株式会社グローバルインフォメーション
TEL: 044-952-0102
表紙
市場調査レポート

世界におけるM2M組込みソフトウェアの需要側面分析市場

The Global Market for M2M Embedded Software Demand-Side Analysis

発行 VDC Research Group, Inc. 商品コード 296530
出版日 ページ情報 英文 15 Pages; 101 Exhibits
納期: 即日から翌営業日
価格
本日の銀行送金レート: 1USD=114.71円で換算しております。
Back to Top
世界におけるM2M組込みソフトウェアの需要側面分析市場 The Global Market for M2M Embedded Software Demand-Side Analysis
出版日: 2014年02月21日 ページ情報: 英文 15 Pages; 101 Exhibits
担当者のコメント
PDF及びExcelのセットにてお届けします。Excelデータには詳細数値が記載されております。
概要

当レポートでは、様々な市場セグメントにわたるM2M組込みシステムエンジニアリングOEMの要件、嗜好および動向について、特にオペレーティングシステム(OS)プラットフォームの利用に焦点を当てて調査分析し、VDCによる調査に基づいた詳細分析・統計を提供しており、OS、開発ツール、およびプロセッサーの選定がその他の技術選定の特徴・予測性能に及ぼす影響などをまとめ、概略以下の構成でお届けいたします。

エグゼクティブサマリー

  • 主な調査結果

世界市場の概要・予測

  • 世界市場の概要
    • 図1:現在プロセッシングユニット・将来の予測
    • 図2:プライマリー・追加プロセッサー上にインストラクションセットアーキテクチャー
  • 世界市場の見解・洞察
    • 近年の発展

VPSエンドユーザー動向・洞察

  • 概要
    • スケジュール順守、全体市場の比較およびVPSユーザー
    • どの仮想プロトタイピングソリューションが使われているかのタスク
  • 見解・洞察
    • VPSを使用している組織は大型の、より複雑なプロジェクトを抱える
  • 概要

追加の見解・洞察

開発コストの分布:ARMおよびx86

追加の図表

本レポートについて

List of Exhibits (Excel File)

  • Exhibit 1: Type of products currently in development (Number of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 2: Personally working on or involved with engineering of embedded or mobile system/device (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 3: Type of end device in which product/system will be used (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 4: Automotive application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 5: Consumer electronics application for which product targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 6: Digital signage application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 7: Energy/power application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 8: Industrial automation application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 9: Medical application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 10: Military/aerospace application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 11: Type of mobile phone (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 12: Office/business automation application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 13: Rail/transportation application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 14: Retail automation application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 15: Communication/networking application for which product is targeted (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 16: Capabilities/features included in current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 17: Capabilities/features expect would be included in a similar project three years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 18: Does project have to meet any safety-critical regulatory requirements? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 19: Expect that a similar project three years from now would have to meet any safety-critical regulatory requirements? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 20: Project's estimated total length in calendar months (Calendar Months)
  • Exhibit 21: Current project's schedule (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 22: Reasons for delays in project schedule (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 23: Estimated number of full-time engineers working on project (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 24: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Project manager (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 25: Number of engineers working on project that act as: System architect/engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 26: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Algorithm development/functional expert (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 27: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Software engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 28: Number of engineers working on project that act as: IC/SoC engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 29: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Board engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 30: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Mechanical engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 31: Number of engineers working on project that act as: Test/verification/validation engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 32: Estimated number of full-time engineers working for organization (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 33: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Project manager (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 34: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: System architect/engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 35: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Algorithm development/functional expert (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 36: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Software engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 37: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: IC/SoC engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 38: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Board engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 39: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Mechanical engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 40: Number of engineers working for organization that act as: Test/verification/validation engineer (Average Number of Engineers)
  • Exhibit 41: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Electrical (Average Development Costs)
  • Exhibit 42: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Mechanical (Average Development Costs)
  • Exhibit 43: Estimated distribution of development costs on project: Software (Average Development Costs)
  • Exhibit 44: Estimated portion of software development costs associated with licensing commercial software on project (Portion of Development Budget)
  • Exhibit 45: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Requirements/design specification (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 46: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Firmware/BSP development (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 47: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: OS development (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 48: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Middleware development (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 49: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Application development (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 50: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Testing, debugging, and QA (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 51: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: Prototyping (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 52: Estimated percent of the software development labor cycle that will likely be spent by your development team in each of the following stages: HW/SW integration/system validation (Percent of Labor Cycle)
  • Exhibit 53: Processing unit(s) used on current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 54: Processing unit(s) expect to use for a similar system three years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 55: Instruction set architecture used by Primary processor within project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 56: Instruction set architecture used by Additional processors (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 57: Processor family of Primary processor (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 58: Processor family of Additional processors (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 59: Primary operating system used on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 60: Commercially licensed operating system used on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 61: Open source, commercially obtained operating system used on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 62: Open source, freely and/or publicly available operating system used on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 63: Most important characteristics when selecting the primary embedded operating system (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 64: Likelihood of using the same operating system on a similar project three years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 65: Does project use any additional/secondary operating systems? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 66: Software stack components, other than OS, required on current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 67: Software stack components, other than OS, expect a similar project 3 years from now would require (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 68: Types of tools using on current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 69: Type of tools expect to use on a similar project three years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 70: Approximate cost budgeted for all of the tools using on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 71: Way in which software tools budget is expected to change on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 72: Percent by which tools budget is expected to increase on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 73: Percent by which tools budget is expected to decrease on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 74: Tasks for which virtual system platforms are used (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 75: Which virtual system platform(s) (virtual prototype of HW for SW development) are you currently using? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 76: Which of the following characteristics were most important when selecting your software development platform? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 77: Where is the model creation done in your organization? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 78: Using an integrated development environment (IDE) for current project? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 79: Most important characteristics when selecting the IDE used (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 80: Languages using to develop software on the current project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 81: Way in which total lines of code to change is expected to change on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 82: Percentage that lines of code is expected to increase on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 83: Percentage that lines of code is expected to decrease on next project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 84: Importance of security to project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 85: Actions that organization has taken in response to security requirements (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 86: Commercial security vendors currently using on project (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 87: Security capabilities provided by commercial products (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 88: Security capabilities expect to deploy on a similar project three years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 89: Organization's need for specialized, security-oriented professional services (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 90: Organization's need for specialized, security-oriented professional services 3 years from now (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 91: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: Developer community (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 92: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: Google (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 93: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: Open Handset Alliance (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 94: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: Independent software vendors (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 95: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: OEMs (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 96: Importance of the following in bringing Android to new device classes: Silicon vendors (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 97: Opinion as to the overall capabilities and maturity of available commercial software solutions in enabling the development of Android-based systems/devices (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 98: In what country is your engineering organization headquartered? (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 99: Number of employees at all offices, sites, & locations (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 100: Organization's primary industry (Percent of Respondents)
  • Exhibit 101: Respondents' approximate annual salary (Percent of Respondents)
目次

This report investigates requirements, preferences, and trends of M2M embedded system engineering OEMs across a variety of market segments. Specifically, this report focuses on the use of operating system (OS) platforms as well as different processor and development tool types by embedded engineers in current development projects and expected use in upcoming projects. The in-depth analysis and statistics provided in this research are based on VDC's 2013 M2M Embedded System Engineering survey. Additionally, this report provides insight into how the selection of OS, development tools, and processors can impact other characteristics of technology selection and project performance.

What questions are ddressed?

  • What impact is ARM's expansion into new vertical markets having on OEM software and tool choices?
  • What should OS vendors think about when attempting to convert in-house OS users?
  • For what processor architectures are virtual platform users developing software?
  • What types of secondary processors are OEMs incorporating into their embedded systems?
  • What are the leading drivers and inhibitors of Android adoption?
  • How are security concerns impacting OS, processor, and development tool decisions?
  • Which tooling and strategy decisions are successful in helping OEMs accelerate time to market?

Executive Summary

Rapid evolution in device functionality expectations and complexity of the components and tools needed to design these products are spurring a number of changes in systems engineering. The semiconductor landscape is advancing faster than ever to meet industry needs as OEMs more commonly incorporate a range of processor types and multiprocessor architectures in their newest devices. Suppliers such as Intel and ARM have responded by introducing new models and expanding into new device classes at an accelerated pace. Engineering organizations are reevaluating their operating system (OS) decisions in the face of the changes in processor technologies and expanding code bases. These advances are rendering some legacy in-house OSs obsolete while accelerating the rate at which Android and other new options become viable alternatives.

Trends fostering growth across the development tool classes include the need to design increasingly complex and connected embedded devices, time-to-market pressures, tight budgets, industry process or safety standards, and awareness of the impact from software vulnerabilities. Newer tooling solutions from suppliers such as IBM Rational, MathWorks, PTC, Synopsys, Coverity, and others are offering increased automation, improved functionality, tool-to-tool integration, and enhanced security to better meet current needs of OEMs. However, the aforementioned pressures continue to mount, challenging existing practices of piecemeal tool use and siloed development workflows. As a result, adoption of more collaborative development practices such as Agile, DevOps, and engineering domain integration is accelerating.

[Data available in full report]

Key Findings

  • XX.X% of respondents to VDC's 2013 Embedded Developers survey are now using a primary processor with either a 32- or 64-bit set architecture, with only XX.X% not citing use of additional processors on their current project.
  • Despite wider use of development tools as a means to increase productivity and efficiency, XX% of projects are falling behind schedule.
  • General-purpose software development skill sets are becoming increasingly relevant, with object-oriented languages like Java and C# gaining on and even displacing the leading embedded programming of C (used on XX.X% of current projects) for new applications in several segmentations.
  • The virtual prototyping solutions market is maturing with the fastest adoption gains occurring outside the typical EDA customer base.
  • Interest in Android from OEMs in traditional industries is due in large part to the platform's robust user-interface (UI) capabilities, integrated connectivity, and royalty-free licensing model. However as the number of engineering organizations considering Android increases, concerns over security continues to restrain adoption.

Global Market Overview and and Forecast

Global Market at a Glance

Exhibit 1: Processing units on current and future projects

Exhibit 2: Instruction set architecture on primary and additional processors

Global Market Ideas & Insights

Rapid evolution in the expectations for device functionality, the complexity of the hardware and software components, and the languages and tools needed to design embedded products is spurring a multitude of changes in systems engineering. OEMs need higher bit count and more powerful processors and are often including multiple processor types within the same system to meet the performance demands of their next-generation devices. Mounting requirements to design higher-performance devices and an expanding range of options from the portfolios of semiconductor suppliers will continue to accelerate the adoption of high-end processors. In VDC's 2013 Embedded Developers survey, XX.X% of engineers indicated their current project uses a primary processor with either a 32- or 64-bit set architecture. A majority engineers are also utilizing additional processors; only XX.X% do not use any additional processors on their current project. Functional requirements for embedded systems continue to advance, driving a parallel increase in the necessary computational resources contained within these devices. As a result, use rates for almost all processing types are projected to increase on upcoming projects.

C remains the leading embedded programming language, used on XX.X% of current projects. However general-purpose software development skill sets will become increasingly relevant. The use of object-oriented languages like Java and C# is increasing and even displacing use of C for new applications in several segmentations. Mixed-language software development is still the practical approach taken by many engineering organizations. However, a willingness to use languages once considered too slow and abstracted for is opening up new opportunities for enterprise developers to enter and gain relevance within the embedded marketplace.

Development tool use rates and approaches are also changing as the embedded industries evolve. Development tool use is on the rise as OEMs across industries need to manage continued growth in volume and complexity of their code bases. Several tool classes remain under pressure from the availability of maturing no- or low-cost open-source development tools.

Growth in the popularity and viability of open-source integrated development environments (IDEs), such as GNU and Eclipse, serve as an example. Nearly XX% of embedded engineers are using IDEs on their current project, with more than a quarter citing the use of the open-source Eclipse Platform SDK. This raises competitive pressure on operating system and tools suppliers but also lowers the barriers to entry for other software and hardware vendors to provide solutions that can fill gaps in their own product suites. Open-source IDEs should continue to gain further traction throughout the embedded market, especially as more software developers enter the embedded domain with an IT background that often includes a cultural opposition to premium-priced IDEs. We expect the growing use of languages like Java for embedded software development will further fuel this trend.

Tool vendors, especially in the lower-margin industries such as consumer electronics and mobile phones, face an added burden of proving and justifying additional solution value in comparison to the open-source choices. However, as the need to comply with process or safety standards grows increasingly common, more engineering organizations will look to formal solutions from commercial suppliers to ensure the necessary rigor in their development processes.

XX Commercial in Confidence.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

  • Key Findings

Global Market Overview and Forecast

  • Global Market at a Glance
    • Exhibit 1: Processing units on current and future projects
    • Exhibit 2: Instruction set architecture on primary and additional processors
  • Global Market Ideas & Insights
    • Recent Developments

VPS End-User Trends and Insights

  • At a Glance
    • Exhibit 3: Schedule adherence, comparison of overall market and VPS users
    • Exhibit 4: Tasks for which virtual prototyping solutions are used
  • Ideas & Insights
    • Exhibit 5: Organizations using VPS have larger, more complex projects
  • At a Glance
    • Exhibit 6: Distribution of development costs by ARM and x86
    • Exhibit 7: Percent expecting lines of code to increase on next project

Additional Ideas & Insights

Additional Exhibits

  • Exhibit 8: Embedded engineer expected tool usage rates in 2016 by vertical market
  • Exhibit 9: Distribution of development costs by domain by vertical market
  • Exhibit 10: Importance of ecosystem participants in bringing Android to new device classes (Mean of respondents; n=403)
Back to Top