Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 2 / 2
Kristin Lewotsky
User Rank
Blogger
re: The COTS dilemma
Kristin Lewotsky   8/16/2011 4:31:18 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi HM, Thanks for taking time to comment. I'm definitely interested in understanding where you see a disconnect. My understanding of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) has always been just as the name suggests – they constitute a standard, commercial product line designed to meet a standard set of specifications for applications across a broad range of markets. A COTS linear regulator, for example, might be used in architectural lighting, consumer electronics, and automotive designs. The broad customer base generates volumes that keep prices down. The devices may not literally be available off the shelf, but they are rapidly available. I consider commodity components to be a subset of COTS components. Commodity components are economical, available in volume, and basically vendor independent. COTS components are economical, available in volume, but are not necessarily as interchangeable. Does that fit with your understanding? If no, how does your definition differ? The problem I was trying to highlight in this blog, which I have heard about from the customer and vendor side over and over, is that consumer markets move quickly, and carry manufacturing with them. If a COTS component has been aimed at a specific market sector such as cell phones or digital cameras, and now that demand has evaporated because the latest generation of those devices imposes new requirements, the COTS component vendor will most likely move on and begin producing new products for their volume market. As far as they are concerned, in the context of their customer base, the older component has become obsolete. Continuing to produce it is no longer cost effective. In a perfect world, a similar device might be available from other vendors, but there's no guarantee that they will satisfy all of the specifications required for, say, a replacement MCU deployed in a Humvee built two years ago. Do you agree? Disagree? Please drop me a line and let me know. Best, K

Chuck Sampson
User Rank
Rookie
re: The COTS dilemma
Chuck Sampson   8/12/2011 11:45:16 AM
NO RATINGS
As an engineer with twenty years experience in military avionics power supply design I whole-heartedly agree with the author. I also know well the basic concept of COTS. Most program managers pick a COTS solution to avoid the NRE on a custom design. Then once it gets into the field, they end up paying the price when the part, such as a COTS power supply, doesn't work and no one knows anything it. The company that they bought it from either no longer exists, wants a lot of money to fix it, or they don't know how to fix it either. I have been down that road before. Custom designs in-house cost more upfront, but they save a lot of money over the life of the program, bank it.

_hm
User Rank
CEO
re: The COTS dilemma
_hm   8/11/2011 9:29:05 PM
NO RATINGS
I really do not agree with COTS understanding of author. Author should revisit and study basic concept of COTS.

batavier
User Rank
Rookie
re: The COTS dilemma
batavier   8/11/2011 9:20:55 PM
NO RATINGS
It all depends on your tolerance for failure. It also depends on what the the contract allows. Always check there first. Than, before you commit anything to your CAD/Drafting department, TALK TO YOUR FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD COMPONENT ENGINEER. It is his/her job to keep your parts selection within the parameters set by the program. P.s. I have a lot more to say on the subject. A lot more, but I would be exceeding the limits set by EETimes. So this is my "tweet" response

kartys
User Rank
Rookie
re: The COTS dilemma
kartys   8/11/2011 9:12:24 PM
NO RATINGS
I wish the article had explained eliminating lead from solder used in electronics equipment is a European Union requirement under RoHS that has no counterpart in the U.S. Unfortunately, the leads or conductive portions of most component parts are now tinned in almost pure tin - from which grow tin whiskers that cause shorts.

<<   <   Page 2 / 2


EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

How to Fly Without Catching the Dreaded Lurgy?
Max Maxfield
11 comments
I am currently not wearing my happy face. In fact, I am a "poorly soldier," as my mother would say when I was a little lad.

EDN Staff

11 Summer Vacation Spots for Engineers
EDN Staff
19 comments
This collection of places from technology history, museums, and modern marvels is a roadmap for an engineering adventure that will take you around the world. Here are just a few spots ...

Glen Chenier

Engineers Solve Analog/Digital Problem, Invent Creative Expletives
Glen Chenier
15 comments
- An analog engineer and a digital engineer join forces, use their respective skills, and pull a few bunnies out of a hat to troubleshoot a system with which they are completely ...

Larry Desjardin

Engineers Should Study Finance: 5 Reasons Why
Larry Desjardin
45 comments
I'm a big proponent of engineers learning financial basics. Why? Because engineers are making decisions all the time, in multiple ways. Having a good financial understanding guides these ...

Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)