Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Transmeta Goes Embedded

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the everyone-will-have-web-pads-in-a-year dept.

quinticent writes: "An article at CNet talks about Transmeta's entrance into the embedded market. CEO Mark Allen is quoted as saying, "By this time next year, it could equal the notebook market." Wow, when can I get my hands on a cheap embedded Transmeta system to play around with?"

6 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. They have no choice, Intel has awakened. by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Eventually if you poke enough times Chipzilla will wake, and thats exactly what has happened. Both AMD and Transmeta have to look at other markets to sustain their profits. AMD has flash memory, and Transmeta is now realizing it needs to enter a market other than the laptop market. I would not be surprised to see Transmeta leave the notebook market completely within a few years.

    Simply put, their advantage over Intel in the notebook market is nearly gone, Intel simply did what they constantly do, get off their butts and release the products they should have already had out there, and at prices where they should have been.

    If anything, Transmeta's best contribution to the notebook market was in forcing Intel to release superior products are reasonable prices.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  2. Embedded? by zCyl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realize transmeta is a poster child company for the Slashdot community, but they really haven't made a notable contribution to the industry since their creation. I can't help but consider this another pie-in-the-sky agenda for them to attempt, because I can't come up with any reason for the embedded market to inflate that significantly that quickly. Yes, technologically we CAN embed technology in a lot of items, but what benefit do the consumers gain from this that makes it worth their money?

    When it comes down to it, especially in a recession, average consumers aren't going to buy something that doesn't make their lives better.

    1. Re:Embedded? by shibut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue here is at what price. If it was a 5 cent overhead I think you would agree that most people would buy LAN-ready appliances. Not to mention blue-tooth ready cell phones. The problem is that, for example, the blue tooth chip set is way over $5 even which by the time it gets to the consumer means increasing the cost of their cellphone by 50-100%. This ruins the attractiveness.

      Similarly, with a Transmeta processor, if you could for example put multiple sensors in your house that would wirelessly transmit humidity and temp readings to a central unit that would adjust the thermostat for, say $50, I think many people would do this. In the future these sensors could be embedded in the AC vents, for example, PROVIDED they are very cheap (not sure what an acceptable price is but I'm assuming $1 should do it).

      I think the issue here is that transmeta will not enable a $1-$5 solution so their "penetration" into the embedded market depends on the existence of complementary simpler chipsets (e.g., in the temp case transmeta could be embedded in the central unit).

    2. Re:Embedded? by bluebomber · · Score: 3, Insightful
      ...because I can't come up with any reason for the embedded market to inflate that significantly that quickly



      Uhhh... you don't *work* in the embedded market, do you? I write embedded software. The market is already huge. Don't think about where you *might* want to put microprocessors, think about where they already are: phones (cell/cordless), tvs, set-top boxes, microwave ovens, vcrs/dvds, stereo equipment, ... the list goes on and on. Motorola, TI, and Intel are all big players in this market (among many others). As for transmeta being a player? The embeded market moves slower than that...

      --
      The Daily Build
    3. Re:Embedded? by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Similarly, with a Transmeta processor, if you could for example put multiple sensors in your house that would wirelessly transmit humidity and
      temp readings to a central unit that would adjust the thermostat for,

      So why would such simple-minded code need the code-morphing technology that defines Transmeta ? As far as I can tell, code-morphing only makes sense in higher-end computing devices; application in the embedded market where device requirements are far simpler seems to nullify any advantage Transmeta might have. In fact, the overhead this technology almost certainly imposes, along with the overheads associated with the bevy of patents surround Transmeta's (here superfluous) technologies would probably place such chips at a marked disadvantage.

  3. No, this is NOT what Transmeta is for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Transmeta has a low-power product which they want to sell at a premium that solves the x86 compatibility problem. If they can stay alive long enough, they have an architecture whose performance they hope to scale and compete on pure performance.

    The embedded market needs low-power, but is a low-premium, high volume market where people are willing to rewrite applications to the chip. Therefore it lacks the premiums that Transmeta wants, and lacks the requirement for x86 compatibility which is their greatest strength.

    Similarly, and ironically, Linux doesn't help Transmeta any either. Linux is a highly portable OS with a lot of useful software which is readily ported along with it. This undercuts Transmeta's interest in marketing to people who need x86 compatibility.

    Therefore until they can achieve competitive x86 performance (which was their original goal), their best target market is long-lasting Windows notebooks. Because they are tied to end-user Windows, they need to run on x86. Because they are notebooks, battery life is a requirement. By luck the business market can pay top dollar, so they can get a good premium.