Download - Embedded Market March 2013
Essential to Engineers
DATASHEETS.COM | DESIGNCON | DESIGN EAST & DESIGN WEST | EBN | EDN |
EE TIMES | EMBEDDED | PLANET ANALOG | TECHONLINE | TEST & MEASUREMENT WORLD
2013 EMBEDDED MARKET STUDY
2013 Embedded Market Study 2
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
UBM Tech Electronics’ Brands
UBM Tech Electronics is the media and marketing services solution for the design engineering and electronics industry.
Unparalleled Reach & Experience
Our audience of over 2,358,928 (as of March 5, 2013) are the executives and engineers worldwide who design, develop, and commercialize technology. We provide them with the essentials they need to succeed: news and analysis, design and technology, product data, education, and fun.
2013 Embedded Market Study 3
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
DESIGN West
The industry’s must attend event! Register Today
DESIGN West is both a technical conference and expo for electronics design engineers, entrepreneurs, and technology professionals who create products with electronic content. Held in the heart of Silicon Valley, it’s where the world's top design engineers and product developers gather and learn, gain inspiration, and get practical information and hands-on training they can put to immediate use.
Visionary speakers, relevant content
Engineering’s most visionary names will be on hand, along with UBM Tech's own editorial content team. Keynotes include:
• Luke Dubord, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Avionics System Engineer
• Mayim Bialik, Actress & Neuroscientist
• Hugh Herr, Biomechatronics Director at the MIT Lab
April 22-25, 2013 | McEnery Convention Center | San Jose, CA | ubmdesign.com
2013 Embedded Market Study 4
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Free education and training programs for Embedded engineers:
• From Napkin Sketch to Shenzhen: 3 days of insights from design engineers on bringing their ideas to life.
• DESIGN Theater: Exciting events such as product teardowns, panel discussions, prizes & giveaways and more.
• Hands on Speed Training: Engineers will get hands on with development boards and hardware, share knowledge and resources, make things, and learn new skills from the engineers who created these tools.
• Tech Fundamentals: Giving engineers the fundamentals of building holistic platforms and complete solutions.
Join us in 2013 for ESC Silicon Valley’s 25th year
The four-day DESIGN West event builds upon the solid foundation of engineering education pioneered by the Embedded Systems Conference (ESC), the flagship brand and global electronics industry's leading event. Celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2013, ESC is joined by the popular Black Hat Summit and Android Certification.
DESIGN West (continued)
2013 Embedded Market Study 5
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Purpose and Methodology
• Purpose: To profile the findings of the 2013 results of EE Times Group annual comprehensive survey of the embedded systems markets worldwide. Findings include types of technology used, all aspects of the embedded development process, tools used, work environment, applications, methods and processes, operating systems used, reasons for using and not using chips and technology, and brands and chips currently used by or being considered by embedded developers. Many questions in this survey have been trended over two to five years.
• Methodology: A web-based online survey instrument based on the previous year’s survey was developed and implemented by independent research company Wilson Research Group from January 18, 2013 to February 13, 2013 by email invitation
• Sample: E-mail invitations were sent to subscribers to UBM/EE Times Group Embedded Brands with one reminder invitation. Each invitation included a link to the survey.
• Returns: 2,098 valid respondents for an overall confidence of 95% +/- 2.13%.
2013 Embedded Market Study 6
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
The following information is the property of UBM Tech, a division of United Business Media, LLC. UBM retains ownership of all rights, including intellectual property rights, in and to the Database, the Survey questionnaires and the Survey results. No claims are allowed without the expressed written permission of either Alex Wolfe ([email protected]) or David Blaza ([email protected]) at UBM, LLC.
Disclaimer
2013 Embedded Market Study 7
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
61.1%
20.0%
12.7%
3.0%
1.8%
1.3%
US & Canada
Europe
Asia
Middle/South America
Australia
Africa and Near East2013 (N = 1,914)
In which region of the world do you reside?
2013 Embedded Market Study 8
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
43.7
16.0
6.1
10.2
5.4
4.3
12.1
2.1
42.4
15.6
6.3
10.0
6.9
3.5
13.3
2.0
Under 100
100-499
500-999
1,000-4,999
5,000-9,999
10,000-19,999
20,000 or more
Don't know
2013 N=2025
2012 N=1547
Average Number of Employees
2013 = 3,9652012 = 4,856
How many employees does your company have at all locations?
2013 Embedded Market Study 9
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
56.9%
56.6%
55.3%
50.8%
45.4%
45.0%
43.2%
39.9%
39.7%
39.1%
36.9%
33.7%
26.7%
24.9%
19.0%
8.9%
6.8%
3.4%
Writing firmware/sftwr for embedded systems
Hardware/software integration
Debugging firmware/software
Architecture selection/specification
Firmware/software design or analysis
Project management
Debugging hardware
Prototype testing
Firmware/software testing
Device programming
Designing hardware for embedded systems
System design
Hardware/software co-design
Board layout/design
Hardware/software co-verification
Connected device design
SoC (system-on-chip) design
Other
My job function includes:
2013: Average number of years out of school =
19.7 years
2013 (N = 2,020)
2013 Embedded Market Study 10
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
33%
23%
23%
17%
17%
17%
16%
11%
9%
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
6%
7%
33%
23%
25%
16%
15%
15%
17%
12%
10%
7%
9%
7%
7%
10%
31%
24%
26%
17%
18%
15%
17%
14%
8%
6%
10%
6%
6%
8%
Industrial cntrls & automation
Consumer electronics
Communications/networking
Medical
Automotive
Electronic instruments
Aero/Military (Net)
Computers and peripherals
Security
Power generation and utilities
Video & imaging
Transportation
Audio
Government & municipal
M2M
Other
2013 (N=2080)
2012 (N=1670)
2011 (N=1885)
For what types of applications are your embedded projects developed?
CURRENT EMBEDDED
DESIGN ENVIRONMENT
2013 Embedded Market Study 12
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
My current embedded project is:
44%
56%
44%
56%
43%
57%
43%
57%
42%
58%
New to theworld; a newproject from
scratch
An upgrade orimprovement
to an earlier orexisting project
2013 (N = 2091)
2012 (N = 1,704)
2011 (N = 1,883)
2010 (N = 1,559)
2009 (N = 1,550)
2013 Embedded Market Study 13
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What does the upgrade or improvement include?
55%
40%
22%
15%
12%
21%
58%
44%
21%
14%
13%
22%
New or different software features
New or different processor
New or different system logic
New or different analog components
New or different operating system
Mandatory changes because of discontinuedhardware or software
2013 (N = 1,159)
2012 (N = 941)
Base = Those whose current project is an upgrade/improvement
2013 Embedded Market Study 14
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following capabilities are included in your current embedded project?
68%
55%
52%
40%
40%
36%
7%
70%
58%
43%
38%
37%
9%
72%
58%
42%
38%
37%
8%
73%
59%
42%
38%
38%
8%
75%
59%
44%
33%
35%
Real-time capability
Networking capability
Analog signal processing (added 2013)
Project rugged / envirnmntly resistant
Wireless capability
Battery-powered
Other
2013 (N = 2,090)
2012 (N = 1,704)
2011 (N = 1,886)
2010 (N = 1,559)
2009 (N = 1,550)
2013 Embedded Market Study 15
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
54%
24%
24%
20%
17%
10%
9%
8%
8%
7%
5%
5%
5%
5%
3%
55%
22%
25%
24%
15%
9%
8%
10%
11%
7%
7%
6%
7%
3%
53%
29%
23%
11%
12%
7%
7%
7%
7%
4%
Wi-Fi
Bluetooth Classic
Cellular
Zigbee
Bluetooth LE/Smart
Unlicensed 2.4-GHz band
NFC
900 MHZ
Proprietary
Wi-Fi Direct
AM or FM radio
Infrared
315/433 MHZ
Custom
ANT
2013 (N = 817)
2012 (N = 640)
2011 (N = 714)
Only answers 3% or above are shown
If wireless, what wireless interfaces does your current embedded project include?
2013 Embedded Market Study 16
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
How many people are on your embedded project team?
2013 (N = 2,041)
2012 (N = 1,625)
Team 2013 =
- Software Engineer =
- Hardware Engineer =
- Firmware Engineer =
- QA/Test Engineer =
- Systems/Integrator =
- Other Engineer =
14.6
4.0
2.9
2.7
2.0
1.5
1.5
Team 2012 =
- Software Engineer =
- Hardware Engineer =
- Firmware Engineer =
- QA/Test Engineer =
- Systems Engineer =
15.9
4.9
3.7
3.1
2.4
1.8
Note: Data excludes outliers 1000+
2013 Embedded Market Study 17
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What is your development team’s ratio of total resources (including time/dollars/manpower) spent on software vs. hardware for your
embedded projects?
60.6%
39.4%
61.9%
38.1%
62.0%
38.0%
61.3%
38.7%
62.4%
37.6%
Average total resourcesdevoted to software
Average total resourcesdevoted to hardware
2013 (N = 2,075)
2012 (N = 1,675)
2011 (N = 1,878)
2010 (N = 1,542)
2009 (N = 1,536)
2013 Embedded Market Study 18
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
How long did the last project you completed take to finish?
35%
35%
15%
9%
6%
33%
35%
15%
9%
8%
33%
35%
15%
9%
7%
36%
33%
15%
9%
7%
30%
35%
17%
10%
8%
6 months or less
7 – 12 months
13 – 18 months
19 – 24 months
25 months or more
2013 (N = 1,985) Avg: 12.4 mos
2012 (N = 1,634) Avg: 12.5 mos
2011 (N = 1,822) Avg: 12.2 mos
2010 (N = 1,494) Avg: 12.2 mos
2009 (N = 1,514) Avg: 13.2 mos
2013 Embedded Market Study 19
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Was that project completed . . .
5%
38%
28%
18%
5%
2%
2%
3%
4%
38%
29%
17%
6%
1%
2%
3%
4%
39%
26%
19%
6%
1%
1%
3%
4%
40%
29%
17%
5%
2%
1%
3%
Ahead of schedule
On schedule
Late by 1 – 2 months
Late by 3 – 6 months
Late by 6 – 12 months
Late by 13 – 18 months
Late by more than 18 months
Canceled
2013 (N = 2,055)
2012 (N = 1,658)
2011 (N = 1,859)
2010 (N = 1,525)
•In 2013, 43% of all projects finished “ahead of” or “on” schedule, and 57% finished late or cancelled -- almost the same as the previous 3 years.
2013 Embedded Market Study 20
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
60%
21%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
4%
65%
20%
5%
2%
1%
1%
2%
3%
62%
22%
5%
2%
2%
1%
1%
3%
60%
20%
6%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
C
C++
Assembly language
Java
C#
MATLAB
LabVIEW
Python
.NET
Other
2013 (N = 2,075)
2012 (N = 1,675)
2011 (N = 1,876)
2010 (N = 1,542)
My current embedded project is programmed mostly in:
Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.
2013 Embedded Market Study 21
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
55%
22%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
4%
60%
24%
4%
3%
2%
2%
4%
58%
25%
3%
3%
1%
2%
3%
56%
23%
4%
4%
2%
4%
4%
C
C++
Java
Assembly language
C#
LabVIEW
MATLAB
Python
.NET
UML or other modeling…
Other
2013 (N = 2,071)
2012 (N = 1,667)
2011 (N = 1,871)
2010 (N = 1,537)
My next embedded project will likely be programmed mostly in:
Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.
2013 Embedded Market Study 22
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
14
79
25
1515
78
25
1413
80
25
1514
78
24
1711
84
2117
%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
No, all new software,no code reuse
Yes, reused codedeveloped in-house
Yes, reused open-source, shareware
code
Yes, reused purchasedcode
A very slight change in usage of RTOS, kernels, execs, schedulers over past 5 years
2013 (N = 2,065) 2012 (N = 1,659) 2011 (N = 1,862) 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,534)
In 2013, 86% reused code. In 2012, 85% reused code. In 2011, 87% reused code. In 2010, 86% reused code. In 2009, 89% reused code.
Does your current project reuse code from a previous embedded project?
EMBEDDED DESIGN PROCESS
2013 Embedded Market Study 24
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
14%
11%
30%
7%
21%
10%
6%
1%
15%
11%
22%
8%
23%
12%
6%
2%
15%
12%
22%
8%
24%
12%
6%
2%
Developing overall system specs
Conceptual design stage
Detailed design stage
Simulation stage
Testing and debugging
Prototyping
Sending to production
Documentation/coding/mtgs
2013 (N = 1,928)
2012 (N = 1,535)
2011 (N = 1,679)
What percentage of your design time is spent on each of the following stages?
2013 Embedded Market Study 25
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
If you could improve one thing about your embedded design activities, what would it be?
21%
16%
16%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
3%
22%
15%
16%
8%
8%
6%
5%
6%
5%
3%
29%
14%
9%
9%
8%
8%
5%
7%
5%
28%
15%
8%
10%
7%
8%
7%
8%
5%
Debugging tools
Schedule
Engineering team skill level
Programming tools
Microprocessor
Interfaces
IDE
Other hardware
Operating system
The Compiler
2013 (N = 2,056)
2012 (N = 1,667)
2011 (N = 1,868)
2010 (N = 1,541)
2013 Embedded Market Study 26
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
83%
61%
54%
51%
48%
34%
31%
28%
26%
25%
24%
25%
18%
17%
12%
11%
8%
86%
61%
55%
53%
50%
33%
34%
29%
25%
27%
26%
24%
19%
19%
11%
6%
11%
86%
59%
61%
57%
38%
31%
25%
30%
31%
24%
23%
17%
9%
Websites of vendors or manufacturers
Search engine
Colleagues
Technical whitepapers
Websites of Industry publication
Technical communities (like…
Print publications
Webinars/net seminars
Distributor websites
Conferences and trade shows
Industry newsletters
In-person seminars
Catalogs and brochures
Blogs
Video (YouTube, etc.)
Social networks/Linked-in/Twitter
Virtual conferences
2013 (N = 2,074)
2012 (N = 1,674)
2011 (N = 1,878)
In general, what sources of information do you consult to research your embedded design decisions?
Top 17 Sources
2013 Embedded Market Study 27
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
28%
23%
16%
15%
14%
13%
12%
12%
11%
11%
8%
6%
6%
5%
4%
2%
5%
22%
14%
11%
14%
6%
7%
5%
12%
7%
5%
3%
4%
4%
2%
1%
2%
4%
24.2%
15.5%
10.6%
11.0%
11.9%
9.0%
8.7%
3.9%
7.4%
7.4%
2.3%
1.0%
1.6%
3.9%
Integrating new technology or tools
Managing code size/complexity
Software tools
Processors
Improving the debugging process
Dealing with low power
Programmable logic
OS/RTOS
Security concerns
Integrating external IPs into designs
Connecting to the cloud
Hardware tools
SoC's/ASSP's
Buses/interconnects
Memories and standard cells
IDE*
Other
2013 (N = 723)
2012 (N = 377)
2011 (N = 310)
Thinking about the next year, what areas will be your greatest technology challenges?
Managers Only
2013 Embedded Market Study 28
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
46%
46%
44%
35%
23%
22%
14%
12%
11%
9%
8%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
5%
4%
51%
41%
52%
37%
20%
24%
15%
11%
13%
7%
12%
9%
8%
9%
9%
3%
10%
53%
36%
54%
33%
17%
23%
15%
8%
12%
8%
10%
8%
6%
6%
7%
3%
8%
Debugger
Oscilloscope
Compiler/assembler
IDE
Logic analyzer
JTAG/BDM
ICE
Software libraries
Linux tools
Simulation modeling tools
Configuration management tools
Automatic code generation
Software testing tools
Graphical Design tools
Source code analysis/timing analysis tools
FPGA-based prototypes
Trace
Codevelopment tools
2013 (N = 1,946)
2012 (N = 1,564)
2011 (N = 1,752)
Which of the following are your favorite/most important software/hardware tools? (Top 18 shown)
2013 Embedded Market Study 29
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following conferences did you attend in the past 2 years, and which do you plan to next year?
Conferences
2013 Have
Attended
2013 Plan to Attend
Plus 4% or more
Training/seminars of distributors 40.3% 35.5%
DESIGN WEST/Embedded Systems Conference (Silicon Valley) 16.7% 21.6% +5%
ARM TechCon 16.6% 19.9%
Freescale Technology Forum 11.0% 14.1% +4%
DesignCon 10.8% 12.8%
DESIGN EAST/Embedded Systems Conference (Boston) 10.4% 11.9%
CES (Las Vegas) 9.9% 14.2% +4%
Embedded World (Nuremberg) 8.9% 13.1% +4%
Electronica 8.5% 9.9%
Real Time Computer Show (RTECC) 8.3% 9.9%
Microchip MASTERs Conference 7.8% 10.9%
Intel Developer Forum 7.0% 10.2%
CeBIT 6.4% 7.3%
Embedded Systems Conference (India) 6.4% 9.6%
DAC 4.7% 5.0%
Embedded Linux Conference (ELC) 4.0% 12.5% +8%
Convergence: Transportation Electronics 2.1% 3.9%
Embedded Systems Conference (Brazil) 2.1% 3.9%
Android Builders Summit 1.6% 9.1% +8%
Embedded Systems Technology (Japan) 1.4% 4.3%
Total Attending / Planning to Attend 1,045 1,146
2013 Embedded Market Study 30
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
43.5%
42.4%
36.6%
32.4%
30.0%
20.9%
18.4%
18.2%
17.6%
15.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.5%
7.3%
42%
42%
37%
34%
31%
21%
19%
21%
18%
12%
12%
8%
6%
7%
24%
47%
41%
29%
22%
25%
25%
22%
21%
15%
15%
16%
5%
Training courses offered online
Technical white papers by vendors
Webinars provided by vendors
Webinars by publications, media orgs
Books
Professional devlpmnt courses by private co.
Conferences provided by vendors
University professional dev. courses
On-site seminars given by vendors
Webinars by profsnl assocns
Conference seminars by publctns, media orgs
Conference seminars by profsnl assocns
Certification training
Other
2013 (N = 2,067)
2012 (N = 1,662)
2011 (N = 1,872)
What are the most effective ways that you systematically or formally maintain, educate, and advance your professional skills?
Average Number of Days Per Year Spent on Training 2013 = 9.0 days per year 2012 = 11.7 days per year 2011 = 11.2 days per year 2010 = 11.7 days per year
2013 Average number of years out of school 2013 Hours per week reading technical pubs
19.7 4.8
2013 Books per year read in full or substantially 3.9
Other Relevant Schooling and Reading
OPERATING SYSTEMS
2013 Embedded Market Study 32
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
68%
32%
68%
32%
70%
30%
70%
30%
72%
28%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yes No
Only slight changes in usage of RTOS, kernels, execs, schedulers over past 5 years
2013 (N = 2,082) 2012 (N = 1,712) 2011 (N = 1,882) 2010 (N = 1,552) 2009 (N = 1,546)
Does your current embedded project use an operating system, RTOS, kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind?
2013 Embedded Market Study 33
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
79%
5%
4%
4%
2%
79%
4%
4%
4%
4%
82%
14%
11%
6%
9%
81%
11%
9%
8%
9%
80%
12%
11%
7%
10%
Current project doesn’t need it
OS / RTOS uses too muchmemory
OS / RTOS requires too muchprocessor power
OS / RTOS is too complicatedto use
OS / RTOS is too expensive
2013 (N = 669)
2012 (N = 541)
2011 (N = 561)
2010 (N = 458)
2009 (N = 434)
If current embedded project does not use an operating system, RTOS, kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind, why not?
2013 Embedded Market Study 34
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
29%
37%
20%
14%
31%
37%
19%
13%
30%
37%
19%
15%
31%
31%
23%
16%
34%
27%
26%
13%
Commercial OS/RTOS
Open-source OS/RTOS without
commercial support
Internally developed or in-house
OS/RTOS
Commercial distribution of open-
source OS/RTOS
2013 (N = 1992)
2012 (N = 1620)
2011 (N = 1809)
2010 (N = 1458)
2009 (N = 1432)
My current embedded project uses:
My next embedded project will likely use:
35%
34%
19%
13%
40%
31%
20%
9%
41%
34%
23%
15%
38%
29%
32%
14%
47%
27%
26%
14%
Commercial OS/RTOS
Open-source OS/RTOS,without commercial support
Internally developed or in-house OS/RTOS
Commercial distribution ofan open-source OS/RTOS
2013 (N = 1402)
2012 (N = 1152)
2011 (N = 1307)
2010 (N = 1358)
2009 (N = 1346)
2013 Embedded Market Study 35
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
44%
35%
35%
32%
28%
26%
26%
26%
24%
21%
21%
20%
15%
15%
Real-time capability
Good software tools
Processor or hardware compatibility
Ease of future maintenance
Support for processor & drivers
Technical support
Code size/memory usage
Documentation
Royalty-free
Networking capability
Supplier's reputation
Overall cost
Customer's desire
Scheduling efficiency
2013 (N = 479)
Which factors most influenced your decision to use a commercial operating system? (Top 12 choices.)
Base = Those who currently use a
“Commercial” OS/RTOS
2013 Embedded Market Study 36
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
61%
36%
28%
20%
15%
12%
11%
7%
8%
Current solution works fine
Commercial alternatives too expensive
Avoid reliance on commercial supplier
No need for multitasking
Incompatible with existing SW apps or drivers
Commercial alternatives use too much memory
Too much trouble to learn commercial alternative
Commercial alternatives lack an features I need
Other
2013 (N = 1503)
What are your reasons for not using a commercial operating system?
Base = Those who do not currently use a “Commercial”
OS/RTOS
2013 Embedded Market Study 37
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
32%
30%
30%
17%
15%
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
6%
5%
34%
30%
29%
17%
16%
14%
13%
12%
12%
11%
7%
4%
Software engineering staff
Software engineering manager
Group decision within engineering
Corporate management
Same OS as previous project
Hardware engineering manager
Hardware engineering staff
Systems engineering manager
Outside influence/…
Systems engineering staff
Marketing manager or department
Purchasing manager or department
2013 (N = 1,989)
2012 (N = 1,596)
Base: Those who use operating systems
Who were the greatest influences on the choice of operating system?
2013 Embedded Market Study 38
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
62%
38%
57%
43%
58%
42%
64%
36%
63%
37%
Yes, used same OS, RTOS or kernel No, didn't use same OS, RTOS orkernel
2013 (N = 2,015) 2012 (N = 1,644) 2011 (N = 1,840) 2010 (N = 1,492) 2009 (N = 1,501)
Base: Those who use
operating systems
Did you use the same operating system, RTOS, or kernel as in your previous project?
2013 Embedded Market Study 39
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why did you use the same operating system?
63%
40%
36%
33%
23%
23%
10%
9%
6%
3%
57%
41%
36%
34%
24%
26%
9%
6%
6%
3%
Happy with current one, no reason to switch
Wanted to maintain software compatibility
Wanted to make use of expertise/familiarity
Wanted to maintain the same tools or software
Wanted to keep same Operating System
Switching OS too expensive / time-consuming
Happy with supplier
Not my choice/operating system chosen for me
No other suitable alternatives available
Other
2013 (N = 1,238)
2012 (N = 929)
Base = Those who are using the same operating system
as in previous project
2013 Embedded Market Study 40
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why did you switch operating systems?
33%
22%
20%
13%
13%
12%
10%
9%
7%
5%
17%
37%
20%
21%
13%
11%
14%
10%
6%
4%
6%
18%
Hardware or processor changed
New OS had better features
Not my choice/OS chosen for me
New OS had better SW/dev tools
New OS is cheaper
New OS had better growth path
New OS had OTS modules (apps, tools)
Previous OS too slow
Previous OS no longer available
Unhappy with previous OS supplier
Other
2013 (N = 724)
2012 (N = 658)
Base = Those who did not use the same
operating system as in previous project
2013 Embedded Market Study 41
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What are the most important factors in choosing an operating system.
42%
34%
30%
29%
27%
26%
24%
20%
16%
15%
14%
13%
12%
10%
9%
9%
7%
6%
41%
30%
31%
31%
27%
28%
22%
21%
17%
17%
16%
15%
14%
11%
10%
10%
6%
6%
Availability of full source code
Availability of tech support
No royalties
Real-time performance
Compatibility w/ other software, systems
Freedom to customize or modify
Open-source availability
My familiarity with the operating system
The processors it supports
Purchase price
Simplicity / ease of use
Software-development tools available
Small memory footprint
Commercial support
The other software, middleware, drivers,…
Successful prior use for similar applications
Popularity
The other hardware it supports
2013 (N = 2017)
2012 (N = 1628)
Base: Currently using an operating
2013 Embedded Market Study 42
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Please select ALL of the operating systems you are currently using.
24%
16%
13%
13%
11%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
22%
13%
12%
12%
10%
8%
9%
11%
8%
10%
5%
5%
4%
3%
4%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Inhouse/custom
Android
Ubuntu
FreeRTOS
Microsoft Windows Embedded 7 earlier
Debian (Linux)
Microsoft Windows 7 Compact earlier
Wind River (VxWorks)
Texas Instruments (DSP/BIOS)
Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net
Red Hat (IX Linux)
Freescale MQX
Keil (RTX)
Wind River (Linux)
Analog Devices (VDK)
Angstrom (Linux)
Texas Instruments RTOS
QNX (QNX)
Green Hills (INTEGRITY)
Express Logic (ThreadX)
LynuxWorks (LynxOS)
eCos
OSEK
2013 (N = 1,696)
2012 (N = 1,302)
Base: Currently using
an operating system
Only Operating Systems that had 2% or more are shown.
2013 Embedded Market Study 43
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Please select ALL of the operating systems you are considering using in the next 12 months.
28%
21%
19%
13%
10%
9%
8%
8%
8%
7%
7%
6%
6%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
34%
23%
17%
13%
16%
10%
10%
8%
10%
7%
5%
6%
7%
6%
4%
7%
4%
3%
4%
3%
Android
FreeRTOS
Inhouse/custom
Ubuntu
Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net
Microsoft (Win 7 Embedded/Standard)
Debian (Linux)
TI (DSP/BIOS)
Texas Instruments RTOS
Wind River (VxWorks)
Freescale MQX
Microsoft (Win 7 Compact)
Keil (RTX)
Red Hat (IX Linux)
Wind River (Platform neLinux)
Green Hills (INTEGRITY)
Angstrom (Linux)
QNX (QNX)
Express Logic (ThreadX)
Analog Devices (VDK)
eCos
LynuxWorks (LynxOS)
2013 (N = 1,572)
2012 (N = 1,227)
Base: Those who are considering an operating
system in any project in the next 12 months
Only Operating Systems over 3% are shown.
2013 Embedded Market Study 44
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Are you considering using embedded Linux?
54%
27%
6%
20%
47%
56%
27%
7%
22%
44%
56%
27%
7%
21%
44%
57%
28%
7%
22%
43%
Yes (Net)
Yes, using it now
Yes, likely to use it in next 6 months(soon)
Yes, likely to use in next 12 months
No, not interested in using it
2013 (N = 2,060)
2012 (N = 1,661)
2011 (N = 1,857)
2010 (N = 1,524)
2013 Embedded Market Study 45
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why are you interested in embedded Linux?
66%
52%
40%
38%
32%
29%
16%
14%
72%
54%
44%
37%
33%
30%
16%
17%
72%
58%
40%
39%
34%
33%
18%
65%
53%
38%
37%
36%
30%
18%
Low cost
Adaptability/extensibility
Built-in drivers/network…
Performance
Control of features/…
Avoid commercial…
Memory requirements
Career development
2013 (N = 1093)
2012 (N = 929)
2011 (N = 1026)
2010 (N = 862)
Base = Those who use or are considering using Linux
2013 Embedded Market Study 46
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why are you not interested in embedded Linux?
72%
18%
15%
12%
9%
8%
6%
5%
4%
4%
8%
No need for it
Incompatible w/ existing software, apps, drivers
Performance or real-time capability
Memory usage
Development tools
Support
Legal ambiguity
Reliability issues
Cost (after deployment)
Security issues
Other*
2013 (N = 955)Base = Those who are not considering using Linux
2013 Embedded Market Study 47
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Are you currently using embedded virtualization/hypervisors or will you likely use this in the next 12 months?
17.8%
4.6%
3.6%
9.6%
82.2%
Yes (Net)
Yes, using it now
Yes, will likely use in next 6 months
Yes, will likely use in next 12 months
No, not using it and not planning to
2013 (N = 2049)
2013 Embedded Market Study 48
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why are you interested in embedded vitualization/hypervisors?
48%
37%
35%
26%
23%
17%
4%
Separation of multiple applications
Support for multiple guest OSes (Android, VxWorks,Linux)
Support for hard real-time application(s)/ guest OS
Processor consolidation
Support legacy & new apps on same system
Want to load balance across multicore system
Other
2013 (N = 364)
Base = Those who use or are considering using
Linux
MICROPROCESSORS
2013 Embedded Market Study 50
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Who were the greatest influences on the choice of the processor for your current project?
33%
29%
28%
23%
19%
16%
15%
13%
10%
9%
6%
5%
4%
33%
30%
29%
26%
21%
11%
16%
11%
11%
16%
6%
6%
4%
HW engineering staff
Group decision in engineering
HW engineering mgr.
SW engineering staff
SW engineering mgr.
Systems engineering mgr.
Corporate mgmt.
Systems engineering staff
Outside influence/ customer/stndrds
Same processor as in previou project
Purchasing mgr. or dept.
Marketing mgr. or dept.
Other
2013 (N = 2,048)
2012 (N = 1,664)
2013 Embedded Market Study 51
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
My current embedded project contains:
52%
24%
16%
4%
4%
53%
25%
16%
3%
4%
53%
27%
15%
3%
3%
50%
24%
17%
5%
5%
A single microprocessor/microcontroller
2 processors/ microcontrollers
3 – 5 processors/ microcontrollers
6 – 10 processors/
microcontrollers
>10 processors/ microcontrollers
2013 (N = 2,047)
2012 (N = 1,659)
2011 (N = 1,858)
2010 (N = 1,518)
The average number of microcontrollers per
project was:
2.4 in 20132.3 in 2012
2.3 in 2011 2.6 in 2010
2013 Embedded Market Study 52
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Does your embedded project contain . . .
58%
36%
22%
18%
9%
6%
9%
62%
23%
10%
5%
64%
21%
8%
6%
60%
25%
8%
7%
Multiple different processor chips (Net)*
Multiple different processor chips from differentvendors*
Multiple different processor chips from samevendor*
Multiple identical processor chips
Single chip with multiple identical processor cores
Single chip with multiple different processor cores
FPGA with hard/soft processor cores
2013 (N = 979)
2012 (N = 773)
2011 (N = 874)
2010 (N = 759)
Base: Those who use multiple microprocessor/
microcontrollers for current project
In 2013, multiple different processor chips were broken out into “same
vendor” vs “different vendor” groups.
Freescale and TI are substantially more likely to be included when
different vendors are used.
Microchip is more likely to be the selection when the same vendor is
used, followed by Atmel, TI and Freescale in that order.
2013 Embedded Market Study 53
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
My current embedded project's main processor is a:
3%
12%14%
63%
8%
2%
13%16%
63%
7%
2%
13%16%
62%
6%2%
14%16%
61%
7%
1%
16%17%
60%
6%
Don’t know8-bit processor16-bit processor32-bit processor64-bit processor
2013 (N = 2,056)
2012 (N = 1,666)
2011 (N = 1,864)
2010 (N = 1,527)
2009 (N = 1,533)
2013 Embedded Market Study 54
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
My current embedded project's main processor clock rate is:
7%
38%
13%
10%
15%
16%
10%
7%
5%
13%
4%
6%
39%
14%
10%
15%
16%
11%
8%
5%
11%
3%
Under 10 MHz
10 – 99 MHz (Net)
10 - 24 MHz
25 - 49 MHz
50 - 99 MHz
100 – 249 MHz
250 – 499 MHz
500 – 749 MHz
750 – 999 MHz
1 GHz
2GHz+
2013 (N = 2039)
2012 (N = 1659)
The average processorclock rate was:
485 MHz in 2013425 MHz in 2012
c
2013 Embedded Market Study 55
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Did you use the same processor as in your previous embedded project?
45%
55%
45%
55%
44%
56%
48%
52%48%
52%
Yes, used the same processor as in previousembedded project
No, did not use the same processor as inprevious project
2013 (N = 2,047) 2012 (N = 1,654) 2011 (N = 1,859) 2010 (N = 1,516) 2009 (N = 1,533)
2013 Embedded Market Study 56
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why did you use the same processor?
62%
57%
49%
43%
29%
23%
9%
4%
2%
59%
50%
47%
41%
28%
27%
8%
3%
3%
Happy with current processor/supplier
To maintain software compatibility
To maintain the same tools or software
To make use of expertise/familiarity
To use same operating system
Switching is too expensive/time-consuming
Not my choice/processor chosen for me
No other suitable processors available
Other
2013 (N = 909)
2012 (N = 749)
Base = Those who are currently using the same processor as in
previous project
2013 Embedded Market Study 57
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What were your reasons for switching processors?
46%
31%
24%
15%
14%
13%
12%
10%
8%
3%
9%
46%
31%
27%
15%
18%
13%
9%
9%
2%
11%
New processor had better features
Previous processor too slow
New processor had better future growth…
Not my choice/processor chosen for me
New processor had better SW/dev tools
Previous processor no longer available
Needed a lower power processor
Previous processor too expensive
To change operating system
Unhappy with previous processor's supplier
Other
2013 (N = 1112)
2012 (N = 888)
Base = Those who did not use the same processor as in
previous project
2013 Embedded Market Study 58
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Did you . . .
56%
44%
58%
42%
55%
45%
52%48%
57%
43%
Choose a processor from a different family,architecture, or instruction set
Choose a different processor from thesame family, architecture, or instruction set
2013 (N = 1088) 2012 (N = 862) 2011 (N = 1003) 2010 (N = 761) 2009 (N = 768)
Base = Those who did not use the same processor as in previous project
2013 Embedded Market Study 59
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What’s most important when choosing a microprocessor?
42% 45%
13%
30%
61%
9%
43%46%
11%
45% 43%
13%
48%
41%
10%
The chip itself The ecosystem surroundingthe chip (software, tools,
support, etc.)
The chip's supplier/vendor
2013 (N = 2034) 2012 (N = 1,662) 2011 (N = 1,859) 2010 (N = 1,501) 2009 (N = 1,530)
2013 Embedded Market Study 60
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
19%
12%
10%
9%
7%
5%
5%
3%
2%
2%
19%
11%
10%
8%
8%
8%
2%
4%
2%
2%
14%
12%
10%
11%
8%
6%
2%
2%
1%
1%
Texas Instruments
Freescale
Microchip
ARM
Atmel
Intel
ST Microelectronics
NXP
IAR
Xilinx
2013 (N = 753) Unaided
2012 (N = 665) Unaided
2011 (N = 669) Unaided
If you selected "ecosystem," please write in ONE vendor that has the best ecosystem for your needs. (Unaided)
2013 Embedded Market Study 61
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What are the most important factors in choosing a processor?
72%
46%
35%
34%
32%
29%
28%
21%
15%
13%
11%
7%
5%
71%
48%
40%
35%
33%
32%
29%
22%
14%
14%
13%
8%
4%
71%
49%
41%
33%
31%
35%
33%
24%
13%
15%
14%
8%
Software development tools available
The chip's performance
The chip's cost
Available middleware, drivers, existing code
HW development tools available
The operating systems it supports
The on-chip I/O or peripherals
The chip's power consumption
The supplier's reputation
Familiarity w/ architecture/chip family
Chip family's future growth path
The processor’s debug support
Programmable logic on chip
2013 (N = 2,033)
2012 (N = 1,648)
2011 (N = 1,843)
2013 Embedded Market Study 62
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
52%
51%
50%
48%
42%
33%
33%
31%
30%
28%
28%
24%
22%
19%
16%
15%
15%
50%
44%
50%
47%
43%
34%
26%
29%
26%
26%
27%
23%
20%
19%
13%
13%
12%
Texas Instruments
Atmel
Freescale
Microchip
Intel
STMicroelectronics
Altera
AMD
Xilinx
Analog Devices
NXP
Renesas/NEC
Cypress Semiconductor
Zilog
Maxim
Infineon
Broadcom
2013 (N = 1,912)
2012 (N = 1,555)
Please select the processor vendors you are familiar with.
14%
14%
14%
13%
13%
13%
12%
12%
11%
11%
10%
9%
9%
7%
6%
4%
2%
3%
14%
14%
12%
9%
12%
14%
13%
10%
9%
8%
9%
14%
6%
4%
1%
2%
Silicon Labs
NVIDIA
IBM
Qualcomm
Samsung
Marvell
Digi/Rabbit…
Cirrus Logic
Lattice Semiconductor
Fujitsu
Applied Micro
Toshiba
Microsemi
Energy Micro
VIA
PMC-Sierra
Stretch
Other
2013 Embedded Market Study 63
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
29%
27%
26%
23%
17%
14%
13%
11%
10%
8%
8%
6%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
29%
25%
25%
22%
18%
12%
14%
9%
11%
7%
9%
5%
4%
3%
5%
4%
3%
Texas Instruments
Microchip
Freescale
Atmel
Intel
Xilinx
STMicroelectronics
Altera
NXP
Analog Devices
Renesas/NEC
AMD
Cypress Semiconductor
Maxim
Marvell
Silicon Labs
Broadcom
2013 (N = 1,850)
2012 (N = 1,494)
Please select the processor vendors you are currently using.
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
2%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
%
2%
Infineon
Qualcomm
NVIDIA
Samsung
Digi/Rabbit
Lattice Semiconductor
IBM
Microsemi
Cirrus Logic
Zilog
Fujitsu
Applied Micro
Energy Micro
Toshiba
VIA
PMC-Sierra
Stretch
Other
2013 Embedded Market Study 64
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
41%
34%
26%
24%
22%
19%
18%
17%
15%
12%
39%
31%
26%
23%
23%
16%
20%
16%
13%
13%
Texas Instruments
Freescale
Microchip
Atmel
STMicroelectronics
Xilinx
Intel
NXP
Altera
Renesas / NEC
2013 (N = 1609)
2012 (N = 1327)
Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project (Top 20).
10%
9%
8%
6%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
9%
6%
8%
5%
4%
5%
3%
5%
6%
Analog Devices
Cypress
AMD
Silicon Labs
Qualcomm
NVIDIA
Samsung
Energy Micro
Broadcom
Marvell
2013 Embedded Market Study 65
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
4%
3%
5%
3%
2%
2%
2%
Maxim
Infineon
Lattice Semiconductor
Microsemi
Zilog
IBM
Fujitsu
Toshiba
2013 (N = 1609)
2012 (N = 1327)
(Continued) Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project.
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
3%
Digi/Rabbit
Applied Micro
Cirrus Logic
PMC-Sierra
VIA
Stretch
Other
2013 Embedded Market Study 66
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
23%
22%
21%
17%
17%
16%
14%
14%
14%
13%
13%
13%
21%
24%
21%
20%
15%
15%
16%
14%
14%
11%
6%
Microchip PIC 32-bit (MIPS)
STMicroelectronics STM32 (ARM)
TI Stellaris (ARM)
TI OMAP (ARM)
NXP ARM
Intel Atom, Pentium, Celeron,Core IX
Atmel (AVR32)
Atmel SAMxx (ARM)
Freescale i.MX (ARM)
FreescaleKinetis (ARM/Cortex-M4/M0)
TI Sitara (ARM)
Xilinx Zynq (with dual ARMCortex-A9)
2013 (N = 1,887)
2012 (N = 1,548)
Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
10%
10%
10%
9%
9%
9%
7%
7%
7%
7%
7%
6%
6%
6%
9%
9%
17%
11%
8%
9%
7%
9%
7%
7%
6%
8%
7%
6%
Altera Nios II (soft core)
Arduino
Atmel AT91xx
Xilinx MicroBlaze (soft-core)
TI C2000 MCUs
Altera SoC-FPGA (ARM)
Renesas SuperH, H8SX, M32C, M32R
Freescale 68K, ColdFire
Cypress PSOC 5 (ARM)
Freescale PowerPC 7xx, 8xx
TI Hercules (ARM)
Freescale PowerPC 55xx
Freescale PowerQUICC
Xilinx Virtex-5 (with PowerPC 405)
2013 Embedded Market Study 68
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
3%
6%
6%
5%
3%
3%
4%
5%
4%
3%
Qualcomm (any)
AMD Fusion, Athlon, Opteron, Geode
Freescale PowerPC 5xx, 6xx
NVIDIA Tegra
Energy Micro EFM32
Intel Itanium
Freescale Vybrid (ARM)
Broadcom (any)
Marvell
Xilinx Virtex-4 (with PowerPC 405)
SiLABS Precision32 (ARM)
IBM PowerPC 4xx, 7xx
Microsemi SmartFusion2 SoC FPGA (Cortex-M3)
2013 (N = 1887)2012 (N = 1548)
(Continued) Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
%
4%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
%
6%
Infineon XMC4000 (ARM)
Microsemi SmartFusion SoCFPGA (Cortex-M3)
Microsemi FPGA (Cortex-M1,soft)
AMD Alchemy (MIPS)
Infineon Tricore
NEC V850
Fujitsu FM3 (ARM)
Cirrus Logic EP73xx, EP93xx(ARM)
AMCC PowerPC 4xx
SPARC (any)
Fujitsu FR series
IDT 32xxx
Other
2013 Embedded Market Study 69
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
43%
43%
20%
16%
15%
14%
12%
9%
5%
4%
4%
6%
44%
43%
19%
17%
14%
14%
15%
9%
4%
4%
4%
9%
Microchip PIC24 / dsPIC
TI MSP430
Freescale HC16
STMicroelectronics ST9, ST10
Intel 8086, '186, '286
Freescale HC12
Renesas H8/300H, H8S, H8S/2000, M16C
AMD 186, '188
Infineon XE166, XC2000, XC166, C166
Zilog Z180, Z380
Maxim
Other
2013 (N = 1,427)
2012 (N = 1,141)
Which of the following 16-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
*
*
2013 Embedded Market Study 70
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
43%
35%
18%
17%
16%
15%
14%
11%
10%
10%
10%
9%
9%
7%
6%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
5%
41%
36%
20%
15%
14%
16%
14%
11%
11%
9%
10%
8%
10%
7%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
1%
4%
6%
Microchip PICAtmel AVR
Freescale HC05, HC08, HC11Arduino
TI TMS370, 7000STMicroelectronics ST6, ST7, ST8
Intel 80xx, '251Xilinx PicoBlazeRenesas H8, R8
Cypress PSoCNXP/Philips P80x, P87x, P89x
Altera soft coreAtmel 80xxSiLabs 80xx
Zilog Z8, Z80, Z180, eZ80Digi / Rabbit 2000, 3000
Maxim 80xxParallax
Infineon XC800, C500ToshibaNEC K0
Other
2013 (N = 1,544)
2012 (N = 1,293)
Which of the following 8-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
*Renesas H8/300, 3800, 7200, 7600, R8C/Tiny, 38000, 7200,
7600, 740
2013 Embedded Market Study 71
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following DSP chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
29%
27%
24%
22%
21%
18%
17%
15%
11%
11%
9%
5%
8%
29%
27%
25%
22%
23%
16%
16%
12%
10%
10%
8%
3%
9%
TI 'C6000
Microchip dsPIC
TI DaVinci
TI 'C5000
Analog Devices Blackfin
NXP Cortex M4 LPC4000
Freescale 563xx, 566xx, 568xx, 96xxx
Analog Devices SHARC
Analog Devices ADSP-21xx
Analog Devices TigerSHARC
Freescale StarCore 71xx, 81xx
LatticeECP3
Other
2013 (N = 1,333)
2012 (N = 1,054)
FPGAs, MEMORY, LCDs
2013 Embedded Market Study 73
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Does your current embedded project contain FPGAs/programmable logic?
31%
69%
35%
65%
38%
62%
42%
58%
45%
55%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Yes No
2013 (N = 2,073) 2012 (N = 1,669) 2011 (N = 1,870) 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,536)
2013 Embedded Market Study 74
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
If project doesn’t contain any FPGAs, will the trend towards FPGAs with built in multicore processors change your mind?
36%
64%
37%
63%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Yes No
2013 Embedded Market Study 75
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following vendors does your current embedded projects use for FPGAs?
64%
42%
10%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
64%
41%
11%
7%
7%
10%
4%
2%
3%
62%
42%
8%
6%
5%
11%
5%
2%
3%
65%
42%
12%
6%
5%
9%
5%
4%
3%
Xilinx
Altera
Lattice
Atmel
Mentor Graphics
Microsemi
Cypress
Cadence
Synopsys/Synplicity
2013 Currently use (N = 626)
2012 Currently use (N = 567)
2011 Currently use (N = 690)
2010 Currently use (N = 624)
Tabula and Achronix were both less than one percent.
2013 Embedded Market Study 76
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Will your next embedded project likely contain FPGAs/programmable logic?
41%
59%
43%
57%
42%
58%
45%
55%50% 51%
Yes No
2013 (N = 2,022) 2012 (N = 1,642) 2011 (N = 1,846) 2010 (N = 1,517) 2009 (N = 1,519)
2013 Embedded Market Study 77
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Why won’t your next project include customizable chips?
60%
29%
16%
13%
11%
4%
3%
2%
9%
63%
31%
16%
14%
4%
2%
4%
10%
Don't need this functionality
They're too expensive
They consume too much power
They're too difficult to program (in HDL)
We don't understand this functonality
They're not fast enough for our purposes
They're not big enough for our purposes
They're not reliable enough
Don't know
2013 (N = 1171)
2012 (N = 929)
Base = Those who will not be using customizable chips
2013 Embedded Market Study 78
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
If yes, which of the following vendors will you consider in your next embedded project for FPGAs?
74%
58%
17%
15%
9%
9%
7%
5%
4%
1%
%
3%
75%
55%
17%
16%
14%
9%
8%
5%
4%
1%
1%
3%
73%
58%
15%
12%
19%
9%
5%
4%
3%
4%
Xilinx
Altera
Lattice
Atmel
Microsemi
Cypress
Mentor Graphics
Synopsys/Synplicity
Cadence
Achronix
Tabula
Other
2013 (N = 801)
2012 Will consider (N = 675)
2011 Will consider (N = 759)
2013 Embedded Market Study 79
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
For 2013 only -- which of the following vendors does your current embedded projects use for FPGAs,
and which will you consider in your next embedded project?
64%
42%
10%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
2%
74%
58%
17%
15%
7%
9%
9%
4%
5%
3%
Xilinx
Altera
Lattice
Atmel
Mentor Graphics
Microsemi
Cypress
Cadence
Synopsys/Synplicity
Other
2013 Currently use (N = 626)
2013 Will Consider (N = 801)
2013 Embedded Market Study 80
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
HARDWARE IPs,
SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN,
& USE OF GUIs
2013 Embedded Market Study 81
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Does your current embedded project reuse hardware or hardware IP from a previous project?
30%
62%
6%3%
29%
61%
7%3%
27%
62%
7%3%
27%
62%
7%3%
No, all new hardware, nohardware or IP reuse
Yes, reused somehardware or IP that was
developed in-house
Yes, reused somecommercial (purchased)
hardware or IP
Yes, reused some publicdomain hardware IP
2013 (N = 2041)
2012 (N = 1515)
2011 (N = 1827)
2010 (N = 1498)
2013 Embedded Market Study 82
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following design techniques will become more important to your designs in the future?
63%
36%
32%
31%
63%
39%
33%
32%
Simulation
Modeling in a high level language
Virtual prototyping
Graphical system design
2013 (N = 1743)
2012 (N = 1401)
2013 Embedded Market Study 83
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
What system level design tools do you or your organization currently use?
54%
35%
24%
28%
19%
4%
3%
2%
2%
12%
51%
30%
23%
36%
26%
11%
MATLAB
LabVIEW
Simulink
System C or other "hardware C"…
UML
Cadence Virtual System Platform
Synopsys Virtualizer
HAPS FPGA-based prototypes
Mentor Vista
Other
2013 (N = 1509)
2012 (N = 1200)
2013 Embedded Market Study 84
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Who were the three greatest influencers on the choice of the system-level tools for your current project?
33%
27%
25%
23%
20%
19%
19%
18%
10%
6%
3%
4%
Software engineering staff
Software engineering manager
Hardware engineering staff
Systems engineering staff
Hardware engineering manager
Systems engineering manager
Hardware architects
Corporate management
Outside influence, customer, stndrds
Purchasing manager
Marketing manager
Other
2013 (N = 1,771)
2013 Embedded Market Study 85
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following project management software packages do you currently use?
50%
49%
28%
23%
9%
7%
3%
8%
40%
44%
26%
25%
11%
6%
2%
1%
Microsoft Excel
Microsoft Project
Visio
Open Source tools
IBM Telelogic DOORS
Simulink
TeamCenter
Other software package
2013 Embedded Market Study 86
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Which of the following Version Control software systems do you currently use?
41%
21%
20%
14%
9%
20%
Subversion
Git
CVS
Clearcase
Perforce
Other*
2013 (N = 1,660)
*Other mentions Mercurial 38
Serena PVCS 23
Microsoft Source Safe 21
MKS 18
Team Foundation Server (TFS) 16
Tortoise 16
Visual SourceSafe 12
2013 Embedded Market Study 87
Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
Does your current design use a graphical user interface?
41.1%
58.9%
40.4%
59.6%
Yes No
2013 (N = 1993) 2012 (N = 1613)
Touch 40% Color 36% Hi res 10% Haptic 2% 3D 1% Other 11% 2012 (N = 645)
Color 42%
Touch 34% Hi-res 11%
3D 2% Haptic 1%
Other 10% 2013 (N = 804)
Essential to Engineers
DATASHEETS.COM | DESIGNCON | DESIGN EAST & DESIGN WEST | EBN | EDN |
EE TIMES | EMBEDDED | PLANET ANALOG | TECHONLINE | TEST & MEASUREMENT WORLD
Thank you | See you at DESIGN West!
David Blaza, VP of UBM Tech, Electronics
[email protected] • 415-947-6929
Alex Wolfe, Brand Director, EE Times, Embedded, & EBN
[email protected] • 516-562-7386