Interface Protocols, USB3, PCI Express, MIPI, SATA... the winners and losers in 2012
January 9, 2013
Who makes the decision and declare that a specific interface protocol is successful? Not me, as I can only consolidate market share data and some insight information coming from the industry. The end user, when going to a shop (real or virtual) and spend a significant part of his budget to buy an electronic product, selecting among hundreds, will eventually decide for the success of a certain feature (SuperSpeed USB, HDMI or ThunderBolt). But, if you wait for the success of this feature on the mainstream market to integrate it into your system (OEM), your SoC (chip maker) or your IP portfolio (EDA/IP vendor), then you are respectively 12/18 months, 2 years or more late…
Related Semiconductor IP
- USB3.0 build-in clock PHY, SMIC 110g
- USB3.0 build-in clock PHY, SMIC 55LL
- USB3.0 build-in clock PHY, SMIC 40LP, type-C
- USB3.0 build-in clock PHY, HLMC 40LP, type-C
- USB3.0 build-in clock PHY, UMC 40LP, type-C
Related Blogs
- Interface Protocols, USB3, PCI Express, MIPI, DDRn... the winner and losers in 2013
- Navigating the Complexity of Address Translation Verification in PCI Express 6.0
- Interface Protocols, USB3, HDMI, MIPI... the winner and losers in 2011
- According with Cadence, PCI Express gen-3, to be the PCIe solution for the mainstream market as soon as in 2012
Latest Blogs
- Why Choose Hard IP for Embedded FPGA in Aerospace and Defense Applications
- Migrating the CPU IP Development from MIPS to RISC-V Instruction Set Architecture
- Quintauris: Accelerating RISC-V Innovation for next-gen Hardware
- Say Goodbye to Limits and Hello to Freedom of Scalability in the MIPS P8700
- Why is Hard IP a Better Solution for Embedded FPGA (eFPGA) Technology?