Embedded Market March 2013

  • 2,916 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
2,916
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
133
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. 2013 EMBEDDED MARKET STUDY Essential to Engineers DATASHEETS.COM | DESIGNCON | DESIGN EAST & DESIGN WEST | EBN | EDN | EE TIMES | EMBEDDED | PLANET ANALOG | TECHONLINE | TEST & MEASUREMENT WORLD
  • 2. 2013 Embedded Market Study 2 UBM Tech Electronics’ Brands Unparalleled Reach & Experience UBM Tech Electronics is the media and marketing services solution for the design engineering and electronics industry.Our audience of over 2,358,928 (as of March 5, 2013) are the executives and engineersworldwide who design, develop, and commercialize technology. We provide them with theessentials they need to succeed: news and analysis, design and technology, product data,education, and fun. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 3. 2013 Embedded Market Study 3 DESIGN West April 22-25, 2013 | McEnery Convention Center | San Jose, CA | ubmdesign.com 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 worlds 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 Techs 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 Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 4. 2013 Embedded Market Study 4 DESIGN West (continued) 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 industrys leading event. Celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2013, ESC is joined by the popular Black Hat Summit and Android Certification. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 5. 2013 Embedded Market Study 5 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%. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 6. 2013 Embedded Market Study 6 DisclaimerThe following information is the property of UBM Tech, a division of UnitedBusiness Media, LLC. UBM retains ownership of all rights, including intellectualproperty rights, in and to the Database, the Survey questionnaires and theSurvey results.No claims are allowed without the expressed written permission of either AlexWolfe (alex.wolfe@ubm.com) or David Blaza (david.blaza@ubm.com)at UBM, LLC. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 7. 2013 Embedded Market Study 7 In which region of the world do you reside? US & Canada 61.1% Europe 20.0% Asia 12.7% Middle/South America 3.0% Australia 1.8% Africa and Near East 1.3% 2013 (N = 1,914) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 8. 2013 Embedded Market Study 8 How many employees does your company have at all locations? Under 100 43.7 42.4 100-499 16.0 15.6 500-999 6.1 6.3 1,000-4,999 10.2 10.0 5,000-9,999 5.4 6.9 2013 N=2025 10,000-19,999 4.3 2012 N=1547 3.5 20,000 or more 12.1 Average Number of Employees 13.3 2013 = 3,965 Dont know 2.1 2012 = 4,856 2.0 Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 9. 2013 Embedded Market Study 9 My job function includes: Writing firmware/sftwr for embedded systems 56.9% Hardware/software integration 56.6% Debugging firmware/software 55.3% Architecture selection/specification 50.8% Firmware/software design or analysis 45.4% Project management 45.0% Debugging hardware 43.2% Prototype testing 39.9% Firmware/software testing 39.7% Device programming 39.1% Designing hardware for embedded systems 36.9% System design 33.7% Hardware/software co-design 26.7% Board layout/design 24.9% Hardware/software co-verification 19.0% Connected device design 8.9% 2013: Average number SoC (system-on-chip) design 6.8% of years out of school = Other 3.4% 19.7 years 2013 (N = 2,020) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 10. 2013 Embedded Market Study 10 For what types of applications are your embedded projects developed? 33% Industrial cntrls & automation 31% 33% 23% Consumer electronics 23% 24% 23% Communications/networking 25% 26% 17% Medical 16% 17% 17% Automotive 15% 18% 17% Electronic instruments 15% 15% 16% Aero/Military (Net) 17% 17% 11% Computers and peripherals 12% 14% 9% Security 8% 10% 8% Power generation and utilities 7% 6% 8% Video & imaging 9% 10% 7% Transportation 2013 (N=2080) 6% Audio 6% 7% 2012 (N=1670) 6% Government & municipal 6% 7% 2011 (N=1885) 6% M2M 7% Other 8% 10% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 11. CURRENT EMBEDDEDDESIGN ENVIRONMENT
  • 12. 2013 Embedded Market Study 12 My current embedded project is: 2013 (N = 2091) 44% 2012 (N = 1,704) New to the 44% 2011 (N = 1,883) world; a new 43% 2010 (N = 1,559) project from 2009 (N = 1,550) scratch 43% 42% 56% An upgrade or 56% improvement 57% to an earlier or existing project 57% 58% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 13. 2013 Embedded Market Study 13 What does the upgrade or improvement include? 55% New or different software features 58% 40% New or different processor 44% 22% New or different system logic 21% 15% 2013 (N = 1,159) New or different analog components 14% 2012 (N = 941) 12% New or different operating system 13% Mandatory changes because of discontinued 21% hardware or software 22% Base = Those whose current project is an upgrade/improvement Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 14. 2013 Embedded Market Study 14 Which of the following capabilities are included in your current embedded project? 68% 70% Real-time capability 72% 73% 75% 55% 58% Networking capability 58% 59% 59% 52% Analog signal processing (added 2013) 40% 43% Project rugged / envirnmntly resistant 42% 42% 44% 40% 38% Wireless capability 38% 38% 33% 2013 (N = 2,090) 36% 2012 (N = 1,704) 37% Battery-powered 37% 38% 35% 2011 (N = 1,886) 7% 9% 2010 (N = 1,559) Other 8% 8% 2009 (N = 1,550) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 15. 2013 Embedded Market Study 15If wireless, what wireless interfaces does your current embedded project include? 54% Wi-Fi 55% 53% 24% Bluetooth Classic 22% 24% Cellular 25% 29% 20% Zigbee 24% 23% 17% Bluetooth LE/Smart 15% 10% Unlicensed 2.4-GHz band 9% 11% 9% NFC 8% 8% 900 MHZ 10% 12% 8% Proprietary 11% 7% 7% Wi-Fi Direct 7% 5% AM or FM radio 7% 7% 5% Infrared 6% 7% 5% 2013 (N = 817) 315/433 MHZ 7% 7% 2012 (N = 640) 5% Custom 3% 4% 2011 (N = 714) 3% ANT Only answers 3% or above are shown Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 16. 2013 Embedded Market Study 16 How many people are on your embedded project team? Team 2013 = 14.6 2013 (N = 2,041) - Software Engineer = 4.0 - Hardware Engineer = 2.9 - Firmware Engineer = 2.7 - QA/Test Engineer = 2.0 - Systems/Integrator = 1.5 - Other Engineer = 1.5 Team 2012 = 15.9 2012 (N = 1,625) - Software Engineer = 4.9 - Hardware Engineer = 3.7 - Firmware Engineer = 3.1 - QA/Test Engineer = 2.4 - Systems Engineer = 1.8 Note: Data excludes outliers 1000+ Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 17. 2013 Embedded Market Study 17 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% Average total resources 61.9% 62.0% devoted to software 61.3% 2013 (N = 2,075) 62.4% 2012 (N = 1,675) 39.4% Average total resources 38.1% 2011 (N = 1,878) 38.0% devoted to hardware 38.7% 2010 (N = 1,542) 37.6% 2009 (N = 1,536) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 18. 2013 Embedded Market Study 18 How long did the last project you completed take to finish? 35% 33% 6 months or less 33% 36% 30% 35% 35% 7 – 12 months 33% 35% 35% 15% 15% 13 – 18 months 15% 15% 17% 9% 2013 (N = 1,985) Avg: 12.4 mos 9% 2012 (N = 1,634) Avg: 12.5 mos 19 – 24 months 9% 9% 10% 2011 (N = 1,822) Avg: 12.2 mos 6% 2010 (N = 1,494) Avg: 12.2 mos 8% 25 months or more 7% 7% 2009 (N = 1,514) Avg: 13.2 mos 8% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 19. 2013 Embedded Market Study 19 Was that project completed . . . 5% Ahead of schedule 4% •In 2013, 43% of all projects 4% finished “ahead of” or 4% “on” schedule, and 57% 38% finished late or cancelled -- On schedule 38% 39% almost the same as the 40% previous 3 years. 28% Late by 1 – 2 months 29% 26% 29% 18% Late by 3 – 6 months 17% 19% 17% 5% Late by 6 – 12 months 6% 6% 5% 2% Late by 13 – 18 months 1% 1% 2013 (N = 2,055) 2% 2% 2012 (N = 1,658) Late by more than 18 months 2% 1% 1% 2011 (N = 1,859) 3% Canceled 3% 2010 (N = 1,525) 3% 3% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 20. 2013 Embedded Market Study 20 My current embedded project is programmed mostly in: 60% 65% C 62% 60% 21% 20% C++ 22% 20% 5% 5% Assembly language 5% 6% 3% 2% Java 2% 3% 2% C# 2% 1% MATLAB 2% 2013 (N = 2,075) 2% 2% 2012 (N = 1,675) 1% LabVIEW 1% 2% 2011 (N = 1,876) 1% Python 2010 (N = 1,542) 1% 2% .NET 1% 3% 4% 3% Other 3% 3% Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 21. 2013 Embedded Market Study 21 My next embedded project will likely be programmed mostly in: 55% C 60% 58% 56% 22% C++ 24% 25% 23% 4% Java 4% 3% 4% 4% Assembly language 3% 3% 4% 3% C# 2% LabVIEW 2% 1% 2% 2013 (N = 2,071) 2% MATLAB 2012 (N = 1,667) 2% Python 2011 (N = 1,871) 1% 2010 (N = 1,537) .NET 2% 2% 4% 1% UML or other modeling… 4% Other 4% 3% 4% Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 22. 2013 Embedded Market Study 22 Does your current project reuse code from a previous embedded project? A very slight change in usage of RTOS, kernels, execs, schedulers over past 5 years 90% 79 84 78 80 78 80% In 2013, 86% reused code. In 2012, 85% reused code. 70% In 2011, 87% reused code. 60% In 2010, 86% reused code. In 2009, 89% reused code. 50% 40% 30% 25 25 25 24 14 21 20% 15 13 14 15 14 15 17 17 11 10% % No, all new software, Yes, reused code Yes, reused open- Yes, reused purchased no code reuse developed in-house source, shareware code code 2013 (N = 2,065) 2012 (N = 1,659) 2011 (N = 1,862) 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,534) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 23. EMBEDDED DESIGN PROCESS
  • 24. 2013 Embedded Market Study 24 What percentage of your design time is spent on each of the following stages? 14% Developing overall system specs 15% 15% 11% Conceptual design stage 11% 12% 30% Detailed design stage 22% 22% 7% Simulation stage 8% 8% 21% Testing and debugging 23% 24% 10% Prototyping 12% 2013 (N = 1,928) 12% 6% Sending to production 6% 2012 (N = 1,535) 6% 1% 2011 (N = 1,679) Documentation/coding/mtgs 2% 2% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 25. 2013 Embedded Market Study 25 If you could improve one thing about your embedded design activities, what would it be? 21% Debugging tools 22% 29% 28% 16% Schedule 15% 14% 15% 16% Engineering team skill level 16% 9% 8% 7% Programming tools 8% 9% 10% 7% 2013 (N = 2,056) Microprocessor 8% 7% 8% 2012 (N = 1,667) 7% 2011 (N = 1,868) Interfaces 6% 8% 8% 2010 (N = 1,541) 6% IDE 5% 5% 7% 6% Other hardware 6% 7% 8% 5% Operating system 5% 5% 5% 3% The Compiler 3% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 26. 2013 Embedded Market Study 26 In general, what sources of information do you consult to research your embedded design decisions? Top 17 Sources 83% Websites of vendors or manufacturers 86% 86% 61% Search engine 61% 54% Colleagues 55% 59% 51% Technical whitepapers 53% 61% 48% Websites of Industry publication 50% 57% 34% Technical communities (like… 33% 31% Print publications 34% 38% 28% Webinars/net seminars 29% 31% 26% Distributor websites 25% 25% 25% Conferences and trade shows 27% 30% 24% Industry newsletters 26% 31% 25% In-person seminars 24% 24% 18% Catalogs and brochures 19% 23% 2013 (N = 2,074) 17% 2012 (N = 1,674) Blogs 19% 17% 12% 2011 (N = 1,878) Video (YouTube, etc.) 11% 11% Social networks/Linked-in/Twitter 6% 8% Virtual conferences 11% 9% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 27. 2013 Embedded Market Study 27 Thinking about the next year, what areas will be your greatest technology challenges? Managers Only 28% Integrating new technology or tools 22% 24.2% 23% Managing code size/complexity 14% 15.5% 16% Software tools 11% 10.6% 15% Processors 14% 11.0% 14% Improving the debugging process 6% 11.9% 13% Dealing with low power 7% 12% Programmable logic 5% 9.0% 12% OS/RTOS 12% 8.7% 11% Security concerns 7% 3.9% 11% Integrating external IPs into designs 5% 7.4% 8% Connecting to the cloud 3% 6% Hardware tools 4% 7.4% 6% 2013 (N = 723) SoCs/ASSPs 4% 5% 2012 (N = 377) Buses/interconnects 2% 2.3% 4% 2011 (N = 310) Memories and standard cells 1% 1.0% 2% IDE* 2% 1.6% 5% Other 4% 3.9% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 28. 2013 Embedded Market Study 28 Which of the following are your favorite/most important software/hardware tools? (Top 18 shown) 46% Debugger 51% 53% 46% Oscilloscope 36% 41% 44% Compiler/assembler 52% 54% 35% IDE 33% 37% 23% Logic analyzer 17% 20% 22% JTAG/BDM 24% 23% 14% ICE 15% 15% 12% Software libraries 8% 11% 11% Linux tools 13% 12% 9% Simulation modeling tools 7% 8% 8% Configuration management tools 12% 10% 8% Automatic code generation 8% 9% 8% Software testing tools 6% 8% 2013 (N = 1,946) 8% Graphical Design tools 6% 9% 2012 (N = 1,564) 7% Source code analysis/timing analysis tools 7% 9% 2011 (N = 1,752) 7% FPGA-based prototypes 5% Trace 3% 3% 4% Codevelopment tools 8% 10% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 29. 2013 Embedded Market Study 29 Which of the following conferences did you attend in the past 2 years, and which do you plan to next year? 2013 2013 Plus Have Plan to 4% or Conferences Attended Attend 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 Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 30. 2013 Embedded Market Study 30 What are the most effective ways that you systematically or formally maintain, educate, and advance your professional skills? 43.5% Training courses offered online 24% 42% 42.4% Technical white papers by vendors 42% 47% 36.6% Webinars provided by vendors 37% 41% 32.4% Webinars by publications, media orgs 29% 34% 30.0% Books 22% 31% 20.9%Professional devlpmnt courses by private co. 21% 25% 18.4% Conferences provided by vendors 19% 25% 18.2% University professional dev. courses 21% 22% 17.6% 2013 (N = 2,067) On-site seminars given by vendors 18% 21% 15.0% 2012 (N = 1,662) Webinars by profsnl assocns 12% 15% 8.0% 2011 (N = 1,872)Conference seminars by publctns, media orgs 12% 15% 8.0% Conference seminars by profsnl assocns 8% 16% 6.5% Certification training 6% 7.3% Other 5% 7% Average Number of Days Per Year Spent on Training Other Relevant Schooling and Reading 2013 = 9.0 days per year 2013 Average number of years out of school 19.7 2012 = 11.7 days per year 2013 Hours per week reading technical pubs 4.8 2011 = 11.2 days per year 2013 Books per year read in full or substantially 3.9 2010 = 11.7 days per year Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 31. OPERATING SYSTEMS
  • 32. 2013 Embedded Market Study 32 Does your current embedded project use an operating system, RTOS, kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind? Only slight changes in usage of RTOS, kernels, execs, schedulers over past 5 years 80 72% 68% 68% 70% 70% 70 60 50 40 32% 32% 30% 30% 28% 30 20 10 0 Yes No 2013 (N = 2,082) 2012 (N = 1,712) 2011 (N = 1,882) 2010 (N = 1,552) 2009 (N = 1,546) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 33. 2013 Embedded Market Study 33 If current embedded project does not use an operating system, RTOS, kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind, why not? 79% 79% Current project doesn’t need it 82% 81% 80% 5% OS / RTOS uses too much 4% 14% memory 11% 12% 4% OS / RTOS requires too much 4% 11% 2013 (N = 669) processor power 9% 11% 2012 (N = 541) 4% 2011 (N = 561) OS / RTOS is too complicated 4% 6% 2010 (N = 458) to use 8% 7% 2009 (N = 434) 2% 4% OS / RTOS is too expensive 9% 9% 10% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 34. 2013 Embedded Market Study 34 My current embedded My next embedded project uses: project will likely use: 35% 29% 40% 31% Commercial OS/RTOS 41% Commercial OS/RTOS 30% 38% 31% 47% 34% 34% 37% 31% 37% Open-source OS/RTOS, Open-source OS/RTOS without 34% 37%without commercial support commercial support 31% 29% 27% 27% 20% 19% 19% 20% Internally developed or in-house Internally developed or in- 19% 23% OS/RTOS house OS/RTOS 23% 32% 26% 26% 2013 (N = 1402) 14% 2013 (N = 1992) 13% 2012 (N = 1152) 13% 2012 (N = 1620) 9% Commercial distribution of open- Commercial distribution of 2011 (N = 1307) 15% 2011 (N = 1809) 15% source OS/RTOS an open-source OS/RTOS 2010 (N = 1358) 16% 2010 (N = 1458) 14% 13% 2009 (N = 1346) 2009 (N = 1432) 14% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 35. 2013 Embedded Market Study 35 Which factors most influenced your decision to use a commercial operating system? (Top 12 choices.) Real-time capability 44% Good software tools 35% Processor or hardware compatibility 35% Ease of future maintenance 32% Support for processor & drivers 28% Technical support 26% Code size/memory usage 26% Documentation 26% Royalty-free 24% Networking capability 21% 2013 (N = 479) Suppliers reputation 21% Base = Those who currently use a Overall cost 20% “Commercial” OS/RTOS Customers desire 15% Scheduling efficiency 15% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 36. 2013 Embedded Market Study 36 What are your reasons for not using a commercial operating system? Current solution works fine 61% Commercial alternatives too expensive 36% Avoid reliance on commercial supplier 28% No need for multitasking 20% Incompatible with existing SW apps or drivers 15% Commercial alternatives use too much memory 12% Too much trouble to learn commercial alternative 11% 2013 (N = 1503) Base = Those who do not Commercial alternatives lack an features I need 7% currently use a “Commercial” OS/RTOS Other 8% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 37. 2013 Embedded Market Study 37 Who were the greatest influences on the choice of operating system? 32% Software engineering staff 34% 30% Software engineering manager 30% 30% Group decision within engineering 29% 17% Corporate management 17% 15% Same OS as previous project 16% 15% Hardware engineering manager 14% 14% Hardware engineering staff 13% 13% Systems engineering manager 12% Base: Those who use operating systems 12% Outside influence/… 12% Systems engineering staff 11% 2013 (N = 1,989) 11% Marketing manager or department 6% 2012 (N = 1,596) 7% 5% Purchasing manager or department 4% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 38. 2013 Embedded Market Study 38 Did you use the same operating system, RTOS, or kernel as in your previous project? 64% 63% Base: Those who use 62% 57% 58% operating systems 43% 42% 38% 36% 37% Yes, used same OS, RTOS or kernel No, didnt use same OS, RTOS or kernel 2013 (N = 2,015) 2012 (N = 1,644) 2011 (N = 1,840) 2010 (N = 1,492) 2009 (N = 1,501) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 39. 2013 Embedded Market Study 39 Why did you use the same operating system? Happy with current one, no reason to switch 63% 57% Wanted to maintain software compatibility 40% 41% Wanted to make use of expertise/familiarity 36% 36% Wanted to maintain the same tools or software 33% 34% Wanted to keep same Operating System 23% 24% Switching OS too expensive / time-consuming 23% 26% Happy with supplier 10% 9% Not my choice/operating system chosen for me 9% 2013 (N = 1,238) 6% 2012 (N = 929) No other suitable alternatives available 6% 6% Base = Those who are using the same operating system Other 3% 3% as in previous project Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 40. 2013 Embedded Market Study 40 Why did you switch operating systems? Hardware or processor changed 33% 37% New OS had better features 22% 20% Not my choice/OS chosen for me 20% 21% New OS had better SW/dev tools 13% 13% New OS is cheaper 13% 11% New OS had better growth path 12% 14% 10% 2013 (N = 724) New OS had OTS modules (apps, tools) 10% 2012 (N = 658) Previous OS too slow 9% 6% Base = Those who did not use the same Previous OS no longer available 7% operating system as in 4% previous project Unhappy with previous OS supplier 5% 6% Other 17% 18% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 41. 2013 Embedded Market Study 41 What are the most important factors in choosing an operating system. Availability of full source code 42% 41% Availability of tech support 34% 30% No royalties 30% 31% Real-time performance 29% 31% Compatibility w/ other software, systems 27% 27% Freedom to customize or modify 26% 28% Open-source availability 24% 22% My familiarity with the operating system 20% 21% The processors it supports 16% 17% Purchase price 15% 17% Simplicity / ease of use 14% 16% Software-development tools available 13% 15% Small memory footprint 12% 14% 2013 (N = 2017) Commercial support 10% 11% 2012 (N = 1628) The other software, middleware, drivers,… 9% 10% Base: CurrentlySuccessful prior use for similar applications 9% 10% using an operating Popularity 7% 6% The other hardware it supports 6% 6% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 42. 2013 Embedded Market Study 42 Please select ALL of the operating systems you are currently using. Inhouse/custom 24% 22% Android 16% 13% Ubuntu 13% 12% FreeRTOS 13% 12% Microsoft Windows Embedded 7 earlier 11% 10% Debian (Linux) 8% 8% Microsoft Windows 7 Compact earlier 8% 9% Wind River (VxWorks) 7% 11% Texas Instruments (DSP/BIOS) 7% 8% Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net 6% 10% Red Hat (IX Linux) 5% 5% Freescale MQX 5% Keil (RTX) 4% 5% Wind River (Linux) 4% 4% Analog Devices (VDK) 4% 3% Angstrom (Linux) 4% 4% 2013 (N = 1,696) Texas Instruments RTOS 4% QNX (QNX) 3% 2012 (N = 1,302) 4% Green Hills (INTEGRITY) 3% 4% Express Logic (ThreadX) 2% Base: Currently using 3% LynuxWorks (LynxOS) 2% an operating system 2% eCos 2% 2% OSEK 2% 2% Only Operating Systems that had 2% or more are shown. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 43. 2013 Embedded Market Study 43 Please select ALL of the operating systems you are considering using in the next 12 months. Android 28% 34% FreeRTOS 21% 23% Inhouse/custom 19% 17% Ubuntu 13% 13% Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net 10% 16% Microsoft (Win 7 Embedded/Standard) 9% 10% Debian (Linux) 8% 10% TI (DSP/BIOS) 8% 8% Texas Instruments RTOS 8% Wind River (VxWorks) 7% 10% Freescale MQX 7% Microsoft (Win 7 Compact) 6% 7% Keil (RTX) 6% 5% Red Hat (IX Linux) 5% 6% Wind River (Platform neLinux) 5% 7% Green Hills (INTEGRITY) 4% 6% Angstrom (Linux) 4% 2013 (N = 1,572) 4% QNX (QNX) 4% 2012 (N = 1,227) 7% Express Logic (ThreadX) 3% 4% Base: Those who are Analog Devices (VDK) 3% 3% considering an operating eCos 3% system in any project in the 4% next 12 months LynuxWorks (LynxOS) 3% 3% Only Operating Systems over 3% are shown. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 44. 2013 Embedded Market Study 44 Are you considering using embedded Linux? 54% 56% Yes (Net) 56% 57% 27% 27% Yes, using it now 27% 28% 6% Yes, likely to use it in next 6 months 7% 2013 (N = 2,060) (soon) 7% 2012 (N = 1,661) 7% 2011 (N = 1,857) 2010 (N = 1,524) 20% 22% Yes, likely to use in next 12 months 21% 22% 47% 44% No, not interested in using it 44% 43% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 45. 2013 Embedded Market Study 45 Why are you interested in embedded Linux? 66% Low cost 72% 72% 65% 52%Adaptability/extensibility 54% 58% 53% 40% Built-in drivers/network… 44% 40% 38% 38% Performance 37% 39% 37% 32% Control of features/… 33% 34% 36% 29% 2013 (N = 1093) Avoid commercial… 30% 33% 2012 (N = 929) 30% 16% 2011 (N = 1026) Memory requirements 16% 18% 18% 2010 (N = 862) 14% Career development 17% Base = Those who use or are considering using Linux Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 46. 2013 Embedded Market Study 46 Why are you not interested in embedded Linux? No need for it 72% Incompatible w/ existing software, apps, drivers 18% Performance or real-time capability 15% Memory usage 12% Development tools 9% Support 8% Legal ambiguity 6% Reliability issues 5% 2013 (N = 955) Cost (after deployment) 4% Base = Those who are not considering using Linux Security issues 4% Other* 8% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 47. 2013 Embedded Market Study 47 Are you currently using embedded virtualization/hypervisors or will you likely use this in the next 12 months? Yes (Net) 17.8% Yes, using it now 4.6% Yes, will likely use in next 6 months 3.6% Yes, will likely use in next 12 months 2013 (N = 2049) 9.6% No, not using it and not planning to 82.2% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 48. 2013 Embedded Market Study 48 Why are you interested in embedded vitualization/hypervisors? Separation of multiple applications 48%Support for multiple guest OSes (Android, VxWorks, Linux) 37% Support for hard real-time application(s)/ guest OS 35% Processor consolidation 26% Support legacy & new apps on same system 23% 2013 (N = 364) Want to load balance across multicore system 17% Other 4% Base = Those who use or are considering using Linux Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 49. MICROPROCESSORS
  • 50. 2013 Embedded Market Study 50 Who were the greatest influences on the choice of the processor for your current project? HW engineering staff 33% 33% Group decision in engineering 29% 30% HW engineering mgr. 28% 29% SW engineering staff 23% 26% SW engineering mgr. 19% 21% Systems engineering mgr. 16% 11% Corporate mgmt. 15% 16% Systems engineering staff 13% 11% Outside influence/ customer/stndrds 10% 11% Same processor as in previou project 9% 16% Purchasing mgr. or dept. 6% 2013 (N = 2,048) 6% 5% 2012 (N = 1,664) Marketing mgr. or dept. 6% Other 4% 4% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 51. 2013 Embedded Market Study 51 My current embedded project contains: A single microprocessor/ 52% 53% microcontroller 53% 50% 24% 2 processors/ microcontrollers 25% The average number of 27% microcontrollers per 24% project was: 16% 3 – 5 processors/ microcontrollers 16% 2.4 in 2013 15% 2.3 in 2012 17% 2.3 in 2011 2.6 in 2010 6 – 10 processors/ 4% 3% microcontrollers 3% 2013 (N = 2,047) 5% 2012 (N = 1,659) 4% >10 processors/ microcontrollers 4% 2011 (N = 1,858) 3% 5% 2010 (N = 1,518) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 52. 2013 Embedded Market Study 52 Does your embedded project contain . . . 58% Multiple different processor chips (Net)* 62% 64% 60% Multiple different processor chips from different 36% vendors* In 2013, multiple different processor chips were broken out into “same Multiple different processor chips from same 22% vendor” vs “different vendor” groups. vendor* Freescale and TI are substantially more likely to be included when 18% different vendors are used. Multiple identical processor chips 23% 21% Microchip is more likely to be the 25% selection when the same vendor is 9% used, followed by Atmel, TI and Single chip with multiple identical processor cores 10% 8% Freescale in that order. 8% 2013 (N = 979) 6% Single chip with multiple different processor cores 5% 6% 2012 (N = 773) 7% 9% 2011 (N = 874) FPGA with hard/soft processor cores 2010 (N = 759) Base: Those who use multiple microprocessor/ microcontrollers for current project Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 53. 2013 Embedded Market Study 53 My current embedded projects main processor is a: 62% 63% 63% 2013 (N = 2,056) 60% 61% 2012 (N = 1,666) 2011 (N = 1,864) 2010 (N = 1,527) 2009 (N = 1,533) 17% 16% 16% 16% 16% 14% 14% 13% 13% 12% 6% 7% 6% 7% 8% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 64-bit processor 32-bit processor 16-bit processor 8-bit processor Don’t know Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 54. 2013 Embedded Market Study 54 My current embedded projects main processor clock rate is: c 7% Under 10 MHz 6% 38% 10 – 99 MHz (Net) 39% 13% 10 - 24 MHz 14% 10% 25 - 49 MHz 10% 15% 50 - 99 MHz 15% 16% The average processor 100 – 249 MHz 16% clock rate was: 10% 250 – 499 MHz 11% 485 MHz in 2013 7% 425 MHz in 2012 500 – 749 MHz 8% 5% 750 – 999 MHz 5% 2013 (N = 2039) 13% 2012 (N = 1659) 1 GHz 11% 4% 2GHz+ 3% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 55. 2013 Embedded Market Study 55 Did you use the same processor as in your previous embedded project? 55% 55% 56% 52% 52% 48% 48% 45% 45% 44% Yes, used the same processor as in previous No, did not use the same processor as in embedded project previous project 2013 (N = 2,047) 2012 (N = 1,654) 2011 (N = 1,859) 2010 (N = 1,516) 2009 (N = 1,533) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 56. 2013 Embedded Market Study 56 Why did you use the same processor? 62% Happy with current processor/supplier 59% 57% To maintain software compatibility 50% 49% To maintain the same tools or software 47% 43% To make use of expertise/familiarity 41% 29% To use same operating system 28% 23% Switching is too expensive/time-consuming 27% 9% Not my choice/processor chosen for me 8% 2013 (N = 909) 4% 2012 (N = 749) No other suitable processors available 3% Base = Those who are currently 2% Other 3% using the same processor as in previous project Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 57. 2013 Embedded Market Study 57 What were your reasons for switching processors? 46% New processor had better features 46% 31% Previous processor too slow 31% 24% New processor had better future growth… 27% 15% Not my choice/processor chosen for me 15% 14% New processor had better SW/dev tools 18% 13% Previous processor no longer available 13% 12% Needed a lower power processor 10% Previous processor too expensive 9% 8% 2013 (N = 1112) To change operating system 9% 3% 2012 (N = 888) Unhappy with previous processors supplier 2% Base = Those who did not use 9% Other 11% the same processor as in previous project Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 58. 2013 Embedded Market Study 58 Did you . . . 56% 58% 57% 55% 52% 48% 44% 45% 43% 42% Choose a processor from a different family, Choose a different processor from the architecture, or instruction set same 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 Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 59. 2013 Embedded Market Study 59 What’s most important when choosing a microprocessor? 61% 48% 46% 42% 43% 45% 45% 43% 41% 30% 13% 11% 13% 10% 9% The chip itself The ecosystem surrounding The chips supplier/vendor the chip (software, tools, support, etc.) 2013 (N = 2034) 2012 (N = 1,662) 2011 (N = 1,859) 2010 (N = 1,501) 2009 (N = 1,530) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 60. 2013 Embedded Market Study 60 If you selected "ecosystem," please write in ONE vendor that has the best ecosystem for your needs. (Unaided) 19% Texas Instruments 19% 14% 12% Freescale 11% 12% 10% Microchip 10% 10% 9% ARM 8% 11% 7% Atmel 8% 8% 5% Intel 8% 2013 (N = 753) Unaided 6% 2012 (N = 665) Unaided 5% 2011 (N = 669) Unaided ST Microelectronics 2% 2% 3% NXP 4% 2% 2% IAR 2% 1% 2% Xilinx 2% 1% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 61. 2013 Embedded Market Study 61 What are the most important factors in choosing a processor? 72% Software development tools available 71% 71% 46% The chips performance 48% 49% 35% The chips cost 40% 41% 34%Available middleware, drivers, existing code 35% 33% 32% HW development tools available 33% 31% 29% The operating systems it supports 32% 35% 28% The on-chip I/O or peripherals 29% 33% 21% The chips power consumption 22% 24% 15% The suppliers reputation 14% 13% 13% Familiarity w/ architecture/chip family 14% 2013 (N = 2,033) 15% 11% Chip familys future growth path 13% 2012 (N = 1,648) 14% 7% The processor’s debug support 8% 2011 (N = 1,843) 8% 5% Programmable logic on chip 4% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 62. 2013 Embedded Market Study 62 Please select the processor vendors you are familiar with. 52% 14% Texas Instruments 50% Silicon Labs 14% 51% 14% Atmel 44% NVIDIA 14% 50% 14% Freescale 50% IBM 12% 48% 13% Microchip 47% Qualcomm 9% 42% 13% Intel 43% Samsung 12% 33% 13% STMicroelectronics 34% Marvell 14% 33% 12% Altera 26% Digi/Rabbit… 13% 31% 12% AMD 29% Cirrus Logic 10% 30% 11% Xilinx 26% Lattice Semiconductor 28% Analog Devices 26% Fujitsu 9% 11% 28% NXP 27% Applied Micro 8% 10% 24% Renesas/NEC 23% Toshiba 9% 9% 22%Cypress Semiconductor 20% Microsemi 9% 14% 19% Zilog 19% Energy Micro 7% 2013 (N = 1,912) 16% Maxim 13% 2012 (N = 1,555) VIA 6% 6% 15% Infineon 13% PMC-Sierra 4% 4% 15% Broadcom 12% Stretch 2% 1% 3% Other 2% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 63. 2013 Embedded Market Study 63 Please select the processor vendors you are currently using. 3% Texas Instruments 29% 29% Infineon 3% 3% Microchip 27% 25% Qualcomm 2% 3% Freescale 26% 25% NVIDIA 2% 2% Atmel 23% 22% Samsung 2% 2% Intel 17% 18% Digi/Rabbit 2% 2% Xilinx 14% 12% Lattice Semiconductor 2% STMicroelectronics 13% 14% IBM 2% 2% Altera 9% 11% Microsemi 3% 1% NXP 10% 11% Cirrus Logic 1% 1% Analog Devices 7% 8% Zilog 2% 1% Renesas/NEC 8% 9% Fujitsu 1% 1% AMD 6% 5% Applied Micro 1% 1%Cypress Semiconductor 4% 5% Energy Micro 1% Maxim 4% 3% 2013 (N = 1,850) Toshiba 1% 1% Marvell 4% 5% 2012 (N = 1,494) VIA 1% 1% Silicon Labs 4% PMC-Sierra 1% 4% % Broadcom 4% Stretch % 3% 2% Other 2% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 64. 2013 Embedded Market Study 64 Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project (Top 20). 41% 10% Texas Instruments Analog Devices 39% 9% 34% 9% Freescale Cypress 31% 6% 26% 8% Microchip AMD 26% 8% 24% 6% Atmel Silicon Labs 23% 5% 22% 5% STMicroelectronics Qualcomm 23% 4% 19% 5% Xilinx NVIDIA 16% 5% 18% 5% Intel Samsung 20% 3% 17% 5% NXP Energy Micro 16% 15% 2013 (N = 1609) 4% Altera Broadcom 13% 2012 (N = 1327) 5% 12% 4% Renesas / NEC Marvell 13% 6% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 65. 2013 Embedded Market Study 65 (Continued) Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project. 4% 2% Maxim Digi/Rabbit 4% 3% 4% Infineon 2% 3% Applied Micro 2% 3% Lattice Semiconductor 1% Cirrus Logic 2% 3% Microsemi 5% 1% PMC-Sierra 3% 1% Zilog 3% 1% VIA 2% 1% IBM 2% 1% 2% Stretch Fujitsu 2013 (N = 1609) 1% 2% 2012 (N = 1327) 2% 2% Other Toshiba 3% 2% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 66. 2013 Embedded Market Study 66 Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project? 10% 23% Altera Nios II (soft core) Microchip PIC 32-bit (MIPS) 9% 21% 10% 22% Arduino 9%STMicroelectronics STM32 (ARM) 24% 10% Atmel AT91xx 17% 21% TI Stellaris (ARM) 21% 9% Xilinx MicroBlaze (soft-core) 11% 17% TI OMAP (ARM) 9% 20% TI C2000 MCUs 8% 17% 9% NXP ARM Altera SoC-FPGA (ARM) 15% 9% 7% Intel Atom, Pentium, Celeron, 16% Renesas SuperH, H8SX, M32C, M32R 7% Core IX 15% 7% 14% Freescale 68K, ColdFire 9% Atmel (AVR32) 16% 7% Cypress PSOC 5 (ARM) 14% 7% Atmel SAMxx (ARM) 7% Freescale PowerPC 7xx, 8xx 7% 14% Freescale i.MX (ARM) 7% 14% TI Hercules (ARM) 6% FreescaleKinetis (ARM/Cortex- 13% 2013 (N = 1,887) 6% M4/M0) 14% Freescale PowerPC 55xx 8% 2012 (N = 1,548) 6% 13% TI Sitara (ARM) Freescale PowerQUICC 7% 11% 6% Xilinx Zynq (with dual ARM 13% Xilinx Virtex-5 (with PowerPC 405) 6% Cortex-A9) 6% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 67. 2013 Embedded Market Study 68 (Continued) Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project? 3% Infineon XMC4000 (ARM) 5% Qualcomm (any) 3% Microsemi SmartFusion SoC 2% AMD Fusion, Athlon, Opteron, Geode 5% FPGA (Cortex-M3) 6% Microsemi FPGA (Cortex-M1, 2% Freescale PowerPC 5xx, 6xx 5% soft) 6% 2% 5% AMD Alchemy (MIPS) 2% NVIDIA Tegra 5% 2% 5% Infineon Tricore Energy Micro EFM32 2% 3% 2% 5% NEC V850 Intel Itanium 3% 3% 2% 4% Fujitsu FM3 (ARM) Freescale Vybrid (ARM) Cirrus Logic EP73xx, EP93xx 2% 4% Broadcom (any) (ARM) 2% 4% 1% 4% AMCC PowerPC 4xx Marvell 2% 5% 1% 4% SPARC (any) Xilinx Virtex-4 (with PowerPC 405) 1% 4% 3% 2013 (N = 1887) Fujitsu FR series 1% SiLABS Precision32 (ARM) 2012 (N = 1548) 1% % 3% IDT 32xxx IBM PowerPC 4xx, 7xx % 3% 4% 3% Other Microsemi SmartFusion2 SoC FPGA (Cortex-M3) 6% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 68. 2013 Embedded Market Study 69 Which of the following 16-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project? Microchip PIC24 / dsPIC * 43% 44% * 43% TI MSP430 43% Freescale HC16 20% 19% STMicroelectronics ST9, ST10 16% 17% Intel 8086, 186, 286 15% 14% Freescale HC12 14% 14% Renesas H8/300H, H8S, H8S/2000, M16C 12% 15% AMD 186, 188 9% 9% 5% 2013 (N = 1,427) Infineon XE166, XC2000, XC166, C166 4% Zilog Z180, Z380 4% 2012 (N = 1,141) 4% Maxim 4% 4% Other 6% 9% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 69. 2013 Embedded Market Study 70 Which of the following 8-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project? Microchip PIC 43% 41% Atmel AVR 35% 36% Freescale HC05, HC08, HC11 18% 20% Arduino 17% 15% TI TMS370, 7000 16% 14% STMicroelectronics ST6, ST7, ST8 15% 16% Intel 80xx, 251 14% 14% Xilinx PicoBlaze 11% 11% Renesas H8, R8 10% 11% Cypress PSoC 10% 9% NXP/Philips P80x, P87x, P89x 10% 10% Altera soft core 9% 8% Atmel 80xx 9% 10% SiLabs 80xx 7% 7% 2013 (N = 1,544) Zilog Z8, Z80, Z180, eZ80 6% 6% Digi / Rabbit 2000, 3000 3% 4% 2012 (N = 1,293) Maxim 80xx 3% 3% Parallax 3% 3% Infineon XC800, C500 2% 3% Toshiba 2% *Renesas H8/300, 3800, 7200, 1% NEC K0 1% 7600, R8C/Tiny, 38000, 7200, 4% 7600, 740 Other 5% 6% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 70. 2013 Embedded Market Study 71 Which of the following DSP chip families would you consider for your next embedded project? 29% TI C6000 29% 27% Microchip dsPIC 27% 24% TI DaVinci 25% 22% TI C5000 22% 21% Analog Devices Blackfin 23% 18% NXP Cortex M4 LPC4000 16% 17% Freescale 563xx, 566xx, 568xx, 96xxx 16% 15% Analog Devices SHARC 12% 11% Analog Devices ADSP-21xx 10% 11% Analog Devices TigerSHARC 10% 2013 (N = 1,333) 9% Freescale StarCore 71xx, 81xx 8% 2012 (N = 1,054) 5% LatticeECP3 3% 8% Other 9% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 71. FPGAs, MEMORY, LCDs
  • 72. 2013 Embedded Market Study 73 Does your current embedded project contain FPGAs/programmable logic? 80 69% 70 65% 62% 58% 60 55% 50 45% 42% 38% 40 35% 31% 30 20 10 0 Yes No 2013 (N = 2,073) 2012 (N = 1,669) 2011 (N = 1,870) 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,536) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 73. 2013 Embedded Market Study 74 If project doesn’t contain any FPGAs, will the trend towards FPGAs with built in multicore processors change your mind? 70 64% 63% 60 50 40 36% 37% 30 20 10 0 Yes No Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 74. 2013 Embedded Market Study 75 Which of the following vendors does your current embedded projects use for FPGAs? 64% Xilinx 64% 62% 65% 42% Altera 41% 42% 42% 10% Lattice 11% 8% 12% 6% Atmel 7% 6% 6% 6% Mentor Graphics 7% 5% 5% 4% Microsemi 10% 2013 Currently use (N = 626) 11% 9% 2012 Currently use (N = 567) 4% Cypress 4% 2011 Currently use (N = 690) 5% 5% 2010 Currently use (N = 624) 3% Cadence 2% 2% 4% 3% Synopsys/Synplicity 3% 3% 3% Tabula and Achronix were both less than one percent. Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 75. 2013 Embedded Market Study 76 Will your next embedded project likely contain FPGAs/programmable logic? 59% 57% 58% 55% 50% 51% 45% 41% 43% 42% Yes No 2013 (N = 2,022) 2012 (N = 1,642) 2011 (N = 1,846) 2010 (N = 1,517) 2009 (N = 1,519) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 76. 2013 Embedded Market Study 77 Why won’t your next project include customizable chips? Dont need this functionality 60% 63% Theyre too expensive 29% 31% They consume too much power 16% 16% Theyre too difficult to program (in HDL) 13% 14% We dont understand this functonality 11% Theyre not fast enough for our purposes 4% 4% Theyre not big enough for our purposes 3% 2% 2013 (N = 1171) Theyre not reliable enough 2% 4% 2012 (N = 929) Dont know 9% 10% Base = Those who will not be using customizable chips Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 77. 2013 Embedded Market Study 78 If yes, which of the following vendors will you consider in your next embedded project for FPGAs? 74% Xilinx 75% 73% 58% Altera 55% 58% 17% Lattice 17% 15% 15% Atmel 16% 12% 9% Microsemi 14% 19% 9% Cypress 9% 9% 7% Mentor Graphics 8% 5% 5% Synopsys/Synplicity 5% 4% 4% 2013 (N = 801) Cadence 4% 3% 2012 Will consider (N = 675) 1% Achronix 1% 2011 Will consider (N = 759) % Tabula 1% 3% Other 3% 4% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 78. 2013 Embedded Market Study 79 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? Xilinx 64% 74% Altera 42% 58% Lattice 10% 17% Atmel 6% 15% Mentor Graphics 6% 7% 2013 Currently use (N = 626) Microsemi 4% 2013 Will Consider (N = 801) 9% Cypress 4% 9% Cadence 3% 4% Synopsys/Synplicity 3% 5% Other 2% 3% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 79. 2013 Embedded Market Study 80 HARDWARE IPs, SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN, & USE OF GUIs Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 80. 2013 Embedded Market Study 81 Does your current embedded project reuse hardware or hardware IP from a previous project? 62% 61% 62% 62% 2013 (N = 2041) 2012 (N = 1515) 2011 (N = 1827) 30% 29% 27% 27% 2010 (N = 1498) 6% 7% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% 3% No, all new hardware, no Yes, reused some Yes, reused some Yes, reused some public hardware or IP reuse hardware or IP that was commercial (purchased) domain hardware IP developed in-house hardware or IP Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 81. 2013 Embedded Market Study 82 Which of the following design techniques will become more important to your designs in the future? 63% Simulation 63% 36% Modeling in a high level language 2013 (N = 1743) 39% 2012 (N = 1401) 32% Virtual prototyping 33% 31% Graphical system design 32% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 82. 2013 Embedded Market Study 83 What system level design tools do you or your organization currently use? MATLAB 54% 51% LabVIEW 35% 30% Simulink 24% 23% System C or other "hardware C"… 28% 36% UML 19% 26% Cadence Virtual System Platform 4% Synopsys Virtualizer 3% HAPS FPGA-based prototypes 2% 2013 (N = 1509) 2012 (N = 1200) Mentor Vista 2% Other 12% 11% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 83. 2013 Embedded Market Study 84 Who were the three greatest influencers on the choice of the system-level tools for your current project? Software engineering staff 33% Software engineering manager 27% Hardware engineering staff 25% Systems engineering staff 23% Hardware engineering manager 20% Systems engineering manager 19% Hardware architects 19% Corporate management 18% Outside influence, customer, stndrds 10% Purchasing manager 6% 2013 (N = 1,771) Marketing manager 3% Other 4% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 84. 2013 Embedded Market Study 85 Which of the following project management software packages do you currently use? Microsoft Excel 50% 40% Microsoft Project 49% 44% Visio 28% 26% Open Source tools 23% 25% IBM Telelogic DOORS 9% 11% Simulink 7% 6% TeamCenter 3% 2% Other software package 8% 1% Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 85. 2013 Embedded Market Study 86 Which of the following Version Control software systems do you currently use? Subversion 41% Git 21% CVS 20% Clearcase 14% Perforce 9% 2013 (N = 1,660) Other* 20% *Other mentions Mercurial 38 Serena PVCS 23 Microsoft Source Safe 21 MKS 18 Team Foundation Server (TFS) 16 Tortoise 16 Visual SourceSafe 12 Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 86. 2013 Embedded Market Study 87 Does your current design use a graphical user interface? 58.9% 59.6% 41.1% 40.4% Color 42% Touch 40% Touch 34% Color 36% Hi-res 11% Hi res 10% 3D 2% Haptic 2% Haptic 1% 3D 1% Other 10% Other 11% 2012 (N = 645) 2013 (N = 804) Yes No 2013 (N = 1993) 2012 (N = 1613) Copyright © 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
  • 87. Thank you | See you at DESIGN West!David Blaza, VP of UBM Tech, Electronicsdavid.blaza@ubm.com • 415-947-6929Alex Wolfe, Brand Director, EE Times, Embedded, & EBNalex.wolfe@ubm.com • 516-562-7386 Essential to Engineers DATASHEETS.COM | DESIGNCON | DESIGN EAST & DESIGN WEST | EBN | EDN | EE TIMES | EMBEDDED | PLANET ANALOG | TECHONLINE | TEST & MEASUREMENT WORLD