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.