Why is hardware multithreading not more common in embedded systems? was put on hold for being "opinion-based". Is there any way that the question can be refined to be answerable (by SE standards)?
(I can understand why the question would generate opinion-based answers. Since I was not expecting results from a 100-person-year research effort [which might be a low requirement for an "actual answer" determining the economic and other factors leading to the current state], perhaps I should have recognized that this would be an "opinion-based" question [though if the results of a substantial research project could not be summarized well, the question would be "too broad"]. However, I am curious about the seeming lack of market penetration for multithreading relative to multicore. [Strangely, I was more concerned, after seeing the first close vote, that the question might have been off-topic. As an outsider to embedded system development, I could not guess at how obvious the answer would be.])
Would reducing the breadth from "embedded systems minus networking" help sufficiently? E.g., if only microcontrollers were considered. (Limiting the question to microcontrollers would make the question less interesting to me, but I would still learn from any answers. However, even that question would still seem to be opinion-based.)
Asking about the success specifically of MIPS MT-ASE (i.e., in what types of systems is MIPS MT-ASE seeing use and at what volumes) would seem to be less opinion-based, but answers to that question would only hint at why even that specific ISA has limited uptake for its multithreaded implementations. However, it would at least provide some data on the reception of multithreading in embedded systems.
(Unless someone could get a mole into ARM, Ltd., I doubt a question about why ARM has not defined a multithreading architectural extension could be anything other than opinion-based. Likewise for those controlling development for various 8- and 16-bit processors.)
(I am grateful that it did not attract down votes [even getting two up votes--more than 3% of my reputation!--though based on comments it might not have been sufficiently clear, I think it "shows research effort" :-)].)
Perhaps the question cannot be fixed in any meaningful way and should just be allowed to pass into a permanently closed state.