2013 Embedded Market Study Final

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
2013 Embedded Market Study
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 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.
Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.
DESIGN West
April 22-25, 2013 | McEnery Convention Center | San Jose, CA | ubmdesign.com The industrys 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, its 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 Engineerings 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
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 Valleys 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.
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 years 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%.
Disclaimer
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 (alex.wolfe@ubm.com) or David Blaza (david.blaza@ubm.com) at UBM, LLC.
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)
How many employees does your company have at all locations?
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 2.1 2.0 5.4 6.9 4.3 3.5 12.1 13.3 6.1 6.3 10.2 10.0 16.0 15.6
43.7 42.4
2013 N=2025 2012 N=1547

Average Number of Employees 2013 = 3,965 2012 = 4,856
My job function includes:
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
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%
2013: Average number of years out of school = 19.7 years

2013 (N = 2,020)
10
For what types of applications are your embedded projects developed?

Industrial cntrls & automation
Consumer electronics
23% 23% 24% 23% 25% 17% 16% 17% 17% 15% 18% 17% 15% 15% 16% 17% 17% 14% 33% 33%
31%
Communications/networking Medical Automotive Electronic instruments

Aero/Military (Net)
11% 12% 8% 8% 9% 10%
26%
Computers and peripherals

Security
Power generation and utilities

Video & imaging
7% 6%
8% 9%
Transportation
Audio
7% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8%
10%
2013 (N=2080) 2012 (N=1670) 2011 (N=1885)

10%
Government & municipal M2M Other
CURRENT EMBEDDED DESIGN ENVIRONMENT
12
My current embedded project is:
2013 (N = 2091)
44%
2012 (N = 1,704) 2011 (N = 1,883)

2010 (N = 1,559)
New to the world; a new project from scratch
44%
43% 43% 42% 56%
2009 (N = 1,550)
An upgrade or improvement to an earlier or existing project
56% 57% 57%
58%
13
What does the upgrade or improvement include?

55%
New or different software features
58%
40%
New or different processor
44%
22% 21%
New or different system logic
New or different analog components
15%
14%
2013 (N = 1,159)
New or different operating system
12% 13%
21%
2012 (N = 941)
Mandatory changes because of discontinued hardware or software
22%
Base = Those whose current project is an upgrade/improvement
14
Which of the following capabilities are included in your current embedded project?
Real-time capability Networking capability Analog signal processing (added 2013) Project rugged / envirnmntly resistant Wireless capability
40% 43% 42% 42% 44% 40% 38% 38% 38% 55% 58% 58% 59% 59% 52%
68% 70% 72% 73% 75%
Battery-powered
Other
7% 9% 8% 8%
33% 36% 37% 37% 38% 35%
2013 (N = 2,090)
2012 (N = 1,704) 2011 (N = 1,886)

2010 (N = 1,559)
2009 (N = 1,550)
15
If wireless, what wireless interfaces does your current embedded project include?
Wi-Fi Bluetooth Classic Cellular Zigbee

24% 22% 24% 25% 20% 24% 15% 10% 9% 11% 9% 8% 8% 10% 12% 8% 11% 7% 7% 7% 5% 7% 7% 5% 6% 7% 5% 7% 7% 5% 3% 4% 3% 17%
53%
54% 55%
29%
23%
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
16
How many people are on your embedded project team?

Team 2013 = - Software Engineer = - Hardware Engineer = - Firmware Engineer = - QA/Test Engineer = - Systems/Integrator = - Other Engineer = Team 2012 = - Software Engineer = - Hardware Engineer = - Firmware Engineer = - QA/Test Engineer = - Systems Engineer = 14.6 4.0 2.9 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.5 15.9 4.9 3.7 3.1 2.4 1.8
2013 (N = 2,041)
2012 (N = 1,625)
Note: Data excludes outliers 1000+

17
What is your development teams ratio of total resources (including time/dollars/manpower) spent on software vs. hardware for your embedded projects?
Average total resources devoted to software

Average total resources devoted to hardware
39.4% 38.1% 38.0% 38.7% 37.6%
60.6% 61.9% 62.0% 61.3% 62.4%
2013 (N = 2,075)
2012 (N = 1,675)
2011 (N = 1,878) 2010 (N = 1,542)

2009 (N = 1,536)
18
How long did the last project you completed take to finish?
35% 33% 33% 36%
6 months or less
30%
7 12 months
13 18 months
15% 15% 15% 15% 17%
9% 9% 9% 9% 10% 6% 8% 7% 7% 8%
35% 35% 35% 33% 35%
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
19
Was that project completed . . .

5% 4% 4% 4%
38% 38% 39% 40% 28% 29% 26% 29%
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.
Ahead of schedule
On schedule Late by 1 2 months Late by 3 6 months
18% 17% 19% 17% 5% 6% 6% 5%

2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Late by 6 12 months Late by 13 18 months Late by more than 18 months Canceled
2013 (N = 2,055)
2012 (N = 1,658)
2011 (N = 1,859) 2010 (N = 1,525)
20
My current embedded project is programmed mostly in:

C C++ Assembly language Java C#
MATLAB
5% 5% 5% 6% 3% 2% 2% 3% 2% 65% 62% 60% 60%
21% 20% 22% 20%
LabVIEW Python .NET Other
2% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 1%
2013 (N = 2,075)
2012 (N = 1,675) 2011 (N = 1,876)
2010 (N = 1,542)
1% 2% 1% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3%
Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.
21
My next embedded project will likely be programmed mostly in:
C C++ Java Assembly language C# LabVIEW MATLAB Python .NET UML or other modeling Other
4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 22% 24% 25% 23%
55%
60% 58% 56%
2% 2% 1% 2% 2%
2013 (N = 2,071) 2012 (N = 1,667)
2%
2011 (N = 1,871)
1% 2% 2% 4% 1%
2010 (N = 1,537)
4% 4% 3% 4%
Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.
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% 80%
79
78 80 78
84
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%

20% 10% %
14 15 13 14 11
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.
25 25 25 24
21
15 14 15 17 17
No, all new software, no code reuse 2013 (N = 2,065)
Yes, reused code developed in-house
Yes, reused opensource, shareware code
Yes, reused purchased code 2009 (N = 1,534)
2012 (N = 1,659)
2011 (N = 1,862)
2010 (N = 1,540)
EMBEDDED DESIGN PROCESS
24
What percentage of your design time is spent on each of the following stages?
Developing overall system specs Conceptual design stage

11% 11% 12%
14% 15% 15%
Detailed design stage

Simulation stage Testing and debugging Prototyping Sending to production
6% 6% 6% 1% 2% 2%
10% 7% 8% 8%
22% 22%
30%
21%
23% 24%
12% 12%
2013 (N = 1,928) 2012 (N = 1,535) 2011 (N = 1,679)
Documentation/coding/mtgs
25
If you could improve one thing about your embedded design activities, what would it be?
Debugging tools Schedule Engineering team skill level Programming tools Microprocessor Interfaces IDE Other hardware Operating system
The Compiler
3% 3% 9% 8% 7% 8% 9% 10% 7% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 8% 8% 6% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 7% 8% 5% 5% 5% 5% 16% 15% 14% 15% 16% 16%
21%
22%
29% 28%
2013 (N = 2,056) 2012 (N = 1,667) 2011 (N = 1,868) 2010 (N = 1,541)
26
In general, what sources of information do you consult to research your embedded design decisions? Top 17 Sources
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
61% 61%
83% 86% 86%
6% 8% 11% 9%
12% 11% 11%
34% 33% 31% 34% 38% 28% 29% 31% 26% 25% 25% 25% 27% 30% 24% 26% 31% 25% 24% 24% 18% 19% 23% 17% 19% 17%
54% 55% 59% 51% 53% 61% 48% 50% 57%
2013 (N = 2,074)
2012 (N = 1,674) 2011 (N = 1,878)
27
Thinking about the next year, what areas will be your greatest technology challenges? Managers Only
Integrating new technology or tools
Managing code size/complexity Software tools Processors Improving the debugging process
6% 7% 5% 9.0% 8.7% 3.9% 5% 3% 4% 4% 2% 2.3% 4% 1% 1.0% 2% 2% 1.6% 5% 6% 7.4% 6% 7% 7.4% 8% 12% 12% 11% 11% 11% 10.6% 11.0% 14% 15.5% 16% 22% 23% 28% 24.2%
15% 14% 14%
Dealing with low power

Programmable logic
11.9% 13% 12%
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*
2013 (N = 723) 2012 (N = 377)

2011 (N = 310)
Other
5% 4% 3.9%
28
Which of the following are your favorite/most important software/hardware tools? (Top 18 shown)
Debugger
46% 41%
46%
51% 53%
Oscilloscope Compiler/assembler
IDE Logic analyzer
17% 20% 23% 33%
36%
44% 35% 37%
52%
54%
JTAG/BDM
ICE Software libraries Linux tools
8% 14% 15% 15% 12% 11% 11% 13% 12% 9% 7% 8% 8%
22% 24% 23%
Simulation modeling tools

Configuration management tools Automatic code generation
12% 10%
Software testing tools Graphical Design tools

Source code analysis/timing analysis tools FPGA-based prototypes
6%
8% 9% 8% 8% 8%
2013 (N = 1,946)
8% 9% 6% 7% 9% 7% 7% 5% 3% 3% 4%
2012 (N = 1,564)
2011 (N = 1,752)
Trace
Codevelopment tools
10% 8%
2013 Embedded Market Study Which of the following conferences did you attend in the past 2 years, and which do you plan to next year? Conferences
Training/seminars of distributors DESIGN WEST/Embedded Systems Conference (Silicon Valley) ARM TechCon Freescale Technology Forum DesignCon DESIGN EAST/Embedded Systems Conference (Boston)
29
2013 Have Attended

40.3% 16.7% 16.6% 11.0% 10.8% 10.4%
2013 Plan to Attend

35.5% 21.6% 19.9% 14.1% 12.8% 11.9%
Plus 4% or more
+5% +4%
CES (Las Vegas)

Embedded World (Nuremberg) Electronica Real Time Computer Show (RTECC) Microchip MASTERs Conference Intel Developer Forum CeBIT Embedded Systems Conference (India) DAC Embedded Linux Conference (ELC) Convergence: Transportation Electronics Embedded Systems Conference (Brazil) Android Builders Summit Embedded Systems Technology (Japan) Total Attending / Planning to Attend
9.9%
8.9% 8.5% 8.3% 7.8% 7.0% 6.4% 6.4% 4.7% 4.0% 2.1% 2.1% 1.6% 1.4% 1,045
14.2%
13.1% 9.9% 9.9% 10.9% 10.2% 7.3% 9.6% 5.0% 12.5% 3.9% 3.9% 9.1% 4.3% 1,146
+4%
+4%
+8%
+8%
30
What are the most effective ways that you systematically or formally maintain, educate, and advance your professional skills?
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
24%
36.6% 37% 29% 30.0% 31% 25%
42%
43.5% 47%
42.4% 42% 41%
32.4% 34%
22% 20.9% 21%

18.4% 19%
12% 8.0%
18.2% 21% 22% 17.6% 18% 21% 15.0% 15% 15%

16%
25%
2013 (N = 2,067)
2012 (N = 1,662) 2011 (N = 1,872)
12%
8.0% 8%
6.5% 6% 5%
7.3% 7%
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
Other Relevant Schooling and Reading

2013 Average number of years out of school 2013 Hours per week reading technical pubs 2013 Books per year read in full or substantially
19.7 4.8 3.9
OPERATING SYSTEMS
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 70 60 50
40
72% 68% 68% 70% 70%
30 20 10
0
32% 32% 30% 30% 28%
Yes 2013 (N = 2,082) 2012 (N = 1,712) 2011 (N = 1,882)
No 2010 (N = 1,552) 2009 (N = 1,546)
2013 Embedded Market Study If current embedded project does not use an operating system, RTOS, kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind, why not?
Current project doesnt need it
5% 4%
79% 79% 82% 81% 80%
33
OS / RTOS uses too much memory OS / RTOS requires too much processor power OS / RTOS is too complicated to use
14% 11% 12%

2013 (N = 669)
4% 4% 11% 9% 11% 4% 4% 6% 8% 7% 2% 4% 9% 9% 10%
2012 (N = 541) 2011 (N = 561) 2010 (N = 458) 2009 (N = 434)
OS / RTOS is too expensive
34
My current embedded project uses:

35% 40% 41% 38% 47% 34% 31% 34% 29% 27% 19% 20% 23% 32% 26% 13% 9% 15% 14% 14% 2013 (N = 1402) 2012 (N = 1152) 2011 (N = 1307) 2010 (N = 1358) 2009 (N = 1346)
My next embedded project will likely use:

29% 31% 30% 31% 34% 37% 37% 37% 31% 27% 20% 19% 19% 23% 26% 2013 (N = 1992) 14% 2012 (N = 1620) 13% 15% 2011 (N = 1809) 16% 2010 (N = 1458) 13% 2009 (N = 1432)
Commercial OS/RTOS
Commercial OS/RTOS
Open-source OS/RTOS, without commercial support
Open-source OS/RTOS without commercial support
Internally developed or inhouse OS/RTOS
Internally developed or in-house OS/RTOS
Commercial distribution of an open-source OS/RTOS
Commercial distribution of opensource OS/RTOS
35
Which factors most influenced your decision to use a commercial operating system? (Top 12 choices.)
Real-time capability Good software tools
44% 35% 35% 32% 28% 26%

26% 26%
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
24% 21% 21% 20% 15% 15%
2013 (N = 479)
Base = Those who currently use a Commercial OS/RTOS
Scheduling efficiency
36
What are your reasons for not using a commercial operating system?
Current solution works fine

Commercial alternatives too expensive Avoid reliance on commercial supplier
28%
61%
36%
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
7%
8%
20% 15%
12%
11%
2013 (N = 1503)
Base = Those who do not currently use a Commercial OS/RTOS
Other
37
Who were the greatest influences on the choice of operating system?

32%
30% 30%
Software engineering staff

Software engineering manager
34%
Group decision within engineering

Corporate management
17% 17% 15% 16% 15% 14% 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 12% 11% 11% 6% 7% 5% 4%
30% 29%
Same OS as previous project

Hardware engineering manager
Hardware engineering staff

Systems engineering manager
Base: Those who use operating systems
Outside influence/
Systems engineering staff
2013 (N = 1,989)
2012 (N = 1,596)
Marketing manager or department

Purchasing manager or department
38
Did you use the same operating system, RTOS, or kernel as in your previous project?
62%
64% 63% 57% 58%
Base: Those who use operating systems
38%
43% 42% 36% 37%
Yes, used same OS, RTOS or kernel
No, didn't use same OS, RTOS or kernel

2010 (N = 1,492) 2009 (N = 1,501)
2013 (N = 2,015)
2012 (N = 1,644)
2011 (N = 1,840)
39
Why did you use the same operating system?

Happy with current one, no reason to switch
Wanted to maintain software compatibility Wanted to make use of expertise/familiarity 40% 41% 63%
57%
36% 36%
33% 34% 23% 24%
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 10% 9% 9%
23% 26%
6% 6% 6%
3% 3%
2013 (N = 1,238)
2012 (N = 929)
Base = Those who are using the same operating system as in previous project
No other suitable alternatives available Other
2013 Embedded Market Study Why did you switch operating systems?
40
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)
11% 13% 13% 13%
22% 20%
33%
37%
20% 21%
12% 14%
10% 10% 6% 4% 7% 9%
Base = Those who did not use the same operating system as in previous project
2013 (N = 724) 2012 (N = 658)
Previous OS too slow Previous OS no longer available Unhappy with previous OS supplier Other
5% 6% 17% 18%
41
What are the most important factors in choosing an operating system.

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
30% 30% 31% 29% 31% 27% 27% 26% 28% 24% 22% 20% 21% 34% 42% 41%
16% 17% 15% 17% 14% 16% 13% 15% 12% 14% 10% 11% 9% 10% 9% 10% 7% 6% 6% 6%
2013 (N = 2017) 2012 (N = 1628)

Base: Currently using an operating
42
Please select ALL of the operating systems you are currently using.
Inhouse/custom Android Ubuntu FreeRTOS Microsoft Windows Embedded 7 earlier Debian (Linux)
13% 13% 12% 13% 12%
11% 10% 8% 8% 8% 9% 7% 11% 7% 8%
22% 16%
24%
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)
4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 5%
10%
2013 (N = 1,696) 2012 (N = 1,302) Base: Currently using an operating system
Express Logic (ThreadX) LynuxWorks (LynxOS) eCos OSEK
Only Operating Systems that had 2% or more are shown.
43
Please select ALL of the operating systems you are considering using in the next 12 months.
Android FreeRTOS Inhouse/custom Ubuntu Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net
10%
9% 10% 8% 10% 8% 8% 8%
28% 21% 17% 13% 13% 16% 19% 23%
34%
Microsoft (Win 7 Embedded/Standard)

Debian (Linux)
TI (DSP/BIOS)
Texas Instruments RTOS Wind River (VxWorks) Freescale MQX Microsoft (Win 7 Compact)
7% 7% 6% 7% 6% 5% 5% 6% 5% 7% 4% 6% 4% 4% 4% 7% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%
10%
Keil (RTX)
Red Hat (IX Linux)
Wind River (Platform neLinux)

Green Hills (INTEGRITY) Angstrom (Linux) QNX (QNX) Express Logic (ThreadX) Analog Devices (VDK) eCos
2013 (N = 1,572)
2012 (N = 1,227)
Base: Those who are considering an operating system in any project in the next 12 months
LynuxWorks (LynxOS)
Only Operating Systems over 3% are shown.

44
Are you considering using embedded Linux?

54% 56% 56% 57%
Yes (Net)
27% 27% 27% 28%
6% 7% 7% 7%
Yes, using it now
Yes, likely to use it in next 6 months (soon)
2013 (N = 2,060) 2012 (N = 1,661) 2011 (N = 1,857) 2010 (N = 1,524) 20% 22% 21% 22%
47% 44% 44% 43%
Yes, likely to use in next 12 months
No, not interested in using it
45
Why are you interested in embedded Linux?

Low cost Adaptability/extensibility Built-in drivers/network Performance
40% 44% 40% 38% 38% 37% 39% 37% 32% 33% 34% 36% 29% 30% 33% 30%
16% 16% 18% 18% 14% 17% 66%
65% 52% 54% 58% 53%
72% 72%
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
46
Why are you not interested in embedded Linux?

No need for it Incompatible w/ existing software, apps, drivers
Performance or real-time capability
18% 15%
72%
Memory usage Development tools Support Legal ambiguity

Reliability issues
12% 9%
8% 6% 5%
Cost (after deployment) Security issues Other*
4% 4%
8%
Base = Those who are not considering using Linux
2013 (N = 955)
47
Are you currently using embedded virtualization/hypervisors or will you likely use this in the next 12 months?
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 4.6% 3.6%
17.8%
9.6%
2013 (N = 2049)
82.2%
48
Why are you interested in embedded vitualization/hypervisors?
Separation of multiple applications
48%
Support for multiple guest OSes (Android, VxWorks, Linux)

Support for hard real-time application(s)/ guest OS
37%
35%
Processor consolidation
Support legacy & new apps on same system
26%
23%
2013 (N = 364)
Want to load balance across multicore system

Other
17%
4%
Base = Those who use or are considering using Linux
MICROPROCESSORS
50
Who were the greatest influences on the choice of the processor for your current project?
HW engineering staff
33% 33% 29% 30% 28% 29% 23% 26%
Group decision in engineering HW engineering mgr. SW engineering staff SW engineering mgr. Systems engineering mgr. Corporate mgmt.
Systems engineering staff Outside influence/ customer/stndrds Same processor as in previou project Purchasing mgr. or dept. Marketing mgr. or dept.
6% 6% 5% 6% 4% 4% 11% 10% 11% 9% 11%
19% 21% 16%
15% 16% 13%
16%
2013 (N = 2,048)
2012 (N = 1,664)
Other
51
My current embedded project contains:

52% 53% 53% 50% 24% 25% 27% 24%
16% 16% 15% 17% 4% 3% 3% 5% 4% 4% 3% 5%
The average number of microcontrollers per project was:
A single microprocessor/ microcontroller

2 processors/ microcontrollers 3 5 processors/ microcontrollers 6 10 processors/ microcontrollers
2.4 in 2013 2.3 in 2012 2.3 in 2011 2.6 in 2010
2013 (N = 2,047) 2012 (N = 1,659) 2011 (N = 1,858) 2010 (N = 1,518)
>10 processors/ microcontrollers
52
Does your embedded project contain . . .

58% 62% 64% 60% 36%
In 2013, multiple different processor chips were broken out into same vendor vs different vendor groups. Freescale and TI are substantially more likely to be included when different vendors are used. Microchip is more likely to be the selection when the same vendor is used, followed by Atmel, TI and Freescale in that order.
2013 (N = 979)
2012 (N = 773) 2011 (N = 874)
Multiple different processor chips (Net)* Multiple different processor chips from different vendors* Multiple different processor chips from same vendor* Multiple identical processor chips 9% 10% 8% 8% 6% 5% 6% 7% 9% 22%
18% 23% 21% 25%
Single chip with multiple identical processor cores
Single chip with multiple different processor cores
FPGA with hard/soft processor cores
2010 (N = 759)
Base: Those who use multiple microprocessor/ microcontrollers for current project
53
My current embedded project's main processor is a:
60% 61%
62% 63% 63%
2013 (N = 2,056) 2012 (N = 1,666) 2011 (N = 1,864) 2010 (N = 1,527) 2009 (N = 1,533)
17% 16% 16% 16% 14%

6%
16%
14% 13% 13% 12%

1%
7% 6% 7% 8% 2% 2% 2% 3%
64-bit processor
32-bit processor
16-bit processor
8-bit processor
Dont know
54
My current embedded project's main processor clock rate is:
c
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+
4% 3%
5% 5% 13% 11% 7% 6% 38% 39%
13% 14% 10% 10%

15% 15% 16% 16%
10% 11% 7% 8%
The average processor clock rate was: 485 MHz in 2013 425 MHz in 2012
2013 (N = 2039) 2012 (N = 1659)
55
Did you use the same processor as in your previous embedded project?
55% 45% 45% 44%

48%
55%
56%
52%
52%
48%
Yes, used the same processor as in previous embedded project

2013 (N = 2,047) 2012 (N = 1,654)
No, did not use the same processor as in previous project

2010 (N = 1,516) 2009 (N = 1,533)
2011 (N = 1,859)
56
Why did you use the same processor?
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
4% 3% 9% 8% 43% 41%
62% 59%
57% 50%
49% 47%
29% 28% 23%

27%
2013 (N = 909)
2012 (N = 749)
2% 3%
Base = Those who are currently using the same processor as in previous project
57
What were your reasons for switching processors?

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
3% 2% 15% 15% 46% 46%
31% 31% 24% 27%
14% 18%
13% 13% 12%
10% 9%
8% 9%
2013 (N = 1112) 2012 (N = 888)
9% 11%
Base = Those who did not use the same processor as in previous project
58
Did you . . .
58%
56%
55%
57% 52% 44% 42% 45% 48% 43%
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
59
Whats most important when choosing a microprocessor?

61% 43% 45% 30% 48% 46%
42%
45%
43% 41%
13%
9%
11% 13% 10%
The chip itself
The ecosystem surrounding the chip (software, tools, support, etc.)

2012 (N = 1,662) 2011 (N = 1,859)
The chip's supplier/vendor
2013 (N = 2034)
2010 (N = 1,501)
2009 (N = 1,530)
2013 Embedded Market Study If you selected "ecosystem," please write in ONE vendor that has the best ecosystem for your needs. (Unaided)
19% 19%
60
Texas Instruments
Freescale
14% 11% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% 11% 7% 8% 8%

5%
12%
Microchip ARM Atmel

Intel ST Microelectronics
NXP IAR Xilinx
2% 2% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%
6% 5%
8%
2013 (N = 753) Unaided 2012 (N = 665) Unaided 2011 (N = 669) Unaided
61
What are the most important factors in choosing a processor?
Software development tools available The chip's performance

The chip's cost Available middleware, drivers, existing code
35% 40% 41% 34% 35% 33% 32% 33% 31% 29% 32% 35% 28% 29% 33% 21% 22% 24% 15% 14% 13% 13% 14% 15% 11% 13% 14% 7% 8% 8% 5% 4%
46% 48% 49%
72% 71% 71%
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
2013 (N = 2,033) 2012 (N = 1,648) 2011 (N = 1,843)
Chip family's future growth path The processors debug support

Programmable logic on chip
62
Please select the processor vendors you are familiar with.

Texas Instruments Atmel
Freescale
44% 52% 50% 51% 50% 50% 48% 47%
Silicon Labs
NVIDIA IBM Qualcomm
9%
14% 14%
14% 14%
14% 12% 13% 13% 12%

13% 14%
Microchip Intel STMicroelectronics

Altera
26% 33% 34% 33% 31% 29% 30%
42% 43%
Samsung
Marvell Digi/Rabbit Cirrus Logic Lattice Semiconductor Fujitsu Applied Micro
12% 13% 12% 10%

11%
AMD Xilinx Analog Devices

NXP
26% 28% 26% 28% 27% 24% 23% 22% 20% 19% 19% 16% 13% 15% 13% 15% 12%
11% 9% 10% 8% 9% 9%
9%
Renesas/NEC Cypress Semiconductor

Zilog Maxim
Toshiba
Microsemi
2013 (N = 1,912)
14% 7% 6% 6%
4% 4%
Energy Micro VIA
2012 (N = 1,555)
Infineon Broadcom
PMC-Sierra
Stretch Other
2% 1%
3% 2%
63
Please select the processor vendors you are currently using.

Texas Instruments Microchip Freescale Atmel Intel Xilinx STMicroelectronics Altera NXP Analog Devices Renesas/NEC AMD Cypress Semiconductor Maxim Marvell Silicon Labs Broadcom
Infineon Qualcomm NVIDIA Samsung 17% Digi/Rabbit 18% 14% Lattice Semiconductor 12% 13% IBM 14% 11% Microsemi 9% 10% Cirrus Logic 11% 8% Zilog 7% 8% Fujitsu 9% 6% Applied Micro 5% 5% Energy Micro 4% 4% Toshiba 2013 (N = 1,850) 3% 4% VIA 2012 (N = 1,494) 5% 4% PMC-Sierra 4% 4% Stretch 3% Other
29% 29% 27% 25% 26% 25% 23% 22%
2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 2% 2%
3% 3% 3%
64
Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project (Top 20).
Texas Instruments Freescale Microchip
Atmel
26% 26%
24% 23% 22% 23%
41% 39% 34% 31%
Analog Devices
10% 9% 9% 6%
8% 8%
Cypress
AMD
Silicon Labs
Qualcomm
6% 5%
5% 4%
STMicroelectronics Xilinx Intel NXP Altera

Renesas / NEC
19% 16% 18% 20% 17% 16% 15% 13%

12% 13% 2013 (N = 1609)
NVIDIA
Samsung Energy Micro
5% 5%
5% 3%
5%
4% 5% 4% 6%
Broadcom
Marvell
2012 (N = 1327)
65
(Continued) Please select the processor vendors you are considering using on your next project.
Maxim
4% 4%
Digi/Rabbit
2% 3%
Infineon
4%
3%
Applied Micro
2% 2%
1%
Lattice Semiconductor
3%
Cirrus Logic
Microsemi
3% 5%
3%
2%
1% 1%
PMC-Sierra
Zilog
3%
2% 2%
VIA
1% 1%
1%
IBM
Fujitsu
2%
2% 2013 (N = 1609)
Stretch
2012 (N = 1327)
1%
2% 3%
Toshiba
2% 2%
Other
66
Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
Microchip PIC 32-bit (MIPS) STMicroelectronics STM32 (ARM) TI Stellaris (ARM) TI OMAP (ARM) NXP ARM Intel Atom, Pentium, Celeron, Core IX
17%
20% 17%
23% 21%
22%
Altera Nios II (soft core)

Arduino
10% 9% 10% 9% 10% 17% 9% 11% 9% 8% 9% 9% 7% 7% 7% 9% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 8% 6% 7% 6%
24% 21% 21%
Atmel AT91xx
Xilinx MicroBlaze (soft-core)
TI C2000 MCUs
Altera SoC-FPGA (ARM)
15% 16% 15% 14%

16%
Renesas SuperH, H8SX, M32C, M32R

Freescale 68K, ColdFire
Atmel (AVR32)
Atmel SAMxx (ARM) Freescale i.MX (ARM) FreescaleKinetis (ARM/CortexM4/M0) TI Sitara (ARM) Xilinx Zynq (with dual ARM Cortex-A9)
Cypress PSOC 5 (ARM)

14%
Freescale PowerPC 7xx, 8xx

14%
14% 13% 14% 13% 11%

13%
TI Hercules (ARM)
2013 (N = 1,887) 2012 (N = 1,548)
Freescale PowerPC 55xx
Freescale PowerQUICC
Xilinx Virtex-5 (with PowerPC 405)
6%
6%
67
(Continued) Which of the following 32-bit chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
Qualcomm (any)
AMD Fusion, Athlon, Opteron, Geode
5% 3%
Infineon XMC4000 (ARM)
3%
5%
6% 5% 6%
Freescale PowerPC 5xx, 6xx

NVIDIA Tegra
Microsemi SmartFusion SoC FPGA (Cortex-M3) Microsemi FPGA (Cortex-M1, soft) AMD Alchemy (MIPS) Infineon Tricore NEC V850
Fujitsu FM3 (ARM)
2%
2%
2% 2% 2%
5%
5% 5% 3%
Energy Micro EFM32

Intel Itanium
2%
2% 3% 2%
5%
3% 4%
Freescale Vybrid (ARM)

Broadcom (any)
4%
4% 4% 5%
Cirrus Logic EP73xx, EP93xx (ARM)

AMCC PowerPC 4xx SPARC (any)
2%
2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% % % 4%
Marvell
Xilinx Virtex-4 (with PowerPC 405)
4%
4% 3%
SiLABS Precision32 (ARM)

IBM PowerPC 4xx, 7xx
2013 (N = 1887) 2012 (N = 1548)
Fujitsu FR series IDT 32xxx Other
3%
3% 3%
Microsemi SmartFusion2 SoC FPGA (Cortex-M3)
6%
68
*
43% 44% 43% 43%
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 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6%
20% 19% 16% 17% 15% 14% 14% 14% 12% 15% 9% 9%
2013 (N = 1,427)
2012 (N = 1,141)
Zilog Z180, Z380 Maxim Other
9%
69
Microchip PIC Atmel AVR Freescale HC05, HC08, HC11 Arduino TI TMS370, 7000 STMicroelectronics ST6, ST7, ST8 Intel 80xx, '251 Xilinx PicoBlaze Renesas H8, R8 Cypress PSoC NXP/Philips P80x, P87x, P89x Altera soft core Atmel 80xx SiLabs 80xx Zilog Z8, Z80, Z180, eZ80 Digi / Rabbit 2000, 3000 Maxim 80xx Parallax Infineon XC800, C500 Toshiba NEC K0 Other
43% 41% 35% 36% 18% 20% 17% 15% 16% 14% 15% 16% 14% 14% 11% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 10% 10% 9% 8% 9% 10% 7% 7% 6% 6%
2013 (N = 1,544) 2012 (N = 1,293)
3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 1% 1% 4% 5% 6%
*Renesas H8/300, 3800, 7200, 7600, R8C/Tiny, 38000, 7200, 7600, 740
70
Which of the following DSP chip families would you consider for your next embedded project?
TI 'C6000 Microchip dsPIC TI DaVinci TI 'C5000 Analog Devices Blackfin NXP Cortex M4 LPC4000 Freescale 563xx, 566xx, 568xx, 96xxx Analog Devices SHARC
18% 16% 17% 16% 15% 12% 11% 10% 11% 10% 9% 8% 5% 3% 8% 9%
29% 29%
27% 27% 24% 25% 22% 22% 21% 23%
Analog Devices ADSP-21xx Analog Devices TigerSHARC Freescale StarCore 71xx, 81xx LatticeECP3 Other
2013 (N = 1,333)
2012 (N = 1,054)
FPGAs and Programmable Logic
72
Does your current embedded project contain FPGAs/programmable logic?

80 70
60
69%
65%
62%
58%
55%
50 40
30
31%
35%
38%
42%
45%
20 10
0
Yes 2013 (N = 2,073) 2012 (N = 1,669) 2011 (N = 1,870)
No 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,536)
73
If project doesnt contain any FPGAs, will the trend towards FPGAs with built in multicore processors change your mind?
70
60
64%
63%
50
40 30 20 10
36% 37%
0
Yes No
74
Which of the following vendors does your current embedded projects use for FPGAs?
64% 64% 62% 65%
42% 41% 42% 42% 10% 11% 8% 12% 6% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 5% 5% 4% 10% 11% 9% 4% 4% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Xilinx Altera Lattice Atmel Mentor Graphics Microsemi Cypress Cadence Synopsys/Synplicity
2013 Currently use (N = 626) 2012 Currently use (N = 567) 2011 Currently use (N = 690) 2010 Currently use (N = 624)
Tabula and Achronix were both less than one percent.
75
Will your next embedded project likely contain FPGAs/programmable logic?

59% 57% 58% 55%
45% 41% 43% 42%
50%
51%
Yes
2013 (N = 2,022) 2012 (N = 1,642) 2011 (N = 1,846)
No
2010 (N = 1,517) 2009 (N = 1,519)
76
Why wont your next project include customizable chips?
Don't need this functionality They're too expensive

29% 31% 16% 16% 13% 14% 11%
4% 4%
60% 63%
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
3% 2% 2% 4% 9% 10%
Base = Those who will not be using customizable chips
2013 (N = 1171) 2012 (N = 929)
77
If yes, which of the following vendors will you consider in your next embedded project for FPGAs?
Xilinx
74% 75% 73% 58% 55% 58% 17% 17% 15% 15% 16% 12%
Altera Lattice Atmel Microsemi

Cypress Mentor Graphics Synopsys/Synplicity
9%
9% 9% 9% 7% 8% 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 1%
14%
19%
Cadence Achronix Tabula

Other
2013 (N = 801) 2012 Will consider (N = 675) 2011 Will consider (N = 759)
% 1%
3% 3% 4%
78
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 Altera
64% 42%
10%
74%
58%
Lattice Atmel
Mentor Graphics
17%
6% 6% 7% 4% 9% 4% 9% 3% 4% 3% 5% 2% 3%
15%
2013 Currently use (N = 626)
Microsemi Cypress
Cadence Synopsys/Synplicity
2013 Will Consider (N = 801)
Other
79
HARDWARE IPs, SYSTEM LEVEL DESIGN, & USE OF GUIs
80
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
81
Which of the following design techniques will become more important to your designs in the future?
Simulation Modeling in a high level language Virtual prototyping Graphical system design
63% 63% 36% 39% 32% 33% 31% 32%

2013 (N = 1743) 2012 (N = 1401)
82
What system level design tools do you or your organization currently use?
54% 51% 35% 30% 24% 23% 28% 36% 19% 26% 4%
MATLAB
LabVIEW Simulink System C or other "hardware C" UML
Cadence Virtual System Platform

Synopsys Virtualizer HAPS FPGA-based prototypes Mentor Vista Other
3%
2% 2% 12% 11%
2013 (N = 1509) 2012 (N = 1200)
83
Who were the three greatest influencers on the choice of the system-level tools for your current project?
Software engineering staff Software engineering manager 27% 25% 23% 20% 19%
33%
Hardware engineering staff

Systems engineering staff
Hardware engineering manager

Systems engineering manager Hardware architects Corporate management Outside influence, customer, stndrds Purchasing manager Marketing manager Other 6% 3% 4%
19%
18%
10%
2013 (N = 1,771)
84
Which of the following project management software packages do you currently use?
Microsoft Excel
40%
50%
Microsoft Project
Visio Open Source tools
49% 44% 28% 26% 23% 25% 9% 11% 7% 6% 3% 2% 8% 1%
IBM Telelogic DOORS

Simulink
TeamCenter
Other software package
85
Which of the following Version Control software systems do you currently use?
Subversion Git 21%
41%
CVS
Clearcase Perforce Other* 9%
20%
14%
2013 (N = 1,660)
20%
*Other mentions Mercurial Serena PVCS Microsoft Source Safe MKS Team Foundation Server (TFS) Tortoise Visual SourceSafe 38 23 21 18 16 16 12
86
Does your current design use a graphical user interface?

58.9% 59.6%
41.1%
Color 42% Touch 34% Hi-res 11% 3D 2% Haptic 1% Other 10% 2013 (N = 804)
40.4%
Touch 40% Color 36% Hi res 10% Haptic 2% 3D 1% Other 11% 2012 (N = 645)
Yes
2013 (N = 1993)
No
2012 (N = 1613)
Thank you | See you at DESIGN West!

David Blaza, VP of UBM Tech, Electronics david.blaza@ubm.com 415-947-6929 Alex Wolfe, Brand Director, EE Times, Embedded, & EBN alex.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

2013 Embedded Market Study Final

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2013 Embedded Market Study Final

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2013 EMBEDDED MARKET STUDY

2013 Embedded Market Study

UBM Tech Electronics Brands

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

DESIGN West (continued)

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

Purpose and Methodology

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

In which region of the world do you reside?

Africa and Near East

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

How many employees does your company have at all locations?

2013 N=2025 2012 N=1547

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

My job function includes:

2013: Average number of years out of school = 19.7 years

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

For what types of applications are your embedded projects developed?

Communications/networking Medical Automotive Electronic instruments

Computers and peripherals

Power generation and utilities

2013 (N=2080) 2012 (N=1670) 2011 (N=1885)

Government & municipal M2M Other

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

CURRENT EMBEDDED DESIGN ENVIRONMENT

2013 Embedded Market Study

My current embedded project is:

2012 (N = 1,704) 2011 (N = 1,883)

New to the world; a new project from scratch

An upgrade or improvement to an earlier or existing project

56% 57% 57%

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

What does the upgrade or improvement include?

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 discontinued hardware or software

Base = Those whose current project is an upgrade/improvement

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

68% 70% 72% 73% 75%

33% 36% 37% 37% 38% 35%

2012 (N = 1,704) 2011 (N = 1,886)

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study

Wi-Fi Bluetooth Classic Cellular Zigbee

2013 (N = 817) 2012 (N = 640) 2011 (N = 714)

Only answers 3% or above are shown

Copyright 2013 by UBM. All rights reserved.

2013 Embedded Market Study