Whats the difference from the two FPGA giants?
How about standby and low-frequence active power consumption measured in MICROamps not tens of milliamps?
How about packaging measuring just a few millimeters square?
How about production prices of a few dollars or less?
Actually, SiliconBlue FPGAs also use static memory configuration cells, just like Xilinx and Altera. Consequently, SiliconBlue FPGAs are reprogrammable.
SiliconBlue FPGAs also have on-chip and *optional* Nonvolatile Configuration Memory (NVCM). The NVCM provides a low-cost and secure configuration option, essentially providing single-chip integration.
You can configure a SiliconBlue FPGA from an SPI Flash, download it from a processor, or use the on-chip NVCM. It's your choice.
SiBlue is not antifuse; it is a CMOS FPGA with a non-volatile configuration memory section that allow the single package to boot itself. http://www.siliconbluetech.com/technology/NVCM.aspx
Nice packaging for mobile OEMs, very low power.. as long as the software works well, they have a really nice niche, I think.
Try to find an Altera or Xilinx device for $1.99. They are all about the high end. This is about the low end. You can sell a goodly number of chips into servers with 60% margins, or a gazillion into cell phones with much lower margins.
I agree the phase "To differentiate, you have to add hardware features to the devices", but how this FPGA be different from the two big giants - Altera and Xilinx? What actually the FPGA help in improving the hardware features? I guess adding more sensors may also sound.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.