Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #24428 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-28 18:55 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 11:45 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 12:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-06-29 17:13 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 10:32 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2016-06-29 16:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 12:59 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 20:03 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 16:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 23:44 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-01 20:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-02 22:42 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 00:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-03 03:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-03 08:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 13:33 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:32 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-01 14:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:52 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 17:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2016-07-01 22:14 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-01 18:18 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-01 18:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 13:04 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:07 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 14:17 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:34 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2016-06-29 14:45 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2016-06-29 12:24 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-06-29 13:09 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2016-06-29 12:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-06-29 19:48 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-06-29 16:49 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) - 2016-07-18 17:02 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-18 20:29 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2016-07-19 10:48 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-19 20:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-19 14:27 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 17:46 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 12:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:10 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:11 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-22 23:01 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul <paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk> - 2016-07-25 23:54 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-25 23:18 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:44 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-16 17:58 +0100
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-12-16 17:28 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-25 20:22 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 22:43 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-26 20:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 21:30 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:46 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2016-07-27 07:25 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:53 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2016-07-28 01:51 -0500
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 02:50 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-07-28 03:27 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 12:58 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-28 00:03 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Uwe Bonnes <bon@hertz.ikp.physik.tu-darmstadt.de> - 2016-07-28 10:19 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-29 14:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:19 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:03 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:54 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-01 09:45 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 11:52 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-01 22:17 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-08-01 22:28 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip raimond.dragomir@gmail.com - 2016-08-02 23:14 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 18:05 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip kristoff <kristoff@skypro.be> - 2016-07-30 18:15 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-30 19:19 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-28 12:29 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 15:04 +0200
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2016-07-28 14:07 +0000
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:10 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 10:08 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-27 19:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 00:30 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-28 20:13 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-07-30 02:23 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-30 20:06 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 13:55 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 09:12 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:22 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:26 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 10:49 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-07-31 17:56 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 19:21 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 02:47 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-31 17:11 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2016-07-31 18:54 -0700
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 20:14 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 03:42 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw@attt.bizz - 2016-07-31 21:05 -0400
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2016-08-01 04:38 +0300
Re: Atmel Bought by Microchip krw <krw@nowhere.com> - 2016-07-31 22:39 -0400
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 13:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87a8i1m73w.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #24499 |
antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: > Hmm, I am using STM32F030F4P6. Advertised price in quantity is $0.25. $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. Qty to get it at 0.25 must be awfully large. http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F030F4P6/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl6nhg$s12$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24501 |
On 7/1/2016 4:33 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >> Hmm, I am using STM32F030F4P6. Advertised price in quantity is $0.25. > > $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. Qty to get it at 0.25 > must be awfully large. > > http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F030F4P6/ You should know that Digikey and Mouser are not the places to get high volume pricing. That is typically negotiated. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 14:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8760spm3k6.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #24502 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. > You should know that Digikey and Mouser are not the places to get high > volume pricing. That is typically negotiated. I guess that makes sense. What counts as high volume though? Is 0.25 in 10k qty plausible or would it take millions of units?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl6om8$tlk$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24503 |
On 7/1/2016 5:49 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>> $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. >> You should know that Digikey and Mouser are not the places to get high >> volume pricing. That is typically negotiated. > > I guess that makes sense. What counts as high volume though? Is 0.25 > in 10k qty plausible or would it take millions of units? For more expensive parts I had vendors salivating at 5000 year and got a quote for very good pricing. Didn't go into production so I don't know if they would have stood by it. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 17:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl6oqp$tlk$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24504 |
On 7/1/2016 5:52 PM, rickman wrote: > On 7/1/2016 5:49 PM, Paul Rubin wrote: >> rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >>>> $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. >>> You should know that Digikey and Mouser are not the places to get high >>> volume pricing. That is typically negotiated. >> >> I guess that makes sense. What counts as high volume though? Is 0.25 >> in 10k qty plausible or would it take millions of units? > > For more expensive parts I had vendors salivating at 5000 year and got a > quote for very good pricing. Didn't go into production so I don't know > if they would have stood by it. By more expensive I mean $10. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 22:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nl6q03$pgm$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #24501 |
In comp.arch.embedded Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes:
> > Hmm, I am using STM32F030F4P6. Advertised price in quantity is $0.25.
>
> $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. Qty to get it at 0.25
> must be awfully large.
>
> http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F030F4P6/
$0.25 is from STM advertising. Yes, there is large difference compared
to prices that small buyer gets from established places. But the
same is with products from other manufactures. I got mine from
Aliexpress seller, $0.44 in quantity 10, $0.43 in quantity 100.
Of course there is risk of fakes, but at least there is some
hope that Chinese are reselling from a big lot bought at
manufacturer price.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 18:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl6q6q$7ip$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24506 |
On 7/1/2016 6:14 PM, antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl wrote: > In comp.arch.embedded Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >> antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >>> Hmm, I am using STM32F030F4P6. Advertised price in quantity is $0.25. >> >> $0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. Qty to get it at 0.25 >> must be awfully large. >> >> http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F030F4P6/ > > $0.25 is from STM advertising. Yes, there is large difference compared > to prices that small buyer gets from established places. But the > same is with products from other manufactures. I got mine from > Aliexpress seller, $0.44 in quantity 10, $0.43 in quantity 100. > Of course there is risk of fakes, but at least there is some > hope that Chinese are reselling from a big lot bought at > manufacturer price. I wish. I could get some parts really inexpensively, but my contract assembler won't guarantee the units if I use any of these potentially crap parts. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-01 18:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <s8sdnb96keqkuhgqnuvi39j4tij7fq9mr0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24501 |
On Fri, 01 Jul 2016 13:33:07 -0700, the renowned Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl writes: >> Hmm, I am using STM32F030F4P6. Advertised price in quantity is $0.25. > >$0.528 at Mouser in qty 10000. $0.89 in qty 100. Qty to get it at 0.25 >must be awfully large. > > http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/STMicroelectronics/STM32F030F4P6/ STM32F103C8T6 must be < $0.70 USD, based on what I see from China, but it's $3+ in 1K from Digikey. --sp -- Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Amazon link for AoE 3rd Edition: http://tinyurl.com/ntrpwu8
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl0v3a$a87$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24444 |
On 6/29/2016 12:24 PM, Les Cargill wrote: > rickman wrote: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? > > I think you're at the wrong end of the telescope. This is pretty clearly > a consolidation in a falling market. Microchip doesn't appear to be > able to conform to severance agreements. > >> I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? > > I've never held that ARM was much in the same space as PIC32. At least > the tooling is pretty radically different. And I can't say I'm too sad > if AVR just goes away. Why would you say the ARMs aren't "in the same space as PIC32"? They are both available at about the same performance levels, both come with a range of memory and peripherals. I think the main difference is there is one company making PIC32s while there are dozens making ARM devices for the same applications. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl12j5$odu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24451 |
rickman wrote: > On 6/29/2016 12:24 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> rickman wrote: >>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>> >>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>> >>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? >> >> I think you're at the wrong end of the telescope. This is pretty clearly >> a consolidation in a falling market. Microchip doesn't appear to be >> able to conform to severance agreements. >> >>> I wonder if the >>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >>> of the market? >> >> I've never held that ARM was much in the same space as PIC32. At least >> the tooling is pretty radically different. And I can't say I'm too sad >> if AVR just goes away. > > Why would you say the ARMs aren't "in the same space as PIC32"? They > are both available at about the same performance levels, both come with > a range of memory and peripherals. What we'd found is that the PIC32 fit better. The Cortex M had, in general, fewer peripherals. But this is gonna be an observer bias thing. I was also pushing for an Ethernet port, and it seems like PIC had a better story there. > I think the main difference is there > is one company making PIC32s while there are dozens making ARM devices > for the same applications. > This is also true. I just found the PIC series to be very easy to work with. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 14:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl13b9$r85$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24458 |
On 6/29/2016 2:07 PM, Les Cargill wrote: > rickman wrote: >> On 6/29/2016 12:24 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>> rickman wrote: >>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>> >>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>> >>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? >>> >>> I think you're at the wrong end of the telescope. This is pretty clearly >>> a consolidation in a falling market. Microchip doesn't appear to be >>> able to conform to severance agreements. >>> >>>> I wonder if the >>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it >>>> out >>>> of the market? >>> >>> I've never held that ARM was much in the same space as PIC32. At least >>> the tooling is pretty radically different. And I can't say I'm too sad >>> if AVR just goes away. >> >> Why would you say the ARMs aren't "in the same space as PIC32"? They >> are both available at about the same performance levels, both come with >> a range of memory and peripherals. > > > What we'd found is that the PIC32 fit better. The Cortex M had, in > general, fewer peripherals. But this is gonna be an observer bias > thing. I was also pushing for an Ethernet port, and it seems like > PIC had a better story there. I recall a discussion on this some years ago. I can't imagine this is still true in any meaningful way unless you have very unusual requirements. Let's face it, if the ARM CMx devices didn't cut the mustard in some way, they would not have taken off as they did. I also remember a conversation some years back where I forecast the rise of the ARM to dominate the MCU market. Some argued that the core didn't matter in a meaningful way, much more important were the peripherals which change between different makers even with the same CPU core. That is all true, but it has become irrelevant as users pick a CPU core and become comfortable with that. Even if they have to switch makers to get a peripheral they want, as long as the new devices is supported by the same tools they often are willing to do that. With the PIC32 you are stuck with one maker. I don't know how profitable the PIC32 is, but there are various costs associated with supporting a line and if the sales don't continue to justify it, the line can get dropped. Which do you think has the larger sales, the PIC32 or the ARM CMx devices? Microchip may not axe any of the MCU lines. But with this merger the first two to be considered I would think would be dsPIC and PIC32. >> I think the main difference is there >> is one company making PIC32s while there are dozens making ARM devices >> for the same applications. >> > > This is also true. I just found the PIC series to be very easy to work > with. Compared to what? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl145g$uce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24461 |
rickman wrote: > On 6/29/2016 2:07 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> rickman wrote: >>> On 6/29/2016 12:24 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> rickman wrote: >>>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>>> >>>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? >>>> >>>> I think you're at the wrong end of the telescope. This is pretty >>>> clearly >>>> a consolidation in a falling market. Microchip doesn't appear to be >>>> able to conform to severance agreements. >>>> >>>>> I wonder if the >>>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it >>>>> out >>>>> of the market? >>>> >>>> I've never held that ARM was much in the same space as PIC32. At least >>>> the tooling is pretty radically different. And I can't say I'm too sad >>>> if AVR just goes away. >>> >>> Why would you say the ARMs aren't "in the same space as PIC32"? They >>> are both available at about the same performance levels, both come with >>> a range of memory and peripherals. >> >> >> What we'd found is that the PIC32 fit better. The Cortex M had, in >> general, fewer peripherals. But this is gonna be an observer bias >> thing. I was also pushing for an Ethernet port, and it seems like >> PIC had a better story there. > > I recall a discussion on this some years ago. I can't imagine this is > still true in any meaningful way unless you have very unusual > requirements. I was dealing with a very slow organization, so the "many years ago" component dominates my observation. > Let's face it, if the ARM CMx devices didn't cut the > mustard in some way, they would not have taken off as they did. > It's hard to say, really. This is not a market in which "the market has spoken", and you even say why down the page a bit. > I also remember a conversation some years back where I forecast the rise > of the ARM to dominate the MCU market. Some argued that the core didn't > matter in a meaningful way, much more important were the peripherals > which change between different makers even with the same CPU core. Right. That mentality dominated what I'd seen. > That > is all true, but it has become irrelevant as users pick a CPU core and > become comfortable with that. Even if they have to switch makers to get > a peripheral they want, as long as the new devices is supported by the > same tools they often are willing to do that. > So there ya go. > With the PIC32 you are stuck with one maker. I don't know how > profitable the PIC32 is, but there are various costs associated with > supporting a line and if the sales don't continue to justify it, the > line can get dropped. Which do you think has the larger sales, the > PIC32 or the ARM CMx devices? Microchip may not axe any of the MCU > lines. But with this merger the first two to be considered I would > think would be dsPIC and PIC32. > Could be. >>> I think the main difference is there >>> is one company making PIC32s while there are dozens making ARM devices >>> for the same applications. >>> >> >> This is also true. I just found the PIC series to be very easy to work >> with. > > Compared to what? > AVR. Again, I will eventually see a Cortex Mx but haven't had the privilege yet. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 14:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FdidnS0LrNbYiunKnZ2dnUU7-Y-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #24461 |
On 06/29/2016 02:17 PM, rickman wrote: > On 6/29/2016 2:07 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >> rickman wrote: >>> On 6/29/2016 12:24 PM, Les Cargill wrote: >>>> rickman wrote: >>>>> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >>>>> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >>>>> >>>>> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >>>>> >>>>> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >>>>> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? >>>> >>>> I think you're at the wrong end of the telescope. This is pretty >>>> clearly >>>> a consolidation in a falling market. Microchip doesn't appear to be >>>> able to conform to severance agreements. >>>> >>>>> I wonder if the >>>>> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it >>>>> out >>>>> of the market? >>>> >>>> I've never held that ARM was much in the same space as PIC32. At least >>>> the tooling is pretty radically different. And I can't say I'm too sad >>>> if AVR just goes away. >>> >>> Why would you say the ARMs aren't "in the same space as PIC32"? They >>> are both available at about the same performance levels, both come with >>> a range of memory and peripherals. >> >> >> What we'd found is that the PIC32 fit better. The Cortex M had, in >> general, fewer peripherals. But this is gonna be an observer bias >> thing. I was also pushing for an Ethernet port, and it seems like >> PIC had a better story there. > > I recall a discussion on this some years ago. I can't imagine this is > still true in any meaningful way unless you have very unusual > requirements. Let's face it, if the ARM CMx devices didn't cut the > mustard in some way, they would not have taken off as they did. > > I also remember a conversation some years back where I forecast the rise > of the ARM to dominate the MCU market. Some argued that the core didn't > matter in a meaningful way, much more important were the peripherals > which change between different makers even with the same CPU core. That > is all true, but it has become irrelevant as users pick a CPU core and > become comfortable with that. Even if they have to switch makers to get > a peripheral they want, as long as the new devices is supported by the > same tools they often are willing to do that. > > With the PIC32 you are stuck with one maker. I don't know how > profitable the PIC32 is, but there are various costs associated with > supporting a line and if the sales don't continue to justify it, the > line can get dropped. That's one of the great things about Microchip historically though--they virtually never leave you in the lurch. You can still buy PIC17C756es from 20 years ago, that never sold well. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 12:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <y6ednb7QAY_1menKnZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #24444 |
On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:24:50 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: > > The problem is that I don't have any direct exposure to the tiny ARM > offerings, mainly because the peripheral mix chosen on projects I worked > on fit PIC32 or PIC24 better. > > Really, when we're saying ARM these days, it more means something big > enough to build a cell phone on. I disagree. The ARM A-core is for cell-phone sized stuff (and possibly desktop). But the Cortex M-cores show up in some pretty small processors. Anything that can be had for under a buck in quantity isn't a "big processor". -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com I'm looking for work -- see my website!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 13:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nl12m4$odu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24453 |
Tim Wescott wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2016 11:24:50 -0500, Les Cargill wrote: > >> >> The problem is that I don't have any direct exposure to the tiny ARM >> offerings, mainly because the peripheral mix chosen on projects I worked >> on fit PIC32 or PIC24 better. >> >> Really, when we're saying ARM these days, it more means something big >> enough to build a cell phone on. > > I disagree. The ARM A-core is for cell-phone sized stuff (and possibly > desktop). But the Cortex M-cores show up in some pretty small > processors. Anything that can be had for under a buck in quantity isn't > a "big processor". > Yeah. So many processors, so little time. -- Les Cargill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nl1703$9aj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24428 |
On 6/28/2016 3:55 PM, rickman wrote: > Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already > some serious contention with Atmel employees. > > http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 > > I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, > AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the > PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out > of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? After Cypress dropped their bid for Atmel, and Atmel spurned Dialog, I thought that Intel might swoop in. Intel has been making noise about getting back into the embedded market, where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line (and before that the 804x line. They finally gave up on the idea of the x86 architecture in embedded. All these M&As of companies doing embedded stuff and Intel is left out. I think I'll go do a COP8 design.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 19:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nl1mnh$vc5$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #24468 |
On 6/29/2016 3:19 PM, sms wrote: > On 6/28/2016 3:55 PM, rickman wrote: >> Not sure how I missed this one for two months. I see there is already >> some serious contention with Atmel employees. >> >> http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1329412 >> >> I wonder what it will be like for the sales force to be selling PICs, >> AVRs and ARMs all into much of the same market space? I wonder if the >> PIC32 will finally bite the dust with ARMs all around it crowding it out >> of the market? Or maybe the dsPIC will go away? > > After Cypress dropped their bid for Atmel, and Atmel spurned Dialog, I > thought that Intel might swoop in. Intel has been making noise about > getting back into the embedded market, where they once had a huge > presence with the 8051 product line (and before that the 804x line. They > finally gave up on the idea of the x86 architecture in embedded. > > All these M&As of companies doing embedded stuff and Intel is left out. > > I think I'll go do a COP8 design. What is M&A? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-29 16:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87twgbmu7u.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #24471 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > What is M&A? Mergers and acquisitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 17:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmjg5m$9ro$1@panix1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #24468 |
> ... Intel has been making noise about > getting back into the embedded market, > where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, and the Edison SoC (system on chip). But I see nobody really adopting that despite familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. Intel does not seem to collaborate with others. All the other chip makers collaborate or are consortiums, particularly ARM since it's fabless: the core is licensed to others. The latest Intel show-n-tell I attended seemed rather arrogant: they want the entire vertical market from embedded portable device to router to server and everything in between. No need to play nice with others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@attt.bizz |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 20:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bqsqob98k8if6c7ndmf76u38e504vro2ut@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #24652 |
On 18 Jul 2016 17:02:46 -0400, jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote: >> ... Intel has been making noise about >> getting back into the embedded market, >> where they once had a huge presence with the 8051 product line > >Intel dropped the ball when they gave up the xScale ARM line >to focus on x86 architecture from Pentium to Atom to Quark. Intel hasn't done *anything* right except X86 (and there is some argument here, too). > >Intel is trying to force themselves into the embedded market >with the Galileo Arduino-like platform with the Quark Chip, >and the Edison SoC (system on chip). >But I see nobody really adopting that despite >familiarity and comfort with the x86 architecture. > >Intel does not seem to collaborate with others. >All the other chip makers collaborate or are consortiums, >particularly ARM since it's fabless: the core is licensed to others. You got that right. Every time I've had a presentation from Intel it's been by the most arrogant people imaginable. Their pricing model is based on X86, as well. A model that doesn't allow their partner to make a profit. > >The latest Intel show-n-tell I attended seemed rather arrogant: >they want the entire vertical market from embedded portable device >to router to server and everything in between. >No need to play nice with others. Yep. That's all I've seen from them, too, and I'm not in the IT market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web