2013 embedded market study final

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.



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

http://www.ubmdesign.com/sanjose/registration/

http://www.ubmdesign.com/



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)



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%.



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



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?



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?



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)



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



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)



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



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)



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?



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+



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)



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



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 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.



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%.



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%.



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



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?



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)



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



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



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)



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



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



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?



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?



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)



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



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



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?



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?



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



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



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



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.



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.



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)



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



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



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)



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



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.


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)



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



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.



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)



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



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)



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



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



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



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)



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)



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)



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



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


IBM

Microsemi

Cirrus Logic

Zilog

Fujitsu

Applied Micro

Energy Micro

Toshiba

VIA

PMC-Sierra

Stretch

Other



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



4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

2%

2%

2%

4%

3%

5%

3%

2%

2%

2%

Maxim

Infineon


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



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)



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



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)


*

*



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)


*Renesas H8/300, 3800, 7200, 7600, R8C/Tiny, 38000, 7200,

7600, 740



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)

FPGA’s and Programmable Logic



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)



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



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)




Tabula and Achronix were both less than one percent.



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)



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



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)



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 Will Consider (N = 801)



HARDWARE IPs,

SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN,

& USE OF GUIs



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)



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)



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)



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


Hardware engineering manager

Systems engineering manager

Hardware architects

Corporate management

Outside influence, customer, stndrds

Purchasing manager

Marketing manager

Other

2013 (N = 1,771)



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



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



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

2013 embedded market study final

Documents

2013 embedded market study final