I have a prediction.
We're about to see a shift in embedded systems development. Around 2008 or 2009, embedded microprocessors like the one in your cellphone, reached a threshold where they can perform as decent webservers without special tuning. Even with a slow database query or some inefficient templates, they've got the speed to handle real web serving. This means that suddenly the most efficient development pattern for embedded systems is not the proprietary hardware and software tools that have dominated the industry for the last 30 years, but the open source web development tools that have arisen in the last decade.
The transition will be painfully slow, and of course there are some niches where specialized hardware and real-time control will preclude the use of generic web tools-- motion control springs to mind. But I think that the combination of cheap hardware and modern web frameworks will crush the industrial controller market, like digital cameras did to film cameras.
First, some background on tiny computers
There are millions of tiny computers used for monitoring and control systems around the world. Let's break them into two categories: small (microcontrollers like the Arduino or a PIC development board, which runs $10-500) and large (embedded controllers like National Instruments hardware, which cost $500-5000).
To use the small ones, you write code from scratch, perhaps with some pre-written libraries to talk to certain peripherals and a bootloader to run your code on power-up. The vast majority cannot be connected to the internet without substantial effort, and when connected to the internet, they aren't powerful enough to work like most servers on the internet. For example, a webserver built on a small microcontroller would be overwhelmed by the background noise on the internet, i.e. traffic from bots and viruses. This kind of system is perfect if you want to log temperature in your basement, or turn on a light whenever the garage door is open. They're no good for running an inventory management system in a warehouse with 20 workers.
Below: an Arduino
The large ones come with an operating system, like Windows CE, Linux, or VxWorks. Most of the devices are reworked versions of hardware from the pre-internet days that have had Ethernet ports added to them. They can handle real internet traffic, but they usually use proprietary software to do it. They're shaped like a long, skinny shoebox.
Below: a larger controller
The change is that something equivalent to the iPhone, which uses a 600 MHz ARM processor, can store years of data and serve it up to anyone with a web browser in seconds with hardware cost of a few hundred dollars. Industrial controllers lose on cost of both hardware and programming time, and performance. The hardware has to be expensive to support the R&D costs, which are borne entirely by each manufacturer. There's just no way that even a large industrial control company, which might have a dozen dedicated programmers at best, can compete with the thousands of developers working on open source web software worldwide.
How web software development has changed
In the 90's, software development for the internet meant either writing server software or designing static web pages. Starting around 2000 (give or take a few years), websites started incorporating dynamic data, which was stored in databases. Around 2005, a new kind of web software gained popularity-- the web framework-- with the release of Ruby on Rails.
With old-style web development, a web programmer would write code that inserted data into a database, more code that updated the database with new data, and more code that retrieved and sorted the data for presentation in a web page. With a web framework, the programmer writes out a template for how the data should be presented on a webpage, and the framework figures out what to request from the database. Web frameworks can't scale to the level of a big website like Amazon, but for low traffic systems, they work fine and reduce the programming time needed dramatically.
Most of the time, what people want to do with microcontrollers is log some data from sensors and maybe trigger some actuators in response. After they log the data, people want to analyze the data, make graphs with it, and then do it again, maybe with a different sensor. This matches well with the typical database-backed website. The only substantial additions are code to interact with hardware-- read sensors and trigger actuators. I think this is the least developed part of the systems I expect we'll see in the next few years.
Proof of concept
It's definitely possible that I'm just some blowhard on the internet. I mean, I'm at least some blowhard on the internet, but I might still be right in predicting this change. To that end, I've done some testing to see whether I'm going in the right direction.
Using an off-the-shelf microcontroller kit that cost $339 plus shipping, I installed a Python web framework called Django and wrote code to make it act like a thermostat to replace the one in our house. It took about 2.5 weekends to write the code, which is much faster than I could write a similar application for something like an Arduino with an Ethernet carrier board, and this was my first try. I had played around with Django a few times previously, but this was my largest effort by far.
Below: the proof of concept
I could have written a similar application even faster using a GUI tool like LabView, but that requires specialized hardware that cost 3-10 times more-- either a dedicated PC with a USB device for sensors, or a industrial controller with a sensor module. With Django, I got an administrative interface, allowing different users and groups different levels of access, for free. If I want a central repository of users with LabView, I'm looking at another $800 for the "Datalogging and Supervisory Control Module." If I want to talk to a SQL database, I'll need the "Database Connectivity Toolkit" for another $1000. This is on top of the $1500 I would have paid for LabView already, plus the hardware.
Embedded control systems running web services are still an immature technology at best, but I think they'll grow up quickly in the next few years.
Why are you writing this?
I've been thinking about this change for a year or two now. I'm working on developing something like the Arduino, but a little heavier duty, so it can run a web framework, but with the hardware drivers pre-integrated. Send me an email at brandon at pingswept.org or post a comment if you want to know when it exists for real.
ARM has several different processor families in production at present. The newest releases are the Cortex processors, which come in three series-- A, R, and M. (See what they did there?) The M processors are the weakest and cheapest, below $10 even in low quantities. The R processors, intended for real-time applications like anti-lock brakes in cars, are the next step up. The top of the heap are the Cortex A series. So far, the A8 and A9 have been released, and the A5 is scheduled for release in 2011. The A8 is the processor at the heart of some recent smartphones, like the Iphone 3GS, the Nexus One and the Droid, for example.
Of the A8 and A9, the A8 is the cheaper, slower one, running in the 500 MHz to 1 GHz range; the A9 can have multiple cores and run up to 2 GHz. To me, the A8 crosses the threshold where we can build embedded systems that connect to the internet, have decent performance without requiring tuning to make applications run fast, and have a price in the $100-200 range. There are certainly many processors that can handle internet traffic in that price zone, like every decent consumer-grade Ethernet switch built in the last 10 years, but those are machines optimized for niche tasks. What's new is that we're finally getting enough clearance above the minimum requirements that cheap, general-purpose systems can function on the internet.
So if you want to make an embedded device that uses a Cortex A8, what chips can you buy? ARM is an unusual company in that they don't produce chips themselves; they license their designs to manufacturers in return for royalties on each chip sold. Right now, ARM lists 7 public licensees of the A8 design; in addition to those listed, Alchip and Ziilabs are claiming to have licensed the design. Several of the licensees, such as Ziilabs and Broadcom, are targeting niche multimedia applications and will likely only sell to large manufacturers of stuff like DVD players and video cameras. Of the remaining companies, two have released general-purpose A8 processors: Texas Instruments and Freescale.
Freescale has released the i.MX5x series, with two subfamilies: i.MX50 and i.MX51. They cost $30-40 in low quantities but the sole distributor listed (Avnet) reports a lead time of 26 weeks for all parts.
TI has two series of A8 processors: OMAP3 and the not-quite-released-yet Sitara AM35xx series. The OMAP3 series has been around since 2008, and there are several embedded Linux boards (Gumstix Overo, Beagleboard based around the OMAP35xx series, though none have a Ethernet port in their stock configuration. The first Sitara, probably the AM3517, will likely be the cheapest of the lot, but assuming we want to limit ourselves to chips that we can actually order, that leaves us with four choices (before we consider packaging): OMAP3503, OMAP3515, OMAP3525, and OMAP3530.
The two higher-end OMAP35xx chips, the OMAP3525 and OMAP3530, include a TMS320 DSP onboard, which is not worth the cost in a general purpose tool. This leaves us with the OMAP3503 or OMAP3515. The major difference between the two is the PowerVR SGX graphics accelerator in the OMAP3515, which, like the DSP, isn't worth the cost. Until the AM3517 or AM3505 hit the distributors, I think the OMAP3503 is the winner. We'd have to choose between the three different packages the chip comes in, but Digikey only has the CBB package (a 515-pin ball-grid array, distinguished from the CBC package by the pin spacing of 0.40 mm rather than 0.50 mm).
In the words of Captain Stillman, "Load and fire the weapon, soldier!"