editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Sensor Fusion: DIY or Turnkey?

Sensor fusion was the name of the game this year at Sensors Expo (especially the MIG pre-conference event). But at least two of the visible players in this space are going about it two different ways.

We’ve seen Movea moving in a direction of giving control to system designers through tools. The idea here is that a system integrator will pull sensors together and assemble custom fusion algorithms from building blocks. Key to the success of this model is the assumption that system integrators want to do this work themselves.

By contrast, Sensor Platforms has a business model that reflects a different view: system houses don’t really want to be bothered with sensor fusion and would rather a company steeped in the technology do it for them. So rather than delivering DIY tools, Sensor Platforms delivers turnkey custom fusion that is then used as is. Which is partly why you might not see as much of their marketing; it’s less of a product push per se.

Which raises a very interesting question: Is one of these guys completely wrong? Or, perhaps, is this a market thing? And if it’s a market thing, how does it play? On the one hand, you might see big OEMs doing the turnkey approach. After all, a company that can deliver turnkey algorithms is going to be enticed by the promise of big companies, and, if it’s a small company, it may not have the resources to go after the little guys. (Or it may simply spurn the little guys as unworthy of their time… Not saying this specifically about Sensor Platforms, but I’ve seen it in other companies from the inside.) That would leave the DIY approach for the smaller folks.

On the other hand, small companies are less likely to have resources to be monkeying with sensor fusion algorithms, and they might feel their time would be better spent if someone else did that (assuming that those algorithms didn’t constitute core defensible value). Big companies, on the other hand, have oodles of top-level algorithm guys with not enough to do. [Ducks as the shoes come flying.] Realistically, if any company could do it themselves, it would be the big ones.

So this is a question for you: which is it?

–          DIY is the only worthy approach?

–          Turnkey is the only worthy approach?

–          They both have a place? If this, then how does it split

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Jul 25, 2025
Manufacturers cover themselves by saying 'Contents may settle' in fine print on the package, to which I reply, 'Pull the other one'”it's got bells on it!'...

featured paper

Agilex™ 3 vs. Certus-N2 Devices: Head-to-Head Benchmarking on 10 OpenCores Designs

Sponsored by Altera

Explore how Agilex™ 3 FPGAs deliver up to 2.4× higher performance and 30% lower power than comparable low-cost FPGAs in embedded applications. This white paper benchmarks real workloads, highlights key architectural advantages, and shows how Agilex 3 enables efficient AI, vision, and control systems with headroom to scale.

Click to read more

featured chalk talk

STM32 Security for IoT
Today’s modern embedded systems face a range of security risks that can stem from a variety of different sources including insecure communication protocols, hardware vulnerabilities, and physical tampering. In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton and Thierry Crespo from STMicroelectronics explore the biggest security challenges facing embedded designers today, the benefits of the STM32 Trust platform, and why the STM32Trust TEE Secure Manager is an IoT security game changer.
Aug 20, 2024
39,972 views