> Microchip owns its IP which is a big advantage over ARM based  
> licensed IP.

But not PIC32, which is licensed from MIPS, right?

> [PICs cost more because] that they cost Microchip to produce due to  
> the older process nodes they are in (older PIC16F and PIC18F).


I'm not entirely convinced.  While this is part of the conventional  
wisdom, and I'm by no means an expert in semiconductor economics,  
State-of-the-art Fabs are extremely expensive to build, to the point  
where fewer and fewer companies own their own fabs, and it's been  
suggested that the limit to Moore's law will be economic rather than  
physical.  In the long run it may work out Microchip running "big"  
chips on their old but owned-and-paid-for vs other vendors running  
modern chips on third-party fabs that are still trying to recoup their  
construction costs, and I'm not sure how those will compare...

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist