:31 +1200, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

[quote]Jim Stewart wrote:
Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote:

In comp.arch Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
(Luminary Micro>s website)

Log in just to get a datasheet? Yeah, right ...

If you just keep clicking on "I really really don>t want to register,
just shut up already" you>ll get a download link without having to
register. Annoying, but far preferable to those sites that actually do
force you to register (I>m looking at you, ARM.)

Which is far preferable to the ones that
make you register then promise to email
you the datasheet and never do. (I>m looking
at you, NXP)

Which part of NXP does that ?
I can download any PDF just fine - PDF access at NXP is good,
it is the middle-ground, between the overview and detail, that
NXP needs to work on!

I did find they have a nice uC selector as 'clickable pdf', that I
suggested they make more visible, and it is now at:

http://www.nxp.com/acrobat/literature/9397/75016140.pdf

With that, you can sidestep almost the entire web site ;)

-jg

[/quote]
Which i can almost read through the glitzy colors and small type.

Joerg · Guest

Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
[quote]Jim Granville wrote:

That>s correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
like commitment.

Speaking of "less tangible": how exactly does one "see" commitment? One
can believe in some company executive>s statement of commitment --- or
one might opt not to. But how do you see commitment other than after
the fact, when it>s no use to anybody?
[/quote]

Usually by the enthusiasm of the employees.

If one opts not to believe in a company>s mission statement it>s time to
be looking for a new job.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

Joerg · Guest

Jim Stewart wrote:
[quote]Jim Granville wrote:
Jim Stewart wrote:
Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid wrote:

In comp.arch Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
(Luminary Micro>s website)

Log in just to get a datasheet? Yeah, right ...

If you just keep clicking on "I really really don>t want to register,
just shut up already" you>ll get a download link without having to
register. Annoying, but far preferable to those sites that actually do
force you to register (I>m looking at you, ARM.)

Which is far preferable to the ones that
make you register then promise to email
you the datasheet and never do. (I>m looking
at you, NXP)

Which part of NXP does that ?
I can download any PDF just fine - PDF access at NXP is good,
it is the middle-ground, between the overview and detail, that
NXP needs to work on!

RF.
[/quote]

Huh? I just downloaded this datasheet from their RF section and was not
asked to register or anything:

http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/BGA2012_2.pdf

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.


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 3 of 4