Embedded Market March 2013

2013 Embedded Market Study 2

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 industry’s must attend event! Register Today

DESIGN West is both a technical conference and expo for electronics design engineers, entrepreneurs,
and technology professionals who create products with electronic content. Held in the heart of Silicon
Valley, it’s where the world's top design engineers and product developers gather and learn, gain
inspiration, and get practical information and hands-on training they can put to immediate use.
Visionary speakers, relevant content
Engineering’s most visionary names will be on hand, along with UBM Tech's own editorial content
team. Keynotes include:
• Luke Dubord, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Avionics System Engineer
• Mayim Bialik, Actress & Neuroscientist
• Hugh Herr, Biomechatronics Director at the MIT Lab



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 Valley’s 25th year
The four-day DESIGN West event builds upon the solid foundation of engineering education pioneered
by the Embedded Systems Conference (ESC), the flagship brand and global electronics industry's
leading event. Celebrating its 25th anniversary in 2013, ESC is joined by the popular Black Hat Summit
and
Android Certification.



Purpose and Methodology
• Purpose: To profile the findings of the 2013 results of EE Times Group annual comprehensive
survey of the embedded systems markets worldwide. Findings include types of technology
used, all aspects of the embedded development process, tools used, work environment,
applications, methods and processes, operating systems used, reasons for using and not using
chips and technology, and brands and chips currently used by or being considered by
embedded developers. Many questions in this survey have been trended over two to five
years.
• Methodology: A web-based online survey instrument based on the previous year’s survey was
developed and implemented by independent research company Wilson Research Group from
January 18, 2013 to February 13, 2013 by email invitation
• Sample: E-mail invitations were sent to subscribers to UBM/EE Times Group Embedded Brands
with one reminder invitation. Each invitation included a link to the survey.
• Returns: 2,098 valid respondents for an overall confidence of 95% +/- 2.13%.



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 43.7
42.4
100-499 16.0
15.6
500-999 6.1
6.3
1,000-4,999 10.2
10.0
5,000-9,999 5.4
6.9 2013 N=2025
10,000-19,999 4.3 2012 N=1547
3.5
20,000 or more 12.1 Average Number of Employees
13.3 2013 = 3,965
Don't know 2.1 2012 = 4,856
2.0



My job function includes:

Writing firmware/sftwr for embedded systems 56.9%
Hardware/software integration 56.6%
Debugging firmware/software 55.3%
Architecture selection/specification 50.8%
Firmware/software design or analysis 45.4%
Project management 45.0%
Debugging hardware 43.2%
Prototype testing 39.9%
Firmware/software testing 39.7%
Device programming 39.1%
Designing hardware for embedded systems 36.9%
System design 33.7%
Hardware/software co-design 26.7%
Board layout/design 24.9%
Hardware/software co-verification 19.0%
Connected device design 8.9% 2013: Average number
SoC (system-on-chip) design 6.8% of years out of school =
Other 3.4% 19.7 years
2013 (N = 2,020)



For what types of applications are your embedded projects developed?

33%
Industrial cntrls & automation 31%
33%
23%
Consumer electronics 23%
24%
23%
Communications/networking 25%
26%
17%
Medical 16%
17%
17%
Automotive 15%
18%
17%
Electronic instruments 15%
15%
16%
Aero/Military (Net) 17%
17%
11%
Computers and peripherals 12%
14%
9%
Security 8%
10%
8%
Power generation and utilities 7%
6%
8%
Video & imaging 9%
10%
7%
Transportation 2013 (N=2080)
6%
Audio 6%
7%
2012 (N=1670)
6%
Government & municipal 6%
7%
2011 (N=1885)
6%
M2M
7%
Other 8%
10%


CURRENT EMBEDDED
DESIGN ENVIRONMENT


My current embedded project is:

2013 (N = 2091)
44% 2012 (N = 1,704)
New to the 44% 2011 (N = 1,883)
world; a new
43% 2010 (N = 1,559)
project from
2009 (N = 1,550)
scratch 43%
42%

56%
An upgrade or 56%
improvement
57%
to an earlier or
existing project 57%
58%



What does the upgrade or improvement include?

55%
New or different software features
58%

40%
New or different processor
44%

22%
New or different system logic
21%

15% 2013 (N = 1,159)
New or different analog components
14%

2012 (N = 941)
12%
New or different operating system
13%

Mandatory changes because of discontinued 21%
hardware or software 22%

Base = Those whose current project is an
upgrade/improvement



Which of the following capabilities are included
in your current embedded project?

68%
70%
Real-time capability 72%
73%
75%
55%
58%
Networking capability 58%
59%
59%
52%
Analog signal processing (added 2013)
40%
43%
Project rugged / envirnmntly resistant 42%
42%
44%
40%
38%
Wireless capability 38%
38%
33%
2013 (N = 2,090)
36% 2012 (N = 1,704)
37%
Battery-powered 37%
38%
35% 2011 (N = 1,886)
7%
9% 2010 (N = 1,559)
Other 8%
8%
2009 (N = 1,550)



If wireless, what wireless interfaces does your current embedded project include?

54%
Wi-Fi 55%
53%
24%
Bluetooth Classic 22%
24%
Cellular 25%
29%
20%
Zigbee 24%
23%
17%
Bluetooth LE/Smart 15%
10%
Unlicensed 2.4-GHz band 9%
11%
9%
NFC 8%
8%
900 MHZ 10%
12%
8%
Proprietary 11%
7%
7%
Wi-Fi Direct 7%
5%
AM or FM radio 7%
7%
5%
Infrared 6%
7%
5% 2013 (N = 817)
315/433 MHZ 7%
7% 2012 (N = 640)
5%
Custom 3%
4% 2011 (N = 714)
3%
ANT Only answers 3% or above are shown



How many people are on your embedded project team?
Team 2013 = 14.6 2013 (N = 2,041)
- Software Engineer = 4.0
- Hardware Engineer = 2.9
- Firmware Engineer = 2.7
- QA/Test Engineer = 2.0
- Systems/Integrator = 1.5
- Other Engineer = 1.5
Team 2012 = 15.9 2012 (N = 1,625)

- Software Engineer = 4.9
- Hardware Engineer = 3.7
- Firmware Engineer = 3.1
- QA/Test Engineer = 2.4
- Systems Engineer = 1.8

Note: Data excludes outliers 1000+



What is your development team’s ratio of total resources (including
time/dollars/manpower) spent on software vs. hardware for your
embedded projects?

60.6%
Average total resources 61.9%
62.0%
devoted to software 61.3% 2013 (N = 2,075)
62.4%
2012 (N = 1,675)
39.4%
Average total resources 38.1% 2011 (N = 1,878)
38.0%
devoted to hardware 38.7% 2010 (N = 1,542)
37.6%
2009 (N = 1,536)



How long did the last project you completed take to finish?

35%
33%
6 months or less 33%
36%
30%
35%
35%
7 – 12 months 33%
35%
35%
15%
15%
13 – 18 months 15%
15%
17%
9%
2013 (N = 1,985) Avg: 12.4 mos
9% 2012 (N = 1,634) Avg: 12.5 mos
19 – 24 months 9%
9%
10% 2011 (N = 1,822) Avg: 12.2 mos
6% 2010 (N = 1,494) Avg: 12.2 mos
8%
25 months or more 7%
7% 2009 (N = 1,514) Avg: 13.2 mos
8%



Was that project completed . . .

5%
Ahead of schedule 4%
•In 2013, 43% of all projects 4%
finished “ahead of” or 4%
“on” schedule, and 57% 38%
finished late or cancelled -- On schedule 38%
39%
almost the same as the 40%
previous 3 years. 28%
Late by 1 – 2 months 29%
26%
29%
18%
19%
17%
5%
6%
5%
2%
1% 2013 (N = 2,055)
2%
2% 2012 (N = 1,658)
Late by more than 18 months 2%
1%
1% 2011 (N = 1,859)
3%
Canceled 3% 2010 (N = 1,525)
3%
3%



My current embedded project is programmed mostly in:

60%
65%
C 62%
60%
21%
20%
C++ 22%
20%
5%
5%
Assembly language 5%
6%
3%
2%
Java 2%
3%
2%
C#
2%
1%
MATLAB 2% 2013 (N = 2,075)
2%
2% 2012 (N = 1,675)
1%
LabVIEW 1%
2% 2011 (N = 1,876)
1%
Python 2010 (N = 1,542)
1%
2%
.NET 1%
3%
4%
3%
Other 3%
3%

Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.



My next embedded project will likely be programmed mostly in:

55%
C 60%
58%
56%
22%
C++ 24%
25%
23%
4%
Java 4%
3%
4%
4%
Assembly language 3%
3%
4%
3%
C#
2%
LabVIEW 2%
1%
2% 2013 (N = 2,071)
2%
MATLAB 2012 (N = 1,667)
2%
Python 2011 (N = 1,871)

1% 2010 (N = 1,537)
.NET 2%
2%
4%
1%
UML or other modeling…
4%
Other 4%
3%
4%

Note: C#, Python and Ada were added in 2013. Ada was under 1%.



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% 79 84
78 80 78
80% In 2013, 86% reused code.
In 2012, 85% reused code.
70%
60% In 2010, 86% reused code.
50%

40%

30% 25 25 25 24
14 21
20% 15 13 14 15 14 15 17 17
11
10%

%
No, all new software, Yes, reused code Yes, reused open- Yes, reused purchased
no code reuse developed in-house source, shareware code
code

2013 (N = 2,065) 2012 (N = 1,659) 2011 (N = 1,862) 2010 (N = 1,540) 2009 (N = 1,534)



What percentage of your design time is spent on
each of the following stages?

14%
Developing overall system specs 15%
15%
11%
Conceptual design stage 11%
12%
30%
Detailed design stage 22%
22%
7%
Simulation stage 8%
8%
21%
Testing and debugging 23%
24%
10%
Prototyping 12% 2013 (N = 1,928)
12%
6%
Sending to production 6% 2012 (N = 1,535)
6%
1% 2011 (N = 1,679)
Documentation/coding/mtgs 2%
2%



If you could improve one thing about your embedded design
activities, what would it be?

21%
Debugging tools 22%
29%
28%
16%
Schedule 15%
14%
15%
16%
Engineering team skill level 16%
9%
8%
7%
Programming tools 8%
9%
10%
7% 2013 (N = 2,056)
Microprocessor 8%
7%
8% 2012 (N = 1,667)
7% 2011 (N = 1,868)
Interfaces 6%
8%
8% 2010 (N = 1,541)
6%
IDE 5%
5%
7%
6%
Other hardware 6%
7%
8%
5%
Operating system 5%
5%
5%
3%
The Compiler 3%



In general, what sources of information do you consult to
research your embedded design decisions?
Top 17 Sources

83%
Websites of vendors or manufacturers 86%
86%
61%
Search engine 61%
54%
Colleagues 55%
59%
51%
Technical whitepapers 53%
61%
48%
Websites of Industry publication 50%
57%
34%
Technical communities (like… 33%
31%
Print publications 34%
38%
28%
Webinars/net seminars 29%
31%
26%
Distributor websites 25%
25%
25%
Conferences and trade shows 27%
30%
24%
Industry newsletters 26%
31%
25%
In-person seminars 24%
24%
18%
Catalogs and brochures 19%
23%
2013 (N = 2,074)
17% 2012 (N = 1,674)
Blogs 19%
17%
12% 2011 (N = 1,878)
Video (YouTube, etc.) 11%
11%
Social networks/Linked-in/Twitter 6%
8%
Virtual conferences 11%
9%



Thinking about the next year, what areas will be your greatest
technology challenges?
Managers Only
28%
Integrating new technology or tools 22%
24.2%
23%
Managing code size/complexity 14%
15.5%
16%
Software tools 11%
10.6%
15%
Processors 14%
11.0%
14%
Improving the debugging process 6%
11.9%
13%
Dealing with low power 7%
12%
Programmable logic 5%
9.0%
12%
OS/RTOS 12%
8.7%
11%
Security concerns 7%
3.9%
11%
Integrating external IPs into designs 5%
7.4%
8%
Connecting to the cloud 3%
6%
Hardware tools 4%
7.4%
6% 2013 (N = 723)
SoC's/ASSP's 4%
5% 2012 (N = 377)
Buses/interconnects 2%
2.3%
4% 2011 (N = 310)
Memories and standard cells 1%
1.0%
2%
IDE* 2%
1.6%
5%
Other 4%
3.9%


Which of the following are your favorite/most important
software/hardware tools? (Top 18 shown)
46%
Debugger 51%
53%
46%
Oscilloscope 36%
41%
44%
Compiler/assembler 52%
54%
35%
IDE 33%
37%
23%
Logic analyzer 17%
20%
22%
JTAG/BDM 24%
23%
14%
ICE 15%
15%
12%
Software libraries 8%
11%
11%
Linux tools 13%
12%
9%
Simulation modeling tools 7%
8%
8%
Configuration management tools 12%
10%
8%
Automatic code generation 8%
9%
8%
Software testing tools 6%
8%
2013 (N = 1,946)
8%
Graphical Design tools 6%
9% 2012 (N = 1,564)
7%
Source code analysis/timing analysis tools 7%
9% 2011 (N = 1,752)
7%
FPGA-based prototypes
5%
Trace 3%
3%
4%
Codevelopment tools 8%
10%



Which of the following conferences did you attend in the past 2 years, and
which do you plan to next year?
2013 2013 Plus
Have Plan to 4% or
Conferences Attended Attend more
Training/seminars of distributors 40.3% 35.5%
DESIGN WEST/Embedded Systems Conference (Silicon Valley) 16.7% 21.6% +5%
ARM TechCon 16.6% 19.9%
Freescale Technology Forum 11.0% 14.1% +4%
DesignCon 10.8% 12.8%
DESIGN EAST/Embedded Systems Conference (Boston) 10.4% 11.9%
CES (Las Vegas) 9.9% 14.2% +4%
Embedded World (Nuremberg) 8.9% 13.1% +4%
Electronica 8.5% 9.9%
Real Time Computer Show (RTECC) 8.3% 9.9%
Microchip MASTERs Conference 7.8% 10.9%
Intel Developer Forum 7.0% 10.2%
CeBIT 6.4% 7.3%
Embedded Systems Conference (India) 6.4% 9.6%
DAC 4.7% 5.0%
Embedded Linux Conference (ELC) 4.0% 12.5% +8%
Convergence: Transportation Electronics 2.1% 3.9%
Embedded Systems Conference (Brazil) 2.1% 3.9%
Android Builders Summit 1.6% 9.1% +8%
Embedded Systems Technology (Japan) 1.4% 4.3%
Total Attending / Planning to Attend 1,045 1,146



What are the most effective ways that you systematically or formally
maintain, educate, and advance your professional skills?
43.5%
Training courses offered online 24%
42%
42.4%
Technical white papers by vendors 42%
47%
36.6%
Webinars provided by vendors 37%
41%
32.4%
Webinars by publications, media orgs 29%
34%
30.0%
Books 22%
31%
20.9%
Professional devlpmnt courses by private co. 21%
25%
18.4%
Conferences provided by vendors 19%
25%
18.2%
University professional dev. courses 21%
22%
17.6% 2013 (N = 2,067)
On-site seminars given by vendors 18%
21%
15.0% 2012 (N = 1,662)
Webinars by profsnl assocns 12%
15%
8.0% 2011 (N = 1,872)
Conference seminars by publctns, media orgs 12%
15%
8.0%
Conference seminars by profsnl assocns 8%
16%
6.5%
Certification training 6%
7.3%
Other 5%
7%

Average Number of Days Per Year Spent on Training Other Relevant Schooling and Reading
2013 = 9.0 days per year 2013 Average number of years out of school 19.7
2012 = 11.7 days per year 2013 Hours per week reading technical pubs 4.8
2011 = 11.2 days per year
2013 Books per year read in full or substantially 3.9
2010 = 11.7 days per year



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 72%
68% 68% 70% 70%
70
60
50
40 32% 32%
30% 30% 28%
30
20
10
0
Yes No

2013 (N = 2,082) 2012 (N = 1,712) 2011 (N = 1,882) 2010 (N = 1,552) 2009 (N = 1,546)



If current embedded project does not use an operating system, RTOS,
kernel, software executive, or scheduler of any kind, why not?
79%
79%
Current project doesn’t need it 82%
81%
80%
5%
OS / RTOS uses too much 4%
14%
memory 11%
12%
4%
OS / RTOS requires too much 4%
11% 2013 (N = 669)
processor power 9%
11% 2012 (N = 541)

4% 2011 (N = 561)
OS / RTOS is too complicated 4%
6% 2010 (N = 458)
to use 8%
7% 2009 (N = 434)

2%
4%
OS / RTOS is too expensive 9%
9%
10%



My current embedded My next embedded
project uses: project will likely use:

35% 29%
40% 31%
Commercial OS/RTOS 41% Commercial OS/RTOS 30%
38% 31%
47% 34%

34% 37%
31% 37%
Open-source OS/RTOS, Open-source OS/RTOS without
34% 37%
without commercial support commercial support
31%
29%
27%
27%
20%
19%
19%
20% Internally developed or in-house
Internally developed or in- 19%
23% OS/RTOS
house OS/RTOS 23%
32%
26%
26%
2013 (N = 1402) 14% 2013 (N = 1992)
13% 2012 (N = 1152) 13% 2012 (N = 1620)
9% Commercial distribution of open-
Commercial distribution of 2011 (N = 1307) 15% 2011 (N = 1809)
15% source OS/RTOS
an open-source OS/RTOS 2010 (N = 1358) 16% 2010 (N = 1458)
14% 13%
2009 (N = 1346) 2009 (N = 1432)
14%



Which factors most influenced your decision to use
a commercial operating system? (Top 12 choices.)

Real-time capability 44%
Good software tools 35%
Processor or hardware compatibility 35%
Ease of future maintenance 32%
Support for processor & drivers 28%
Technical support 26%
Code size/memory usage 26%
Documentation 26%
Royalty-free 24%
Networking capability 21% 2013 (N = 479)
Supplier's reputation 21% Base = Those who
currently use a
Overall cost 20%
“Commercial” OS/RTOS
Customer's desire 15%
Scheduling efficiency 15%



What are your reasons for not using a
commercial operating system?

Current solution works fine 61%

Commercial alternatives too expensive 36%

Avoid reliance on commercial supplier 28%

No need for multitasking 20%

Incompatible with existing SW apps or drivers 15%

Commercial alternatives use too much memory 12%

Too much trouble to learn commercial alternative 11% 2013 (N = 1503)
Base = Those who do not
Commercial alternatives lack an features I need 7% currently use a “Commercial”
OS/RTOS
Other 8%



Who were the greatest influences on
the choice of operating system?

32%
Software engineering staff 34%
30%
Software engineering manager 30%
30%
Group decision within engineering 29%
17%
Corporate management 17%
15%
Same OS as previous project 16%
15%
Hardware engineering manager 14%
14%
Hardware engineering staff 13%
13%
Systems engineering manager 12% Base: Those who use
operating systems
12%
Outside influence/… 12%

Systems engineering staff 11% 2013 (N = 1,989)
11%

Marketing manager or department 6% 2012 (N = 1,596)
7%
5%
Purchasing manager or department 4%



Did you use the same operating system, RTOS,
or kernel as in your previous project?

64% 63% Base: Those who use
62%
57% 58% operating systems

43% 42%
38%
36% 37%

Yes, used same OS, RTOS or kernel No, didn't use same OS, RTOS or
kernel

2013 (N = 2,015) 2012 (N = 1,644) 2011 (N = 1,840) 2010 (N = 1,492) 2009 (N = 1,501)



Why did you use the same operating system?

Happy with current one, no reason to switch 63%
57%

Wanted to maintain software compatibility 40%
41%

Wanted to make use of expertise/familiarity 36%
36%

Wanted to maintain the same tools or software 33%
34%

Wanted to keep same Operating System 23%
24%

Switching OS too expensive / time-consuming 23%
26%

Happy with supplier 10%
9%

Not my choice/operating system chosen for me 9% 2013 (N = 1,238)
6%
2012 (N = 929)
No other suitable alternatives available 6%
6% Base = Those who are using
the same operating system
Other 3%
3% as in previous project



Why did you switch operating systems?

Hardware or processor changed 33%
37%

New OS had better features 22%
20%

Not my choice/OS chosen for me 20%
21%

New OS had better SW/dev tools 13%
13%

New OS is cheaper 13%
11%

New OS had better growth path 12%
14%
10% 2013 (N = 724)
New OS had OTS modules (apps, tools) 10%
2012 (N = 658)
Previous OS too slow 9%
6% Base = Those who did
not use the same
Previous OS no longer available 7% operating system as in
4%
previous project
Unhappy with previous OS supplier 5%
6%

Other 17%
18%



What are the most important factors in choosing an operating system.
Availability of full source code 42%
41%
Availability of tech support 34%
30%
No royalties 30%
31%
Real-time performance 29%
31%
Compatibility w/ other software, systems 27%
27%
Freedom to customize or modify 26%
28%
Open-source availability 24%
22%
My familiarity with the operating system 20%
21%
The processors it supports 16%
17%
Purchase price 15%
17%
Simplicity / ease of use 14%
16%
Software-development tools available 13%
15%
Small memory footprint 12%
14% 2013 (N = 2017)
Commercial support 10%
11% 2012 (N = 1628)
The other software, middleware, drivers,… 9%
10% Base: Currently
Successful prior use for similar applications 9%
10% using an operating
Popularity 7%
6%
The other hardware it supports 6%
6%



Please select ALL of the operating systems you are currently using.
Inhouse/custom 24%
22%
Android 16%
13%
Ubuntu 13%
12%
FreeRTOS 13%
12%
Microsoft Windows Embedded 7 earlier 11%
10%
Debian (Linux) 8%
8%
Microsoft Windows 7 Compact earlier 8%
9%
Wind River (VxWorks) 7%
11%
Texas Instruments (DSP/BIOS) 7%
8%
Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net 6%
10%
Red Hat (IX Linux) 5%
5%
Freescale MQX 5%

Keil (RTX) 4%
5%
Wind River (Linux) 4%
4%
Analog Devices (VDK) 4%
3%
Angstrom (Linux) 4%
4% 2013 (N = 1,696)
Texas Instruments RTOS 4%

QNX (QNX) 3% 2012 (N = 1,302)
4%
Green Hills (INTEGRITY) 3%
4%
Express Logic (ThreadX) 2% Base: Currently using
3%
LynuxWorks (LynxOS) 2% an operating system
2%
eCos 2%
2%
OSEK 2%
2%

Only Operating Systems that had 2% or more are shown.



Please select ALL of the operating systems you are considering
using in the next 12 months.
Android 28%
34%
FreeRTOS 21%
23%
Inhouse/custom 19%
17%
Ubuntu 13%
13%
Micrium (uC/OS-II, III) Net 10%
16%
Microsoft (Win 7 Embedded/Standard) 9%
10%
Debian (Linux) 8%
10%
TI (DSP/BIOS) 8%
8%
Texas Instruments RTOS 8%

Wind River (VxWorks) 7%
10%
Freescale MQX 7%

Microsoft (Win 7 Compact) 6%
7%
Keil (RTX) 6%
5%
Red Hat (IX Linux) 5%
6%
Wind River (Platform neLinux) 5%
7%
Green Hills (INTEGRITY) 4%
6%
Angstrom (Linux) 4% 2013 (N = 1,572)
4%
QNX (QNX) 4% 2012 (N = 1,227)
7%
Express Logic (ThreadX) 3%
4%
Base: Those who are
Analog Devices (VDK) 3%
3% considering an operating
eCos 3% system in any project in the
4% next 12 months
LynuxWorks (LynxOS) 3%
3%

Only Operating Systems over 3% are shown.



Are you considering using embedded Linux?

54%
56%
Yes (Net) 56%
57%

27%
27%
Yes, using it now 27%
28%

6%
Yes, likely to use it in next 6 months 7% 2013 (N = 2,060)
(soon) 7% 2012 (N = 1,661)
7% 2011 (N = 1,857)
2010 (N = 1,524)
20%
22%
Yes, likely to use in next 12 months 21%
22%

47%
44%
No, not interested in using it 44%
43%



Why are you interested in embedded Linux?

66%
Low cost 72%
72%
65%
52%
Adaptability/extensibility 54%
58%
53%
40%
Built-in drivers/network… 44%
40%
38%
38%
Performance 37%
39%
37%
32%
Control of features/… 33%
34%
36%
29% 2013 (N = 1093)
Avoid commercial… 30%
33% 2012 (N = 929)
30%
16% 2011 (N = 1026)
Memory requirements 16%
18%
18% 2010 (N = 862)
14%
Career development 17%
Base = Those who use or are
considering using Linux



Why are you not interested in embedded Linux?

No need for it 72%

Incompatible w/ existing software, apps, drivers 18%

Performance or real-time capability 15%

Memory usage 12%

Development tools 9%

Support 8%

Legal ambiguity 6%

Reliability issues 5%

2013 (N = 955)
Cost (after deployment) 4% Base = Those who are not
considering using Linux

Security issues 4%

Other* 8%



Are you currently using embedded virtualization/hypervisors or
will you likely use this in the next 12 months?

Yes (Net) 17.8%

Yes, using it now 4.6%

Yes, will likely use in next 6 months 3.6%

Yes, will likely use in next 12 months 2013 (N = 2049)
9.6%

No, not using it and not planning to 82.2%



Why are you interested in embedded
vitualization/hypervisors?

Separation of multiple applications 48%
Support for multiple guest OSes (Android, VxWorks,
Linux) 37%

Support for hard real-time application(s)/ guest OS 35%

Processor consolidation 26%

Support legacy & new apps on same system 23%
2013 (N = 364)
Want to load balance across multicore system 17%

Other 4%
Base = Those who use or
are considering using
Linux


Embedded Market March 2013

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Embedded Market March 2013

Similar to Embedded Market March 2013 (20)

More from Stephan Cadene

More from Stephan Cadene (9)

Embedded Market March 2013