Even if we compare CAN to Single Pair Ethernet, most of my points still stand, do they not?
SPE is still more expensive and complicated than CAN, but also much more capable (higher data rates etc.). PHY power consumption is much lower compared to traditional Ethernet, but still on another level compared to CAN.
I’ve seen Ethernet chosen mostly when CAN (or RS485 etc.) is too slow or you want longer distances (cabling).
I mean to clarify my point - not to bicker :) I don’t think I disagree with any of your points
I'm not actually sure 10base-T1S (which is the closest equivalent to CAN) uses more power than CAN. The maximum current rating for some random T1S PHYs is actually lower than that of some random CAN PHYs, but actual power consumption depends on bus usage patterns…
Regarding being expensive and complicated… I'd say that's a question of proliferation. And the non-multidrop SPE variants are actually simpler than CAN in some regards I'd argue.
Okay, interesting! Thanks for enlightening me. I’ll look into SPE.
W.r.t. my point with “complicated and expensive”. Most IP-stacks require low double digit kilobytes of memory, where CAN can be much cheaper (can also be much heavier depending on the “CAN stack”), which rules out the cheapest MCUs.
When I was in embedded, most cheaper MCUs (32bit <100MHz single core, 16kb SRAM etc.) didn’t support Ethernet as a native peripheral. I.e. required a jump from a Cortex M3 to M4 for instance. I haven’t followed things for around a decade though..
SPE is still more expensive and complicated than CAN, but also much more capable (higher data rates etc.). PHY power consumption is much lower compared to traditional Ethernet, but still on another level compared to CAN.
I’ve seen Ethernet chosen mostly when CAN (or RS485 etc.) is too slow or you want longer distances (cabling).
I mean to clarify my point - not to bicker :) I don’t think I disagree with any of your points