Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paper who wrote (2343)	11/4/1997 5:18:00 PM
From: Snowshoe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10309

>>Will the Motorola new kernal(sic) have any impact in Wind River's market?<< I tried looking up "RTEK" on the Motorola web site and got a bad link. My sense is that RTEK is an existing MOT product that got ported to this new chip, and it is being over-hyped by some breathless PR flack who didn't even bother to proofread his/her own press release. (As I said, the correct spelling is "kernel", not "kernal".) Press releases like this are a dime a dozen and I don't worry about them unless someone knowledgeable makes a case for an impact to WIND.

To: Paper who wrote (2343)	11/5/1997 8:14:00 PM
From: Allen Benn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

>Does the new Motorola RTEK operating system kernel compete with Tornado? Not earnestly. You need to understand the dynamics of the marketplace to appreciate Motorola actions. Motorola has one objective in the embedded systems market: to sell hardware (chips). The company has no intention of becoming a software company and thereby compete with independent software vendors that help peddle its chips. This is the equivalent of Intel producing a special desktop OS that competes with Windows. Unthinkable today, but probably not out of the question in the mid-1980s. Note that in the same article you cited in which the RTOS is pushed, Motorola also said, "Many independent tool suppliers also support the 68HC16 family." On the other hand, Motorola would like nothing more than for some customers to choose to develop applications not only using its chips, but also using its tailored software. How better to lock in a customer than to induce a commitment to a proprietary development environment? Customers na‹ve enough to fall into this trap may find themselves slavishly using a family of processor chips for reasons beyond performance specifications and cost, and may well become continually dependent on Motorola for both hardware and software. For this reason, and other bureaucratic inanities, most hardware companies have a version of an RTOS. Hitachi does, IBM does, HP does, DEC does, Intel did (a short while ago Intel dumped iRMX, its internal RTOS.), Sun does, and Motorola does. All these companies are perfectly willing to sell na‹ve customers a processor-specific RTOS, even though they rarely use them on for their own embedded projects. I would even be willing to bet that the organization element responsible for developing and maintaining such an RTOS actually believes they have a reason to exist, and no doubt see themselves as being competitive with commercial vendors. A better strategy for Motorola is to guarantee that leading software always is available on its newest chips, and pointedly not entice customers toward anything proprietary. Just as server and desktop customers have experienced the pitfalls of straying out of the mainstream, so too will embedded systems developers that loose sight of the imperative of open systems. These forces already are so momentous and universal in all aspects of technology that announcements of proprietary undertakings like Motorola's can be ignored. Allen