2014 Brazilian Embedded Systems Development Market Study

Transcription

1 1

2 2014 Brazilian Embedded Systems Development Market Study 2

3 About this Document This document is distributed under the license: International NonCommercial-Attribution 4.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 3

4 About the Embarcados Portal of contents on Embedded Systems Development Founded in August 2007 and redesigned in September 2013 More than 300 technical articles published in a daily basis More than 500,000 views in last year Organization and realization of 8 technical events on Embedded Systems 4

5 Objective IdentifyandtraceaprofileofthemaintrendsintheBrazilian market of embedded systems. Indicate types of applied technologies, processes, development tools and work environment. Decisions about chips, technology and brands in use or considered by the development professionals. The Embarcados plans to conduct this study on an annual basis. 5

6 Methodology Online questionnaire applied through the web with the tool Survey Manager (SM), developed by Netquest. Sample invitation sent to the registered user base of the Embarcados site and its partners. A dedicated link was sent to each organization participating in the study between July 25th and August 14th, Return of 901 answered questionnaires. Multiplicity Index: Is the average of the responses given by the interviewed on questions in which more than one response option could be chosen. 6

7 Profile of Respondents 7

8 Origin of Answered Questionnaires -State 46,7% 10,8% 10,0% 8,1% 7,9% 3,0% 2,8% 2,1% 8,7% 8 Base: 901

9 Origin of Answered Questionnaires Major Cities 18,2% 11,7% 5,9% 5,4% 5,1% 4,3% 3,2% 2,6% 2,3% 2,1% 9 Base: 901

10 Occupation Engineer and technician Informatics and telecom Education and training Public administration Business Administration Others 14,2% 8,1% 1,8% 1,4% 7,1% 67,4% 10 Base: 901

11 Professional Activity 57,3% 12,1% 9,7% 5,3% 4,0% 3,8% 1,7% 1,3% 4,9% 11 Base: 901

12 Age Group 15% 29% 9% 47% From 18 to 30 years From 31 to 40 years From 41 to 50 years Over 51 years 12 Base: 901

13 Position in Company Engineer Analyst Technician Director Specialist Manager Coordinator Autonomous Consultant Trainee Supervisor President Other Not working 9,9% 8,7% 8,6% 6,7% 5,7% 4,9% 3,2% 2,5% 2,0% 2,0% 2,8% 1,3% 12,4% 29,4% 13 Base: 758

14 Experience in Embedded Systems 6% 12% 18% 19% 25% 20% More than 10 years 1 to 3 years 3 to 5 years 5 to 10 years Not in the area Less than 1 year 14 Base: 758

15 How many employees your company has Less than ,2% 38,8% or I don t know 4,3% 2,9% 1,8% 3,8% 7,2% 10,8% 10,2% 15 Base: 657

16 Firmware/software devel. co-devel. of hardware/software Software/hardware integration Firmware/software debugging Specification/definition of architecture Hardware debugging Hardware development Firmware/software test Design or analysis of firmware/software co-verification of hardware/software Device programming Design and Layout of boards Project management Assignments at work Prototype test Systems devel. Devel. of SoC Others 2,4% 11,7% 16 MI = 8.3 Base: ,3% 63,8% 61,6% 60,1% 59,2% 56,3% 55,1% 53,6% 53,1% 50,4% 49,5% 49,3% 47,8% 45,1% 42,5%

17 Projects 17

18 Types of Applications Industrial controls Communication/networks Consumer electronics Electronic Instruments Internet of things Automotive Security Health Computers/peripherals Transport Power gener./transm. M2M Public Sector Video and Image Aerospace/Military Audio Others 19,6% 19,6% 17,4% 15,1% 14,8% 12,6% 11,4% 11,1% 9,0% 7,8% 7,6% 7,3% 17,8% 18 31,1% 28,6% 25,4% MI = 3.0 Base: ,5%

19 Current Project Status 41% 59% New Project Update or improvement 19 Base: 657

20 UPGRADE OR IMPROVEMENT INCLUDES New or diff. software features New or diff. connectivity capabilities New or diff. integrated components New or diff. processor New or diff. peripheral New or diff. system logic Mandatory changes/discont. of hw/sw New or different OS 55,0% 51,7% 47,2% 39,1% 37,3% 32,5% 31,7% 73,8% 20 IM = 3,7 Base: 271

21 INCLUDED FEATURES IN THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT Ability of connection (networking) Digital signal processing Real-time capability Wireless communication Battery powered Robust Design Analog signal processing 65,9% 59,2% 52,4% 52,2% 49,2% 48,9% 46,0% 21 IM = 3,7 Base: 657

22 WIRELESS INTERFACES INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT Wi-Fi Cellular Zigbee Bluetooth Classic Unlicensed 2.4 GHz band Cloud connection Bluetooth LE/Smart Wi-Fi direct NFC 900 MHz Proprietary 315/433 MHz Infrared 6LoWPAN AM or FM radio Others 4,1% 7,0% 6,1% 8,7% 14,6% 14,0% 13,7% 12,5% 12,5% 17,8% 22 25,7% 23,3% 29,2% 32,7% 36,7% IM = 3,1 Base: ,8%

23 PROFESSIONALS IN THE EMBEDDED PROJECT TEAM Hardware Eng. Firmware Eng. 87,1% 80,4% SW Eng. non-firmware 69,6% Systems/Integrator Test/QA Eng. Other engineers Others 53,7% 52,4% 43,7% 39,1% 23 MI = 4.3 Base: 657

24 NUMBER OF PROFESSIONALS IN THE EMBEDDED PROJECT TEAM SW Eng. non-firmware 19,8% Firmware Eng. Hardware Eng. 18,5% 18,2% Others Other engineers Systems/Integrator Test/QA Engineer 11,5% 11,5% 10,4% 10,1% 24 Total = 6487 Base: 657

25 BUILDS OWN HARDWARE OR OUTSOURCE THE HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS 36% We design our own hardware 64% We outsource the hardware design 25 Base: 657

26 IN THE LAST EMBEDDED COMPLETED PROJECT, HOW MANY MONTHS IT TOOK TO COMPLETE 7 12 months 33,5% 6 months ou - 25,4% months 16,3% months 11,4% None completed 25 months or + 5,3% 8,1% 26 Base: 657

27 THE PROJECT WAS COMPLETED Within deadline Delayed 3-6 months Delayed 1-2 months Delayed 6-12 months Before deadline Delayed months Has been canceled Delayed + than 18 months 6,5% 5,5% 2,0% 0,8% 0,7% 24,0% 21,5% 39,1% 27 Base: 604

28 HOW THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT IS PROGRAMMED C C++ Java VHDL Assembly C# Others Python MATLAB LabVIEW Verilog.NET UML or other 3,8% 2,1% 1,5% 1,5% 1,4% 1,4% 0,8% 0,8% 0,6% 0,3% 0,2% 14,8% 70,9% 28 Base: 657

29 THE NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE PROGRAMMED IN C C++ Java Python VHDL LabVIEW Others C# Verilog Assembly MATLAB.NET UML or other 5,9% 3,3% 2,4% 2,1% 1,5% 1,4% 1,2% 1,1% 0,6% 0,6% 0,3% 17,7% 61,8% 29 Base: 657

30 THE CURRENT PROJECT REUSES CODE FROM A PREVIOUS EMBEDDED PROJECT 23% 3% Yes, with in-house development code reuse 16% 58% No, all new system, there is no code reuse Yes, with open source reuse Yes, with reusing acquired code 30 Base: 657

31 COMPANY CHALLENGES IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Compliance with schedule Meeting standards of safety and development processes Systems integration/testing Keep up to date with the technology of embedded systems Stay within budget costs Meeting applications performance standards Growth of code lines and complexity of software Software compatibility when transferring to new devices Power Management/Energy Efficiency 50,7% 48,4% 47,3% 45,1% 43,8% 38,8% 38,5% 37,1% 33,5% 31 MI = 5.3 Base: 657

32 PERCENTAGE USAGE OF YOUR PROJECT TIME Coding Debugging and Testing Developing systems specs Prototyping Documentation Conceptual desing stage Detailed design stage Managing Simulation stage Sending to Production 9,8% 8,9% 7,2% 7,1% 6,7% 6,2% 5,6% 4,8% 17,0% 26,8% 32 Average percentage Base: 657

33 HOW YOU TYPICALLY FIND AND EVALUATE PARTNERS TO WORK WITH References from colleagues Recomm. from other HW/SW suppliers By visiting their websites Read technical articles/industry news Meetings at industry events Reading relevant blogs Advertisements in industry magazines Other sources 33 71,4% 59,1% 49,5% 46,6% 43,1% 26,2% 20,9% 19,6% MI = 3.4 Base: 657

34 SOURCES OF INFORMATION YOU CONSULT TO RESEARCH ABOUT EMBEDDED SYSTEMS PROJECT Technical articles Search tools Colleagues Technical communities Suppliers websites Supplier technical support Conferences/Trade Shows Websites or ind. publications Blogs Distributors websites Technical standards 58,4% 56,0% 50,1% 49,9% 42,0% 41,6% 37,6% 37,4% 36,4% 36,4% 85,5% 34 MI = 6.7 Base: 657

35 THINKING ABOUT NEXT YEAR, WHAT AREAS WILL BE THE GREATEST TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES Integration of new technologies or tools Connecting to the cloud OS/RTOS Software tools Dealing with low power consumption Security aspects Processors Hardware tools Managing complexity/size of codes 35 MI = 4.0 Base: ,6% 37,1% 35,6% 35,5% 33,0% 32,7% 30,4% 30,3% 28,2%

36 Operating Systems 36

37 THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT USES ANY KIND OF OPERATING SYSTEM 47% 53% No Yes 37 Base: 657

38 THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT USES 16% 13% 30% 41% Open source OS/RTOS with no commercial support Commercial distribution of open source OS/RTOS OS/RTOS developed inhouse Commercial OS/RTOS 38 Base: 306

39 REASONS FOR NOT USING AN OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT Current project does not require 84,0% OS/RTOS is too complicated to use OS/RTOS uses too much memory OS/RTOS is too expensive OS/RTOS requires too much processor power 8,5% 6,3% 4,3% 3,1% 39 MI = 1.1 Base: 351

40 WHAT WILL BE USED IN THE NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT 22% 9% 7% 33% Open source OS/RTOS with no commercial support None Commercial distribution of a open source OS/RTOS OS/RTOS developed in-house 29% Commercial OS/RTOS 40 Base: 657

41 HIGHEST INFLUENCING FACTORS IN THE DECISION TO USE A COMMERCIAL OPERATING SYSTEM Good software tools Documentation Processor or hardware compatibility Technical support Processor and drivers support Programming efficiency Ease of future maintenance No royalties Real-time capability Overall cost 67,1% 61,6% 55,6% 49,5% 45,8% 43,1% 42,6% 41,7% 41,2% 39,8% 41 MI = 5.7 Base: 216

42 REASONS FOR NOT USING A COMMERCIAL OPERATING SYSTEM Commercial alternative is too expensive Avoid dependence on commercial supplier Current solution works fine 46,4% 66,5% 61,2% Lack of features I need in the commercial alternative 11,2% 42 MI = 2.1 Base: 224

43 MAJOR INFLUENCES ON THE CHOICE OF OPERATING SYSTEM Group decision among Engineers Software engineers team 39,2% 56,2% External influence/customers/standards Same OS as previous project Hardware engineers team 25,2% 19,3% 26,5% 43 MI = 2.1 Base: 306

44 USED THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM, RTOS OR KERNEL AS IN THE PREVIOUS PROJECT 30% Yes, I used the same OS or RTOS kernel 70% No, I didn't use the same OS or RTOS kernel 44 Base: 306

45 REASONS FOR USING THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM Happy with the current, there is no reason to change Desire to keep the familiarity/experience already acquired Wish to maintain compatibility of software I wish to keep the same tools or software I wish to keep the same operating system 66,4% 53,7% 41,1% 36,0% 34,6% 45 MI = 2.8 Base: 214

46 REASON FOR SWITCHING OPERATING SYSTEMS Change in the hardware or processor 55,9% New OS has better features 20,4% New OS has better SW development tools New OS is cheaper 7,5% 14,0% 46 MI = 1.4 Base: 93

47 MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS IN CHOOSING AN OPERATING SYSTEM Open source availability Availability of software devel. tools Freedom to customize or modify The supported processors Low memory usage Real-time performance No royalties My familiarity with the operating system Compatibility w/ other software, systems Total availability of source code 58,5% 54,2% 50,7% 48,4% 47,4% 45,1% 42,8% 40,5% 40,5% 40,2% 47 MI = 6.7 Base: 306

48 WHICH OPERATING SYSTEMS YOU ARE CURRENTLY USING Android Ubuntu Debian (Linux) FreeRTOS Linux Customized Angstrom (Linux) In-house Texas Instruments RTOS Texas Instruments (DSP/BIOS) Freescale MQX Keil (RTX) Micrium (uc/os-ii, III) Previous Microsoft Windows 7 Compact Red Hat (IX Linux) Previous Microsoft Windows Embedded 7 Wind River (VxWorks) QNX (Neutrino) Analog Devices (VDK) Wind River (Linux) Mentor Graphics (Nucleous/Linux)(Net) Green Hills (INTEGRITY) QNX(QNX) Others 8,8% 7,8% 7,5% 6,5% 6,2% 4,2% 3,6% 2,9% 2,6% 2,0% 2,0% 0,7% 0,7% 0,7% 0,3% 12,7% 12,7% 48 18,0% 22,2% MI = 2.5 Base: ,4% 29,4% 29,1% 36,3%

49 WHAT OPERATING SYSTEMS YOU ARE CONSIDERING TO USE IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS Android FreeRTOS Ubuntu Debian (Linux) Linux Customized Texas Instruments RTOS Angstrom (Linux) Freescale MQX Texas Instruments (DSP/BIOS) Micrium (uc/os-ii, III) Keil (RTX) Red Hat (IX Linux) Microsoft (Win Embedded 7/Standard) In-house Microsoft (Win 7 Compact) Wind River (Linux) QNX(QNX) Analog Devices (VDK) Wind River (VxWorks) ECos Wittenstein (OpenRTOS/SAFERTOS) Mentor Graphics (Nucleous/Linux)(Net) Express Logic (ThreadX) Others 18,5% 16,5% 12,3% 9,4% 8,1% 7,1% 6,2% 6,2% 5,9% 5,4% 3,4% 2,0% 2,0% 1,7% 1,5% 1,0% 0,7% 0,7% 9,6% 49 24,1% 28,8% 34,0% MI = 3.0 Base: ,2% 46,8%

50 Microprocessors 50

51 MAJOR INFLUENCES ON THE CHOICE OF THE PROCESSOR FOR THE CURRENT PROJECT Group decision among Engineers 55,6% Hardware engineers team External influence/customers/standards Same processor from previous project Software engineers team Systems engineers team 26,8% 20,5% 19,2% 14,6% 11,6% 51 MI = 1.8 Base: 657

52 WHAT THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT CONTAINS 2% 2% 24% 12% 60% Single proc/micro 2 proc/micro 3-5 proc/micro >10 proc/micro 6-10 proc/micro 52 Base: 657

53 WHAT THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT CONTAINS Single processor chip with one core Multiple chips of different processors (diff. suppliers) Multiple chips of different processors (same vendor) Multiple identical processors chips Single chip processor with multiple different cores FPGAS with single core processor of hw/sw Single chip processor with multiple identical cores FPGA with multiple core processor of hw/sw 13,7% 11,7% 6,2% 5,2% 5,2% 4,1% 3,0% 50,8% 53 Base: 657

54 THE MAIN PROCESSOR OF MY CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT IS 3% 1% 20% 16% 60% 32-bit processor 16-bit processor 8-bit processor 64-bit processor Don`t know 54 Base: 657

55 THE CLOCK RATE OF THE MAIN PROCESSOR OF MY CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT IS MHz MHz MHz 1 GHz MHz MHz Below 10 MHz MHz MHz 2 GHz+ 5,9% 5,8% 5,0% 4,1% 2,3% 12,3% 10,0% 17,2% 15,7% 21,6% 55 Base: 657

56 YOU USED THE SAME PROCESSOR OF YOUR PREVIOUS EMBEDDED PROJECT 46% 54% No Yes 56 Base: 657

57 WHY YOU USE THE SAME PROCESSOR Leveraging the experience / familiarity To maintain the same tools or software Happy with current processor/vendor To maintain software compatibility The change is very expensive/takes time To use the same operating system There is no other suitable processor available Others 48,7% 45,7% 38,7% 23,3% 15,7% 3,7% 3,3% 76,7% 57 MI = 2.6 Base: 300

58 REASONS TO CHANGE THE PROCESSOR New processor has better functionality 51,3% New processor has better future scalability 34,2% Need for a processor with lower power consumption Previous processor is very slow New processor has better SW development tools 20,2% 18,8% 22,4% 58 MI = 2.0 Base: 357

59 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT WHEN CHOOSING A MICROPROCESSOR 19% 8% The ecosystem around the chip The chip itself 73% The chip vendor 59 Base: 657

60 VENDOR WITH THE BEST ECOSYSTEM FOR YOUR NEEDS Texas Instruments ARM Microchip Freescale Atmel STMicroelectronics NXP Others Intel Renesas Xilinx 4,0% 3,8% 2,9% 1,4% 1,2% 11,4% 10,5% 8,5% 15,1% 21,2% 20,1% 60 Base: 657

61 MAJOR FACTORS IN CHOOSING A PROCESSOR Availability of software development tools The cost of the chip I/O or on-chip peripherals The performance of the chip Availability of HW development tools Availability of middleware, drivers, existing code The reputation of the supplier The power consumption of the chip Future scalability of chip family The popularity of chip Familiarity with architecture/chip family The supported operating system Processor debugging support The chip's security features 70,3% 64,5% 56,2% 53,6% 52,1% 49,0% 40,9% 38,4% 36,8% 35,3% 33,8% 29,4% 22,5% 21,2% 61 MI = 6.0 Base: 657

62 SUPPLIERS OF PROCESSOR YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH 64% 60%55% 47% 33% 31%27%27% 20% 15%15% 14% 11%11% 10% 9% 9% 8% 7% 7% 62 MI = 5.1 Base: 657

63 SUPPLIERS OF PROCESSOR YOU ARE CURRENTLY USING 40% 35% 26% 23% 18% 14% 9% 8% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 4% 63 MI = 2.2 Base: 657

64 17% 15% 14% 11% 10% 6% 5% SUPPLIERS OF PROCESSOR YOU ARE CONSIDERING USING ON YOUR NEXT PROJECT 53% 33% 30% 26% 24% 64 MI = 2.9 Base: 657

65 32-BIT PROCESSOR FAMILIES YOU WOULD CONSIDER FOR YOUR NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT 24% 22% 21%21%20%20% 19% 14%13%13% 12% 10% 9% 9% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 65 MI = 2.8 Base: 657

66 16-BIT PROCESSOR FAMILIES YOU WOULD CONSIDER FOR YOUR NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT 37% 31% 32% 12% 12% 7% 6% 4% 3% 1% 66 MI = 1.5 Base: 657

67 8-BIT PROCESSOR FAMILIES YOU WOULD CONSIDER FOR YOUR NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT 39% 25% 24% 27% 12% 11% 9% 9% 6% 5% 1% 67 MI = 1.9 Base: 657

68 YOU UPGRADED A PROCESSOR FROM AN 8-BIT OR 16- BIT TO A 32-BIT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS 11% 20% 69% No Yes, I upgraded from an 8-bit chip Yes, I upgraded from a 16-bit chip 68 Base: 657

69 FPGA and Version Control 69

70 THE CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECT INCLUDES FPGAS/PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC 16% 84% No Yes 70 Base: 657

71 VENDORS OF FPGA YOUR CURRENT EMBEDDED PROJECTS USE 53,8% 41,5% 12,3% 3,8% 3,8%3,8% 2,8% 2,8%1,9% 1,9% 71 MI = 1.2 Base: 106

72 YOUR NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT WILL LIKELY CONTAIN FPGAS/PROGRAMMABLE LOGIC 29% 71% No Yes 72 Base: 657

73 WHY YOUR NEXT PROJECT WILL NOT INCLUDE CUSTOMIZABLE MICROPROCESSOR 56,6% I don't need this functionality They are very expensive 28,0% We don't understand this functionality 18,2% 73 MI = 1.4 Base: 468

74 FPGA VENDORS CONSIDERED IN YOUR NEXT EMBEDDED PROJECT 68,8% 59,8% 18,0% 8,5% 7,4% 5,8% 3,2% 2,6% 0,5% 1,6% 74 MI = 1.8 Base: 189

75 SOFTWARE OF VERSION CONTROL SYSTEMS CURRENTLY IN USE Subversion (SVN) I don t use it Git CVS Perforce Clearcase Other 1,4% 1,4% 3,7% 8,5% 30,7% 37,6% 35,9% 75 MI = 1.2 Base: 657

76 76