Does this mean that you expect the TRV10 chip to be cost competative? While I think FOSS users might pay a small premium for the OGC,
Availablity is a large issue here. I was trying to find a graphics chip for a project that was going to move 12k units a year. Very few of the companies that make graphics products want to deal with quantities that low so the pickings are slim.
I don't see the maker of a lottery ticket kiosk paying any premium. I doubt they would mind signing a reasonable NDA. And as a new, unproven company, TT would need some sort of advantage to get a foot in the door.
Just becasuse you sign an NDA and have access to _slightly_ more documentation than none doesn't mean you are magically going to get your product to work. Sometimes all you get for your NDA is a big pile of assembly code requireing 10 year old assemblers and some serious red eye to come up to speed on WTF the code does. In embedded systems a lot of time you are doing something thats not main stream. Try going back to one of those NDA compainies and asking for help in reducing the boot time of the video bios. Again if you are moving a lot of units then you have a little clout but very few of the x86 embedded SBC vendors have that level of clout. We just have to fend for ourselves. Working around all the legacy baggage an x86 carries. This is a prime reason that a lot of our new designs are using ARMs. Yes cost is a very large factor in embedded system but if you can provide a _reasonable_ priced part, with fast boot speed, good ease of use, and totally documented with lots of example code I think you will have a very marketable product. Even though its not the cheapest. -- Richard A. Smith _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
