My Take On...
Success (or lack thereof) of Ethernet-Powerlink

For years I have been monitoring the market in regards to new fieldbus technologies with the potential to replace CAN (Controller Area Network) based technologies (CAN, CANopen, DeviceNet). There are currently systems such as FlexRay, LIN and Time-triggered CAN, however, the main focus seems to be on Ethernet-based technologies. 

In a conversation with Holger Zeltwanger, Director of CAN-in-Automation, he had complained about an apparently ever increasing number of Ethernet based protocols (currently 20+). The lack of a commonly agreed standard makes it extremely difficult for the end user to decide which way to go.

One of the usual suspects is Powerlink, originally developed by B&R in Austria. The Ethernet-Powerlink Specification Group (EPSG) has recently published some very interesting numbers. According to a press release last year (2007) they reported a total number of 280,000 devices had been sold to a total number of 200 customers. I am assuming these numbers refer to world-wide sales; numbers regarding the North-American market were not available.

The majority of these devices are compliant to version 1.0, not according to version 2.0 as defined by the EPSG. This also means that the main benefitor of the sales was B&R and we congratulate them to their success.

I guess, until the time when the field of potential candidates shrinks down significantly we will stick to good old fashioned CAN (we will still keep our eyes open, though). Let me quote Dr. Werner Schulze, Managing Director of esd electronics in Germany, who considers the CAN 1 MBit/sec baud rate only a marketing problem, not a technical problem: "Just because we are able to build a race car does not mean you'll do your shopping in it, does it? You still see people doing their everyday business in regular cars, and it will be like this in the future, too. I believe, it's the same with CAN and Ethernet."