EETimes a récemment publié un article intéressant sur une étude faite du marché de l'embarqué.

Il ressort de cette étude que la majorité des projets embarqués  sont des upgrades de systèmes existants. Ces upgrades incluent à 79% de nouvelles fonctionnalités logiciel, à 56% un nouveau CPU.

Linux est moins souvent considéré comme une solution que précédemment. L'éditorialiste précise qu'on a franchit une étape vis-à-vis de Linux et que les gens sont plus réalistes et objectifs à son sujet que par le passé. L'extrait ci-dessous précise que souvent, le coût de Linux (réputé gratuit) dépassait souvent les estimations initiales :

"And it's not rocket science as to what the number one reason is that people are interested in Linux: cost (Figure 4). A reason people are shying away from Linux is that the cost numbers between forecast and actual didn't exactly add up. While the kernel itself may have been free or relatively inexpensive, the support costs climbed faster than expected. And third-party tools were required to implement application-specific functions, which also adds to the cost."

Les raisons pour lesquels les projets se sont plutôt orientés vers des OS commerciaux sont principalement et de plus en plus les capacités temps réel, le support technique et la qualité des outils.

Vos commentaires ?

 

EETimes recently published an interesting article on a survey on Embedded market.

This survey shows that the majority of embedded projects are upgrades of existing systems. These upgrades are for 79% new software features and for 56% new CPU.

Linux is less and less considered for developments. The Editorialist states that perceptions are changing about Linux as development costs (which were the main argument for choosing Linux) often exceeded initial expectations, see the abstract underneath:

"And it's not rocket science as to what the number one reason is that people are interested in Linux: cost (Figure 4). A reason people are shying away from Linux is that the cost numbers between forecast and actual didn't exactly add up. While the kernel itself may have been free or relatively inexpensive, the support costs climbed faster than expected. And third-party tools were required to implement application-specific functions, which also adds to the cost."

The reasons why commercial OSs are choosed are principaly and more and more things like Realt Time capabilities, technical support and tools quality.

Any comments?