Global Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Market Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and …

Furthermore, the study emphasizes the major leading market players Altera, Xilinx, Microsemi, Lattice Semiconductor, Achronix Semiconductor Corp, …

The report provides an influential source to evaluate the “Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market” and other important details relating to it. The study divulges the in-depth evaluation and factual stats of the industry. It presents an elementary pattern of the Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market, that comprises applications, classifications, industry chain structure, and definitions. Moreover, it entails an all-embracing presumption of the industry and represents significant details, insights, and industry-substantiated statistics of the global Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market.

Click here to access the report::

Additionally, the report embraces projections inferred with the assistance of an apt set of methodologies and assumptions. It provides you data and analysis corresponding to categories such as technology, segments, geographies, market type, and applications. Furthermore, the study emphasizes the major leading market players Altera, Xilinx, Microsemi, Lattice Semiconductor, Achronix Semiconductor Corp, QuickLogic, Atmel, SiliconBlue Technologie, Intel, Tabula, Texas Instruments, Silego, Cypress Semiconductor, Aeroflex across the world with particular comprising company profiles, market share, contact details, product specifications, images, and sales.

Apart from this, the research also details a number of characteristics related to the Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market, including standardization, major trends, deployment designs, ecosystem player profiles, operator case studies, potential roadmap, regulatory landscape, methods, possibilities, technologies, value chain, challenges, and drivers. Also, it provides a layout with regard to the Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market’s dynamics, by pinpointing several aspects comprising limitations, value chain, expenditure milieu, client acceptance, and drivers.

Read Detailed Index of full Research Study

The report is collected works of first-hand statistics apart from the qualitative and quantitative assessment by market analysts, participation from industry specialists & industry accomplices throughout the value chain. Moreover, it represents a methodical evaluation of macroeconomic markers, parent Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market trends, and established factors together with market appeal according to the segments Low Density FPGA, High Density FPGA, Market Trend by Application Medical Electronics, Aerospace and Defense, Consumer Electronics, Automotive, Wireless Communications, Industrial, Others. Also, the qualitative influence is charted by the research of numerous variables on the market geographies together with segments.

The report comprehends that with this cutthroat and swiftly budding circumstances, the state-of-the-art marketing particulars are central to accelerate performance and compose significant conclusions for growth and profitability. As a result, this report works as a systematic set of essential data that will be provided to individuals who ask for it.

There are 15 Chapters to display the Global Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market

Chapter 1, Definition, Specifications and Classification of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) , Applications of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) , Market Segment by Regions;

Chapter 2, Manufacturing Cost Structure, Raw Material and Suppliers, Manufacturing Process, Industry Chain Structure;

Chapter 3, Technical Data and Manufacturing Plants Analysis of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) , Capacity and Commercial Production Date, Manufacturing Plants Distribution, R&D Status and Technology Source, Raw Materials Sources Analysis;

Chapter 4, Overall Market Analysis, Capacity Analysis (Company Segment), Sales Analysis (Company Segment), Sales Price Analysis (Company Segment);

Chapter 5 and 6, Regional Market Analysis that includes United States, China, Europe, Japan, Korea & Taiwan, Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Segment Market Analysis (by Type);

Chapter 7 and 8, The Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Segment Market Analysis (by Application) Major Manufacturers Analysis of Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) ;

Chapter 9, Market Trend Analysis, Regional Market Trend, Market Trend by Product Type Low Density FPGA, High Density FPGA, Market Trend by Application Medical Electronics, Aerospace and Defense, Consumer Electronics, Automotive, Wireless Communications, Industrial, Others;

Chapter 10, Regional Marketing Type Analysis, International Trade Type Analysis, Supply Chain Analysis;

Chapter 11, The Consumers Analysis of Global Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) ;

Chapter 12, Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) Research Findings and Conclusion, Appendix, methodology and data source;

Chapter 13, 14 and 15, Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) sales channel, distributors, traders, dealers, Research Findings and Conclusion, appendix and data source.

Enquire Here Get customization & check discount for report

Reasons for Buying Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGA) market

This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics

It provides a forward looking perspective on different factors driving or restraining market growth

It provides a six-year forecast assessed on the basis of how the market is predicted to grow

It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future

It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors

It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments

Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Microsoft Partners, Responding To Competitors’ Complaints Of New License Transfer Policy, Say …

The change in the licensing benefit prompted derisive tweets this week from Amazon CTO Werner Vogels and Google Cloud President Robert Enslin, …

While Microsoft’s recent licensing benefit changes have provoked harsh words from Amazon and Google executives, Microsoft partners are happy to see the software giant pressing its advantage to drive Azure cloud adoption in whatever ways it can.

“Personally, I think Microsoft is just being aggressive about driving their solutions,” said Matt Scherocman, president of Interlink Cloud Advisors, a Microsoft partner based in Cincinnati.

That’s the smart move.

“They know that whichever platform gets the first workload from a customer, it’s way more likely to get the second and the tenth workload,” Scherocman said.

[Related: AWS, Microsoft Will Compete For $10B JEDI Contract, Pentagon Says]

Microsoft announced changes to its Bring Your Own License policy on Aug. 1, claiming the advent of dedicated, single-tenant servers offered by major cloud providers “has blurred the line between traditional outsourcing and cloud services and has led to the use of on-premises licenses on cloud services.”

After Oct. 1, new Windows Server and SQL Server licenses, except for customers purchasing Software Assurance plans, won’t be transferrable to dedicated instances in Alibaba, AWS, Google or, for that matter, Azure clouds.

But customers can get a discount with the Azure Hybrid Benefit that dramatically reduces the sting of licensing changes when migrating Windows Server and SQL Server from corporate data centers to Microsoft’s public cloud.

The change in the licensing benefit prompted derisive tweets this week from Amazon CTO Werner Vogels and Google Cloud President Robert Enslin, who alluded back to the strategies Microsoft employed in the 90s.

AWS Vice President Sandy Carter posted on LinkedIn, a Microsoft property, that the licensing change certainly seems “like they’ve been taken from the old guard software vendor playbook.”

In response, a Microsoft spokesperson told CRN via email: “we believe in and will continue to give our customers choice in where they run their Microsoft software, including with other major cloud providers.”

The policy of allowing transfer of licenses to hosting outsourcers was never intended to apply to clouds. But as the hyper-scalers introduced dedicated, single-tenant options, those became a loophole for invoking BYOL, Microsoft partners told CRN.

Those partners see hypocrisy in the outcry of competitors.

“Microsoft is leveraging their position in the installed base for a competitive advantage,” Allen Falcon, CEO of Cumulus Global, a Microsoft partner based in Westborough, Mass., told CRN.

That’s not so different to what Amazon and Google have done in the past.

Falcon cited Amazon entering a deal with Toys R Us to be an exclusive seller in exchange for using its e-commerce site back in 2000. That lasted until “Amazon learned how to do toys and started competing.”

And Google hasn’t been shy to leverage its Search dominance in benefit of other businesses, he noted. An FTC investigation even caught Google manipulating search rankings to push its own products over competitors.

“Microsoft is able to offer existing customers preferred pricing for staying with Microsoft,” Falcon said. That just falls in the category of “pricing competition”—which doesn’t just have to be about the cost of renting a CPU or RAM.

David Barter, senior Microsoft practice director at GreenPages, a solution provider based in Kittery, Maine, echoed that sentiment.

“Apple and Oracle and all the big tech giants around the world have made it abundantly clear that they’re self-serving,” Barter said. “Amazon and Google Cloud are not any different.”

Amazon has achieved its current market position by leveraging the ability to provide state-of-the-art e-commerce hosting on a platform easy to consume and manage. And Google has often leaned on its powerful Search engine to spur cloud sales, Barter said.

Microsoft’s strength isn’t in Search (despite Bing) or improving the e-commerce experience. But where the Redmond, Wash.-based tech giant shines is the breadth and popularity of its enterprise software portfolio.

“If you’re Microsoft, is that a bad thing? Is that against the rules?” Barter asked. “Everybody has an advantage. Let’s play the advantage.”

Some Microsoft-aligned solution providers don’t really see much of an impact in the licensing benefit change anyway.

The loophole that allowed transferring licenses to clouds, as long as they were dedicated servers, was not one most New Signature customers cared about, said Reed Wiedower, CTO of the Washington, D.C.-based Microsoft partner.

“Most of the organizations who are taking advantage of the public cloud aren’t trying to do so via their existing license model,” Wiedower said. “If anything, the cloud seems to have attracted customers who are more interested in OpEx expenditures.”

Microsoft also downplayed the changes that prompted a backlash from competitors.

Because it only limits transfers to dedicated cloud services, the updated policy will not impact “the vast majority of customers who are multi-tenant and upgrade to new server versions gradually,” its spokesperson told CRN.

The Azure Hybrid Benefit, on the other hand, might prove extremely significant, as large SQL deployments get very expensive very fast, the same partners told CRN.

Barter, at GreenPages, said that option to buy flexibility in transferring existing licenses is a valuable tool in the arsenal of a reseller.

“As a practice leader here at GreenPages and an evangelist, it allows me to give the customer more than one option,” Barter said. “They don’t feel like they’re being forced into buying something they’ve already paid for.”

Scherocman, of Interlink, also sees Azure Hybrid Benefit as the centerpiece of Microsoft’s strategy to leverage its primary products—SQL and Windows Server—for advantage in the cloud wars.

And that’s just what he wants to see out of the tech giant his company partners with.

“For our practice, anything that helps drive Azure helps us do more business with our clients,” Scherocman told CRN.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

The End of Cheap Ride-Hail, a Teen Hacker, and More News

Uber and Lyft reported quarterly financial results this week and they’re still losing plenty of money. It seems that for now the two are more focused on …

Uber and Lyft may soon raise their prices, a bored teenager hacked popular education software, and Apple is upping its bounty to find iPhone vulnerabilities. Here’s the news you need to know, in two minutes or less.

Want to receive this two-minute roundup as an email every weekday? Sign up here!

Today’s Headlines

Uber and Lyft suggest the days of cheap rides could be over

Uber and Lyft reported quarterly financial results this week and they’re still losing plenty of money. It seems that for now the two are more focused on improving profitability, and less on competing with each other, which means cheap rides and coupons may soon be a thing of the past.

A teen hacker found bugs in school software affecting millions

Some kids play sports, others study for tests, but one teen spent his after-school time hacking common education software from Blackboard and Follett, exposing serious bugs that would allow a hacker to gain deep access to student data. In Blackboard’s case in particular, he found 5 million vulnerable records for students and teachers including everything from grades to immunization records. If that’s what a bored teenager could accomplish, what could more seasoned hackers have done?

Fast Fact: $1.5 million

That’s the maximum bounty Apple is now offering for hackers who can find and report vulnerabilities in iPhones. Hitting that number will require finding a series of interconnected vulnerabilities in a beta version of iOS—pretty unlikely—but Apple upping its payments overall is a welcome sign of better relations with the security community.

WIRED Recommends: Onewheel Pint

You’ve probably seen these crazy contraptions: one wheel with a foot platform on either side that people use to fly down the sidewalks. Well, my friend, now there’s a more affordable version. Time to join the cool kids and get one for yourself.

News You Can Use

Everything you should know about random elevator phone calls (it’s a thing).

This daily roundup is available as a newsletter. You can sign up right here to make sure you get the news delivered fresh to your inbox every weekday!

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

Microsoft slammed by Amazon and Google for outsourcing price rises

Microsoft slammed by Amazon and Google for outsourcing price rises … Amazon Web Services Chief Technology Officer, Werner Vogels, was also …

Senior executives from Google Cloud and Amazon Web Services (AWS) are throwing shade at Microsoft for their upcoming price increase.

At the same time of announcing the release of its Azure Dedicated Host service; Microsoft also declared the increase in the price of their cloud and software services earlier this month:

We’re updating the outsourcing terms for Microsoft on-premises licenses to clarify the distinction between on-premises/traditional outsourcing and cloud services and create more consistent licensing terms across multitenant and dedicated hosted cloud services. Beginning October 1, 2019, on-premises licenses purchased without Software Assurance and mobility rights cannot be deployed with dedicated hosted cloud services offered by the following public cloud providers: Microsoft, Alibaba, Amazon (including VMware Cloud on AWS), and Google. They will be referred to as “Listed Providers”.

The completely unintended effect of the policy would be that it would be dramatically cheaper to run Microsoft’s software on their own cloud rather than on AWS or Google Cloud.

Google Cloud President, Robert Enslin, had this to say on Twitter:

Shelf-ware. Complex pricing. And now vendor lock-in. Microsoft is taking its greatest hits from the ’90s to the cloud.

Amazon Web Services Chief Technology Officer, Werner Vogels, was also quick to chip in:

Yet another bait+switch by $MSFT, eliminating license benefits to force MS use. 1st, MS took away BYOL SQL Server on RDS, now no Windows upgrades w/BYOL on#AWS. Hard to trust a co. who raises prices, eliminates benefits, + restricts freedom of choice.

AWO’s Vice President, Sandy Carter, was also disapproving of the decision; making a LinkedIn post titled: Why AWS is the best place for your Windows workloads, and how Microsoft is changing their licensing to try to awkwardly force you into Azure.

In the blog post, Carter implies that the decision is a matter of abuse of power:

Microsoft wants you to believe that this is just “removal of outsourcing rights”, but Microsoft is looking to restrict what computer you can use. And what cloud.

In Microsoft’s defence, the company claimed that their offering of more services, as well as an increase in competition, is responsible for the price rise. Alternatively, we could just be seeing a bit of the “old Microsoft” come out as they struggle to dominate their new growth centre.

Source: developsonline

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts

3 things you don’t know about open source

This latest “contest” in question arose from Kelly Sommers’ reaction to Amazon CTO Werner Vogels‘ tweet, complaining that Microsoft was hiking the …

Video: Open source software is the future of enterprise technologyEnterprise companies use open source code because it’s useful, reliable, and community vetted. TechRepublic contributor Matt Asay explains the big reasons open source is the future of enterprise tech.

“Open source purity contests are not uncomfortable, they are just boring,” said Andrew Shafer, and he’s right. This latest “contest” in question arose from Kelly Sommers’ reaction to Amazon CTO Werner Vogels’ tweet, complaining that Microsoft was hiking the cost of running its software on rival clouds so as to push customers to run workloads on Azure. Sommers’ argument was hardly germane to Vogels’ tweet, but it nonetheless kicked off a contentious discussion of what cloud providers like AWS “owe” to the open source code they monetize.

It’s an abysmally tired debate, but this time it did yield some interesting insights. Here are three.

Counting contributors

For one thing, measuring open source value isn’t as simple as counting up lines of code. Or contributors. In Linux, for example, it was long the strategy of interested parties to simply hire the top contributors to the Linux kernel. You could go from zero to hero simply by hiring a top 10 kernel committer, without really doing much beyond supporting their salary. This is one way of fostering open source, but hardly the best.

SEE: The rise of Kubernetes epitomizes the transition from big data to flexible data (ZDNet)

In Redis, as another example, AWS engineering exec (and previously Red Hat engineer) Matt Wilson highlighted that Redis Labs, which currently complains that AWS isn’t contributing enough, was roughly equal with AWS in terms of involvement in the project until 2015: Both were making money from it and contributing little to nothing back in terms of code. Then Redis Labs hired Redis maintainer Salvatore Sanfilippo and suddenly became a big contributor. Sanfilippo was the one doing the work, and always had been. It’s good that now he could get full-time pay for doing that work, but it’s hardly a sign of long-term, incremental involvement in an open source project.

Brag-worthy projects

It’s also perhaps not helpful to point to big-name projects as the truest indicator of open source bonafides. AWS recently released Firecracker to much industry praise, but is that better than smaller, less visible contributions? Not according to Wilson: “I personally see much more value in multiple small, scalable, secure building block projects, compared to extremely large ones. Combine it with a lot of funding of 501(c)(3) type Foundations and basically catapulting open source via the invention of modern cloud infrastructure.”

SEE: Vendor comparison: Microsoft Azure, Amazon AWS, and Google Cloud (TechRepublic Premium)

In such a world the cool projects aren’t monetized by a single vendor, because that leads to them closing off code in order to pay the rent. By pushing important projects to foundations (as Google did with Kubernetes, moving it to CNCF), true communities can flourish around them.

But regardless of the foundations, Wilson’s point about smaller building-block projects rings true. Large-scale projects like Firecracker are of course important, but smaller projects that developers can assemble to build larger projects/products can make a bigger difference over time. Things like s2n, which fixed the OpenSSL security problem, can have a huge, positive effect that ripples throughout the industry.

Everyone is a taker

However, the biggest problem with pointing fingers at this or that company for not contributing is that it is always a completely arbitrary and incorrect assessment. Why? Because while we rightly laud Google, for example, for its incredible contributions of TensorFlow and Kubernetes, no one seems to remember that it’s the same Google that ran over 100,000 servers using Puppet…without paying Puppet Labs a dime (and, as near as I can tell, without contributing code, either).

This isn’t to criticize Google. The same sort of thing happens at every organization on the planet, as Shafer indicated: “The implication of OSS [open source] is more value will be created than captured…[T]he imbalance is inherent….[I] can’t think of one big company that couldn’t be criticized for their open source citizenship.” Even open source-only organizations like Red Hat benefit dramatically more from inbound open source than they make available as outbound open source. It’s not that companies are greedy—it’s just how open source works.

SEE: 20 quick tips to make Linux networking easier (free PDF) (TechRepublic)

Indeed, Miguel de Icaza, the developer behind the GNOME, Mono, and Xamarin projects, remembers that his former company (Ximian) was nearly bankrupted by Red Hat giving its software away for free. Red Hat was just abiding by the freedoms the open source license afforded, as AWS, Microsoft, Google, and every other organization you can name do today.

That’s the bargain of open source.

We should keep that implicit bargain in mind when figuring out what the future of open source looks like. Lately, it has looked less open, as companies increasingly close off code in order to make a buck. But, as de Icaza has stressed, this experimentation will likely continue: “The key here is that you might have a great product, but you might not have an ideal or viable monetization channel. All these licensing discussions are rooted on repurposing the existing assets (tangible or not) to monetize the channels.”

Makes sense. But along the way let’s not criticize those who take advantage of open source freedoms (every single one of us) while giving back far less than we give (every single one of us).

Open Source Weekly Newsletter

You don’t want to miss our tips, tutorials, and commentary on the Linux OS and open source applications. Delivered Tuesdays

Sign up today Sign up today

Also see


Image: Getty Images/iStockphoto

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts