Steve Hebert's Development Blog

Steve's Blog - From .Net to dotMath and everything in between.

Customizing CE - a different look at Peter Coffee's recent article

I read Peter Coffee's eWeek article titled "Fine-Tuned to a Fault?" with interest today. Coffee takes a jab at Microsoft's opening of the CE source-code and their encouraging of hardware builders to customize the OS. He contrasts this strategy with Sun's JavaME one-size-fits-all-approach and finds it lacking (to be fair he rides the fence through most of the article). Coffee pushes further saying that a survey of developers targeting wireless devices are "focusing to a greater degree than ever on J2ME ". He then backs it up with the non-quote of the year from the survey - "it's more cost effective to develop J2ME-compliant code once, than to customize or re-write code for differing devices and operating systems." The problem I have with Coffee's article is that he fails to look at the embedded market in it's entirety. It appears that Coffee sees the entire embedded market revolving around cell phones.

I spent a number of years around the embedded space and it is truly a different space from the world of mainstream OS's. The high-volume opportunities in the embedded space are the small controls that are all around us - some examples of these types of controls include lighting, security and HVAC. These controls are not only competing against other "smart controls", but against conventional controls as well. In short there are serious cost constraints in this market. If someone wants to gain ground with a standardized OS in this space, they must understand and respond to this market reality.

To understand the situation, take a small controller that has a cost target of, say, $20. Now, let's say my OS of choice has built-in and required VGA support that my controller does not need/use. This requirement imposes additional circuitry and memory on the controller that (1) increases physical size and (2) increases cost. If the component cost is merely $2 in bulk, that's still 10% of my budget and generally unacceptable. This is why custom-made operating systems still dominate the market today- custom OS's can fit the controller configuration and the development cost is amortized over the life of the product.

I think Microsoft's approach is unique and interesting- allowing for customization of the OS and generating a development tool-set that matches the controller configuration. Microsoft is the biggest player taking this angle and it possibly gives them a way to get into the high-volume embedded controller market. My read is that Microsoft is being aggressive and responding to their intended market. That said, I have no idea if this is Microsoft's desire or intent - I'm simply not privy to that information. It will be interesting to see how this approach plays out.

Published Sep 23 2004, 10:30 AM by shebert

Comments

Scott Allen said:

One size fits all certainly doesn't work in the embedded space. It is estimated that a quarter billion 8 bit processors are sold every single month. Not that you'll see CE or a JVM on an 8 bitter, but it goes to show that in the embedded world you only use what you need. Smaller and cheaper is better.

# September 23, 2004 8:07 AM

Darrell said:

Interesting to hear from someone who has background in the industry. Yet another example of why I don't read the trade rags. :)

# September 23, 2004 8:18 AM

Steve Hebert said:

Good point, Darrell. Sometimes it seems too many of their authors are professional writers first and tech guys (a distant) second.

# September 23, 2004 9:00 AM

Steve Hebert said:

That's a great point, Scott. I remember reading once a few years back that the "highest volume processor" at that time was an 8-bit processor - it probably still is. If I remember right it was a 6502-derivative chip. If anyone has a link to the current numbers, I'd be interested. A few searches on google and I haven't seen anything yet.

# September 23, 2004 11:15 AM

Peter Coffee said:

These are good points, and I'd have welcomed them as emails to me at peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com. I'm glad that I found this site, and I appreciate the chance to respond.

As I noted in the column, Microsoft's history of superb toolmaking tends to drive their platform choices regardless of other considerations; as for customization opportunities for embedded devices, I do appreciate the cost pressures involved, and I agree that the column's focus on Internet-client-capable devices (including cell phones) did fail to acknowledge the enormous submerged iceberg of much more targeted and cost-sensitive designs.

- Peter Coffee, eWEEK

P.S. -- for sure, techie first and writer second, even if I do get paid to write...

# September 29, 2004 8:13 AM

Steve Hebert's Development Blog said:

I've been Coffee'd - and - what your Processor Index?

# September 29, 2004 10:40 AM

Peter Coffee said:

A follow-up to Steve's query regarding current relative sales of 8-bit versus other processors: there's a graph that convincingly makes his point (a quarter of a billion 8-bitters/month) at http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1156706,00.asp

- Peter Coffee, eWEEK

# September 29, 2004 10:51 AM

Steve Hebert said:

Hi Peter,

Thank you for the reply and the followup on my question regarding the continued use of 8-bit processors in the embedded space.

The cost pressures and resulting architecture choices in the space are truely amazing. In this market the concept of a "software engineer" is far different than we see in the "enterprise" development market (for lack of a better term to differentiate the two). Embedded developers see the large players like Sun and Microsoft as companies who are bumbling around in the embedded space - and to a degree, I think they are right. Upon first introduction to the embedded environment, I couldn't believe people were still writing their own operating systems. But after understanding what was really happening and the cost-constraints involved, their approach makes sense.

The embedded development market has seen a long history of market entrants saying "here is a one-size-fits-all-approach to your problems." I think Microsoft is coming along with a new tact to their approach. Will it work? Will their flexibility open them up to 60% of the market they otherwise couldn't reach with a one-size approach? Or is the number closer to 10%? Instinct tells me it's closer to 10% - but I could certainly be wrong. On the other-hand, Microsoft has always gone for volume when it comes to licensing and if they hit a sweet spot in the market they could be opening up a whole new area for themselves. It's not like Microsoft has a history of doing this. :)

There are some amazing embedded developers who reach into the 'enterprise' programming tools to understand how the other side lives. They are generally in awe at the inefficiency of our programming practices. They also understand that we are solving a different problem set and temper their view with that perspective. I just think it's time we attempt to see the embedded market through their eyes to gain a better understanding of how each toolset can influence the other to build better systems and tools. It's only when both sides agree to an approach that we will see developments that will not only benefit the embedded toolsets, but possibly the 'enterprise' toolsets as well.

Thank you again for your replies,
-Steve

p.s. I really can't stand the term "Enterprise", but it's the best I could come up with to differentiate the development practices.

# September 29, 2004 11:48 AM

Steve Hebert said:

Peter, I did send you an email on the topic
dated 9/20/04 at 4:06 pm.

Here's the text:

To: peter_coffee@ziffdavis.com
Subject: Fine Tuned to a Fault - differences between large and small devices

I enjoyed your article “Fine Tuned to a Fault”. I spent a number of years working in the embedded space from a non-embedded perspective. I aided in the original development of the EIA/CEA 860 spec for controlling embedded devices on a lontalk control network. Aside from the technical details of that implementation there was a compelling argument for the customization of the operating system especially in the small, low-cost devices. The small devices have been very difficult for companies like Microsoft and Sun to make significant market-share headway (and that’s being generous). The difference in the small device vs. large device market is compelling and may account for Microsoft’s approach. Is Microsoft going after the small device market? I can’t say this is Microsoft’s motivation, I’m not privy to that information, but I’ve had a small device discussion with Microsoft reps over the past couple years. These have not been high level discussions, but I think the discussion is worth considering.

When you are dealing with small controllers (i.e. CO2 sensors, light switches, thermostats, etc..) piling on subsystems that are not used in the controllers application can be very cost prohibitive when you’re dealing with an item that is mass produced and sold at a lost cost. When the item you sell brings in $5/unit, a .20 component that does nothing is a compelling cost issue. And telling your customer that the $30 thermostat is better than the competitors $10 unit is a difficult sale to say the least – especially when doing this through a building control contract where you’re installing 200+ units on a multi-floor building.

Small devices are still the land of hand-crafted code and even operating systems. It’ll be interesting to see how Sun and Microsoft eventually wind their way into this market. There is a lot to be gained by standardization, but the model that Sun and Microsoft have traditionally followed does not apply nicely in this space.

-Steve

(signoff deleted)

# September 30, 2004 11:52 AM