IMO what FPGA vendors need (and what they've always needed) is to open up their architectures and bit stream formats so that FLOSS software developers can take a crack at it. There are myriad applications for FPGAs that aren't progressing well because it's too cumbersome to use the vendors' tools. These include reconfigurable computing and specialized high-performance parallel architecture. It's just too hard to make progress in these areas with vendor tools so the people working in those areas simply do it in other ways, causing FPGA vendors to miss out on a lot of opportunity and miss out on the savings of letting others write their tools.
These small FPGA companies need some good 3rd-party tools. They can hand off the synthesis to Synplify, but somebody needs to make some 3rd-party place & route tool that can service all these little FPGA companies. Surely 80% of the work is common to different architectures.
We hear even with Intel matching TSMC with die-pricing (a loss leader for Intel), Achronix 22nm part is not competitive (power and leakage) with other FPGA.
why part not sampling
why Achronix needs to change business model
The devices announced by Archronix are designed for backend fabric, they are loaded with serdes. It seems odd that Holt is talking about mobile applications: power management is very weak in FPGAs, maybe they have a different kind of configurability in mind, to knit together some Intel IP.
I have not seen anything about design software yet from this company, which is normally a big concern for FPGAs. It makes me think Intel may have more of a hand in the overall enterprise here than is evident at this point.
The last succesful FPGA start-up company was Actel, who shipped their first product in 1988. You could say "it's been a while since then". Indeed, but not for lack of trying. More than 25 start-ups have tried and failed. Most failed by the nature of their FPGAs, and a few failed by the market barriers erected by the four FPGA vendors. You cannot make a business out of FPGAs by making a new FPGA that is slightly faster or slightly cheaper than what is out there. To succeed you must double the FPGA performance or cut the price-per-LUT by half. Acronix long ago claimed to have done the first of these, but they could not deliver on that promise, even with Intel's fanciest process. So they change the business model to survive for a little while longer. Everybody comments on how tough the IP business is, but the FPGA business is much tougher. Their new tack is an acknowledgement of this fact.
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.