"Jim Granville" <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:488668ad$1...@clear.net.nz...
> Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>> "Jim Granville" <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4884e753$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>
>>>Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
>>>_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
>>>close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.
>>
>>
>> "M3 is significant" - wow, that's quite a change from what you said a
>> few years ago :-)
>
> Don't get too excited ;)
>
> I would also call the Coldfire, SuperH, MIPS, PowerPCB, Numerous DSPs
> (and even the AVR32) also significant, but do NOT confuse 'being on the radar', with dominating a sector.

Some are more significant than others though... MIPS for example joined
the MCU game only recently, and they have (like PPC) major codesize
issues, so you need a bigger and more expensive device.

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

Sure power consumption matters. But it's nothing new though - ARM wouldn't
be where it is today if it hadn't been low power from the start. The core matters
a lot of course as it uses much of the power. Intel have recently found out
again how bad CISC is for power with their Atom core (one can run an ARM
at full speed on the power it wastes when it is in its deepest sleep!).
Having good process technology helps, but it doesn't "fix" a bad core.

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

Well that's their claim anyway... Could you point me to just one device that
is actually pin compatible? A look at the ST/FS websites doesn't prove there
exist any identical devices. The only thing they have in common is the e200
core, that's about it. As I've said before, making identical devices in every
aspect doesn't make any commercial sense.

Wilco 

Wilco Dijkstra wrote:

> "Jim Granville" <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:488668ad$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>True, and NONE are yet offeringn pin-compatible second sources, but
>>Freescale and ST ARE now offering PowerPC second sourcing, for
>>their demanding Automotive customers.
> 
> 
> Well that's their claim anyway... Could you point me to just one device that
> is actually pin compatible? A look at the ST/FS websites doesn't prove there
> exist any identical devices. The only thing they have in common is the e200
> core, that's about it. As I've said before, making identical devices in every
> aspect doesn't make any commercial sense.

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

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

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

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

Others may be forced to follow them.

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

-jg

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

> John Devereux wrote:
>>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.GuyMacon.com/>; writes:
>>
>>> John Devereux wrote:
>>>
>>>>I suspect some devious google-ranking scheme :)
>>>
>>> I prefer openly admitting to google-ranking schemes...
>>>
>>> Plus, I always like to see who has a newsreader that changes 
>>> the Subject line (collapsing multiple spaces to one space,
>>> inserting a CR/LF word wrap...) instead of folowing the 
>>> de-facto standard and leaving that line unchanged. :)
>>
>>Aha... so each and every newsreader does it a bit differently,
>>creating new thread titles for you. Sounds pretty devious to me :)
>
> Why would you think that new subject lines are some sort of 
> advantage?  NUsenet newsreaders and Google Groups both thread 
> by references, not subject lines.

It is true - I don't know much about the workings of google groups.

> And doesn't the word "devious" imply that someone is harmed 
> or at least slightly inconvenienced?

Not at all. At least I did not mean it that way, more in the sense of
tricky and non-obvious.


-- 

John Devereux

On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
wrote:
> Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
> > "Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in
messagenews:4884e753$1...@clear.net.nz...
>
> >>Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
> >>_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
> >>close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.
>
> > "M3 is significant" - wow, that's quite a change from what you said a
> > few years ago :-)
>
> Don't get too excited ;)

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

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

The question of how the ARM CM3 will fare in comparison to the
alternative CPUs is a different matter.  I don't think the various
chip makers will make the ARM products vanish and I don't think the
ARM chips will make the other products vanish.  If a company is using
multi-millions per year of a given MCU, then their choice will be
based on things other than what most of us use to pick a chip.
Automotive makers will use what ever chip gives them a $0.01
advantage.  That is one of the reasons that the Asian companies can
still push totally proprietary MCUs to the automotive makers.

I have to say, I don't really see the advantage to the auto makers to
have multiple sources for their MCUs.  If you are buying even just 1
million a year of a given chip, do you think the maker is going to
phase out that chip???  Are they going to jack up the price on a chip
and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
multi-billion dollar customer???  Is the price competition for your
socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
different parts?

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

Rick

rickman wrote:
> On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
> wrote:
> 
>>Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in
messagenews:4884e753$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>>>Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
>>>>_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
>>>>close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.
>>
>>>"M3 is significant" - wow, that's quite a change from what you said a
>>>few years ago :-)
>>
>>Don't get too excited ;)
> 
> 
> I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
> prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
> introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
> the year (not sure which year though.. ;^).  I got a big argument from
> you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
> and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
> be changing over from the lack of demand.
> 
> Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
> longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
> players have all licensed the M3 core.  With all of the new chip
> products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
> fade away by necessity.

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

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

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

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

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

> 
> The question of how the ARM CM3 will fare in comparison to the
> alternative CPUs is a different matter.  I don't think the various
> chip makers will make the ARM products vanish and I don't think the
> ARM chips will make the other products vanish.  If a company is using
> multi-millions per year of a given MCU, then their choice will be
> based on things other than what most of us use to pick a chip.
> Automotive makers will use what ever chip gives them a $0.01
> advantage.  That is one of the reasons that the Asian companies can
> still push totally proprietary MCUs to the automotive makers.
> 
> I have to say, I don't really see the advantage to the auto makers to
> have multiple sources for their MCUs.  If you are buying even just 1
> million a year of a given chip, do you think the maker is going to
> phase out that chip???  Are they going to jack up the price on a chip
> and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
> multi-billion dollar customer???  Is the price competition for your
> socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
> different parts?

That's correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
like commitment. Two of the largest players, offering a second source
IS going to get attention from designers & managers.

-jg

Jim Granville <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

>rickman wrote:
>> On Jul 22, 7:09 pm, Jim Granville <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>>Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jim Granville" <no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in
messagenews:4884e753$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>>>>Conclusion: Yes the M3 is significant, but it is a
>>>>>_very_ long way from dominating the MCU market, it is not even
>>>>>close to dominating the 32bit MCU market.
>>>
>>>>"M3 is significant" - wow, that's quite a change from what you said a
>>>>few years ago :-)
>>>
>>>Don't get too excited ;)
>> 
>> 
>> I seem to recall being in this conversation and I think I made a
>> prediction that the ARM7 core would see no new chip product
>> introduction (other than ones already in the pipeline) by the end of
>> the year (not sure which year though.. ;^).  I got a big argument from
>> you saying that there were a lot of programmers invested in the ARM7
>> and no one had a compelling reason to switch, so the chips would not
>> be changing over from the lack of demand.
>> 
>> Time has passed and I think I was right in that the ARM7 core is no
>> longer seeing new commercial chip introductions and that the major
>> players have all licensed the M3 core.  With all of the new chip
>> products using the CM3 core, new embedded products will see the ARM7
>> fade away by necessity.
>
>That's a natural industry progression, but it is a double edge sword.
>
>As volumes drop on the ARM7 production, devices will be pruned,
>and that will have a NEGATIVE impact on those users.
>(and the same thing will likely happen further along the time-line, on M3)
>
>They will need to (mostly) respin PCBS/recode/recompile/requalify
>(remember, M3 is not binary compatible) - those are all $$$ steps.

That depends on how the software is written. I share a lot of code
between different platforms and therefore I write everything as
portable as possible. Ofcourse the low level stuff needs to be
rewritten for a new target, but it is very much possible to write
portable code in C without giving up speed or code size. It is just a
matter of knowing what you're doing.

>> and risk a relationship with a given multi-million or maybe even a
>> multi-billion dollar customer???  Is the price competition for your
>> socket any different with two companies supplying the same part or two
>> different parts?
>
>That's correct from a strict logistics viewpoint, but Asians also
>operate on a less tangible area, and like to see things
>like commitment. Two of the largest players, offering a second source
>IS going to get attention from designers & managers.

IMHO second source is only a requirement when doing small volume
products that need to be maintained for a long time. Unfortunately
this market is very uninteresting for most chip makers. If you are a
car maker, you can buy so many devices it will be profitable to
produce another batch.

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

Guy Macon wrote:
> While researching something else, I ran into the 
> following rather interesting opinions:
> 
> Consolidating the MCU market around the ARM architecture
> ("It's inevitable. ARM's Cortex-M3 processor core is going 
> dominate the MCU market.")
> http://www.embedded.com/columns/guest/207001013
> 
> Luminary Micro Announces 32-bit Microcontrollers for $1.00

I find much better the STM32 series.

On Jul 23, 5:13 pm, n...@puntnl.niks (Nico Coesel) wrote:
>
> IMHO second source is only a requirement when doing small volume
> products that need to be maintained for a long time. Unfortunately
> this market is very uninteresting for most chip makers. If you are a
> car maker, you can buy so many devices it will be profitable to
> produce another batch.

I'm not sure I see the connection between a requirement for long time
availability and second sources.  Unless the connection is through the
fact that this is mostly to support the auto industry, why would a
second source make the life time of the product any longer?  If
anything it would reduce the volumes of each maker and push the part
to be canceled earlier.

Rick

"Jim Granville" <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message news:4...@clear.net.nz...
> Wilco Dijkstra wrote:
>
>> "Jim Granville" <n...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote in message
news:488668ad$1...@clear.net.nz...
>>>True, and NONE are yet offeringn pin-compatible second sources, but
>>>Freescale and ST ARE now offering PowerPC second sourcing, for
>>>their demanding Automotive customers.
>>
>>
>> Well that's their claim anyway... Could you point me to just one device that
>> is actually pin compatible? A look at the ST/FS websites doesn't prove there
>> exist any identical devices. The only thing they have in common is the e200
>> core, that's about it. As I've said before, making identical devices in every
>> aspect doesn't make any commercial sense.
>
> It does make very sound sense, when a customer demands it!
> Automotive customers DO have clout :)

Some may want it but it is hardly as important as you're trying to spin
it. The fact is there are virtually no second source devices out there today,
so it is definitely not high on anyone's requirement list.

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

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

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

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

If wasting money appeals, maybe... I'm not holding my breath.

Wilco 

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

The Logic and SRAM memory markets give some examples of how this works.
A second-source seeds more design wins (in theory), and so ensures 
earlier critical mass. Logic suppliers are well used to this
from their customers.

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

Some jockeying occurs, and one supplier decides to 'take the tail 
business' - Tail-end SRAM has examples of this right now, not many 
suppliers, but the market size is still enough
to keep at least one company interested.
Same with 4000 series CMOS - we still have that in active designs
and it is even on new design radar too.

You can be sure ST and Freescale are only doing this uC second sourcing, 
(which is extra effort) because it will result in higher total revenue.
Design-ins will already be underway.


-jg