It's also interesting to see the number of partner and 3rd party cores in the portfolios from Xilinx and Altera.
My company often uses a mix of cores from 3rd parties and the FPGA manufacturer, depending on technical characteristics, availability, reliability, and cost. Our products are also high performance, low volume using lots of FPGAs and very few (if any) ASICs.
It is more expensive to develop an ASIC at the next node. You have to have a big volume to justify the expense. FPGAs are more expensive per unit, but the development cost can be less. It is not free, but at least you can make software changes.
All these market data quote development cost of ASICs, but there is sizeable design, verification and implementation costs on FPGAs as well. The data should highlight the difference in costs between FPGA based and ASIC based development, not just the cost of an ASIC development project.
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.