I think the embedded market can only increase in the immediate future, simply because everything is going that way. Not just automotive, military hardware, and industry, but everything. Even home appliances such as refrigerators, washing machines, stoves, HVAC systems, only recently still the province of mechanical timers and relays, are switching to embedded processing en masse.
So IMO, there's lots and lots of opportunities for all of the architectures, given that many applications have special needs. One size does not fit all, by a long shot.
Embedded System == A computer that does not look like a computer.
This looks like an article written by an Intel shill. I don't see much in the way of Intel processors in most embedded space. They are just too power hungry and expensive for most embedded markets.
Perhaps Intel still holds ground in some areas that are not power and price sensitive, eg. military and aerospace.
The market Rick mentioned is really oriented towards high end embedded computing: defense, avionics, telco, etc. Look at the suppliers (Kontron, C-W, GE) and at the physical formfactors: armored boxes with MIL spec Amphenol connectors. This is a high margin market---I get their trade magazines and they just speak high profit (glossy paper, ads with flags and ships and fighter jets).
The flip side is the low volumes. If Intel is basing its embedded strategy on this market, I think ARM is going to win in the long term. In order to compete, Intel would have to significantly increase integration by offering SoC chips rather than CPU+chipsets, and reduce prices dramatically. A $50 CPU that requires $30 chipset is just not enough anywhere but on the highest end.
Rick, could you please define the word "cut" in terms of goverment budgets. I ask because it's been redefined to mean something non-intuitive. In other words instead of spending the proposed 10% increase, they spend 7% and call that a 3% 'cut'.
A classic example is my illustrious governor. When he took over this state's budget it was $28B. Now it is $37B and yet in his preparation for running for president he is claiming to have "cut" $8B in his tenure.
In government-speak that's budget "cutting" for you.
At the Federal level this PR chicanery is even worse because they can blur the lines by printing money, or borrow from future generations, and current Chinese ones.
Overall, even with the so-called sequester, we will still spend more in absolute dollars than last year. But does that apply to the military portion of the budget? Are they actually going to spend less of our cash this year than last year? Or, like most departments, will they just see a reduction in the rate of spending growth?
Yeah, I'm much more in line with C VanDorne on this "cuts" business. What will really set things straight is when we see more long-lasting signs of the economy recuperating as a result of sequestration, rather than vv.
Every tax-payer dollar the government doesn't spend is a dollar someone or something else can spend or invest. We're fortunately not YET a country of pathetic incompetents who depend on the government for "leadership." Although the more time passes, the more that appears to be happeneing.
In the US, the government is supposed to implement what people want, not the other way around. Let's see just what this sequestration really does to the economy, before buying into the dire predictions of those who want to take control over the people. Shall we?
I can't imagine that Intel will fair well in "traditional" embedded design wins. It uses too much power compared to ARM and other options. While I agree that FPGAs can provide significant performance that comes at a cost in $. I can see the combination of DSP/floating point processor with an ARM core as a viable performer both in terms of cost and power.