On Jul 17, 8:10 pm, larwe <zwsdot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 7:23 pm, linnix <m...@linnix.info-for.us> wrote:
>
> > We are moving off the 169 purely for cost reason.  Our new uC (6502)
> > is 75% off, but it's difficult to port the hardware/software.  The 169
>
> Energy metering project? (That's what the mega169/329/649 were
> designed for).

There are many potential use for the LCD uC, most of them measure
battery energy anyway.

> Are you using one of the 6502 variants e.g. from Sunplus,

Many ASIC houses  here are capable of 8052, PIC and 6502 IP cores with
LCD controller.  6502 is a popular one.

> intended for toy use? Just out of interest, what's your cost
> target? We moved to the mega169 because it's significantly under $1.

Keep moving and let's keep talking

50 cents for OTP version (10s).
20 cents for ROM version (25K).
10 cents for high volume ROM (100K).

>
> > By the way, our new uC will be die-bounded Chip-On-Board One-Time-
> > Programmable.  Atmel is certainly capable of providing COG and OTP,
> > but unwilling to do so.
>
> I can't see that an OTP version of the mega169 would really be cheaper
> - since it's not a standard part, there would be big NREs.

I am currently in the wrong (left) side of the Pacific.  Over here,
Flash uCs are for prototypes only.  OTP is for low volume and ROM for
high volume.