Periodically someone tries to come up with a definition of an embedded system. For example there is an excellent and oft cited definition here. What got me thinking about this topic is the latest gadget I love to hate – my Verizon Treo phone running Windows mobile. A few years ago, there would have been no doubt that a cell phone was an embedded system. Today, the Treo, the i-Phone etc are all running versions of traditional computer operating systems, and are much more computer like than they are an embedded system. So the question is what are they – an embedded system or a computer?

Well today I offer a new simple test to tell if these devices are fish or fowl (foul is perhaps more appropriate), to wit:

“Is the device a pain in the neck to use?” If the answer is “yes”, then it’s a computer. My Treo is a computer. Enough said!

Home

All manufacturers of microcontrollers publish application notes. Some of these application notes are of course nothing more than gussied up advertising drivel. However, many of these application notes contain useful information that can cut days, and sometimes weeks off a project. Having read hundreds of these application notes over the 25 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve come to the conclusion that whereas the application notes usually get the algorithms correct, the same can’t be said for the code. Too often the code is sloppy, with bugs that are apparent merely by code inspection. May be it’s just me, but whenever I see a sloppy piece of code, it makes me wonder about the underlying quality of the IC design.

I think this is unfortunate, since the manufacturer’s could do much to improve things in the industry by setting a great example. To this end, I think they should:

1. Adopt a set of coding standards that all their code adheres to.
2. Have the code reviewed, such that egregious bugs are caught.
3. Make the code Lint free
4. If they are aiming the product at the automotive industry, ensure it is MISRA C compliant.

The advantages to the IC manufacturer are legion:

1. They look good (never a bad thing)
2. All their application note code has the same “look and feel”. This encourages engineers to use their application notes, and hence their products.
3. The code in the application note is usable “as is”, speeding time to market and generally giving the perception that their product is easy to use.
4. Less experienced engineers are taught how to do things correctly – which presumably leads to higher quality products- which presumably translates into more sales.

I guess the thing that I find maddening about this, is that the manufacturers probably spend weeks or months developing the application note, and then let themselves down by presenting their solution in such a poor way. When I talk to the marketing folks for the CPU manufacturers, I make a point of bringing some of the more egregious errors to their attention. Perhaps if all of us did this, we could get a bit of a sea change in the industry.

Home

USA Today has a story today about how 123,000 applications were received within 48 hours of this years H1-b visa lottery being opened on April 1. Given that there are 65,000 visas granted a year, there seems to be a large mismatch between supply and demand. Although the USA Today story talks about some of the sexy positions (Supermodels! Complete with alluring photograph!), the reality is that most of these applications are for the fields of electronics and computing, including embedded systems.

This topic interests me, in part because I came to the USA on a similar visa program (actually an E2 – but that’s another story).

Anyway, whenever this topic comes up, there’s normally some quote from a high tech industry executive explaining that they simply can’t get enough talented folks – and hence the need for the program. Whenever, I see this argument advanced, I’m always struck by the failure of the journalist to ask a basic question – namely “What would you do if the program was eliminated?” I suspect that the honest executive would answer:

1. Lobby like mad to get it reinstated
2. Pay what I had to to get the talent I needed
3. Look to put the work where the talent is (i.e. ship it overseas).

Whereas I could probably discourse for a long time on answer 1, it’s the other two that intrigue me.

The reality today is that enrollment in engineering is dropping. If one was to look at non first / second generation immigrant enrollment, I’d hazard a guess that it has all but collapsed. This is despite the fact that engineering in general (and electrical engineering in particular) is always one of the highest paying jobs upon graduation, with recent graduates earning about $65K, versus the $30K earned by your typical liberal arts major. So, what would happen if these salaries doubled? Would this be enough to attract more home grown talent in to the industry? Economics 101 would suggest that if you raise the salaries high enough then supply will rise to meet the demand. The question is, by how much would salaries have to rise?

Economics 101 also suggests that as the price of a good / service rises, it is highly likely that the consumer will look for a substitute. At present this works by bringing folks in on the H1-b program. If the program was eliminated, then I assume that this would be done by shipping more work overseas.

I guess this leads me to the point of my post. The USA prides itself on its capitalist approach – and the belief that the free market is inherently the best way to solve all (OK, most) problems. As a result, Americans normally abhor government interference in the market place. But isn’t that exactly what is being done here?

If we genuinely believe in the free market, then the H1-b visa program should be abolished. Salaries would rise for engineers, more students would study engineering – and more work would go overseas. I have no idea whether the end result would be beneficial to engineers or not. It would however be ideologically consistent.

The economic purists might argue that the H1-b visa should be scrapped in the sense that anyone who wished to work here should be allowed to do so. I agree that this is also ideologically consistent. However, the reality is that the USA limits immigration in all fields. Thus to be truly consistent this would require the USA to do the same for all jobs – which is tantamount to saying there are no limits on immigration – something which isn’t going to happen.

Home

It’s time for my first rant – you have been warned!

I recently bought a new computer, complete with a gorgeous 24″ flat panel display. The flat panel supports a speaker bar – which I also bought. The installation instructions for the speaker bar are quite straightforward – align the tabs on the bar with the holes in the display, and push until the bar clicks in to place.

Well, on my system, there’s no click. The display seems to lack the spring loaded latch necessary for this to work.

I have now had four email exchanges with ‘technical support’. The first didn’t read what I wrote, the second told me that this was a big issue and would take several days to resolve, the third did a keyword search on ‘speaker bar’ and sent me a bunch of useless links, and the fourth decided that my problem was that I didn’t understand the installation instructions – and so sent me another copy of them.

In short, I’ve been treated like a moron.

I suspect that some / many / most people that contact technical support lack, ahem, technical acumen. Well, if you are reading this blog, the chances are you are not such a person. I also suspect that you’ve had a similar experience – which got me to thinking. What I need is a .TEC password. Just as Microsoft’s .NET password lets you manage your net identities, a .TEC password would tell the recipient that they are dealing with someone who really can, at the very least, align two tabs with their mating holes and push – and so should be treated accordingly.

Thanks for listening.

Home

As someone that has worked in telecomms, I was excited by the arrival of VOIP. However, after two years of variable quality, extended outages and just plain weird behaviour I’ve had it. It’s clear to me that VOIP just isn’t ready for prime time and so I have decided to pull the plug. The latest frustration – an inability to receive incoming calls for the last four days – with no resolution in sight. The technical support department informs me that it’s a ‘router programming error’. Whether they really mean a router configuration error, or a bug in the router firmware is unclear. Regardless, it’s presumably a tough enough problem that it can’t be fixed in four days.

The really bad news here is my experience when I tried to get Verizon to provide me with a POTS line. One of my prime reasons for jumping on VOIP as soon as I could was my feeling that Verizon was a dreadful company – one with questionable ethics and really awful customer service. Today, despite calling the number on the Verizon website for ‘add a new line’, I had to endure a voice prompted menu system and three different people before I could do the most mundane thing Verizon has to offer – order telephone service. For this privilege, Verizon is charging me a $44 start up fee (to plug a few numbers into a computer) and a cost double that offered by my VOIP provider. Apparently Verizon has not had its business suffer enough – yet.

So what’s the relevance of this tail of woe to embedded systems? Not much really, other than to note that when the latest and greatest doesn’t live up to its billing – one ends up with very annoyed customers. So next time marketing wants to over-hype what you can deliver, rein them in hard and fast. Your customers will thank you.

Home